Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schierbecker (talk | contribs) at 01:14, 15 October 2013 (→Copyvios by User:America789: another). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion



    Request interaction ban

    RESOLVED
    Ihardlythinkso has voluntarily agreed to stop interacting. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nearly a year ago, I had a content dispute with User:Ihardlythinkso over which Unicode characters to use in chess notation. Things got ugly rather quickly, and I have been avoiding interaction with him ever since. See
    User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 27#Interaction Ban? and
    User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 8#Macon.

    I did reply to someone else on a different topic many months later without noticing that Ihardlythinkso was involved. Dumb mistake. As soon as I realized it I went silent.

    I was hoping that he would move on, but it appears that this is not the case. See this comment:[1] I can dig up more examples if needed.

    BTW, I have no idea what he is talking about. Here is my one and only post to User talk:Tony1:[2]

    To avoid any future problems, I would like to request an interaction ban.

    There shouldn't be any problems with compliance; Ihardlythinkso primarily edits in the area of chess, and I usually edit engineering articles, with little or no overlap. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrong Talk, my mistake. [3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak-a-Mole&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak-a-mole&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whac_a_Mole&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak_a_Mole&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whac_a_mole&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak_a_mole&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wac-A-Mole&action=history
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wak-A-Mole&action=history
    Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you claiming that Guy Macon creating a bunch of redirects for alternate spellings of Whac a mole is "derogatory", "uncivil" and "violent" towards you? If so, I endorse his desire to be quit of you and support a mutual topic ban. Reyk YO! 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not what I said. I said his reference to "mole" and "whack" in reference to me in the context he made it, was offensive, uncivil, derogatory, and even connotes violence (i.e. "whack"). It was totally inappropriate and he should simply apologize (and I suggest too, his favorite insult tool, all those redirects and use of that article for insults, should be stopped). p.s. I am not the one who opened this ANI, he did. Please quit shoving meaning in my mouth that I didn't say, and trying to make me responsible for same. I'm a serious editor and I do not deserve insults from either him or you. I opened up no dialogue with Macon, my remarks were to user Tony1. I userfied the reference because I thought that is what is desired on the Pedia, as opposed to mentioning someone without their knowing. As usual, Macon opens this ANI, as he has done in the past for retaliatory and intimidation value, and wastes the community's time & attention. The best thing as long as he has opened this unnecessary ANI, if for him to simply make a quick apology and learn something from this. He credibility walks toward zero as soon as one would follow any of the dialogues he has smattered here. Good day. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "Whack a mole" is used colloquially to refer to a problem that is dealt with in one place but pops up again in another. I do not think Guy Macon is calling you a mole, or advocates actually whacking you on the head, as you seem to think. I don't see where either he or I have insulted you. As far as I can see, Guy Macon has left you alone for months but you continue to complain about him in unrelated discussions. Why don't you respect his request to leave him out of it? Reyk YO! 03:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ihardlythinkso, you mentioned what Guy Macon said more than a year ago in today's discussion on the chess project talk. You brought up Guy Macon's name, not vice versa. He seems to have been voluntarily avoiding you, but you are not avoiding him. I see the case for a two-way interaction ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was supposed to forget that insult? It was unaddressed when he made it; I was struggling with the content issue and wanted no behavioral side-issues as distractions. He was stalking my edits then and his involvement w/ Tony1 was obviously to obstruct my efforts with Tony1, and to smear me. His kind of under-the-radar slights s/b inexcusable on the Pedia. The memory came up by virtue of the same chess issue back then, of which he had no part of except to harass me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, it wasn't my intent to involve Macon, the remark was to Tony1 (who'd partnered w/ Macon in that unsavory content obstruction effort). How about asking me to apologize to Macon? (Something positive.) My only stipulation is that he apolgize first for the "Whack-a-Mole" reference, and promise in addition to discontinue using it to refer to users or their editing work. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The alleged "unsavory content obstruction effort" may be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation, where I opened up a conversation regarding whether MOS should specify what Unicode characters to use for chess notation and where Tony1 had some insightful input.
    Whac-A-Mole is a popular arcade redemption game invented in 1976. Like many others on Wikipedia, I use "Let's not play Whac-A-Mole" as a verbal shortcut for "Let us not have the exact same conversation on many different talk pages, but rather let us see if we can get consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, document it, and refer to MOS whenever it comes up on another page." It has nothing to do with "Whac"ing anyone or calling anyone a "Mole", and even if it did, someone who responds to a required ANI notice with "Fuck Off"[4] is in a poor position to complain about supposedly being called a "mole".
    I will go farther and say that I am fairly confident that Ihardlythinkso is not made of exactly 6.02214179(30)×1023 atoms, is not a massive stone structure between places separated by water, not a sauce used in Mexican cuisine, and is definitely not a Soviet Beriev Be-8 amphibian aircraft. I hope that this clears up any confusion on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. I think Ihardlythinkso needs to take a step back and drop the issue. What guy said was a harmless expression that I can only imagine a non-native english speaker taking offense to. Now that the expression has been explained to you, I think you are carrying this grudge too far; especially with that reversion of Guy's notice. You both make good contributions but I think it isn't Guy who is the problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.72.12 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok ... can we let User:Ihardlythinkso munch on some rather poor-tasting crow, and walk away with dignity. IMHO, I'd actually prefer them to close this thread as an acknowledgement that they understood they may have wholly misread, and are moving on without additional comments from the crowd, or from them ... please let them choose the positive way out ES&L 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the discussion above, it might be helpful to note that "eating crow" means "having been proved wrong after taking a strong position" and has nothing to do with munching on birds. Liz Read! Talk! 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, I find that snide and patronizing. And if you want to be sure about correct understanding and definition of a word, I'd suggest to you to look up "proved" instead of "crow" since you don't seem to have a grasp of "proof" versus perspective. (The fact is in the link I provided contaiing the "mole" ref, Macon had also in that same post attempted to smear & mad-mouth me to Tony1 by his repetitive quotation of an admin who had blocked me in the past. (Macon had earlier plastered in numerous places that he could, the same material in attempt to defame me. That kind of attempted character assasination s/n be tolerated on the Wiki, but apparently it is. Now you see also below, he does a similar thing.) Plus the fact Macon was never involved at all with that or any other chess notation issue, and only followed my edits to Tony1's User as a part of stalking and intentional obstruction and desire to irritate. My perspective re the "mole whacking" came out of the context of those additional facts, which neither you nor the other commentators here have taken into account. So your perspectives are a little shallower, aren't they, and obviously different from mine. So there is no "proof" here, and the "crow" comments are equally inappropriate from my view. (And BTW, did you or any other commentor do any research regarding how Macon has used the mole-whacking reference vis-a-vis other users besides me in the past? No!?) Macon opened this ANI, not me; I have made a simple suggestion here that he apologize and stop using the "mole" reference where it could be considered offensive. I did not open this thread to ask for approval of that idea, it was only a suggestion while I was here. If you like to reject that idea, that is fine. I think it is obvious to anyone based on Macon's re-attempts here to smear me, that he needs some guidance on proper use of the WP and to be reeled in, and especially ANI. But that has never occurred, which seems to have just emboldened him, when he has more appropriately warranted warnings and sanctions. But that isn't the topic here, and again I'm not here opening an ANI with any proposal. (In fact it is true I'll never open a thread here under any circumstance, ever.) I also don't like being here responding to comments from the gallery, and I'm reconsidering whether I will even come here again to defend myself against any spurious future ANI. [It is too-often mud-slinging here, nothing the WP should be proud of.]) Thx for listening. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Cleans coffee off of keyboard...) :)
    It looks like he has stopped responding. I am inclined to close this and come back only if the problem continues. Given his history, I want to totally disengage. He has had recent nasty fights with Bbb[5], Basalisk[6], Bwilkins[7], Ched[8], Cullen[9], Drmies[10], Kudpung[11], Rschen7754[12] and Yunshui[13]. (He does, however, love Malleus. He thinks Malleus should be in charge and WP:CIVIL deleted.[14] Of course he does.) On the other hand, I really don't want to come back later. Given his opinions of ANI and admins in general...
    "Everyone knows I think ANI reputatino stinks and I will never go there, ever, for any reason, for good reason, and that I am not alone in this view"[15]
    "The fact is that hypocisy and politically-minded Admins fill the Wiki"[16]
    "You are heavily invested in the normal political Admin-network-Oh-I-gotta-keep-my-tools-and-backup-my-fellow-Admins-at-all-costs"[17]
    "Thanks for putting your nose in uninvited, to stir up drama, to spit on me, to hussle to backup your Admin buddies, or whatever the H you think you're doing. Because we all know you Admins don't hang in groups, with your "for-life" billy clubs, and think WP is just so you can roam and keep the puling masses silent."[18]
    "Are you two proud? Because both your stances have been very bad IMO, for the reputation of the integrity of the Admin corps, especially those editors who are already convinced there is Admin corruption pervasive here."[19]
    "I'm not a believer in the system ... I have experienced and witnessed too much corruption here, to possibly be a believer, like when I first signed up and read the vanilla documentation, erroneously thinking this was a pretty cool place. It is filled with abuse, hostility, hypocrisy. And "flexibility" is just a cover for those Admins who hold grudges. The WP needs strutural change. The top content editors should be put in charge."[20]
    "No one cares, because it isn't them publicly falsely accused on the board. It isn't them with their username in the ANI thread title accusing them falsely of misdeed. It isn't them feeling this. So they don't care. So when there is apathy, there is also inaction. No call to act. So the thread stays open, because it takes work to close it. And humans are generally "lazy" - it is the prime motivator in our world."[21]
    ...I don't want to get invoked in that fight either. So is closing better, or is an interaction ban better? I just want whatever will leave me out of the drama. I know myself, and I know that I can easily get sucked in. (Which is another phrase not to be taken literally.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you are permitted without obstruction to turn your ANI thread into an attack page intended to discredit and defame, just supports my view what a cesspool ANI is. (And why I'd never open an ANI thread under any circumstance whatever.) That aside, I do have to thank you for giving free "advertisement" to the idea, that the top WP content editors should be "put in charge" of the Pedia maintenance, future growth, direction (strategy), and policy. I feel that if the top 10-15 content contributors, elected by the community, would be put in charge, it would be a wonderful way forward for the Pedia to get out of its current doldrums and dysfunctions. (Why? Look at WP:CIV for e.g. and the confusion/inconsistency/complaints about it. Let the top 10-15 content contributors solve that, whatever their solution may end up to be. And so on.) The top 10-15 writers here know what the problems are, and their huge stake in the WP of time and heart, would disallow them from making any decisions which would be detrimental to the Pedia. (The group of 10-15 would essentially be a beehive of high intelligence, and with their shared commitment and combined vast experience, there's no way that anything but a positive way forward could ensue. Sure there would be disagreements, but they would not resort to egotistic battles, because they are too intelligent for that. They would eventually work out all problems, for positive solutions and ways forward.) The fact the idea implies a radical structural change to how the WP currently is, isn't a slam against me. The fact the WP has sported an abusive & hostile editing environment (an e.g. is perhaps what you've done w/ your thread here), is a culture long in place before I signed up, and a continued source of confusion and disagreement, over both poor precept what "civil" means and so on, and a radical restructure like this idea would do the job to take care of it and associated dysfunctions. (I don't know what would come out of such a group of 10-15, and surely everyone wouldn't be happy with the path they may cut forward, but there's no way that group would harm the Pedia, and in fact there's no way the result wouldn't be an intelligent best way forward for both readers & editors. By definition they already know what's best for articles and the encyclopedia, and they remain an amazing resource that goes untapped!) Put 'em in charge and watch the WP reach its true potential greatness. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to think about writing up an essay with your idea that the top WP content editors should be put in charge. Serious Suggestion. Getting back to the point, you attacked me while I was doing my level best to have nothing to do with you. Are you now willing to voluntarily agree to leave me alone so I can go back to ignoring you? The alternative is to ask an administrator to force you to do so. Please make your answer clear; "Yes" and "No" are good choices. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't an attack. But I know you have done your level best to be non-interfacing with me, and I appreciate that. I can at least promise to do the same, so there you go. (What you've tried to do in this ANI was inexcusable though, and UNDUE. Please be careful using WAC-A-MOLE where it could be insulting to a user. [Remember the WP:UNEDUCABLE and other WP:IDHT redirects you created? Those were inherently insulting and were removed.]) Try and be nicer. I will try & be nice to you, too. Promise. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor needs to be stopped (quickly if possible)

    User:Nasnema needs to be be blocked or sanctioned or have huggle turned off or something quickly. I started viewing diffs because this bad revert was pointed out. The first two I looked at [22] and [23] were very clearly not vandalism. Nasnema is clearly misusing huggle. Ryan Vesey 02:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    To add my 2cents to this: I posted this message (which I thought was polite) on User:Nasnema‎'s talk page concerning this revert made by the user with HUGGLE. I got this response. I don't need to look up what "FO" means. While I did leave a snarky reply, it is clear that Nasnema is using HUGGLE waaay too quickly and not owning up to mistakes. Mistakes made while using HUGGLE (like TWINKLE) can cost the person their access to that program.
    Further HUGGLE misuse can be found here (with warning issued), here (warning issued), here. Those are three during the span of a minute (22:12 UTC), all mentioned by Ryan above.
    After I left a message on User:Drmies talk page (as I am to do in situations like this), Nasnema responded with "Well you are a lier" and when he corrected the misspelling he added "spelling for this worthless troll" as an edit summary. I was working with an admin on IRC (not Drmies, who appeared offline and was, he was at the store) when Nasnema reverted several edits from the WXLK page, including a reference to the FCC, a US Government organization (highly reliable). They were reverted as "WP:OR", though Nasnema's revert added OR back to the page.
    While still trying to work out the situation with an admin on IRC, Nasnema replied with this post on his talk page called me a "fucking idiot" and stating he doesn't "care if someone removes [his] huggle privilages". He further stated that he was "only here preventing idiots like [me] from updating Wiki without proof". Seconds after that post, I received this one on my talk page, which again had the "FO" abbreviation (in case you are wondering, it means "fuck off").
    User:Huon warned Nasnema about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, only to also be told to "FO".
    It is clear the user is not interested in editing Wikipedia constructively or communicating with editors and admin in a way that is within the rules and policies of Wikipedia. At no time were either myself or Huon rude with Nasnema and nothing we said should have caused a response like what has been received. Since there is a clear, repeated and blantant violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I am asking that Nasnema be blocked until they can calm down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to your request, I don't think Nasnema necessarily needs to be blocked; although, that's certainly an option. I believe I've established it well that there are issues with nasnema's use of the tools (particularly in relation to IP editors) and I just ask that an administrator takes whatever action they think will best stop it from happening again. I oftentimes think it silly to block an editor for incivility performed before the issue is brought to ANI, because there isn't time to figure out if the ANI discussion itself will solve that issue. The frequency of their reverts has also slowed, so I don't think a block is necessary to stop the reverts in the short term as I did when I posted this. Ryan Vesey 02:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course the admins can do what they like, I was just saying what I would like to see done. I believe a block may be necessary for the personal attacks though. You are right, though, that the reverts (and all edits) have stopped as of 22:12 UTC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    From a quick look at Nasnema's recent editing history, I have to ask whether Nasnema should be editing Wikipedia at all. This revert [25] for instance is entirely unjustified - it took me only a few seconds to verify that the edit was correct, and that the person named was indeed a Nobel laureate, and I can see no logic in the revert whatsoever. Behaviour like this can achieve nothing beyond driving good contributors away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • [ec with Andy] Sorry, I was in Publix while all this excitement was going on. I don't think "fuck off" is (immediately) blockable (sorry Homer--I don't), but Ryan Vesey and I probably agree on this one. Funny, Homer didn't start this; he just stuck his neck out for an IP editor. Nasnema strikes me as one of the patrollers who like to shoot from the hip. This is funny, given the user's user boxen, but it's edit summary is of course unacceptable.

      I've pulled rollback; that seems to me to be the least I should do. I'll let another admin decide if there's anything else. And to pre-empt the usual "well fuck you no wonder no one cares about Wikipedia since you're chasing away the good editors who blah blah"--well, the behavior pointed at in this thread (and there's more on the user's talk page) is sufficient evidence of very bitey behavior and uncaring rollbacking, and that's bad for business. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • At this moment, I don't think (Andy) that we should show this user the door. But this blind reverting obviously needs to stop, as does the (rather silly) namecalling. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd say this is an open admission that Nasnema will continue to insult editors when "challenged". That attitude is not acceptable to me, especially when Nasnema is likely to deal with new and inexperienced editors (or those Nasnema thinks so). Huon (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: No worries on "'fuck off' [not being] (immediately) blockable", 'tis cool. At least he has eyes on him now, so that will keep him from doing this again.
    @Huon: What is interesting about this post is I haven't "only been around 2 minutes", but more like 7 years (geez, has it been that long?). That shows how little Nasnema was paying attention when reverting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've quickly perused this user's archive. This is purely speculation, but something strikes me as odd. This recent behavior seems completely out of character. There responsiveness. I would be inclined to throw out WP:GOTHACKED, or that this user was editing under some sort of influence, not drugs or alcohol necessary. Just a quick food for thought.—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • [ec with Cyberpower] You had that feeling too? They've written four very decent articles as well. I didn't think it so much out of character as greatly amplified from normal, if that makes sense. Huon, the editor has 14000 edits and a clean log; any troubles to appear to be recent; but perhaps deeper digging will reveal more. I'm not going to dig any deeper; I'm satisfied with having pulled rollback and I think this thread supplies a Final Warning of sorts. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Cyberpower:, it doesn't seem that out of character at all, if you look at their talk page there are messages dating back two years showing bad reverts and accusations of vandalism. Also you can see them being rude to someone calling them out on bad reverts - "you're a twisted individual", "you've got a screw loose", "I think you're unbalanced". Then later there is "f-ing leave it alone" which matches the "FO" comments later. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also add that this user has a clean block log, and has possessed rollback since 2011, which reinforces my suspicions that something about this user account is out of the ordinary. I feel this should be investigated more thoroughly. Perhaps a CU look to see if the account is under control from a different user?—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice sleuthing, Ryan. You know, Ukexpat caught on to one pattern of mine the other day (wanting to nap); I suppose here is another: no action taken. So much for totally abusive adminship! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the same time all this was going on, an anon editor (User:72.86.14.105‎) was editing articles for radio stations in the Roanoke, Virginia area. Nasnema reverted a couple of my edit for a station (WXLK) in the Roanoke area. One that I had just edited on. The anon user was having an issue (which I think I cleared up) about a certain station (WLNI), blah blah, long story short, it is the same station Nasnema removed from the WXLK page. If the anon was running the Nasnema account, that could be the connection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's consider extending the block to something much lengthier if he continues to make personal attacks and bad reverts. Shii (tock) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One day, maybe I'll understand why Admins treat copyright violations more seriously than cases when Editors tell each other to "Fuck off!" A copyright violation can be addressed and changed but you can't take back hostile words that are spoken. It creates an unfriendly environment and can be the beginning of grudges between Editors.
    I'm no prude off-line but I know, with certainty, that there are decent Editors who will just leave Wikipedia if someone here told them, out of the blue, to "Fuck off!" They don't view it as salty language, they view it as toxic and unwelcoming.
    And, if you don't care about alienating more sensitive or religious Editors, please realize that profanity really undermines Wikipedia's aims to be objective and professional (in the sense of professional standards, not written by professionals). It's a sign of immaturity and I'm sure that's not the image WP is trying to project. </soapbox> Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. But, saying "fuck off" to someone is not a personal attack, and although it creates a toxic environment, it's not immediately blockable. Saying "you're a fucking asshole" is, and is therefore block-worthy ES&L 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't the panda say "fuck off and look it up"? To Liz: there are more insidious and serious violations of acceptable behavior than "fuck off" that don't involve a single bad word. Sure, a positive working environment is important, but absence of profanity does not equate to good working environment. I don't know if I'm the admin you're pointing at, but I'll cop to that, at least to some extent. I'm not going to block someone for getting angry once, or even twice. I will block someone for willful disruption, for instance, as a pattern of behavior. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz - A serious enough copyright violation could mean Wikipedia gets shut down = no one edits. Rude behavior = some people don't edit. There are legal issues that require us to treat copyright violations very very seriously and there is little wiggle room. Language, on the other hand, has many different cultural meanings with the 'turn of prases' and 'similies' and 'colloquial expressions' as well as just plain ol' differences in meaning. There are also many linguistic technicalities. As described above, calling someone a name and telling someone to do something, while both using the word "fuck" and both being toxic, are not equal nor treated the same. In short, copyright is a matter of law and language is a matter of culture. That's why one gets treated more seriously than the other.--v/r - TP 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP is not going to get shut down for a copyright violation -- first of all there's legal harbor provided by DMCA and secondly there's the politics of it -- what company would want the crappy publicity from taking those crazy-write-an-encyclopedia-for-free-Wikipedians to court? Plus, once you get into fair use, the real answer is no one knows until the lawsuit and appeals are over. The real answer is copyright is irrelevant to civility, and the civility problem is, for years, Wikipedia has had some vague notion that we should be civil but no consensus on what that means in practice. The pillar says Editors should treat each other with respect and civility -- which "fuck off" clearly isn't, but if we ban "fuck off", what about "screw off", "go away" ... etc. So, unfortunately the periodic "fuck off" must be tolerated, not because it's appropriate (or necessary or helpful) but the alternative would a a draconian politically correct speech code that folks would game and argue about and be worse than the "fuck off." NE Ent 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As TParis pointed out: it's because copyright violations attract lawyers. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I appreciate all of your patience and taking the time to address my concerns and explaining why copyright is so much more serious than profanity. I guess I just assumed, as far as images/files go, that there are a lot of unintentional copyright violations because I see warnings about them on almost every User Talk Page I visit (especially new editors). So, I imagine, at any moment in time (past, present and future) there will be some images where the copyright terms weren't set properly (or at all).
    So, copyright infringements seem like a frequent and common problem while coarse, aggressive language is actually quite uncommon among registered Editors (in my experience on Wikipedia) and seems limited to a small group of users. I don't see a difference between "Fuck off" and "You're a fucking asshole", they seem equally hostile to me. But those are the kinds of distinction that Admins are called to make, that's why you make the big bucks </irony>.
    Sorry for the tangent. I believe you were discussing User:Nasnema before I interrupted. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Something has happened and I am not sure what. Is someone able to verify the IP the edits I am supposed to have made came from? I have changed my password now. Nasnema  Chat  10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • If there is indeed a problem (ie: hacking) Nasnema's account needs to be temporarily blocked (to prevent further edits by the hacker) and a checkuser run on the account to confirm. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • CU shows that a hacker would have needed physical access to the computer Nasnema uses - every edit I can see was made from the same IP address, and there is nothing to indicate that any other device was used. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you DoRD; you've proven your unredundancy yet again. Nasnema, welcome back from your holiday. There are lessons here to be learned. I suggest you read over this discussion and look at the various edits that are commented on. I don't think we necessarily need to hear more explanations. If it is really true that this was someone else who did this, then we should see exemplary behavior from you in the next few thousand edits. Remember, more than one editor suggested a lengthy block for the user who made edits like that or, perhaps more accurately, for the account from which such edits were made. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Help dealing with a new editor from another encyclopedia project with different rules

    There is an incident brewing at Patriotic Nigras that needs external help. The article is about a troll/griefer group that engage in shock-related antics like inserting millions of penises into popular online games and similar stunts. The article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion and after the last AfD I went out of my way to clean it up and find appropriate RSes that actually covered the material. The article sat quietly for months until it was discovered by the principal author of the Patriotic Nigras article at Encyclopedia Dramatica. He is now trying to convert the Wikipedia article into the Encyclopedia Dramatica version which includes references to homosexuals as "faggots," furry fans as "furfags" and Muslims as "derkaderps." The editor is working in tandem with a sock- or meatpuppet IP account they are extremely hard to communicate with - usually only using the edit summary to comment along with a reversion back to their unencyclopedic version. I've dealt with problems like this before, but I'm finding this one to be quite difficult to handle.

    My first thought was to ask WP:TPP for page protection but the request was denied and it was recommended that I try WP:3RR. At 3RR the page was protected and I was cautioned against edit warring. I've tried removing the offensive content as well as tagging it for cleanup but all of my efforts are reverted. I really don't want to get blocked over this issue and I'm not really interested in getting the Encyclopedia Dramatica editors blocked either, but it's difficult to sit on my hands and allow articles to remain as they are when they refer to Muslims as "derkaderps" and network broadcasters as "media Jews." If these editors have an interest in (and unique insights into) the topic then perhaps they can provide good reliable sources but they need to understand that Wikipedia is not the kind of place where we use racism and homophobia for humorous reasons. At this point these editors view me as the enemy so I need a third party to help talk to them. I've tried starting discussions with them on both user talk pages ([26] and [27]) and the article talk page ([28]) and they are either blanked ([29], [30], [31]) or simply ignored. I warned them that if this kept up I'd try AN/I so here I am now. Again I'm not interested in driving them away. I just want them to understand how Wikipedia works. At this point I think they're just seriously misguided. I don't think they mean harm to the article. If you can't help, please advise me how to proceed. -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Full disclosure: I've made boomerangs available by accidentally violating 3RR a week or so ago (this was what I was warned for at WP:3RR). Please be gentle. -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If these comments are in fact being repeatedly inserted into the article it's IMHO vandalism and should be treated as such. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You should very much be interested in driving them away, as nobody from Encyclopedia Dramatica is merely "misguided". These people ("EDiots" and "/b/-tards") are malicious, often sociopathic trolls of the sort that we really don't need on the encyclopedia. While I know that it's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, that doesn't apply to people from troll organizations.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like an overbroad generalization. The reason I started this thread was to get extra attention paid to the events that are unfolding here (hopefully as insurance against sanctions against me) and to get a neutral third party to talk to this editor. I don't think this is textbook vandalism. The information that was added may well be true. The bigotry-and-internet-slang-filled language is clearly inappropriate as are the juvenile attempts at humor. That much is obvious, but this is an editor with fewer than 50 edits under his belt. He is behaving very poorly, but there are signs that he may be willing to abide by the rules. I hadn't noticed this when I posted here first, but he had once redacted several of the most offensive terms in response to my criticism. It wouldn't hurt for a few neutral third parties to contact him and try to set him straight. There is always time to block him if he ignores this as well. -Thibbs (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that nothing was getting accomplished here so I cross-posted to the Teahouse. I'm hoping they will make more of an effort than this board has. If nobody is willing to try to talk to this new editor, then I guess I'll continue restoring the page to the encyclopedic version under the theory that it's vandalism. Does this make sense? Should I still be cautious about 3RR? How should I proceed if problems erupt again? -Thibbs (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    GA reassessment on Turkish people

    The article Turkish people has had major problems for awhile now. It is currently under the status of GA and a reassessment page has opened up. Please see the reassessment page here. There's no one in the reassessment page that believes it should remain a GA. The article is too unstable, has too many copyvio violations of photographs and text, a POV tag has been there for weeks, undue weight issues, and claims are not in line with sources. Hence, involved and Uninvolved editors have all expressed their opinion that the content of the article is not in line with GA criteria in the reassessment page. Recently, I removed its GA status along with other subsequent removals in the talk page. Cavann (talk · contribs) has reverted me twice already. There's no rule that says "involved" editors may not delist GA status articles, hence, after reading the regulations over and over again, I proceeded with the action. There needs to be oversight on this. If not, I will have to continue to procedure for the betterment of Wikipedia. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What "Uninvolved editors"? Wizardman expressed concern about remnants of possible plagiarism by a previous editor,[32] which was fixed [33] [34]. The only other uninvolved editor who commented, User:Hchc2009, said he supported a reassessment, not a unilateral revocation.
    The GA reassessment was filed during an edit war and some of it consists of personal attacks against me. I do not think it is appropriate an editor such as yourself, who was also heavily involved in the edit war, can revoke the GA status unilaterally. In fact, Proudbolsahye was told that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate"(see here). It should also be noted that some of the issues are now in dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people)
    Also, what are the "too many copyvio violations of photographs and text"? It does make your unilateral actions more suspect when you come up with outright inaccuracies. Cavann (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is with the original review(er) ...the topic has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:QatarStarsLeague -- Moxy (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note: "There needs to be oversight on this. If not, I will have to continue to procedure for the betterment of Wikipedia" - actually, you don't; things won't fall to pieces if you step back. And if people are reverting you then declaring an intent to continue regardless could be taken as somewhat WP:POINTy... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, let us not confuse this as though it's just another dispute. This is about fulfilling criteria, it isn't a content dispute. Clearly, the user who reviewed the GA has not reviewed it properly and his history of reviewing GA articles is concerning (see here). The article shouldn't have been in the GAR since the article shouldn't have been a GA in the first place. I feel, along with others, that the GA status needs to be removed ASAP for the mentioned reasons. There's no debate here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If the aritcle "shouldn't have been a GA in the first place", that is exactly what a GAR is for. Repeatedly attempting to strip the GA status yourself instead of waiting for the GAR to conclude, and declaring that you will continue to do so, is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. There is no rush, unless it's an absolute emergency, to delist the article - instead allow the process to play out. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as you can see from the link aforementioned by me, the user who reviewed the article under GA criteria did not conduct a review properly (link again). Therefore, the issue is more than just lack of criteria fulfillment, the review in itself is problematic. In fact, the user who reviewed it is now about to be topic-banned. Due to this, the article has now become a haven for edit-warring and POV issues. It has been under article protection twice in the past two weeks. There's reverts happening as we speak. In fact, it could go under article protection again if requested. So yes, this IS an emergency. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not it is not an emergency. The article appears not to have been reviewed properly, but the nominator accepted the review as valid. The nominator has a "history" of such reviews, but also has numerous barnstars and messages of thanks on his talkpages by nominators who "appear to like" such light-weight reviews. A community WP:GAR was opened on this article on 22 September and it is still in progress (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Turkish people/1). A edit war and this incident seems to have be caused by a well-intended bypass of the review / assessment process by an editor unilaterally removing the {{star}} from the article, on I think on 8 October. The article was never "delisted", despite what is being claimed above. There is a process for delisting and that is WP:GAR. Editor Proudbolsahye could have delisted the article by means of a personal GAR, but did not do so; and, as I stated above, there is already a community GAR in progress. Furthermore, I suggested that the reviewer be topic banned yesterday and one other editor has expressed supported, but it is premature to suggest that a topic ban is imminent (I can't impose an topic ban). The proper course is to allow the community GAR to continue: that may well result in a "delisting", but it if the article is not too non-complaint it could result in a "hold" result and if the problems are fixed promptly the article might keep its GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pyrotec (talk · contribs), thank you for your clarifications. By all means, what I did was not a unilateral act when I acted in accordance to the comments at the GAR. The problem also needs to be clarified. The nominator along with other users have not made a single effort to resolve the issues presented at GAR. The nominator in fact insists on retaining the status quo. In some cases, s/he is in denial that problems in the article exist. For example, s/he claims that there are no copyright photographs when clearly, Gazi Yasargil, a file removed from commons for copyright violations, has been removed (and still is removed) because of that reason. I am then accused of "outright inaccuracies" when mentioning the copyright status of the photographs. This article is getting nowhere fast. I highly suggest outside mediation to resolve the status of GA once and for all. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "By all means, what I did was not a unilateral act when I acted in accordance to the comments at the GAR." - if the GAR was still open, then "short-circuiting" it by going ahead and "delisting" the article is disruptive whether the action is correct or not. If the GAR has closed, WP:SNOW or otherwise, with a result of delist, then delisting is appropriate. If it has not, then it is not, no matter how many editors have urged relisting or how strong their arguments for it are. Allow the discussion to play out instead of being a tiger loose in the zoo. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more problematic because Proudbolsahye almost exclusively edits/adds "Turkey-negative" content such Armenian Genocide related articles, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, etc Wiki checker link. Everybody has their own interests; that is fine obviously. However, it is a matter of concern when POV-pushing and being disruptive becomes a pattern. Articles that are almost exclusively edited by Proudbolsahye, such as Racism and discrimination in Turkey, exemplify this lack of NPOV approach. Almost half of the article is about Armenians, whereas discrimination in Turkey today includes sexism, heterosexism, etc. And there are giant quotes in the lead about the opinions of a person in 1800s (an obvious UNDUE issue).
    I should also note that there may be two relevant ARBCOM rulings, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (Balkans), since these are broad rulings and Turkey is in either region. Kevin (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)(Cavann, just changed my signature).[reply]
    If you want to criticize my work on Wikipedia, please feel free to ping me on my talk page or at the talk pages of corresponding articles. As for the GAR, I appealed to this board for a reason. I was hoping that the GAR can also be resolved through the broader participation of admins and other experienced users. It seems to have worked so we'll have to await further action. As for the article, copyrighted material seems to be all over the place. Just recently, another photograph was deleted from the article due to a copyright violation (see here). But this is an issue that must be present at the GAR. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Misrepresenting issues is a part of what I consider to be your disruptive pattern. And your response above is just another example of this. That image you linked had a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence in Commons,[35] which turned out to be false. But that hardly means "copyrighted material seems to be all over the place." Kevin (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, if it is actually under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" license, you need to find the website that allows you to use the picture under that specific license. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't need to do anything. I didn't put that pic into Commons or into the article. I simply did not remove it cause it had CC license, which turned out false. My problem is with your misrepresentations ("copyrighted material seems to be all over the place"), disruptive pattern (eg: unilaterally removing GA status), edit-warring in this article or other articles, even when your own article, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey -which passed GAR-, was found to contain "extensive close paraphrasing", as pointed by another editor here [36] (and that text was written by you). Kevin (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're saying that the article didn't have any copyright violations when in fact it did, which is only part of the bigger issue. In addition to this, the issues presented in the GAR have not been addressed. Instead, edit-warring has occurred where serious attempts have been made by you to retain the status quo. As a result, the article went into temporary protection twice and a POV tag has been placed. And apart from this, pointing out issues that other articles have, whether they were done by me or other users, will not resolve the issue we have at hand here. Let's not forget that there needs to be serious work done in Turkish people. I hope we can work on this together. The removal of copyrighted material is a good step. Reaching consensus at the talk page should be our main goal. I hope we can sort this out and move forward. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Passive-Aggressive Harassment from User:Jeremy112233

    User being reported
    Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:Jeremy112233 has not only been adding unreferenced tags to every single article I've created (which are stubs that typically consist entirely of plot summaries and films are their own sources), but has now resorted to placing speedy deletion tags for notability on articles for very clearly notable subjects like the Kon Ichikawa film Princess from the Moon. The fact that he referred to the Xbox Live Arcade video game 0-D Beat Drop as a "film" in his tag merely reinforces that he is not even looking at the articles and is doing this maliciously. Why? Because he had previously been blocked for violating 3RR on another article that I created and what he's doing right now is quite obviously a "revenge" move. This kind of behavior is malicious harassment that really shouldn't be tolerated here.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm simply following protocols. I have spent months patrolling articles and those that are not referenced can be very much improved with the improvement tag stating that the article has not references and that more could improve the article--as I did with the user's prior article that I added references to. But I don't have time to reference all of them. I acquiesce that those that have external links that exhibit media coverage aren't good candidates for deletion as anyone can go on and add the references in those external links to the page. But those with no external links to references or references whatsoever don't show any reason they should be on Wikipedia. Of course, if those speedies are declined after my search into references for each page, then I definitely missed something. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also add that I was not notified of this on my talk page; but for the notifications that show when my username is mentioned somewhere. Also, no discussion was had with me beforehand regarding my posting of these improvement tags. If the articles need no improvement, I'm happy to hear the reason why the other user believes so. The other user was also blocked in the same incident they are speaking of. I'm not sure why we're here, I'm completely open to speaking to them directly about how to improve their articles or to allow others to do so. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy deletion tags are for articles that are blatantly non-notable, like someone's personal YouTube account or random fanfiction. Adding a speedy deletion tag for notability to something obviously notable like an Xbox Live Arcade game is extremely reckless and makes it very clear that you are targeting me. You have demonstrated in the past that you do not understand Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppeting after attempting to have me "investigated" for "sockpuppeting" with IP addresses and are now demonstrating that you do not understand Wikipedia's policy on speedy deletion. You are not "following protocols" as I have checked your contributions and you have only done this to articles which I have created. The thought of someone actually digging through my history to get "revenge" on my by placing speedy deletion tags on clearly notable subjects is more than a little creepy and certainly against the spirit of the site.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion articles with no references and, well, no external links showing references do not show notability. Please feel free to add references to any article if they're there, as that would obviously show notability as you believe exists on said articles. I have asked for speedy deletion on dozens of articles you did not create and have placed improvement tags on dozens more. I have simply noticed that you do not cite any references for your articles generally. Any article which does would never be tagged. Any any article that cites articles would obviously not need said improvement. Please don't take this personally! It's merely about the lack of sources in the articles you're talking about.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, I'll compromise here :) I'll replace the speedies with deletion nominations so that there is more oversight to the process if you believe all are notable. No use in throwing out good work! Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Every article that I created cites other articles and includes external links. For example, the article for that "film" 0-D Beat Drop includes links to Xbox.com, MobyGames, and Metacritic along with mentioning that it was developed by Aksys Games and Arc System Works and released on Xbox Live Arcade. Absolutely nobody who knew what they were doing (and didn't have a vendetta against me) would have added a speedy deletion tag to an article like that. The fact that you nominated it - and several other blatantly notable articles that I created - for speedy deletion proves that you either do not understand the criteria for speedy deletion or are simply doing this to "get back" at me; possibly both.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Links to other Wikipedia articles are not references; those are wikilinks. (And, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.) - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind if I ask a question ... why are you saying that references are the same thing as wikilinks to other pages? References to third-party articles is not the same thing as un-orphaning your page to other Wikipedia pages, but maybe I misunderstood you? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that wikilinks are not references, but Jeremy here seems to think that they are, so I was merely reassuring him that the articles he so carelessly tagged with speedy deletion requests do, in fact, have wikilinks *and* other relevant links that aren't to Wikipedia articles.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply repeat behaviour by the OP. IIRC, they had recently created a horrible, unreferenced stub instead of a userspace draft. I think I either CSD'd or PROD'd it, or tagged it for what it was: unreferenced ... they seemed to be of the bizarre belief that because it existed, or because invisible (i.e. non-existent at the time) references said it was notable, that I - a random person - would know it was notable. I was then accused of being passive-aggressive, and ridiculous bullshit. Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain - they do little but cry wolf, and take offense at their shadow ES&L 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without having looked too deeply into this, and without bringing motivation into the equation, both of those are pretty terrible speedy delete candidates. One is a Toshiro Mifune movie currently part of the Criterion Collection, while the other is a video game that has apparently has a healthy amount of coverage based on its Metacritic page. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, feature films and commercial video games aren't generally speedy deletion candidates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, neither are speedied--both are AFDed. Regardless, I've heard nothing about the other non-referenced tags I posted, which were the real source of complaint. All seem settled, until somebody complies with protocols and adds actual references. I only AFDed those with no hint whatsoever of sources on the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Gun for Jennifer made no explicit claim to importance, but Ilsa, the Wicked Warden did: I don't think that this version should have been nominated for speedy deletion. Jeremy, "unreferenced" is not a valid argument. The movie has a notable director and a notable actor in it, apparently. The fourth paragraph of Wikipedia:Speedy deletion urges you to "consider whether it could be improved" (a variety of WP:BEFORE), and I cannot see that you did that: a quick Google Books search (hope you can read this) shows that this is obviously notable. (For all these movies, I hope MichaelQSchmidt comes by quickly.) In other words, you are (or were, in that case at least), much too quick on the draw. That's not harassment, but it is bothersome and it does not improve the project. You should exercise much more caution. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A very valid point. Thank you Drmies for the explanation for that article. Luckily now the article is not speedied, I simply wish to have the debate about non-referenced articles being assumed to be notable without evidence being provided to the average reader. I tend to think of them rather than the more intricate reviewer's perspective. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But that's not protocol you're following. I was looking to see if you kept a CSD log (apparently that's an easy thing to do) so you yourself could see your success rate (there may well be a tool for that also). Besides, no one is saying that unreferenced articles are assumed to be on a notable topic, but we are saying that it's entirely possible that an unreferenced article is on a notable topic. Lack of references is often a giveaway, but before you click the button you should see the content of the article, maybe do a little snooping, and then decide on the basis of that content if CSD is appropriate. Often it is not. I've seen articles with nothing but an infobox, and the infobox made a claim to importance, and for A7 (which is what I assume you were shooting for here, a credible claim of importance is all that is required. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just bear in mind in the future that "unreferenced" is not a speedy deletion criterion. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Confusing, but you got it :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not confusing: from the A7 section, which says it in bold: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, GNG only means sources could be found, not that they're used, I get it :) I assume the unreferenced improvement tags for unreferenced pages is still valid though, even though references could exist? Just want to clarify... Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. But, finding references and improving the article is better. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, so yes on the improvement tags being valid, and yes on the continuing to improve articles when I have time to do it instead of tag. I still disagree with unreferenced articles being valid additions in late 2013 when almost every actor or director is clamouring to get whatever they can onto this site to improve their next audition, but I don't mind others vehemently disagreeing with that. After all, I vehemently disagree other kinds of articles need to be here where others believe they clearly don't--go judges! Sorry, got a bit off track there... Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It took practically no time to add references to On the Ice and Consuming Spirits. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeremy, if it's both unreferenced (imdb doesn't count as a ref) AND fails to have a credible claim of notability, go ahead and tag it - I know I do. ES&L 09:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ES&L, what do you see as a "a credible claim of notability"? That seems like a subjective judgment and one on which well-intentioned Editors might completely disagree. And,
    "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." WP:NRVE
    The guidelines for notability are very fuzzy and I'm sure you could pull out quotes that would contradict the one I just posted. There is plenty of room for debate but, unless it is clearly just junk, it should go to AfD, not CSD. Liz Read! Talk! 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's subjective judgement. "Movie X was the highest-grossing film in Indonesia for the year 2003", even without a source, is at least a potential credible claim of notability. "Movie X is best-known for the number of high school students in Middle-of-nowhere, Idaho who have seen it at least twice" is most definitely not a credible claim of notability - even with a source. Your quote from WP:N is a red-herring - I was quite clear that if it's both unreferenced and with no clear/reasonable assertion of notability, it can and should be CSD'd. There' no editor who should ever press SAVE on a stub without at least 1 incredibly strong source, or 2 medium strength ones. There's a reason why CSD is a 2 step process, typically - the person who sees it as CSD'able, and the admin who reviews it and agrees. ES&L 16:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been considerable debate on A7, but pretty much everyone agrees tha tit is a LOWER bar than notability. That is, there are articles which would be deleted at AfD as non-notable, but which no sensible admin would speedy-delete under A7. A standard I have used is "Any claim or statement which might reasonably be true (even if a bit implausible) and which, if found to be true and if supported by reliable sources, would persuade some significant fraction of commentators at a typical AfD not to delete the article is a claim of significance." DES (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A question. Right now the nominator for this ANI is engaged in an edit war on my talk page, trying to force several things on there and reverting my deletions of their efforts. I just want to verify that the 3RR rule doesn't apply to those posting on my talk page, and, what the best thing to do would be--as I really have no interest in escalating this situation if at all possible. It's tough to "discuss it on the talk page" when the talk page is my talk page :) Just a query.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Two administrators have left comments on his talk page about that conduct. So I'd say that yes, WP:BLANKING is a listed exception in WP:3RRNO (#2, edits in your own user space). I'd also say you can safely walk away from that aspect of the situation and leave it to us admins. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply, as I said, I have no interest in escalating this and very much appreciate the feedback received above about how to make AFD or CSD tagging decisions in the future. I do take it to heart!Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User 65.24.105.132

    Please see Special:Contributions/65.24.105.132, this user has asked 3 different questions (changed and then changed again without stating he/she is changing it) in the last hour on the Humanities Ref Desk, undone 2 hattings for the question and then started using language of Personal Attack and INCIVILITY. I am requesting a block for a period of time to minimize disruption/edit warring and question-answer Gaslighting at the ref desk. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seriously? Where's the personal attack? Or, why answer a serious (if wordy) question about prostitution with "Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood"? That's misguided, and opening up an ANI thread is...well... Drmies (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they're not bragging they found the answer--they announced it as good news. I reverted your blanking of the section: "what have societies done in the past to help combat this issue" was a valid question, and they went to other sources to find the answers. Pity we couldn't help them. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Drmies, I refer you to gaslighting, then more edit abuse/gaslighting. It is acceptable to change the actual question (not add further details but actually change the OP substantially after getting an answer) then boast how "useless" this place is (that would be the personal attack since Wikipedia isn't here w/o us & in this instance myself & another editor attempting to answer a moving question) while you already had the answer?
      • Oh, please don't take me out of context, I provided 2 links to the "useless"(?) wikipedia right after that to support my reply, you already realize that Ref Desks exist to assist the Encyclopedia so a WP:CIVIL discussion on those 2 wikipedia articles is the opposite of misguided. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Edit Conflict after Drmies addition) Who said "bragging"? Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • [37] [this was struck at 10:18 Oct. 9 UTC, reply below was left 5 hours 57 mins after Marketdiamond striking & 10 hours 50 mins after contribution. Note that MarketDiamond did not ghost an edit nor radically change an edit after a user replied directly to that edit & then did not leave comments that might require deletion/hatting]. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You said "boast" and "brag". And am I the only one who finds this answer completely inappropriate? This is before the question was tweaked--but that doesn't affect the answer. Q: "is there anything that people can do to help these girls get better jobs"? A: "Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood." Say what? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yet accept an extremely detailed & ranting question about saving prostitutes (as I accepted it) followed by OP's "useless", "WTF", "You Understand?", "Dude" (thoughts this ANI also initially produced, yet somehow I didn't bring down the conversation with them) all that UNCIVIL & edit tricking is somehow more appropriate than a reply of saving marriages in a concise & Wikilinked manner? I left my views on your activities on this ANI at your talk page & yet "a valid question, and they went to other sources to find the answers. Pity we couldn't help them." Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 19:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unresolved
          see above. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)          [reply]
          The edits you linked are definitely not examples of gaslighting. They could perhaps be gaslighting under very special circumstances that would include unusual, extreme sensitivity by the victim (you?) as well as relevant knowledge on the side of the perpetrator. But you have presented nothing that would suggest such circumstances and they seem extremely unlikely. ANI is the least likely place to help you.
          Lots of people tweak their comments after they made them, for perfectly harmless reasons. I sometimes do this myself, and a former Arbcom member was famous for making people irate by doing it all the time. It's just a bad habit. Hans Adler 06:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          PS: The user behind the IP has a history of tweaking even other people's comments, even when they clearly didn't want it. That was a serious problem. Now in the first edit you linked they tweaked a question after you answered it, in such a way that your answer was less on-topic. That's still rude and a problem, but does happen occasionally. The usual way of dealing with it is to edit your response. Just add "[Question was edited after this response was given.]" or something similar, and maybe complain on the user's talk page. (Although the latter will probably not be very helpful in this case, based on the user's past performance.) Hans Adler 06:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Appreciation on your "PS" contribution Hans Adler, I think that solves it. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 08:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have BOLDly removed the entire section from the reference desk, has absiolutely nothing to do with anything Wikipedia related. We do not have the authority/ability to answer those types of questions. GiantSnowman 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that the IP ahs a history of asking these kind of broad questions. If you want answers to life, the universe, and everything, simply go to the pub like everybody else. GiantSnowman 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It was no worse than the "discussion" under "Who transforms gold scraps into gold bars, if at all?" or the hypothesizing under "French-Speaking Black/Sub-Saharan African Countries Being More Pro-Homosexuality Than Their (African) Neighbors" or the off-topic bantering under "Shakespeare in French literature". Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question "what have societies done in the past to help combat [prostitution]" is perfectly suited and answerable on the reference desk (just as any librarian would not hesitate to address it), by citing ample sources on the topic. Yes, the preamble to the question was a distraction and the less than ideal conduct by the IP and some responders contributed to poisoning the well - so I don't object to removing the question now - but the question itself was well within the refdesk's ability. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Abecedare, ample sources were not cited in the responses the user received. And I disagree with your statement that:
    "...the question itself was well within the refdesk's ability."
    The question was valid for the Reference Desks but I believe, right now, that it went beyond the ability of the well-intentioned Editors manning the Reference Desk's to answer. Like Drmies suggests, the discussions at the Desks are often more "shoot from the hip" than answers a librarian would provide. Check out Why do Jewish people look white? Liz Read! Talk! 15:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which question are you speaking of Liz? The only question to have responses from "well intentioned editors" offered 2 wikilinks that concerned the original question of " is there anything that people can do to help."
    Despite assurances by multiple editors that there can't be any 'IP/OP didn't ask that' misunderstandings, the misunderstandings continue. An ANI might be a good place for an editor to share that concern before it gets out of hand with 'ghost diffs' & IP/OP forgetting Refdesk Guidelines. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The entire CrossFit article has been removed and flagged as a copyright violation. The whole article has been down for 11 days at this point without any review. Could an administrator please take a look? The evidence supporting the allegation doesn't seem to hold up, and would only point to one paragraph. No evidence has been provided about the rest of the article. Warpwoof (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold on while I take a look. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just checked a lot of different pieces of text, as well as reading through the two pages (article, source page) manually, and I can't find any copied text. Have I overlooked something? Should it have been tagged as a copyvio of another page? Some other issue? I'll let AfadsBad, the tagger, know about this; since it's already languished so long, a little more won't hurt, especially if the tagging turns out to be a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then they've changed the source article (articles as I recall). There is no trick to finding copy vios you know, and five sentences, ten-twenty words, in quotes. Google search = copy vio. And, yes, you corporate sock puppets, I distinguished between your copying your own press releases and materials and the re-release of this corporate crap. As successful as CrossFit is right now, just pay someone to write a decent article instead of throwing up your press releases for free advertising onto Wikipedia. If CrossFit has print materials, this crap will still be a copy vio, though. The article needs gutted, and CrossFit needs to find a member who can write a Wikipedia articlle.
    But, I thank you for posting here, and I would like this to just stay open to not be archived soon to get as many eyes on the problem as possible. These articles where you have corporations creating sock puppets to throw up press releases onto Wikipedia need many eyes on them to convince the corporations that the millions of useful Wikipedia articles came about because of so many competent editors and admistrator assistants. Sock it to us! --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    • I think what's getting confused is backwards copying from wikipedia for "press releases" or the "re-release of this corporate crap." If it was copied, where is the original source, and did it exist prior to the Wikipedia article? AfadsBad does not seem amenable to a discussion on the issue... AfadsBad edited my ANI title from "Copyright issue needs review" to "Copyright issue needs review CrossFit sock army." Warpwoof (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, I did; a bunch of single purpose accounts all in an uproar about an obvious copyright violation? The entire article is written as one really bad press release. Go ahead and change it to meat puppets if it is more than one of you. And stop posting CrossFit press releases to Wikipedia. They sound just like what they are: advertising for CrossFit. You think no one at Wikipedia has ever read a press release? Read WP:COI and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, especially the last part about objective and neutral style. You are not the first company in all the years of Wikipedia that has tried this. I have only been editing for a short time, and this idea from companies that they will sneak in an article and advertise and promote their company on Wikipedia and no one will ever suspect them is just weird. It's all over Wikipedia, companies coming here with their sock puppet army and creating a press release on Wikipedia full of dozens of links back to their website. Hire someone! I rewrote the article, you can pay me! --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    • And I have changed the title back to OP's original title. AfadsBad, you don't get to change headings except for clarification purposes, and "sock army" smacks of bad faith. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not engaging AfadsBad on this issue. I would just like some experienced administrators to review it. One person has effectively deleted an article without discussion for nearly 2 weeks. Warpwoof (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is how Wikipedia handles copyright violations. If you want an article on Wikipedia, stop using your promotional materials to create what sounds like a badly written corporate press release. No administrators can override copyrighted material. You can also, as an alternative, release the material to the public domain. By the way, putting it on Wikipedia does give it a copyright that allows others to use it, and, if this is CrossFit's intention, that can be done also. I do want lots of experience administrators to watch the article and the army of SPAs adding cruft to it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    I concur with Nyttend. I'm an experienced copyright clerk as well as an admin myself, and found no copyright violations, other than one paragraph, which I removed. User:AfadsBad put the copyvio back in in their haste to re-tag the article as a copyvio and hide it from view. In my opinion, AfadsBad has reached the stage of disrupting the project to make a point, and I suggest they find another article to worry about. —Darkwind (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Way to ignore the rewrite, ignore the copied phrases throughout the article, lie that I restored anything, accuse me bad faithily of "hiding the article from view," and then, on your talk page, point out that since you and Nyttend are admins, that means I'm wrong! No, this is copied from CrossFit press releases; the same ones they use in their magazines and their youtube videos. I rewrote it. You ignored the rewrite. And, no, guess what, just because you are an admin, doesn't mean your opinion on content to support a plea from a COI/SPA doesn't count more than another editor's. "TWO DIFFERENT ADMINS have told you the article is clean of copyvio, and you still restored the tag." All caps screaming in the original, bold added. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    Have you considered that your friend's plagerism detector is probably hitting on Wikipedia itself or one of its billions of mirrors? I've run random sentences through Google searches and checked numerous results, there is no copyright violation here. These sites have, if anything, violated Wikipedia's content license by using our material without attribution. This can be proven by using Wikipedia's reversion history search. Your concern was noted, it's been investigated, found to not be substantial, corrected, and dismissed. We acknowledge your concern is good, but your behavior has been disruptive. I'm giving you one chance here, do not revert on that article again or you'll be blocked for disruptive editing.--v/r - TP 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you looked at the talk page, I explained that I got dates hits from before the phrases were inserted into the article. I have _not_ been revert warring; I reverted once and requested a talk page discussion, so, what exactly are you talking about, not revert again? Or is this just lame-ass defense of other admins, Darkwind who YELLED at me that TWO ADMINS trumps in a content dispute? Do not revert again? Do not be a Wikipedian because AN ADMIN has already yelled at me? WTF? --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    As I said, your intentions are good, but your behavior is not. You've been entirely combative with editors here and have thrown around a lot of bad faith. You reverted an editor (sysop or not isn't important) who has experience with CCI and determined no violation. As you've not offered to clear it yourself, he's done the legwork and you reverted him. You're being thanked for being cognizant of copyright violations, but you're also being asked to step away from this particular one.--v/r - TP 21:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Fancruft in addition. There are also a lot of BLPs of "CrossFit athletes" sourced only to crossfit.com and blogs. BLPs should not be used to promote a company, either, and these may require prodding after removing all non-reliable sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    Vandalism on school article

    Be aware of this vandalism that seems to be ongoing. Unfortunately, I haven't so far managed to find out exactly which article this vandalism is being done to, but keep an eye open for yellow grapes... Blue Elf (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Not just one article, see [38]. I've posted to her website asking advice on stopping vandalism from schools and suggesting these webpages are likely to get schools blocked. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone with a database dump (or direct DB access) want to search for "mascot*=*grape*" (in your favorite regexp language)? DMacks (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:HOUND, Imported conflict.

    After a disagreement on the dutch wiki, User:Jeff5102 did me the honour of closely scrutenizing many contributions I've made on en.wiki. This is not a problem, as far as i'm concerned, were it not that a) he's importing a conflict and translating that into hounding and b) he's deleting valuable material from some pages (such as Drachenfels (Siebengebirge), translated from de.wiki and marked as such), re-adding nonsense i've deleted in others (Distinction of blue and green in various languages) and taking care to delete even tiny contributions such as this (me)-(Jeff5102) (IJ (digraph)). I have no desire to engage in edit wars, but he's quite prominent on my watchlist, so i'll ask the community to look into it. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not hounding. I'm just checking Kleuske's edits. When they are badly referenced (see WP:PROVEIT), I just say so or I delete them when they have few added value to the article AND I improved the references when present (which were deleted by Kleuske again). That is not hounding. That is improving Wikipedia. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: for the same reason I am checking the edits made by SamLowenstein (talk • contribs at the moment.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is customary required to notify that user. I've done so for you. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the 'improved reference' above: The source states that the "color" mentioned is "nondescript, usually ugly" instead of "Turquoise" as claimed. Removed again for that reason. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong on that one. It says: "nondescript color, usually ugly; also blue-green, so turqoise and petrol-green." Thus, your reason for making that removal was invalid. By the way, I am unaware of a rule that translated articles are not committed to the WP:RS-rule (as you implied here by removing that banner). If so, then I made a mistake, but I believe it is doubtful if such a rule exists. Even more, WP:RFT didn't mention anything about that. So again, I sincerely believe that I did the right thing by placing a REFIMPROVE-banner. Regards,11:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    The reliable sources are to be found on the german wiki. My source for the translation is the german wiki, as mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Other wikipedia versions are not reliable sources. You'd need to link to the actual source ES&L 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see to it. Kleuske (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeff5102, please ignore this user and their contributions. Somebody else who has no history of conflict with the user will check their contributions and take any appropriate actions. Do you agree, or will I need to scrutinize this more closely and possibly formalize a ban? Jehochman Talk 12:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a question: Jehochan, will you do it, or appoint someone to check the edits properly? Like I said, there are serious WP:RS-issues out there.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many editors of Wikipedia. If this one makes bad edits, somebody besides you will surely notice and report it. If you become extremely concerned about an edit, feel free to report it on the appropriate noticeboard with a neutral summary and diffs, and let somebody else decide what to do. Don't follow this editor around and create the appearance of harassment. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    D*mn! Just when I thought we were getting close to solve the conflict, Kleuske tries to stirr it up again. My message to Richardw was a limited posting (only one), it was written in a neutral tone, while Richard is (as far as I know) nonpartisan and my message to him happened in the open. I know Richard from a separated edit dispute on the Dutch Wiki, but you weren't involved in that one, Kleuske. Thus, my request from me to Richard "to look here" (what was all I asked him) was appropriate. Please remember WP:FAITH, will you? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff5102, you don't need to respond to every post. This just creates a battle. Let it. Move on. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeff asked me to look and I have done so. I am not, and will not be, involved in this dispute. Richard 09:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this require action?

    are the edit summaries by

    note that the user is dynamic and also running the same line of comments via

    and

    Yes. Revdeled and blocked both IPs. User:Antandrus observation #37 applies. Toddst1 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    and now they are back as 121.6.183.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked this diff, and I'm confused: all the IP did was to change "JOnes" to "Jones", the only offensive thing was the edit summary, and Toddst1 removed the summary but not the text. I can see the change, but only because I'm an admin. Why does the software require admin tools to see the diff? Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the text of the edit was removed GiantSnowman 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I intended and I don't think that's what I did:
    (del/undel) 12:06, 9 October 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom: edit summary hidden (RD2: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy) (diff | more...)}}

    Could an outside party take a look at the Talk:Alex Jones and see if it would be appropriate to speedy archive off the talk page (or maybe even just delete) as very unrelated to improving the article and merely creating a more toxic environment.

    and this section too appears to have run its course and is no longer actually about what sources and content should be used for the article.

    Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This diff is hidden to non-admins because the old revision has its text hidden. (Also, that revdel was incomplete, since this permalink shows the revdel'd contents. I explained the problem with revdel a while back to another admin. The problem is that it hides permalinks and not diffs, which often leads to unexpected behavior, as happened here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Conspiracy theories - Rupert Sheldrake

    A fringe theorist, Craig Weiler (talk · contribs), has posted a conspiracy theory about the Rupert Sheldrake article on his blog [40]. This has attracted the article subject themselves [41] and some adherents who have joined the discussion. The editor Tumbleman (talk · contribs), who is mentioned as being supportive in the blog, had a message on his page about how he was trolling [42] which he has since removed, and has helped stoke this incident. Some attention on the article talk page from admins would be helpful to stop the conspiracy-mongering, trolling etc would be welcome. Note that this topic area is under discretionary sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    See the talk page, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Fringe_squared:_fringe_theories_about_Wikipedia.27s_treatment_of_fringe_theories and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Fringe_theorists_on_the_Rupert_Sheldrake for more context, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not much of a conspiracy theory - it's actually based on the editors behaviors and agenda on the page. I think the reason editors are assuming that vzaak and others are apart of the GSM is because they appear to be editing with the exact same agenda as the GSM. It appears to many to be that the skeptical POV is more important than the NPOV, and that's a reasonable concern. Plus, clearly all the editors in question co-ordinate together like can be evidenced here. That the fact that the GSM is on wikipedia is of course not a conspiracy, they are quite open about it. So it's a reasonable association.
    The GSM is not the problem with this editor, and this editor has no ideological agenda. what is the problem is when editors appear to edit a page, wiki lawyer WP policy to support a Skeptical POV above all else, avoid reaching consensus, avoid direct questions, bully and intimidate editors, and most importantly, absolutely fail to deliver verifiable sources based on facts and use personal opinions as reasoned arguments on a BLP. As for conspiracy theories, I would check this talk discussion and references to myself as a 'troll with a social media experiment who fosters global disturbance as his goal' as a good candidate for a proper debunking. Always a good policy to be skeptical about our own ridiculous ideas just as much as we are skeptical about anyone else's. Work reasonably here guys, I just want facts and reasoned arguments - if your not GSM, none of you seem to be contributing to the spirit of WP on that page regardless and if you are GSM, you're really making them look bad. The Tumbleman (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A careful review of all edits, including mine, to this article over the past month is in order. The level of incivility and unwillingness to collaborate is dreadful. Absolutism in championing WP:FRINGE over any application of WP:BLP. Absolutism in championing WP:BLP over any application WP:FRINGE. Denial that WP:FRINGE applies at all. There's bad behavior all around, although careful review will reveal that some have been worse actors than others. The Craig Weller stuff is just a sideshow. There's worse stuff here, predating the Weiller blogpost. A freeze may be in order, because things are degenerating. David in DC (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing at a time. Tumbleman's complaint seems to be that a group of editors are editing the Rupert Sheldrake article in violation of WP:NPOV. Will you (or anyone) give diffs that show examples of these edits? - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing at time. OK. That'll take some work, and multiple edits. To avoid edit conflicts, I'll be working piecemeal, over a bit of time. Let's start with the erroneous claim that Tumbleman has deleted the statements Wolfie complains of. Wolfie is wrong. I'm the one who berated Tumbleman about them. To see the whole exchange, see here, here, here and here. David in DC (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but those appear to be diffs of Talk and User page discussion. Are there diffs that show edits to the article itself that violate policy (WP:NPOV or other policies)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now some diffs from a group of editors working from the POV that BLP is far less important than WP:FRINGE when dealing with a living person they view as a fringe theorist. Here are some admirably honest expression of this POV from the talk page. After a rest from this truly dispiriting review,, I'll put up some diffs from the article. But in truth, after reading these declarations, most any set of revert/re-reverts you see in the article history will suffice: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], An attempt to start anew, [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64].
    As it happens, the most recent edits to the article are a microcosm of the sorts of edits in question. They clear elevate FRINGE over BLP. [65] David in DC (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are of the opinion that well sourced criticism should not be included often in BLPs, very good, but don't expect many others to agree with removing well sourced criticisms of fringe views just because it is a BLP, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of the opinion that well-sourced criticism of fringe theories should be included in articles about fringe theories, without regard to WP:BLP. I am also of the opinion that well-sourced criticism of fringe theories should be handled with regard to WP:BLP (and WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV) in articles about living people. WP:FRINGE is not license to turn a BLP into an WP:ATTACK piece. There is a difference between the way good wikipedia editors handle fringe theories and the way they handle fringe theorists. It requires keener, more nuanced editorial judgment and good-faith collaboration. It is not a good area in which to apply binary, black/white, toggle-switch judgment. Living people are special. They are different. The editing of articles about them is rarely enhanced by the zealotry.
    Mind-reading is psuedo-science. So any sentence that starts with "You are of the opinion..." is suspect. Doubly so when what follows is inaccurate. Triply so when the two parties have engaged in this conversation before. "You are of the opinion that well sourced criticism should not be included often in BLPs...." is false. Whether the mis-statement is intentional or negligent, I cannot know. Assuming good faith, it's negligent. Please take special care to avoid such negligence in characterizing my arguments in the future. Assumptions are, eventually, rebuttable. David in DC (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe they know what your opinions are via mind reading??? EEng (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what his opinions are because he keeps telling everyone them. When someone says "in my view" one expects what they say is in fact in their view. "At some point, and in my view the Null article as I first found it had reached and exceeded that point, the "piling on" of sourced derogatory information turns a BLP into an WP:ATTACK piece." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive185#Further_discussion_on_the_Gary_Null_talkpage. IRWolfie- (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Humorless people are so very tiresome. EEng (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "You are of the opinion that well sourced criticism should not be included often in BLPs..." is not an accurate restatement of the prior statement you've now provided. I'll try one last time and then give up on explaining. In a BLP, the sourced derogatory information should be carefully calibrated, so as not to turn a biography into an indictment. This does not mean it should be left out often. Rather, it means it should be included judiciously, with BLP in mind. BLP and FRINGE are in tension on biographies of living fringe theorists. There is more leeway to pile up the derogatory sourced info on a page about fringe theories than on one about living FRINGE theorists.David in DC (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so this is a Talk Page dispute rather than any policy violations to the article itself, and in any case, Talk page discussion is not subject to WP:NPOV. From what I see, there is a large amount of disruption, personal attacks, accusations of conspiracy, WP:MEAT, and some baiting that is ongoing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Please re-read the sentence introducing the diffs and the edit summary for introduction of the diffs.David in DC (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, back to diffs in answer to Louie's request for diffs showing "...that a group of editors are editing the Rupert Sheldrake article in violation of WP:NPOV." The POV here is a disregard for WP:BLP or elevation of WP:FRINGE over WP:BLP not in line with policy: [66], [67], [68], (conscientious editer reverting POV edit, [69], [70], [71], [72] and where edit protection was added, for darned good reason. After protection, the behaviour gets a bit better, but the see-sawing continues and the talk page starts really exposing the POV in question. I AM NOT opposed to WP:FRINGE. But the overwhelming sense that one gets reading through these diffs, and the talk page ones, is that a lot of skeptics are treating fringe theorists as if they are beneath the protection WP:BLP should be affording them. This POV is detrimental to the project we all hold dear. David in DC (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in my edits which you have shown are BLP violations and I dislike the inference that they are. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Calling me a "Fringe Theorist" is completely over the top. This isn't some vague conspiracy. The Guerrilla Skepticism Organization is quite real. They have a website: Guerrilla Skepticism. They have a training/recruiting video. In the video they lay out their tactics and provide examples of sites that they've targeted. They claim to have 90 editors working in 17 languages. They are doing this in direct violation of Wikipedia policy.

    They have the support of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, (here) a national organization, and JREF, also a national organization. (here). As far as Sheldrake's bio, there is clear evidence of a skeptical attack on his page. I have these sources in my blog post on the subject. It would be amazing if they DIDN'T target Sheldrake's bio.Craig Weiler (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @David in DC, you suggest that Absolutism in championing WP:BLP over any application WP:FRINGE. Denial that WP:FRINGE applies at all as a problem on the board that needs review. Indeed it does. This isn't a fair review of the arguments and perhaps a little misleading to someone who has to read this for ANI.
    My specific argument, which actually is more of a question which the title of my Sheldrake's talk sections clearly shows, was proper sourcing and references to support a WP:FRINGE/PS application in a way that harms a NPOV on a BLP. Editors were sourcing opinions and original research to justify editing the page to a skeptical POV, which to this editor not only appears as a clear violation of WP:NOT, it's also just sloppy referencing. I asked this numerous times in TALK directly to a few editors. It was never addressed, the question was either avoided or reasoned discussion for a rational consensus was. All this editor got in return was having his user page under scrutiny, having editors post my IP address and personal information about me, calling me a troll because of some link they have from 2005, etc etc in some sort of bizarre wikilawyered ad hom to my questions. I could have brought this into ANI weeks ago, however I choose to make my case in talk using sourced references and reasoned arguments, to build a new consensus. I have not even edited the page yet!
    When my questions were addressed with a reference, the references were poorly sourced, showed evidence of OR to this editor, personal interpretations, etc etc. Honestly to me it looked like a team of editors with an agenda stacked a 'house of cards' case to support the viewpoint they wanted on the page and when reasonably challenged, they resorted to what you are reading right now, this is the third attempt to get me banned from the page and to this editor it just looks like this is the last resort they have to maintain using horrible sourcing to support their POV.
    The talk section in exchange with this editor clearly reflects this and I invite ANI to review talk sections 'Request for a new consensus', 'SHeldrake is a parapsychologist, references?', 'is WP:FRINGE being applied unnecessarily to Sheldrake's page?' and 'new edit'. Or any other section. I made a very sincere commitment to make this page better under the guidelines and spirit of WP, so I trust my integrity with my work here so far.
    IRWolfie-, I think it's fair to say that this case you are making here is not a real problem and is serving more like a strawman or a ruse to avoid a new consensus. What IS a real problem is there is NOT a rational consensus amongst editors regarding sourcing and reasoned arguments. I still don't see how this action will help build consensus on the page. That's what we are supposed to do to make the page better. I think a review of the edits is in order as well. (I personally have not made any edits to the page, except one minor one more than 30 days ago that I also retracted because I was mistaken about the source. But more in order is a review of the behaviors on the talk page.
    Also, it's absolutely fair to say that working with David in DC on this issue on the board is workable, I do think his intentions as an editor are genuine and I hold him exempt from the behaviors on the board. There is no reason why he and I cannot find or build a rational consensus together.
    So, we can try this again? If I am such the problem that this crowd is claiming, wouldnt it be more in the spirit of consensus and WP to actually engage in reasoned arguments with an editor with a genuine concern of violations of BLP and WP at large? I think your case will be better made for ANI if you simply respond to my reasoned and good spirited questioning instead of trying to get me banned off the page for something you don't understand that happened in 2005 just looks like I am getting WP:HOUNDED and I welcome a review but prefer a consensus. The Tumbleman (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A certain group of editors, has taken objection to WP:FRINGE applying to the article and want a less critical explanation, which the sources don't support. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Barney the barney barney It's true Barney that your sources do not support what I have challenged, that is the problem, your sources are not even supporting what you're challenging either. I think it's more productive to explain with some consistency on the talk page instead of wasting some WP admin's time to support some ideological edit war. The Tumbleman (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @IRWolfie-: (1) "Fringe theorist" is a pejorative term, and I don't think you should be calling a fellow editor one, in contravention of WP:CIVIL. (2) You also appear to have retrieved personal information, allegedly from his own blog, in contravention of WP:PRIVACY --Iantresman (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ian, Craig has commented about his blog himself. Where are you going with that? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fringe theorist" is an insult, but I've taken so much abuse by skeptics over the years that it hardly matters to me anymore. IRWolfie is right about my blog. I've mentioned it myself. It's fair game.Craig Weiler (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected regarding the blog, with apologies to IRWolfie- --Iantresman (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @LuckyLouie I am not sure your role here, but you appear to take a reasonable concern. YES there is a violation of NPOV on the lead section of the page. The reason the TALK section is relevant to the NPOV on the page is because there is commentary like this below is being used to support editing decisions with horrible sourcing: Quote below -

    I think we need to find a way to fit the sentence "Sheldrakes ideas are regarded as batshit insane by most scientists" into the lede somewhere. All the scientists I know believe this. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

    Is that acceptable around here? Is it consensus building to have a page controlled by 4 or 5 editors who share a bias and a agenda to promote a skeptical POV over a NPOV? And then to provide no appropriate sourcing or bully other editors off the page? Does that foster consensus? ever? This is not REDDIT, right? The people who participate in reasoned arguments with commentary like this are the ones that want to get me banned from the page and refuse to engage me because I am 'trolling'. oh the irony is not lost on me either. The Tumbleman (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My "role" is merely as an editor. I have been around here a while and have in the past seen a number of episodes very similar to this one occur at articles dealing with fringe topics. Prolonged talk page strife accompanied by huge walls of text containing radically differing interpretations of policy, strident accusations of bias and censorship, and massive incivility and insults peppered with repeated declarations of personal neutrality. This is usually followed by a period of frantic editing of the article from all sides, resulting in a very ugly POV quilt of tortured sentences and awkwardly constructed sections featuring the mainstream view rebutted by fringe view rebutted by mainstream view, etc. Several people get dragged to AN/I and perhaps one or two highly emotional arbitrations ensue. Editors on both sides of the conflict are sanctioned, a few people quit or get banned, and everyone's left exhausted and drained. The article remains ugly and unreadable for some period of time, be it months, or even years. Eventually new editors without any old scores to settle come along and work quietly together to straighten out the mess. So forgive me for not joining the party. LuckyLouie (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All the scientist you know, are not most scientists, and your tone is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. It is not disputed that Sheldrake has received criticisms. --Iantresman (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I ask that if User:Iantresman wants to comment on a post I made on the Sheldrake Talk Page (which he has every right to do), he should do it there, rather than in the middle of somebody else's post here. Isn't it bad form to split a comment in two halves that way? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 12:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realise that your comment in bold, was a quote. My apologies for posting in the middle Tumbleman's post. --Iantresman (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem Iantresman - I just wanted to make it clear that I did not post that on this page, and that it is here out of context --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Confirming that Roxy the dog did NOT post this quote here, he posted it on the TALK page on Sheldrake. I just fixed the placement of Iantresman's comment and moved it under mine for clarity. However, this quote DOES have context here because I am addressing the clear bias of editors on the page whom are making editorial decisions, changes, and refusing to engage in a rational consensus. I am showing that my reactions and work as a WP editor on this page are not based on some crazy conspiracy theory or some need to let the world know my dog knows when I am coming home, but to confront a very serious problem happening on the page that is based on editors decisions and behaviors and putting WP in a conflict of interest on a BLP. Real Problem. Reasonable Concern. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    A suggestion

    I've had a look through the talk page and a brief look through the history. There seems to be a few things here. Firstly, I think calls to topic ban User:Tumbleman over on WP:FTN are jumping the gun. It's my impression from the talk page that though some editors might be motivated by the blog posts put out by Sheldrake supporters, we should give them a fair hearing on BLP-related claims. The way to do that is to have some uninvolved editors from outside the circle of people who care about psi to have a look. There has been a bit of back and forth on the lede today on the article.

    Now, the problem I'm seeing is the accusations and counter-accusations regarding membership in Guerilla Skeptics. I've known User:Sgerbic for a while and covered the forming of the Guerilla Skeptics for The Signpost back when I wrote for it. They do some good work, and they are a lot less scary than their rather combative name suggests. On the Sheldrake talk page, there are accusations flying back and forth of people being members of the Guerilla Skeptics or not and lots of huff and puff about this. This is unhelpful, and I think further speculation on Wikipedia talk pages as to whether or not people are part of Guerilla Skeptics is unhelpful. Play the ball not the man, as the saying goes.

    My suggestion is this: an uninvolved admin goes through the talk page and hatnotes or removes personal attacks and sniping about who is or isn't a Sheldrake supporter or a Guerilla Skeptic. Give people a few days to carry on discussing and if things continue to be unproductive, then we can try fully protecting the article and trying a more formal approach to dealing with the suggested changes that people want to make: some kind of mini-RfC. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey Tom Morris, thanks for giving this a review. Just a few things for clarification
    1.) I am not interested in promoting Sheldrakes theories, I am not a proponent of PSI. I am personally fascinated by Sheldrake philosophically, especially the history of the controversy, but that's because I love philosophy, not psychic pets. So I am truly agnostic when it comes to his research. I'm only promoting agnosticism :) Thanks for removing me from the 'fringe' claim - that would be really weird to apply that to me. Words like FRINGE and PSEUDOSCIENCE are being used as 'weasel words' on the page in a way that is really out of step with a purely NPOV.
    2.)I am active on the page to promote a NPOV. Collective editing and building consensus is a big part of my life (I work in media and technology and am developing consensus based platforms). That's the only view I am interested in in this debate.
    3.)I'm not sure I share you viewpoint regarding GSM, or at least 'GSM' type editing. Maybe I misunderstand you but are you suggesting that the Skeptical Point of View is primary OVER a Neutral Point of View? Because that is the problem I am encountering in the talk section, that skeptical opinions are being used to support violations of BLP in a way to demean a living person. <<<<< That - that's what irks me regardless of who it is, it turns WP into some kind of grudge and vendetta machine and that is quite harmful to any collective editing platform but more importantly an actual person. None of their edits seem interested in NPOV, they all seem interested in editing the page from the POV of making sheldrake look like a flake because that literally is what skeptics think of him. Is that what we are here to do? No GROUPTHINK on Wikipedia, please. if consensus is not rational, it's not consensus, it's groupthink.The Tumbleman (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tom Morris, No one has been accused of being a member of the Guerrilla Skeptics. I have stated this explicitly on the talk page. The Tumbleman asked Vzaak and Barney whether they were members, but did not accuse them. There are no accusations and counter accusations. I don't know where you're getting that from but it is a complete misrepresentation of the discussion and I ask that you retract it.
    I'm not sure why you think it's ok to have an ideologically motivated organization running amok on Wikipedia, but this is very harmful to Wikipedia's credibility.Craig Weiler (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Craig on your blog post [73] you wrote regarding the Guerrilla Skeptics "Since June, they have gone on the attack to seriously change Rupert’s Bio." It's true you have not directly accused anyone of being part of the Guerrilla Skeptics group on Wikipedia but you have made it clear in your posts that you believe a Guerrilla skeptic group are "attacking" Sheldrake's Wikipedia article. I have called you out on this twice, but you still list no names of these editors or any evidence. As I wrote already you are confused on this issue. The owner of the Guerrilla skeptics is Sgerbic (talk · contribs) but she appears to be currently inactive on Wikipedia, you keep saying she is breaking Wikipedia policies but she isn't. Wikipedia does not promote pseudoscience Craig, you seem to fail to understand this. Please check the edit history of the Sheldrake article and you would find that Sgerbic has not edited the article at all. You have spread disinformation about this user and her group, and really you should apologize (you have mislead Sheldrake himself with your conspiracy theory and disinformation).
    BTW you also say above "No one has been accused of being a member of the Guerrilla Skeptics" but this isn't true because the user Tumbleman (talk · contribs) has accused myself and many other users on the Sheldrake talk page as being members (none of us are) but he continues to throw around those accusations (easy to find evidence of that). You have also been posting on forums stirring this issue up and asking other paranormal believers to help you edit the Sheldrake article and promoting conspiracy theories that Wikipedia is run by "materialists" [74], [75] and on this forum here you talk about setting up some kind of petition against Wikipedia [76]. Do you think your behavior is acceptable Craig? It seems you have a long history of stirring up trouble on the internet and trolling [77]. I believe you only joined Wikipedia to stir up trouble, nothing you have said is productive or has anything to do with improving the Sheldrake article. Dan skeptic (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So what? Dan skeptic I admit that I have been public about being *suspicious* that specific editors are working the agenda of the GSM and their leader SGerbic, but on their talk pages because they are co-ordinating on their talk pages about how to deal with the 'tumbleman' problem. Dan Skeptic's agenda is the same agenda as GSM, who cares if he is a card carrying member or not? I refer to the position of GSM editors on the page because it's the actual agenda of these editors on the page, voiced in their own words. Sorry, blame GSM for branding the style and creating the copy cats, not me. I am concerned that an ideological group, or individual, has an outside agenda other than make the page better and more neutral. I am questioning the actual agenda of those editors based on their behaviors on the page, not some ideology i have or they have. I WANT the skeptical POV on the page too, it's necessary. It just can't become the mainstream view of WP and dominate everything else. We can't have four or five of these editors on any page and control it and avoid consensus, it's going to destroy WP eventually. If this is the direction WP is going in, I'm out.

    Maybe an admin or Tom Morris or SGerbic can clarify WP guidelines to me. It seems that any editor, or group, that has a direct agenda to make sure the Skeptical POV is represented on Wikipedia as their modus operandi is a violation of WP:NOT and is a conflict of interest with a NPOV. This is ok with WP? really? The Tumbleman (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My point is very simple: if there are people who are acting problematically, it doesn't matter whether they are affiliated with the Guerilla Skeptics. If there are particular editors with issues, let's discuss those. If appropriate, blocks or topic bans etc. can be doled out. If there aren't behavioural problems, speculation as to whether or not users are affiliated with some group of editors—or speculation about their motives—is unhelpful and serves only to distract editors from trying to find consensus on the talk page. My suggestion was simply that: we clear the behavioural back-and-forth off the talk page and invite wider participation from the Wikipedia community on the content changes. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tumbleman you have admitted you have no problem with some skeptical sources on the article (this is good) but then you want to make it "neutral" by adding fringe sources as well to giving Sheldrake a "fair unbiased" hearing. This doesn't work because the majority of sources criticize Sheldrake's ideas as pseudoscience, it is not possible for an entirely "neutral" balance when it comes to fringe and pseudoscience topics because the scientific community reject them. I have not come across a single scientific reference that has supported Sheldrake's work, only parapsychologists and fringe proponents do. It's dangerous to be promoting pseudoscience, and it has no place on Wikipedia which receives millions of views everyday. I'm no expert on all of Wikipedia policies (so do feel free to have a go at me If I have got it wrong) and am rather new here myself but what I do know is that Wikipedia does not support pseudoscience (that is 100% clear and something that "psychics" like Craig Weiler seem to constantly ignore). There is over-whelming reliable sources that have criticized Sheldrake's psychic ideas as pseudoscience and there is no reason they should be ignored, removed from the article or toned-down. The idea of a "balance" when 99% of the scientific references criticize Sheldrake's views as pseudoscience is indeed quite mad. There's no scientific evidence psychic powers exist and there's no reason why pseudoscience should be supported on Wikipedia. Weiler talks about SGerbic breaking Wikipedia policies but he's wrong it's himself breaking policies by inserting pseudoscience on Wikipedia and stirring up conspiracy theories. I personally don't want to get involved in debating this issue anymore. I will look into other articles and stay away from the Sheldrake one. Good luck with your editing and the outcome of all this. Dan skeptic (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan skeptic, I think some of the confusion is that this article is a biography, not an article elaborating his theories (which should have their own article, if they are notable). A BLP discusses their early life, education, early career, later career, major contributions to their field, possibly a list of their publications. If some of the subject's work is controversial, that can be noted. But a BLP is not the appropriate place to have a debate about science vs. pseudoscience.
    It is, above all, a biography not an article about an idea, practice or theory. As far as I see it WP:FRINGE is only relevant when there is a discussion about the reception of Sheldrake's work (was it well-received, not well-received, what criticism did it face, etc.). This is a small section of a BLP. A BLP is mostly about the life and contributions of the person its about. So, I think WP:BLP and WP:NPOV hold sway here with WP:FRINGE only applying to a section devoted to criticism of his work.
    This is not an unusual case. There are also sorts of controversial figures (justly or unfairly) on Wikipedia and BLP and NPOV applies to controversial journalists, scientists, bloggers, scholars, radio hosts, war criminals, celebrities, criminals, etc. It's only incidental that Sheldrake happens to work in an area that is judged by some to be "fringe". He should be treated fairly even if some Editors object to his ideas. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the best explanation of this concept I've yet read. Skeptics, please read what Liz wrote. She's right. Thank you, Liz. David in DC (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When an idea only has one significant proponent often it is not independently notable and it is placed in the biography. So no I disagree that Biographies don't cover theories, they clearly do, and the Sheldrake article clearly covers much about his "Morphic Resonance". Treating a viewpoint fairly means putting it into context with respect to the mainstream, and assigning weight via WP:NPOV etc. It means that we don't write Hagiographies. All biographies cover peoples work, and so does Sheldrakes. What the article does is put his views into context. There are no BLP violations in that article, and it can not be a BLP violation to say an idea is rejected or discredited if the sources do. I see no discernible efforts by anyone to put BLP violations into the article about Sheldrake, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how I read it at the moment. I agree that biographies can include a person's theories, and I agree that we must put those views into context. The WP:BLP problems I see with the current edit[78] are (1) Neither of the two references provided support the pejorative and contentious epithet "fringe scientist".[79] contrary to WP:BLP (b) Sheldrake has been denied his PH.D doctorate in biochemstry, whereas his doctorate is clearly acknowledged on the University of Cambridge website as recent as last year.[80] I have no problems with the appropriate part of his biography noting that some consider his theories pseudoscience, wrong (or however they are described by reliable sources) and that they consider his field of research to be in parapsychology. --Iantresman (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's nuts, that he is not credited with the Ph.D. he earned. Education is a basic part of biographies, even critical ones. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the article the PhD clearly is mentioned and it was also when Ian wrote his comment: [81]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tom Morris - here you and I have perfect agreement. The Tumbleman (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dan skeptic I suggest using fringe sources, really? Can you cite an example where I do this? Please go to my sandbox, look at my edit, and HELP me identify a fringe source because if there is one in there, I want it out too. Also, what is a 'fringe' source anyway? can you define it rationally here to the community so we understand what you mean?

    As to sheldrake being a pseudoscientist. Well there are about two or three opinions that he is in the sources on the page that feel very passionately that he is. THOSE ARE OPINIONS, they are not facts. It is important to the page that we SHOW those opinions, YES, but not as fACTS. For it to be a fact, we have to have a source that is from a scientific journal that shows a scientific consensus, through the process of science, that MR is pseudoscience. There is no 'closure' on MR being pseudoscience. I am not seeing that reference. I DO see academic journals however talking about how sheldrake's ideas are treated by *some* scientists and question the issue of bias in those attacks. But there is also a sourced opinion of a prominent mainstream scientist who does not think it is pseudoscience. Actually there is a BOOK written by a prominent scientist in discussion with 12 other scientists about sheldrakes ideas. Some of them think MR is quite valid, some do not. [^ ^ Durr, Hans-Peter;, Gottwald, Franz-Leo (1999). Rupert Sheldrake in der Diskussion. Das Wagnis einer neuen Wissenschaft des Lebens [Gebundene Ausgabe]. Berlin: Fischer Scherz. ISBN 9783502191698.] How can we as wiki editors tell the difference? We should NOT EVEN TRY. We should not take sides. I believe very strongly in editing without bias, neutrality, and common sense. I ask that you join me in reaching a rational consensus. If my POV does not maintain consistency with your or any other editors rebuttals, then I will be the first to admit it. However if my argument maintains consistency, is based on common sense, is in the spirit of WP guidelines, then yes I expect a rational consensus to be based around rationality, logical consistency, a NPOV, and common sense. That seems like a reasonable approach, yes? The Tumbleman (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't have said it better myself. As I recently mentioned on talk:sheldrake, it is worth comparing the tone of contentious articles between Wikipedia and encyclopaedias such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, and articles on parapsychology and ESP. The difference is dramatic. Even the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (publ. 2000), has a more encyclopedic tone, even in its article on Sheldrake. --Iantresman (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising. Wikipedia allows anyone with an Internet connection to use this website to promote their pet pseudoscientific belief (per Rule #10). Britannica doesn't. Our articles on obscure fringe science (and fringe figures) are generally written as a tug-of-war between True Believers and determined skeptics. That polarization tends to drive away the sorts of people who would write good encyclopedic prose. MastCell Talk 18:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has always sided with the "determined skeptics", which is as bad as "True Believers" pushing only their view. The idea of an article "promoting" any viewpoint is a abhorrent to many editors. --Iantresman (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, now. I think you're exaggerating. The True Believers catch a break every now and then. After all, you were unbanned. MastCell Talk 21:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As an atheist with a scientific background I find your label pejorative, and inappropriate per WP:CIVIL. --Iantresman (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Iantresman, in his editing philosophy, favors challenges to standard knowledge, which he sometimes terms "dogma" [78], his personal website, a site devoted to scientific anomalies" WP:ARB/PS, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) I disagree with that description, and it is not supported by the sources (I'm interested in murder mysteries, but that doesn't mean I condone them) (2) Regardless of what I may or may not believe, does not mean that editors are absolved from being civil, per WP:IUC (3) Mentioning website I create on behalf of other people contravenes WP:PRIVACY and using it "as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their view" contravenes WP:WIAPA. --Iantresman (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you accusing ArbCom (who I quoted) of invading your privacy? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    is this issue being addressed?

    (talk) I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong area. I was hoping this would open the page up to the wiki community. The edit warring is getting worse. editors with a clear bias are making changes with no clear consensus, edit war if their changes are reverted, and this isn't getting anywhere. it's just turning into this side vs that side edit war. I have never seen anything like this. I'm not sure the right steps to get this attention, please advise if you can. thanks for your work on the page. The Tumbleman (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The Tumbleman, please understand, it's unlikely that uninvolved Admins are going to want to wade through the vast amount of debate on this Talk Page. You might get a better response if you
    1. Provide diffs on problems edits that you see (that is, not just name names but point out instances of problems)
    2. State what actions you would like an uninvolved Admin to take
    Admins, like Editors are volunteers who have demands on their time. If you can fairly summarize what a) what the problem is and b) what solution you want, it's more likely that they will pay attention to your request for assistance. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Tumbleman does a good job of acting the neutral onlooker but be aware that he has just been blocked for a week due to sock puppetry on the Sheldrake page, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig Weiler

    Craig Weiler (talk · contribs) publishing more conspiracy theories and advertising/encouraging people to get involved in the Sheldrake article on his blog [82] and forums [83] is this not against Wikipedia rules? WP:MEAT? Dan skeptic (talk) 02:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, I think trying to stoke further controversy off wiki as he is doing is only causing further issues and compounding the difficult to getting consensus by encouraging WP:MEAT puppetry (particularly when his claims involve conspiracy theories). I note that the article is under discretionary sanctions through WP:ARB/PS. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this is the paragraph from my blog post that you're referring to:
    "This means that Wikipedia is aware that a skeptical organization is editing their site against their rules, but have taken no action against them. They haven’t even bothered to ban the organizer. If that’s the case then the only solution would be to have a similarly secretive organization in opposition to them. Then two opposing ideologue groups would be battling for all of the alternative pages on Wikipedia. Wouldn’t that be lovely? I don’t think so, personally. It has happened in other areas of Wikipedia and the results aren’t pretty. No one wants Wikipedia to be the place where objectivity goes to die. Yet what is the alternative?"
    This is a rhetorical question demonstrating the problem of having an organization of ideologues on Wikipedia. It invites opposition from other ideologues which creates an ideologue war which is harmful to Wikipedia. It is a call for Wikipedia to do something about their ideologue skeptic problem. (There is a difference between a skeptic and an ideologue skeptic.) I am not inviting other editors into the fray. Frankly the talk page is quite chaotic enough thank you very much.Craig Weiler (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, this seems pretty thin grounds for complaint. I can't help speculating this might be part of a campaign by certain editors on the Sheldrake article to try to ban people who disagree with them on whatever grounds they can cook up. Who will be next? 149.241.210.195 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    149.241.210.195 They've somehow managed to get [Tumbleman banned] for a week for sockpuppetry. It's completely bogus. He doesn't need a sockpuppet. The way we're being attacked is incredibly bad behavior.

    They won't come to a consensus on anything. I started a section to deal with just one citation that I thought needed to be removed. That's why they're trying to ban me. The section I created is filled with opinion, but not one comment from them has actually addressed the points I made.Craig Weiler (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    He got blocked because he was creating multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman and pretending they were different people. The people who make the judgements look at the technical details (WP:CHECKUSER). The citation you are trying to remove does not need to be removed and is perfectly relevant as is self evident from looking at it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Craig, you have invited your "psychic" buddies to join Wikipedia and delete skeptical sources, as seen here [84], one of these users says he is going to join Wikipedia and delete skeptical sources on purpose. Your friend from that link (who has just turned up on the Sheldrake article inserting pseudoscience) ECCarb (talk · contribs) has now been deleting skeptical references on the John Lorber article, which he said he was going to do on that forum post. You are encouraging pseudoscience promoters to join Wikipedia Craig and start deleting sources, this is not acceptable behavior. This is clearly against Wikipedia rules. You talk about harming Wikipedia but it is yourself doing this and from your track record of [85] it's seems you have no interest in stopping. Dan skeptic (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan skepticOn my blog I am talking about what is happening on the Rupert Sheldrake Biography page. What other people choose to do after they read those articles is their own business. I am not actively soliciting people to participate. If this person has gone over to a different Wikipedia page, then I can hardly be accused bringing people in to support me on the Sheldrake article. I also don't control who reads my blog and as you've just demonstrated it is read by skeptics and proponents alike. My blog could just as easily attract more skeptics to the page.
    OMG!!! YOU'RE QUOTING RATIONAL WIKI!!!! ROFL, LMAO!!! (Ir)RationalWiki is not a credible source of information and one only has to refer to my "biography" there to see that. They accuse me of trolling. -Using my real name!- How hilarious is that?Craig Weiler (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Brahma Kumaris: Protecting individual privacy

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

    Resolved
     – Januaryth18th blocked indefinitely

    I'm writing in relation to concerns about my privacy, particularly as the advocacy group presently WP:owning this article has a track record on Wiki for transgressing normal social boundaries around privacy. When I first started editing I didn't know this history and had been a bit cavalier about my privacy. I consider reporting this incident the best way to 'nip this in the bud'. At the very least now that it's reported, the identity involved - which I neither confirm nor deny to be my own - shouldn't get bad mouthed across the advocacy groups website, as that would obviously link them to this report. The incident is as follows:

    1. Editor Januarythe18th stated that danh108 is a self-disclosed sevadhari (servant) of the religion
    2. Knowing I have never made such a disclosure on Wikipedia I caution Januarythe18th about this: "January, you state I'm a self disclosed sevadhari. I have never made such a disclosure on Wiki. If you are relying on a LinkedIn profile as the source of your claim I would remind you of WP:Privacy, in particular: Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment."
    3. In response to this Januarythe18th then states publicly how to search and find this linkedIn profile that he has been using to source comments on Wikipedia, in what reads like retribution for me mentioning the name of the advocacy groups ringleader (which was legitimate because it was in the context of that individual as a respondent in a domain name dispute, and fixing a mis-statement of the reference):
    "As someone who has persistently attempting to speculate and identify me, published real names on both talk pages and the mainspace, and forced responsibility for others actions upon me, for which you have no evidence, you have no grounds to complain if information you have made public about yourself is referred to. (my emphasis) i.e. "because of what you did in the past, I'm allowed to break the rules" (my quote marks).
    Then January Guides how others can find this identity: "For the record, I Googled "Brahma Kumari Sevadhari" to gain some references and your name comes up on the first page several times. You made it public domain."
    This completely exposes this identity as only one profile comes up, with all personal information. Januarythe18th is experienced with IT and Wikipedia, and is fully aware of this.
    In my view this is a surreptitious outing in retribution for a legitimate reference to the respondent in a domain name dispute who happens to be Januarythe18th's leader. I note the earlier admin finding that Januarythe18th is a follower/fan of the advocacy group.
    There is also a raft of ongoing behavioural concerns [86][87]with this editor.

    Thank you for your help. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you provide a diff for the Google comment?--v/r - TP 18:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the diff, thank you Danh108 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That diff has since been oversighted, along with a pile of other things. I don't think we can make a sensible decision when we can't see the evidence. However, oversighters can still see it, and we really should trust their judgement, so I've asked User:Daniel Case to come here and give his opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have viewed it and I would agree with danh108's characterization of it as indirect outing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I also saw the diff earlier today, and it was at least a threat of outing, it provided a specific Google search which, the poster claimed, yielded the name of an editor. Assuming the claim was correct, it was a form of outing IMO. I didn't have time to follow up properly earlier although i would have posted had I known oversight was in process, DES (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working this case more of the evening and getting OS's opinion on the outing. I think given Januarythe18th's purposefully indirect outing and their combative behavior which Danh108 describes above but which only scratches the surface of Jan18th behavior, a block is warranted here.--v/r - TP 02:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what's been said here, including the oversighter's opinion from just looking at it (not dismissing your memory, DES, but simple human forgetfulness makes me want someone who's looked at something eight minutes ago even when someone else has looked at it eight hours ago), I've indefinitely blocked Januarythe18th. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. TParis, you are spot on about this incident only scratching the surface, but now fully resolved. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:HolfordBot is malfunctioning

    Not an authorized bot, but, not the claimed bot owner either. Socks and bots do not mix ES&L 11:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This bot has just notified me that I putted a spam external link on an article. When I saw the message, I said to myself that there is got to be some kind of mistake, I did not add a external link to anything, not even a spam one. I think something is wrong with this bot, and really needs to be fixed, because I felt offended when someone send me something like this when I didn't even do anything like that before, and never will. The worst part is that the bot didn't even tell me where I putted the "spam external link". --Blurred Lines 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Before you deleted the user page, it claimed to be a bot of User:Ryulong, User:Saolco claimed to be an alternate account, so probably the same vandal.Martin451 16:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for giving me an excuse--I'm going to go and block Ryulong indefinitely, bwuhaha. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Robertpattinsons (Persistent spam/promotion, referred here by AIV)

    Done via SPI as originally advised ES&L 11:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Referred to AN/I by AIV. Full AIV thread can be seen at [[88]]. I believe this should be AIV, but it was declined and I was referred here.

    User:Robertpattinsons appears to be a spam/promotion only account. All contributions appear to follow a promotion pattern with three distinct periods of activity. The first period of activity, the user spent time adding Playstation store links to the External Links section of video game articles, all of which were reverted. In the second period of activity, the user spent time adding a personal blog that the user authored as a reliable source to video game articles. These were reverted by myself following a discussion at WP:VG/S. In the third period of activity, the user became involved in promoting health product sites, on various articles as well as the user's own page. The user's page contains many barn stars that do not appear legit, but I don't know if any policy or essay covers that.

    This report is primarily meant to deal with the persistent pattern of promotion/spam, however as a secondary note the user may also have at least one sock, LissaCoffey, who's only contribution include usage of a similar userpage (Deleted by an admin as COPYVIO) and posting a barn star to the primary's talk page. At various points, the user claims LissaCoffey as their wife, but also claims to be the CNN iReporter by the same name [[89]]. An earlier userpage revision claimed to be a different iReporter. [[90]] -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, the barnstars and userboxes on Robertpattinsons's user page seem to have been copied from the user page of Alphathon. Deor (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for finding that, I suspected it was copied from somewhere but couldn't find the source user when I first looked into reporting. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say all the userpage shenanigans are to give the impression that he is a legitimate Wikipedian. That he is not. Take a look in the bottom right corner of reviews.contently.com -- it shows what this is really about. Might be worth a checkuser to see how many more of these fake Wikipedians there are. MER-C 11:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the next step? What needs done? -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Pulled back from archive... -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You were advised to have a checkuser become involved ... unfortunately, that means WP:SPI ES&L 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I've requested it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robertpattinsons. -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the checkuser results, the pattern of spamming and the completely made-up user page of RP I've indef blocked both User:Robertpattinsons and User:LissaCoffey. See more explanation at the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:174.89.44.235

    Wittle bitty bwock ES&L 11:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user 174.89.44.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly adding unreferenced information on people's nationality (essentially, "X's parents were Jewish"), despite warnings. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    They've stopped now. I'll monitor the IP to ensure they don't start up again. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They did indeed resume so I have blocked the IP for a short bit.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Already blocked ES&L 11:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See the edit summary here. Nymf (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked. GiantSnowman 18:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "UK" in articles about British subjects

    I don't want to involve other editors just yet because I'm not sure they are doing anything wrong, but is it now policy to remove the term "UK" from all British place names? For example, do we have to say "Dover, Kent, England" with "Dover, Kent, England, UK" being forbidden? I'm not sure where I could find the discussion that led to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you discussed it with the editors involved? That's generally the best first step to take. If you have done so and are still not satisfied, you should probably name the other editors, because I believe there are some outstanding topic bans on making edits such as that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't discussed it with him yet but I think I will. The editor in question is a single-purpose editor, doing nothing but systematically removing "UK" from place names in England. He specifically ignores Scottish and Welsh place names, leaving the "UK" in place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nation-states should pretty much always be mentioned in intros or wherever a locality is mentioned. The UK is different, since "England", "Scotland", "Wales", and "Northern Ireland" are just as recognizable in English (and at least in the case of England, unfortunately interchangeable) as is "United Kingdom", so I'd suggest that we remove "UK" from your sample sentence. However, someone who removes it after "England" but not after "Scotland" might well be here for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia; you should still talk with that person, but don't be surprised if you find that he's causing problems. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note on his talk page so we'll see what happens. He makes no other edits but to remove "UK" from everywhere, and only from English place names. These country names are recognisable to us, but there are certainly a lot of people in the world who don't know that England, Scotland etc are part of the UK. But I'm mostly concerned with the sheer number and extremely narrow scope of his edits. This kind of behaviour on Irish-related articles gets you a block toute-suite, so I'm not really sure why this should be any different. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This was also raised at BLPN at the same time, why is Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs) FORUMSHOPPING? GiantSnowman 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I had to look that up, I had no idea it was discouraged. I simply wanted as many opinions as possible, and my question(s) are neutrally worded. I'm sure you are assuming good faith on my part, GiantSnowman (talk · contribs). You'll also note that I am not purveying any particular line, so "shopping around for the answers I want" hardly applies. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just surprised that a veteran editor, such as yourself, was unaware of such an important policy. GiantSnowman 20:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you learn something new every day. I'm not someone who fraternises these boards very often, in fact it was my first time on BLPN. I'd appreciate your general opinion on single-purpose accounts with the editing style as I outlined above. I have discovered that there's no guideline on the actual content of the edits, so that bothers me less, and you've given me your take on the "UK" thing elsewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Any SPA who doesn't explain what they are doing raises eyebrows, of course it does. Have you tried engaging with this editor? GiantSnowman 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, and he is perfectly civil. He didn't respond with much detail on why he was doing it though, so I have asked for more clarity. He doesn't have to answer that question, I guess, but I wouldn't mind knowing. I probably should have asked him before coming here, but I didn't really know if what he was doing was the result of a new directive or something and I didn't want to appear too accusatory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been pointed out elsehwere, WP is not a postal envelope, and moving from most specific in a slavish formula up to least specific is very often unnecessary and cluttered. You could add "European Union", too, but that would irritate readers and crowd the infobox even more. I struggle to know why "Dover, UK" isn't quite enough. English counties are of minor information-value in modern times. Tony (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate discussions

    Discussion has been started on two pages: this and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#UK in BLP articles. I suggest merging them and moving to somewhere more suitable, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or Template:Infobox person. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm totally fine with that, I didn't expect both to end up as full discussions, and I didn't know you weren't supposed to use two boards at once. Apologies for that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Summary violation and wrong editor Copperchloride blocked

    (youtube videos cannot be provided as citations and photos of terrorists are not to be uploaded) this edit was rightly reverted by Copperchroide as Vandalism . Can such edit summary be removed as ths violates WP:BLP and WP:terrorist in the Seeman (director)|Seeman]] article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seeman_%28director%29&diff=576182396&oldid=576181823

    Further a image removed without a proper edit summary stating it was copyright and was reverted and a user was blocked for it. Cut paste from the editor page. 1. I had only reverted his edits twice. And I have clearly explained why both stand justified. How does my case constitute edit warring for which I have been blocked?

    2. The copyrighted image was on both Commons(and on another article Naam Tamilar Katchi for over a year or more since the last revision today), NOWHERE HAD I RE-INSERTED IT AFTER SOMEBODY LIKE User:SpacemanSpiff REMOVED IT AFTER DULY EXPLAINING EVERYTHING. Arlok simply blanked just about everything he pleased. It would be pretty much obvious to you. So the real reason of my block stands unclear.122.166.246.46 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ...you do realise that even if you have been wrongly blocked, evading it will only hurt, right? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "Youtube videos cannot be provided as citations..." I could be wrong, but I think this is incorrect. I don't think there is an all out ban on YouTube citations.--Rockfang (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    YouTube videos may not be used as citations — in most situations. Lots of YouTube videos are copyright violations, and very few YouTube videos fit our definition of "reliable source", so most YouTube videos may not be used as citations except in statements about themselves; even then it's normally a bad idea, since the opinion of some random video uploader normally isn't relevant to the subject of the article. However, when a video consists of documentation from a reliable source, and when the video was uploaded by the copyright holder or by someone authorized by the copyright holder, we may use it as a citation. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:YOUTUBE for a clearer statement of this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for using vandalism in edit summary .Clearly using Terrorist in eidt summary is vandalism

    Blocking admin states n the copyvio, I see that you were unaware of the copyright problem at the time, and so it is not a legitimate reason for a block. Just to clarify I am not the Editor Copperchloride.I am from Bangalore .I used edit only in Tamil Wikipedia and only read English Wikipedia. பெங்களூர் நாகேஷ் — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    PinkAmpersand and 122.166.246.46 are right. Calling someone in the Edit Summary as Terrorist might have provoked him/her to call the whole edit as Vandalism. For me Great Emperor Ashoka is one of the Worst Terrorists with his Conquest of Kalinga where he was walking through the grounds of Kalinga after his conquest, rejoicing in his victory, he was moved by the number of bodies strewn there and the wails of the kith and kin of the dead. But I wonder how many others will agree with me calling him as a Terrorist. So it is better to avoid these branding and provoke others emotions on the first place. I too don't see any legitimate reason for the block.Shivaass (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to ask the blocking admin. Oh, wait, that's me. I admit that I was wrong on the copyright violation, and have stated so on CuCl's talk page. I'll also publicly apologize here, since I do now realize that CuCl would not have known at the time of his/her revert that he was reinserting a copyvio, since that was discovered afterward.
    Nonetheless, the other reasons for the block stand. Please understand that this is not even close to the first time CuCl has encountered this problem: that is, CuCl has regularly labelled editors that he is reverting as vandals, despite having been told a number of times that vandal has a very strict definition here and that using the term in appropriately is a personal attack. And for those that haven't looked clearly at it, please note that POV-pushing is explicitly listed as not vandalism. In this case, CuCl's revert may have been appropriate, but the regular NPAs have to stop. I don't know how to get the user to realize that they are unacceptable without this action. I'm hoping that CuCl will actually try to understand the relevant policy and change her/his tone. There are also borderline EW concerns here, but the NPA is the one that really prompted the block rather than just a warning from me. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qwyrxian: I have no clue whether or not you made a good block, as I haven't looked into it. All I see is that there's an edit that calls a living person a terrorist, and you are now the fourth admin to comment here without doing a fucking thing about it. This borders on dereliction of duty. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nuked the edit summary in question, let me know if you see anything else that needs to be deleted from the history. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, you are correct PinkAmpersand that I should have paid more attention to that underlying concern rather than only the block. Thanks Mark Arsten for taking care of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Sorry if I lost my temper for a moment there. For the record, I thank SpacemanSpiff for the explanation below, but still think the RevDel was necessary, as if all of us could misunderstand it, so could others. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Just before any further misinterpretations, the edit summary with "terrorist" refers to the now deleted image of Velupillai Prabhakaran which was in the article, not of Seeman. The issue here is the Arlok identified some problems with the article (on my talk page) which were clear BLP violations. Copperchloride was clearly edit warring and reinserting some dubious statements which were BLP violations back in the article. The edit summary of Arlok wasn't any good, and neither was his hyperbolic statement on my talk page, but that was not vandalism and any editor in good standing should understand that a statement such as

    He is a also a massive sympathizer of the Sri Lankan Tamil Cause and is a noteworthy acquaintance of Velupillai Prabhakaran the leader of the founder and the leader of the Tamil Tigers Movement in Sri Lanka, being one of the very few persons from India to have convened with him directly.

    when sourced to this is nothing but a BLP vio per their statement that members post links to discuss and more importantly the source doesn't even state that he's connected to Prabhakaran. This is a case of a clear cut BLP vio that the original editor, a newbie, was removing but unable to explain himself. As far as CopperChloride, calling removal of BLP vios as vandalism is clearly not helpful. This is not the case of a wrong editor being blocked, you now have the blocked editor who was reinserting BLP vios now socking at ANI; it's just that we have a great tolerance for wikilawyers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't understand whom SpacemanSpiff accuses as shocking. But 122.166.246.46 is not Copperchloride, he is someone else. Better we should go for a CU. And if there was a BLP issue, that should have been told in advance.Shivaass (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW: Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony. This is what was lacking.Shivaass (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not Cooperchloride .Please every IP editing is ANI is not socking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to say ‘’’SpacemanSpiff’’’ statement totally inaccurate

    The Image deleted had Seeman’s picture’s along with that of VP and the term ‘’’Terrorist’’’ clearly implies Seeman as well. A clear BLP violation and Arlok5 has been warned for his edit in the Siddharth Mallya article and he was clearly POV pushing. WP:AGF is double edged Arlok5 did not provide a valid Edit summary and also used ‘’’Terrorist’’’ in edit summary As per WP:Revert A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. Copperchroide failed to assume good faith and used the term vandal. This cannot be called edit warring as one needs to told clearly why he /she is being reverted as per WP:revert. The article was already in a bad shape with BLP issues even before these 2 started to edit the page.Arlok5 did not remove He is a also a massive sympathizer of the Sri Lankan Tamil Cause comment above even in his last edit. to say he was removing BLP violations and CC was stopping it is totally false. As Qwyrxian notes he was POV pushing. Further that comment can be cited with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, let me clarify against User:SpacemanSpiff's assumptions, that I have neither initiated this discussion nor been aware of it until I was informed today morning. As for the block, I have done a heck lot of talking already on my talk page, but since it ran out after two days, I have moved on and resumed editing. As for the real dispute of course which I have extensively clarified my point in my talk page, User Arlok was obviously not just removing the portion which would have constituted the BLP violation(I doubt whether he'd probably even be aware of what it is as SpacemanSpiff tries to defend him), he eventually removed just about everything I had inserted. His only justification is that the content(and he refers to the person as well) being 'against the Union of India' apart from the absurd edit summaries he had given before. Please go through this as well. Additionally, his edits include 1 and 2 which clearly, imo constitutes vandalism since he had inserted pure nonsense into the wiki for the same reasons he had blanked mine. And that was when I reverted to a previous revision and my edit summary being: "Undo vandalism. POV Pushing.". The next time I checked into Wiki, I had a block in place. Although I have been involved in one or two earlier cases of edit warring in which User:Qwyrxian(in which case, the other editor too had conveniently coined Vandalism being the reason for reverting) had mediated, this incident was no intention to edit war or to insert violating content in.--CuCl2 (talk . contr . mail) 13:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent contributions by User:Claritas

    There doesn't appear to be anything to do here, and the discussion is now generating more heat than light. Claritas does not have an editing restriction listed at WP:RESTRICT. A discussion of the user's conduct should probably move to WP:RFC/U if anyone wishes to take it further. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If you're unfamiliar with Claritas' history, this discussion will probably tell you everything you need to know. Please note that having been denied an account rename in that discussion, Claritas is now using a misleading signature. On reviewing the Claritas account's recent contributions, I'm concerned that contrary to everything said during their second chance negotiations and all the promises made to Arbcom during the discussion I already linked, the account is still only here to remove material on fictional characters. But in fairness, some time has elapsed and there are, strictly speaking, no formal editing restrictions on the account. What do we think?—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That diff is from the end of last year; I've read and reread your statement, but I'm not clear how it's relevant. Yes, he's filing AFDs lately, but we don't block people purely because they broke promises that they've made in the past — we block people when they violate conditions for unblocks, but unless I've overlooked something, the no-XFDs thing wasn't an unblock condition. Meanwhile, what's wrong with the signature that he's used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Soth? "Simone (Claritas)" isn't deceptive, and we've long permitted signatures that don't match the username; for example, User:Bkonrad signs everything as "older ≠ wiser", but there's nothing wrong with it, and I've never heard anyone complain at him about it. There's no User:Simone (Claritas), and as User:Simone's made exactly 53 edits in the last six years, pretty much nobody's going to know that such a user even exists, let alone think that Claritas is Simone. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As some of you know I take a hard line on sock masters and I would not have unbanned this one. I agree with S Marshall that the edge is being played by this user in the area of name change and AfD participation. At best this is in remarkably poor taste, given the past ban, and at worst is actionable due to the editor's seeming continued fixation on removing material in an area already abused. And while it is true that the volume is not massive, S Marshall's concerns are well-founded. Jusdafax 00:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (In reply to Nyttend) You're right that strictly speaking, the no-XFD thing wasn't an unblock condition. However, I think that this diff is relevant. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the community relied on Claritas' promise to stay away from AfD when deciding to grant the unblock. As far as the misleading signature is concerned, I agree with you about the Lord Soth AfD, but my concern is about this one: isn't this an attempted end-run around the consensus not to allow an account rename?—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you've participated in this discussion, you have almost no chance of knowing that there's a User:Simone, so I don't think it's confusing or otherwise inappropriate. But then, you allege that he's broken a promise that was part of an unblock discussion. Could you provide a diff or other link? I would be likely to change my mind if given such a link. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, never mind; I missed the "this diff" link. I'd still like to see a link to the discussion, but this is suddenly substantially more serious and substantially more likely to result in a reblock. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I linked the relevant discussion in my first post. That's all there was; it was archived after that. I have not asked for a re-block and I think a re-block would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I'm looking for a consensus about whether Claritas should be participating in fictional character AfDs without writing any content, and for a consensus that Claritas should use a signature that clearly identifies the account, and for Claritas to be formally advised of these consensuses going forward.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 10 October 2013
    I'm confused. Looks to me as if NewYorkBrad's referring to a community unblock discussion; did I misread something? Do we have community unblock discussions at the clarification and amendments page? Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you're suggesting a topic ban from fictional character AfDs and an editing restriction to use a signature containing their name. I guess the question becomes: what evidence of recent problems is there? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything wrong with the XfD nominations themselves? That is, if it was anyone else nominating these articles for deletion with the same rationales, would there be a problem? No. Since Claritas is not under any editing restrictions, and is not acting disruptively in any way, this is a frivolous complaint best summed up as WP:IDONTLIKECLARITAS. Reyk YO! 00:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If I understand rightly, the thing is that the nominations are somewhat disruptive and that Claritas essentially agreed to a self-ban from XFDs. Put those two together, and Claritas might be blockable for a combination of disruption and violating an unblock condition. More evidence is needed before I solidly say anything. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not my position that Claritas should be blocked. The unban discussion is not very illuminating but here it is.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the link — I simply didn't know where to find it; I wasn't trying to force you to prove something. I misunderstood and thought you meant that the XFDs thing was part of the unblock discussion, rather than being simply something that he said. I now agree that a block wouldn't help now. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it was part of the unban discussion and I agree with Newyorkbrad that it clearly influenced the participants in that discussion. I think that Claritas is under a de facto topic ban from AfDs concerning fictional characters. But it's not the kind of crystal clear case that should lead to an immediate block because Claritas has never been notified of any editing restrictions.—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno. You can't just say to someone "You said X, and a year later you changed your mind. You haven't caused any trouble for anyone in that year, and X isn't actually an editing restriction, but I wish it was and so I will behave as though it is. Oh, and I don't like your sig." Reyk YO! 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reyk, what's true is that you like and support Claritas. You've said as much before. I don't; I'll freely admit to disliking accounts that behave like that. And I think that when people have been denied renames, it's because users need to be view their edits in the light of their history and reputation.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps. But we both know you'd never have brought this here if Claritas was inclusionist-leaning, so I think that works both ways. You'll find my "support", as you call it, is not unqualified; I did not support all of Claritas's unblock requests and I have criticised much of their past behaviour. Go back and check if you don't believe me. The facts remain: Claritas has not disrupted anything for almost a year after being unblocked. There is no requirement that signatures match user names, so long as they link back to the user page- which this one does. There are no editing restrictions, so as far as I am concerned Claritas has all the same editing rights as everyone else, which includes participating in AfDs and, yes, even changing your mind about things. Reyk YO! 01:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wait, what? I don't think that's fair. I don't have a record of seeking sanctions against anyone, deletionist or not. I have very few edits to this page or to any other of the drama boards.—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're essentially accusing me of excusing Claritas's bad behaviour (for which you've shown no evidence) just because I like Claritas. Yet if I suggest the converse, that you are interpreting completely benign things Claritas does as disruptive based on your personal dislike, and that you wouldn't see the actions of someone you agree with in the same way, somehow that's unfair? Reyk YO! 04:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually the sequence of events was:- First, you accused me of wanting Claritas blocked because, you allege, I don't like them. (This was your very first post in this thread.) I answered by saying I don't want Claritas blocked and you do like Claritas. Then you said if Claritas was an inclusionist then I wouldn't be here. I replied that that's not fair and there's no basis for saying it, because I've never started a thread on AN/I for this purpose before in all my years of editing Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, regardless, it looks like you're asking for a topic ban from fictional character AfDs and an editing restriction about their (non-standard but not problematic by itself) sig. We can talk about influences and guess at people's motivations, but it looks like there was no actual restriction from AfDs placed or agreed-to, and nobody in the unblock thread even mentions such a restriction, so IMO arguing that he violated some kind of unspoken unblock conditions is a non-starter, and we would need evidence of recent problems to contemplate those sanctions. If "a consensus about whether Claritas should be participating in fictional character AfDs without writing any content, and for a consensus that Claritas should use a signature that clearly identifies the account, and for Claritas to be formally advised of these consensuses going forward" somehow isn't a topic ban, well, that doesn't need to be on ANI. Start a RFC/U or something, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, here's the deal. If Claritas wants to challenge articles at AFD, that's his prerogative. If the challenged subjects pass GNG or a special guideline, they will survive. If not, they will go. That's the way AfD works. My experience is that these challenges are mostly with merit — they aren't off the wall. Are they annoying? Yes, if one is an affected content creator, sure. Are they necessary? Mostly probably not. But there are deletionist editors who hate "County X-Country Y Relations" articles and editors who hate articles about pop songs, or small bands, or small companies, or politicians, or highways, or whatever. They make their challenges and they either succeed or fail at AfD on their merits. Claritas is no different. As a self-described inclusionist, I defend his right to be a deletionist. The rule of law does prevail at AfD — it is probably the most consistent and "just" aspect of the entire Wikipedia project. Just leave Claritas the hell alone is my advice. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I defend anyone's rights to be a deletionist, but I think when >90% of someone's contributions are to AfD and basically arguing with others, then it could be argued that this is a battleground mentality, and that wikipedia isn't a punching bag-type therapy where one can make oneself feel better by taking it out on others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: What percentage of the nominations end up in deletions? There is a big difference between nominating lots of articles that most people agree should be deleted and nominating lots of articles that most people agree should be kept. --06:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    Judging from this, the majority end up as delete or merge. Reyk YO! 06:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While his general AfD percentage could appear not so catastrophic, you cannot put on the same plane delete and merge outcomes. Tecnically an AfD discussion which ends in a merge outcome should be considered for keeping, not for deleting the article's contens. And I also should note that this year (better, this week) he nominated 4 articles for deletion, and none of them is/is going to be deleted. If you call for stats, you need to analyze them more carefully. Cavarrone 08:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. Claritas's AfD nominations are based on the claim that the articles would not be notable, and per WP:FAILN and WP:ATD-M, a merge is a valid alternative to deletion in case of non-notability. That some of the AfDs resulted in merge outcomes only means consensus essentially validated the AfD rationales (ie it's not "keep"), as Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion. I !voted "merge" in some of Claritas' AfDs, I fully support their rationale and reject any reinterpretation of my comments as meaning "keep" in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (In reply to Carrite) It's not his prerogative. This is a user who was site-banned for serial sockpuppetry in fictional-character related AfDs. The user came back on the strength of a promise to stop socking and start writing content. The user then asked for a rename and clean start, and was denied it and told not to start any AfDs for six months. After making no contributions at all for more than six months, the user's come back and done nothing but participate in fictional-character-related deletion discussions. My position is that while in the normal course everyone's entitled to participate in AfD, Claritas has forfeited that entitlement by abusing it and repeating the behaviour they promised not to repeat as part of their unban negotiations.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without taking sides, as it were, one could see being told "don't do xFDs for six months", making no edits at all for six months, and then returning to a primarily-xFD editing style, as WP:WIKILAWYERING with regards to the restriction, if one was of a mind to do so, seeing as the clear intent of the restriction was to allow non-xFD editing during that period to establish a pattern of reformed behavior (or not). - The Bushranger One ping only 08:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, in the general case, you're right. The problem with this specific case is that there was no such restriction. There was exactly one person, who opposed the unblock anyway, who even mentioned such a thing. Yes, Claritas mentioned on their talk page that they'd be willing to undergo such a restriction, but nobody ever said, "yes, that restriction is a good idea, let's do it." Certainly, the unblocking admin (ReaperEternal) made no mention at all of it. How can we possibly say that someone is guilty of violating a restriction nobody even spoke about? Frankly, I don't buy this "they were unblocked on the strength of their promise to avoid XfDs"--if they were, then you'd think that at least one person supporting the unblock would've, y'know, mentioned it or something, especially considering how much they did mention mentoring. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, I'm User:Simone. Wikipedia notified me that someone named me in this discussion. I didnt read all (seems pretty long) but I can tell you that I never heard Claritas. I'm italian, I used to help the italian wikipedia (I did thousands of edits in the italian version). I hope that this post can be usefull. SγωΩηΣ tαlk 17:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can we just close this? No action was sought, no action needs undertaking; in fact, it's obvious no action should be undertaken. I'm not interested in people's motives here, but this is just eating up time that would be better used on actual problems, not a mild matter such as this. No sockpuppetry has been found to have taken place, and it's clear that no actual topic ban existed, however much some people wish there was one. Going back on agreements one made a significant time in the past isn't exactly uncommon, or even objectionable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there really is a consensus here that Claritas is once again welcome to participate in AfDs on fictional characters, then I will of course accept it. But your contention that "no action was sought" is inaccurate.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not accurate at all. Given the editor's major socking at Afd, ban, unban promises, defacto name change despite denial of name change permission, and current renewal of Afd editing, I'd say a one year topic ban at Afd is not at all unreasonable. Jusdafax 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether this user is "right" at AFD or not, the problem we have here is that Claritas has a history of being deceptive and unable to keep to promises. As a condition for his unban, he offered a voluntary restriction from AFD participation, which gained him a fair amount of support at the unban discussion. However, he very quickly went back to heavy AFD participation until he was called out on this, and maintained that "OK, this time for real" he would stay away from AFD. He appears to have done so for several months, but here we are back again at AN/I for more of the same. I don't think an imposed topic ban is the least bit unreasonable at this point. BOZ (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The fake signature is a direct WP:SCRUTINY violation. Putting that together with broken promises, it's clear that that user is WP:NOTHERE to actually contribute to the discussion. Going back to the topic ban, indefinitely, would be a good thing. It's also not true that AfDs are kept or not solely based on their merits--often times, a plethora of similar, sequential AfDs drives down participation from the community at large, and amounts to a nose count among those with time to invest, which is far from a consensus-based model. Removing Claritas would not harm AfD at all, and in fact would almost certainly improve it. If there's one thing that I've seen about previously identified sockpuppetteers who've returned to Wikipedia editing, it is that they don't really care about anything except for getting their own way. Consensus-based dialogue is generally absent in discussions with Claritas and similar partisans. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SCRUTINY deals with the use of multiple accounts. Claritas has not been accused of using multiple accounts in the current period, so far as I am aware. There are no formal or informal sanctions against the filing of AfDs. A deletionist believes that enforcing GNG and Special Notability Guidelines is improving the encyclopedia, just like a gnome might feel that fixing spacing errors or standardizing spelling is improving the encyclopedia; WP:NOTHERE also would not seem to apply. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    SCRUTINY deals with concealing past identity to avoid current behavior being associated with past misbehavior. Whether or not such an attempt is halfway effective or not doesn't really factor in: the act of any previously-sanctioned user to conceal his or her identity violates the spirit of collaborative editing and reputation-based interaction. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong on three counts. WP:SCRUTINY talks about multiple accounts and nothing else, it says nothing about signatures. Nor does it say the rules are different for editors who have been sanctioned in the past. Nor is Claritas doing this to conceal their identity; these edits knock that idea right on the head. You're like Humpty Dumpty- policies always mean precisely what you want them to mean, no more and no less, regardless of what they actually say. Reyk YO! 04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you like Claritas or not, labelling them as WP:NOTHERE is a barefaced personal attack, since they clearly are attempting to improve the encyclopedia, regardless of if you like them or not, Jclemens, or if their methods are strictly orthodox. Also, how is it a fake signature? The signature may be named differently, but it still points to his account, does it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, sign your post. Secondly, WP:NOTHERE very clearly states that Focusing on particular processes and Difficulty in good faith, with conduct norms are not violations of that guideline. Since these are the two things people are complaining about most, NOTHERE doesn't apply, and saying that Claritas is violating this is an obvious and barefaced personal attack. Claritas isn't wandering around vandalizing articles, isn't socking anymore, and isn't spending all of their time at ANI/AN whining about any users. Their approach may be controversial and unconventional, but they ARE here to improve a part of the encyclopedia that needs a LOT of work. End of. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree that Claritas is genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia. I think Claritas' deletionist zeal is badly needed in topic areas such as fringe science and marginal BLPs, and I wish Claritas would shift focus. However, we have to accept that there's no prospect of this happening without the community's help. Claritas is here to delete material on fictional characters and for no other purpose, and will not voluntarily change track. By itself this would be within acceptable Wikipedian norms, but it's combined with quite extreme views on that one subject, which makes dealing with Claritas expensive in volunteer time. Too expensive.

      Everyone's entitled to the assumption of good faith, until there's evidence of bad faith. At that point the assumption of good faith ends, so I'm under no duty to assume good faith of Claritas. I'll believe their promise to stop socking when they keep their other promises to stop focusing on fictional characters and start writing content. Since Claritas needs the community's help to keep these promises, I propose a community editing restriction. Let's say:- First, do not start new AfDs relating to fictional characters; and second, participate in no more than one fictional character-related AfD per week. This editing restriction should be reviewed by the community, whenever Claritas wants, with a presumption that it will be removed when and if Claritas keeps their promise to create some content.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The original sin was sockpuppetry. Simone recognized the error and came back vowing not to do that again. So long as he does that, we should extend him the courtesy extended to everyone else: to attempt to improve the encyclopedia as he sees fit. I appreciate that there will be content creators in the "fictional characters" subject area who will not appreciate his efforts. Trust in AfD to defend what is defensible. Don't start pieces which can't survive — it's not difficult to steer away from pages which can not survive scrutiny. The signature isn't a violation either of a policy or guideline or the spirit of a policy or guideline. Just leave Claritas alone. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, there's a big difference between being a net negative, and being WP:NOTHERE. Claritas repeatedly offered the topic ban, but it was never officially enforced; any self-imposed sanction can last for as long as, or as short as, the user wants. It wasn't even officially part of the unban/unblock stuff, as much as some people seem to want it to have been; therefore, there is no reason to sanction Claritas at this time. He is not being particularly disruptive right now, the argument over the signature is lame to say the least, and I believe the majority of his AfDs (which aren't flooding in) have merit. This thread should be closed, as I said before. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur, S Marshall offers no evidence of Claritas' bad faith, outside of their views on fictional characters that S Marshall obviously doesn't share at all, but are nonetheless grounded in policy and shared by many others. From what I see, this discussion failed to reach consensus that Claritas would have relapsed into blockable behavior, on the contrary they have respected Arbcom conclusions by voluntarily keeping away from AfDs for 6 months. Their number of AfD participation since then certainly isn't unreasonably high, and per Afd stats the opinion provided is within standards. I see no reason for editing restrictions, deletionism, even extreme, isn't offensive behavior. Besides, if Claritas was restricted per the above request, then should we follow the logic and also restrict those users with equally "extreme" inclusionist views on fictional characters, whose AfD stats probably took a deep plunge recently ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • My problem was with battleground mentality whereby nearly every edit is in some conflict area with virtually no content building - serially attempting to remove others' content as ones' sole contribution I see as disruptive. And this is the problem I have with your contributions as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personalizing content issues is never a good option. Of course, if you see removing content for whatever reason (OR, POV, notability...) as removing someone's content, that's gonna create tensions. If editors in the fiction area could feel less emotional attachment to "their" content, then AfD certainly wouldn't be as drama-filled it now is. But the point is, we have guidelines for fiction, and sometimes, something needs to be done about it. That some users will be pissed off by it is unavoidable, but that's otherwise part of how WP works. That's what I meant by my last sentence, there are certainly users who think you're being disruptive by wanting to keep absolutely everything, but the solution is to be objective, to work together and to stop trying to knock each other from the board.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Folken de Fanel, you are of course a user in reasonably good standing on en.wiki and your community bans on fr.wiki and it.wiki don't affect your account here; but I found your (unanimous) ban discussion on fr.wiki intriguing. I think it explains exactly why you're so interested in this discussion and taking it so personally. I also think it aligns exactly with what you've just said. I think you genuinely do see inclusionism as an emotional attachment to content.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're the one still insisting that Claritas be sanctionned, despite obvious disagreement that there would be an imperious need to do so. That this comes barely a few weeks after the failed TTN report doesn't surprise me, neither does your genuine and avowed hostility towards what you label as "extreme deletionism". I have no particular affinity with Claritas, I don't condone the use of sockpuppetry to further the deletionist (or inclusionist) cause, and if it was established that they have relapsed into such behavior I would support sanction, but if they have done nothing actionable, they should be left alone. I'm starting to take it personally because you have suggested that an opinion itself could be cause for sanction, and there are certainly users in this very thread who have labeled me an "extremist" before, so naturally I want to protect my account against a possible renewed hunt for deletionists. And yes, when certain users speak about "someone's content" and not merely "content", I think we've touched the heart of the problem.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. Personalizing content generally is a bad idea. It's not quite so bad to personalize your own, since it's understandable to be upset when your own work is deleted (and you put everything up in good faith), but generally attacking people who nominate things for deletion, as S Marshall has done so (and before you cry foul, S Marshall, you bringing up an irrelevant banning discussion elsewhere is very much in line with this) is not helpful. And I'm neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist, before someone tries to throw that onto me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a specific discussion of Folken de Fanel's indefinite ban on fr.wiki, which is pursuant to a French arbitration concerning disruptive deletion attempts on fictional content there, and is relevant to Claritas because of the obvious similarities. This is very far from being a general attack on people who nominate things for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not relevant whatsoever; as you stated, "you are of course a user in reasonably good standing on en.wiki" - bringing up the bans elsewhere is a deliberate attempt to discredit Folken de Fanel and their statements, and you know that. I'm still displeased this thread remains open, for obvious reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revert war at Pakistani literature

    Resolved

    User:Ajmal alig has repeatedly added a large block of unreferenced, unencyclopedic content to Pakistani literature. These edits have been reverted 3 times now, and notes have been left on the user's talk page, including a note alerting the user to a possibility of a block, all without response or apparent effect.Dialectric (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    while we are discussing this editor, is their user page acceptable? The parts of it that are ineligible intelligible appear to be overt promotion of one of their relatives.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to have been no further edits by this user since the most recent "final" warning, if there are any similar edits I would favor imposing at least a 24 block, perhaps longer. The contents of the user page User:Ajmal alig seem very similar, in parts identical to the long promotional wall of text this user added to Pakistani literature. This appears to promote certain individuals as great scholars and authors, if I am reading it correctly. I think it is at best marginal in a user page, but perhaps one issue at a a time? DES (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Indef blocked as a promotion only account. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.37.84.214

    has now been joined by

    Disruptive editor only interested in advocacy of one product, and removal of rival products. Widefox; talk 13:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:31.109.31.229 has made exactly one edit of any substance (the only other edit by this IP added two blank lines to the same talk page). This edit did support User:213.37.84.214 but perhaps it is a bit early to designate this as a sock? User:31.109.31.229 has no previous blocks, as your comment above seems to imply. DES (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No implication meant. 213.37.84.214 had three blocks. 31.109.31.229 had no blocks (1st IP is Spain, 2nd IP is UK, but both are US English - where developer is based). Widefox; talk 15:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    1) Please note the report against Widefox abusive behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Widefox_Abusive_editor_with_banning_power.

    2) Widefox can analyze all the IPs he wants; that does not change the facts:

    a) Widefox is performing a personal crusade against a valuable editor that knows the topic that he doesn't.

    b) Widefox is sponsoring unknown and unrelated projects while using his ban power for keeping other valuable projects out.

    213.37.84.214 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DISRUPTive. IP editor behaviour to all other editors is uncivil. Widefox; talk 20:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Please stop your distraction maneuver. You sponsoring projects and abusing of your banning power for doing so is the real WP:DISRUPTive behavior here. That's the real thing. I wonder how no one have asked you why you are editing a PXE page if you do not know absolutely anything about it. How's that no one sees that here? 213.37.84.214 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Widefox Abusive editor with banning power.

    • Preboot Execution Environment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (The editor systematically adds references to projects not related to the topic refusing to provide any supporting reason while not WP:LISTENing to technical facts. The editor systematically adds projects that are virtually unknown refusing to provide any independent source supporting his editing. The editor has systematically erased my editing when affecting his interests accusing me of all sort of things.)
    • Talk:Preboot Execution Environment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disruptive editing, accusations, and refusing to listen again. The editor does not handle the topic (PXE) while making adventurous technical decisions. Disruptive editor only interested in advocacy of his supported products, and removal of rival competing project (SERVA). Editor has erased list of links with independent reviews, tutorials, and articles provided to support the inclusion of a project (SERVA) apparently competing with his supported products. Systematic abuse of power, if I edit I'm banned while he's erasing absolutely all my editing, research, etc.

    213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I've seen of the article, this ip editor has been consistently adding external link to SERVA, a program he is trying to push. KonveyorBelt 22:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    yes trying to "push" as you say presenting a list of 36 independent links supporting the "pushed" project. List that has just been ERASED from the talk page by the reported abusive editor. No one can "push" something that is well known, respected, and independently supported. The one that "pushes" non related projects and unknown projects is the reported editor. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the discussion about this IP above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:213.37.84.214. QED237 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    semi is good now the SPA editor is using two IPs. I'd asked a couple weeks ago. Widefox; talk 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies sees "IP disruption"; Is posting my knowledge in WP IP disruption?

    What about this report; would you Drmies be able to say it is a false report? 213.37.84.214 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly this ANI report by 213.37.84.214 is not-policy or fact based - which ref or EXT did I add? None AFAIK. Just a copycat ANI report. More disruption from this SPA EXT spammer, presumably COI editor. For the record, I don't think I've added any EXT or refs to the articles (without checking the article I don't think any EXT or refs are my edits) my involvement has been to return the article to WP:EXT guideline, and remove COI bot warned SPAM EXT/refs on other articles per other editors (eg User:Matthiaspaul) wishes and consensus on the articles. WP:LISTEN and WP:boomerang apply for this bad faith ANI report by an EXT spammer. Distraction from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:213.37.84.214. Widefox; talk 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    This ANI report is 100% fact based; -

    you have systematically added references to COBBLER project

    you have systematically added references to ERPXE project

    you have systematically added references to EL TORITO project

    you have systematically erased references to SERVA project

    you have erased from the talk page 36 links with independent information supporting SERVA project

    You have refused to provide ANY supporting material defending your stubbornly included projects.

    You are at this very moment insulting me calling me a SPAMMER when you dare to erase the outcome of my personal research on the proposed project SERVA. You are the one that presumably has a COI here when defending completely unrelated projects (EL TORITO) or projects that are definitely not relevant (COBBLER/ERPXE).

    At this point it seems you do not even remember what you have done, probably you should see the history page. Returning the article to a previous state with lack of consensus makes you a disruptive editor, makes you display your COIs, at the end it makes you publish what you do not handle/know. You are not WP:LISTENing when you disregarding the presented material keep adding i.e. a CD/DVD related project as "see also" in a network boot topic like PXE. Sorry but you do not know what you do or you have a hidden agenda here. Stop putting on me "your" actions; I'm not a SPAMMER, I have not WP:COI, and I WP:LISTEN very well.

    Finally there's not distraction here; you are BANNING me, INSULTING me, ERASING me just because I have added a well supported project that you do not like; that's what you did to me while ABUSING of your power here. 213.37.84.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Come back when:
    1. you've taken the chip off your shoulder
    2. you stop suggesting that ANYTHING on blogspot or wordpress are EVER usable as references
    3. you have actually read and understood both WP:RS and WP:EL
    4. have passed any questionable sources you're trying to use through the reliable source noticeboard
    Wikipedia isn't rocket science - your supposed ref's were found lacking, and many of them actually meet the definition of WP:SPAM - rather than understand that, you're attacking which is merely escalating the situation. ES&L 11:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Your arrogance offends me.

    The provided references talk about the quality of the proposed project no matter where they are hosted and even include recent articles on paper magazines (C't). There's not a single included reference that can be considered SPAM, they were just written by people that have used the mentioned project, they come from all around the globe, I cannot see how you dare to call them SPAM. On the other hand Widefox has not provided A SINGLE reference supporting his sponsored projects. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Your presumption that I'm at all "arrogant" offends me :-)
    In case you missed it, however, I suggested that you simply back down for a bit until:
    1. you've taken the chip off your shoulder
    2. you stop suggesting that ANYTHING on blogspot or wordpress are EVER usable as references
    3. you have actually read and understood both WP:RS and WP:EL
    4. have passed any questionable sources you're trying to use through the reliable source noticeboard
    If, at that point, you still have questions about the policies and guidelines, feel free to ask someone directly - but these accusations and WP:BATTLE mentality, plus your wholsale avoidance of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia are even more offensive. People will soon start to throw WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE into the mix ... and you won't want that ES&L 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple case of WP:BOOMERANG. I'm not convinced IP editor is WP:LISTENing yet. Widefox; talk 20:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    @ES&L how can I ever take you seriously when you dare to object my references when at the same time you have not said a single word about these other references:

    http://seclist.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/erpxe-v-1-01/

    http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=11494&p=126549%E2%80%8E

    these are the references (only 2) that Widefox have added in the talk page supporting the inclusion of his "sponsored" project ERPXE.

    The fact that you haven't said a single word on these references prove you are 100% biased supporting your probably good friend Widefox


    @ES&L and @Widefox At this point I just cannot keep answering to trolls any more. You Widefox probably will need to call some more "friends" for giving you a hand here; ES&L didn't do a very good job 213.37.84.214 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In case you missed the point, User:Widefox should not be adding any links to Wordpress either - I figured that was rather obvious. It's entertaining to see that simply because someone (me) asks you to clearly read and follow policies, I'm suddenly "friends" with someone else. No - I'm simply giving you (and others) good advice that may actually help prevent you from being blocked on this project. I'm not even sure that I have even encountered Widefox, but you're welcome to search this history of their talkpage, and this one and my usual, admin account and prove me wrong if it will give you some form of satisfaction. Otherwise, by saying "your friend just came to help" was merely your admission that you've lost an argument - and that was never my goal ES&L 10:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption

    This disruption is going on here, and Talk:Preboot Execution Environment where the IP editor is constantly advocating for the EXT to be inserted. Can we either get a semi on the talk page (it is filling with advocacy) or a block for disruption. Only a block stopped the disruptive editing last three times. I'm not convinced IP editor is WP:LISTENing yet. Widefox; talk 08:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Repeating your "mantras" will never prove you right on this. Do not forget you are being reported for Abuse of Power here; 213.37.84.214 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Great time to bring this up. What "power" has he supposedly abused? He's not an admin - he has no "power". Don't forget that when you report anyone to ANI, your own behaviour is always going to be investigated and used where required as well ES&L 10:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:30 SW

    30 SW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I randomly came across Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and noticed formatting issues in a section, attempted to fix them, and then found more throughout the article. They seem to have been introduced by this user (note that I've since reverted the article to a state prior to his involvement). Many of his contribs seem alright at a glance (although I'm honestly not sure, which is why I'm bringing this here) -- but then there are edits like this and this, which plaster some well-established and previously stable articles with red links, mess with formatting, and introduce odd uses of HTML comments, among other things. This user seems to be making a ton of sweeping changes across Wikipedia's US military articles, including their categories, moving pages, creating new ones, redirecting, etc, and has been doing so for some time.

    I did leave a message for this user initially to try and get an explanation but I'm not confident I can handle this adequately myself, so I wanted to call attention to it in case someone more up on these matters thinks it's worth looking into (I tend to stick to scripting and templates and other such MediaWiki tech these days myself, rather than actual article and/or behavioral drama). If nobody thinks this is anything to worry about then feel free to disregard this. equazcion� 14:56, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

    • Just a little additional note, the user doesn't appear to be big on talking. In a cursory search I can't find a single discussion comment from him (correction: there are however these CFD comments). His only edit to his own talk page appears to have been this, made by an IP that I'll assume was him logged out, where he removed several sections including a couple of communications from other editors about his edits. equazcion� 15:40, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

    Reversion war and editing practices

    Resolved
     – Edit-warrior blocked

    I'm stepping in to formally request further administrative intervention here. Long story short:

    User:Ben0kto has been making some relatively controversial edits for a few months now, but it didn't start getting more controversial until recently. He's been engaging in a reversion war with User:STATicVerseatide over the article Acid Rap, which was initially a redirect to the artist Esham since it was a genre that he supposedly created. A completely separate artist created a mixtape by the same name. There was a slight edit war over the space but eventually the album was deemed notable by several reliable sources. From what I can see, acid rap has not received enough coverage to really merit an article outside of Esham's. I can find some sources, but ultimately almost all of them talk about the genre as a secondary feature in articles that are mostly about Esham as a performer. (Examples are [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], the last of which could is a blog source.) It exists, but I'm not sure of its individual notability.

    Now the problem here is partially whether or not acid rap deserves an article separate of Esham, but it's predominantly that Ben0kto has been asked several times to stop creating reversion wars. He's been warned by several editors on several different articles. He's been informed of notability guidelines several times and has received several lectures on reliable sources. His current move has been to move the mixtape to Acid Rap (mixtape) and then create the genre article in the now empty Acid Rap entry. I've speedied two pages and at this point I feel that I'm now officially as of this moment too involved to really further delete any entries. I've warned Ben0kto that this editing, even if it's done in good intent, can be seen as disruptive since he's not really discussing anything on the talk pages before making big controversial moves or edits and that disruptive editing can lead to further blocks or even an outright ban. I don't see where he actually has paid attention to anything that anyone has told him and at this point I need other people to come in and give further feedback and direction on the matter. He's already been reported and blocked for revert warring, but at this point I'm just concerned that this is less about him trying to edit Wikipedia in a beneficial manner and more about him trying to get his way. I hate to sound WP:BITE-y, but this is just how it comes across. He's been asked to stop and go about things in the proper manner and he's ignored everyone in order to get articles he wants on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • On a side note, I'm going to propose that the genre article for Acid Rap be merged into the artist's page. I'm not against it existing in any format, I just greatly dislike that a semi-new editor has been trying to create an article in a certain way despite requests by other editors that he discuss this on the article's page before making any controversial edits. If it's ultimately decided that the mixtape gets the basic "acid rap" page without anything in parentheses, then that's fine. If we decide that the genre should have the basic "mix tape" title even if it's redirected, that's fine too. I just think that this has gone beyond good faith editing and at this time it's more about making a point than trying to benefit Wikipedia. On his talk page Ben0kto has stated that he wasn't fully warned of everything, but I don't know how much more explicit we can be in this instance. I feel that at this point he should have at least been aware that his edits were controversial and tried to talk to others about the edits before making big moves, especially since he says he's an inexperienced editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC):*On a side note, I'm going to propose that the genre article for Acid Rap be merged into the artist's page. I'm not against it existing in any format, I just greatly dislike that a semi-new editor has been trying to create an article in a certain way despite requests by other editors that he discuss this on the article's page before making any controversial edits. If it's ultimately decided that the mixtape gets the basic "acid rap" page without anything in parentheses, then that's fine. If we decide that the genre should have the basic "mix tape" title even if it's redirected, that's fine too. I just think that this has gone beyond good faith editing and at this time it's more about making a point than trying to benefit Wikipedia. On his talk page Ben0kto has stated that he wasn't fully warned of everything, but I don't know how much more explicit we can be in this instance. I feel that at this point he should have at least been aware that his edits were controversial and tried to talk to others about the edits before making big moves, especially since he says he's an inexperienced editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been asked to use the talk pages and also when blocked, told to use WP:BRD guidelines. That is the proper manner to go about when making large edits. I did not "ignore" the warnings but simply wasn't aware because I did not come across all of the other users' comments as I was focusing mainly on making my own edits within the article. Please try to follow some of these guidelines yourself, instead of just reverting. Thanks for understanding Ben0kto (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Behind the Paint is one notable third party text reference that explains that Esham and the style he created had an influence on wicked shit genres like horrorcore, most notably groups like Insane Clown Posse. More sources will be added. Ben0kto (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the right venue to discuss content. It's a page for discussing editor behavior. DrKiernan 16:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is little about editor behavior, as Ben0kto is claiming that nobody has properly explained anything to him and that any and all of his edits are as a result of this. I'm concerned, as this is a common thing that many new and inexperienced editors claim. I don't see where he really shows that he's paying attention to anything when editors are doing the equivalent of mailbombing his talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, now it's about editor behavior. User:Ben0kto is now accusing me of having a bias against underground music and editing in bad faith. He's also accusing me of bullying him and getting others to gang up on him. His behavior is getting more and more belligerent and I honestly don't know exactly how helpful he'll be at all in the future if he keeps acting like this. Can someone please step in? I know Yunshui has tried and even he's said that this has become a behavioral issue at this point rather than a simple case of a newbie editor. Ben0kto has had enough people intervening to where he should have a better working knowledge of Wikipedia than many editors that have been around for a while, so I don't think it's a case of "I don't know" or "nobody's told me". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Smsarmad

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

    Resolved
     – Blocked as part of Arbcom enforcement action.--v/r - TP 23:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is teverting atticles regarding Pakistan to preserve his countries interest. He is an working on the orders of the Secret Agency of Pakistan. This user needs an immediate block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruv2357 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If anyone's behavior is questionable, its yours. What's the intent behind this? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC) (Also; have you notified the user of this discussion?)[reply]
    And this... I don't want to accuse anyone because what I infer might be incorrect but what exactly does that mean? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified Smsarmad. --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a content dispute where the OP is inserting a WP:SYNTH statement into the article on Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence that the ISI was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks based on a Reuters article where an American citizen involved in the attacks claims that ISI officials provided assistance. The OP then procedes to call Smsarmad an agent of ISI for reverting this, followed by threats to sock to disrupt. Take that as you will. 205.166.218.67 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit] appears to be a threat of physical violence. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    COMPETENCE issues from 76.202.182.102

    Blocked for a week. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The person editing from 76.202.182.102 is going through multiple articles adding egregious overlinking and massive lists of barely relevant see-alsos---see e.g. [97], and the ones undone at [98]. There is also some edit-warring going on here (compare this diff to the previous diff, in which I undid the exact same series of edits; this diff restores all of them), although admittedly I have not given him/her a edit-warring warning.

    The prose of the edits is kind of incomprehensible, and I am not really able to discuss things with the user because so far when I have attempted to make editorial suggestions to the user (User talk:76.202.182.102#Internal links and User talk:76.202.182.102#Some more friendly suggestions), s/he has ignored my feedback and has responded with tl;dr rants that to be perfectly honest I can't make any sense of. Based on other comments, the user seems to also have some political POV issues, although I can't understand enough of what little I've read to know what's going on. And his/her mainspace edits are full of weird offhand comments (e.g. "a great chef owning a restaurant business can make more money than any inept doctors", in an article about education).

    Basically I think I am requesting that the user be blocked because s/he seems to lack the competence to edit appropriately or to engage in discussion with users. It looks like a pretty obvious case in here, but I am too involved to take admin action. I didn't take it to ANEW because I haven't issued an edit-warring warning and to be honest I don't know if it's even necessary to go through those motions for an editor who is obviously incapable of editing constructively (even if s/he is well-meaning). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Removal of old talk page entries, leaving orphaned replies

    Blocked 31 hours for edit warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RESOLVED
    Consensus is pretty clear that WP:TPG practice is that comments should not be removed once other editors have replied to them. NE Ent 00:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At Talk:Dick Dale, I am having some trouble keeping the old discussions together as one person using a series of accounts is repeatedly removing his comments. I have quoted WP:REDACT to him in explanation of my restoration of the old comments, but he has determined that the wording of that guideline allows this sort of removal. The editor was working as IP 24.121.103.74 (and probably 24.119.19.162) but I asked for the talk page to be semi-protected to stop him. He is now editing as User:ReadTheGuidelines.

    He is apparently upset that a couple of editors including myself have decided that Dick Dale was born in Boston, even though the Dale biographies are split between saying he was born in Beirut or Boston. For me, the deciding factor was one high quality source saying explicitly that Dale told interviewers for several decades that he had been born in Beirut, but in the 1990s he began to say he was born in South Boston, and he supplied supporting details.

    Does REDACT allow this kind of removal of one's own talk page entries, even to the point of orphaning the replies? Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Binksternet is incorrect in some of his statements here. I have had one IP address used here and that is 24.121.103.74. I read the talk page guidelines before and after becoming involved in the Lebanon/Boston dispute. There are many more biographies that state Lebanon as Dale's place of birth than those that state Boston. The article on Dick Dale is now satisfactory as it mentions that other biographies state Lebanon as the place of birth.

    The guidelines do not state that I am locked in to keeping all my talk page comments on any given talk page. If that is the case, it needs to be clearly stated up front. User:Binksternet wants to interpret the guidelines to mean that I am locked into leaving my talk page comments on the talk page forever or until he or someone with more edits wants to remove or edit them. This is abuse as far as I'm concerned and not appreciated. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerning the issue of abuse, this may be a problem with the talk page guidelines more than the editors. At the same time I think that an experienced editor like User:Binksternet can fully realize this and know that there is nothing that specifically states that a user can't delete their own talk page posts on any given talk page. All you have to do is read the information. It would not be fair to reinterpret the information here either. The information is already stated on the talk page guidelines page. For these guidelines to be reinterpreted yet again here would also be an incorrect use of Wikipedia.

    If there is a decision to not allow users from deleting their own talk page comments on other talk pages then it still would not apply to users that read the guidelines previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    ReadTheGuidelines, it appears from your statement above that you're now OK with how the article handles Dale's birthplace information. Would you be OK with, instead of having your comments removed from the article Talk page, having them hidden from view in a collapsible box? It does make it more difficult for other editors to check out the history of a dispute if the comments are removed altogether. Your comments would be hidden, unless an editor needed to read them for historical purposes. Would that be OK? Zad68 21:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I would rather have my comments removed and if their is an updated guideline that states that talk page comments are permanent and can't be removed then I will abide by that from here on out. As for my previous comments on the talk page however, I would like them to be removed.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Another solution is to archive the talk page, putting its contents into Talk:Dick Dale/Archive 1. This would place the discussions one step away from visibility. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    For the comments I have already made I would still like to maintain my right to have them removed. If someone wants to go back and read through the revisions they can still do that right? This is a very important issue and involves the rules that are given to users when they enter a talk page. I think that if User:Binksternet or other editors want to join together and have the guidelines changed in the future then they can go that route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding of WP:REDACT, which is based on my experience editing here for a while, is that civil, on-topic comments that are part of a discussion thread relevant to content actively being discussed and worked on really should not be removed. Even if you can find loopholes or weasel words in WP:REDACT to justify removing your own comments, doing so will be seen as disruptive. You might be surprised to find out that you actually have no right to require that edits you make be removed. You release the edits you make on Wikipedia under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, see the little note at the bottom of any page you edit, it says 'By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.' Once you hit Save, what happens to it gets determined by community consensus. My point is that you can't require your edits stay removed.

    How about Bink's suggestion of archiving the discussion? Anybody visiting the article Talk page wouldn't see them, they'd be pushed down into the Archive. Zad68 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The community consensus determination for talk page posts has already been spelled out in the talk page guidelines. This issue falls under the talk page guidelines unless there is some sort of extreme abuse with comments. That is not the case here, so the "Save Page" button terms would automatically refer to the "community consensus" that has been determined by Wikipedia for talk page comments. Furthermore, I am not finding loopholes or weasel words in any way whatsoever. If my own talk page posts can't be removed by myself it needs to be a clear and concise statement concerning this. This statement neither appears in the guidelines in any form whatsoever or in the "Save Button" terms. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    By removing my comments, it is still not a permanent removal. People can simply look through the revisions to find those comments. I would still like to maintain my right to have my comments removed. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • In my reading of WP:REDACT, and based on my experience editing article Talk pages, I don't see this as a case where WP:REDACT can be used to justify removal of the comments. I would find the removal of relevant Talk page comments that have received replies, and are part of an active content discussion, to be disruptive. If it continues I'd support editing sanctions. That's my view, we'll see if others agree. Zad68 21:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, based on your experience, but we can't just go making up our own rules and guidelines based on our own experience. The guidelines exist and need to be taken seriously.

    And as far as "releasing the edits to Wikipedia", that is correct. Wikipedia has my edits forever or as long as they wish. But this does not refer to the visible part of the talk page. Even if my comments are removed from the visible part of the talk page, Wikipedia will always forever have my comments, so this is not an applicable phrase regarding the removal of my own comments from any given talk page. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it does. Your comments were permanently licensed when you hit save. You have no "right" to demand that they be removed, although the community may decide to do so as a courtesy. More importantly, though, what was/were your previous account name(s) before you created this one? You're clearly not a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you have such a problem with people going back through the edits to see my original comments? They can see where I mentioned I removed my comment. I shouldn't even have to do this under the talk page guidelines. And I even signed it as well. I shouldn't have to do this either. Anyone with an ip address is allowed to place comments on a talk page as long as they are not abusive and they are allowed the right to remove them as Wikipedia will keep the edits stored away forever. Why do you have a problem with this? --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ther are part of a permanent record of discussion. They can be hatted, they can be archived, you can strike them through, but there's no justification for deletion when other editors see them as valuable to keep. And, again, you do not have a "right" to delete your comments. Period. End of that discussion. Any removal would be as a courtesy, and you have not exactly been asking courteously, have you.

    Again, what was your previous account name(s)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I am a newbie to Wikipedia, but not to the laws regarding internet contracts, terms and obligations. I have read through all the pertinent information here on Wikipedia and I am abiding by it and asking for fair treatment. So far I am meeting with resistance over factual terms that are spelled out clearly. Why?--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been treated fairly, since you are being treated exactly the same as everyone else. What you're asking for is to be given preferential treatment, but you've made no cogent argument as to why you should be granted that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so are you saying here that you and possibly other editors have been preventing others from removing their own talk page edits on other talk pages for some time now? Because that is a serious issue. So you can take the comments down if they are abusive because that adheres to the talk page guidelines. But if someone wishes to take their own comments down even when they are not abusive, you prevent them from doing that, is that what you are saying?--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, this is starting to move into classic trolling behavior. Note the hint of WP:NLT without actually stepping across the line, the refusal to give a clear argument for removal being necessaru, just the bogus repetition of a "right" to do so. I hear laughter in the background. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the question of IPs, they are mostly from somebody in Arizona. Historically, the IPs that have taken part in discussion about Dale's place of birth are the following:
    • 24.121.103.74 – Sedona, Arizona (October–November 2012, and October 2013)
    • 198.7.58.96 – Manassas, Virginia, proxy IP (October 2013)
    • 198.7.58.81 – Manassas, Virginia, proxy IP (September–October 2013)
    • 24.119.19.162 – Cottonwood, Arizona (April 2013)
    • 24.121.161.249 – Sedona, Arizona (September 2012)
    • 24.156.82.243 – Sedona, Arizona (April 2012)
    • 216.19.7.158 – Prescott Valley, Arizona (March 2009)
    These addresses are suspiciously close together geographically, except for the proxy IPs which could be rerouting from anywhere. This evidence points to at least one anonymous editor living in Arizona who is persistent in his assertion that Dale was born in Beirut. None of these IPs argued for Boston.
    I'm not saying that ReadTheGuidelines should be blocked or anything, I'm just saying he should own up to his past efforts. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares? The underlying controversy appears to have been resolved in a way reasonably satisfactory to all. I find WP:REDACT (which is a guideline) less than clear. It seems to be making suggestions (not hard and fast rules) on when and how best to edit one's own comments. Reading the current state of the talk page [99], I do not find the responses to the deleted comments, which are now clearly marked as being self deleted, to be all that difficult to interpret. Anyone reading the talk page will gather that one editor who took a position in favor of one birthplace chose to remove his views. And, of course, the history is still there. This is not a licensing question, but whether we should extend a courtesy to an editor who made good-faith comments and now wishes to retract them. There is no real harm to the project in allowing him to remove his remarks. I suggest everyone move on and leave the talk page as is per above diff, archiving it if people wish.--agr (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I have used only my own IP address to post anything on Wikipedia. I have one computer. My first post would have been around the end of last year. One person in particular I do know that posted a comment, I can't say whether it is listed on your list or not, but just because there is a close proximity doesn't mean I agree with their comment.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, User:ArnoldReinhold thats all I was asking for. Much appreciated. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    agr, I started out looking at this thinking "Who cares? Let 'm remove the stupid comments" as well until I dug into it. The comments do have replies, the article content is contentious, and allowing the comments to remain removed makes it harder for future editors to figure out what sources were brought and what arguments were made in the past that led to the current consensus for the content. This is a collaborative editing environment, and editors should not make it harder for each other to work on articles by blanking relevant parts of past discussions, even if it's their own comments. The licensing point is that editors don't have control over what happens to edits once they're made, meaning the "They need to be removed because they're mine and I say so" argument holds no weight. Zad68 22:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, you guys do what you want, I will continue to strive for fairness and to not let editors "play God" on Wikipedia. The rules are the rules and if you want to try to override them with your opinion, you can try all you want, but in the end its the terms, rules and obligations that will be the ultimate deciding factor in this. Thank you.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, no. What ultimately decides such questions is usually community consensus - and we can and do block people from editing for insisting that they have 'a right' to engage in behaviour that others see as tendentious and disruptive. The only 'rights' you have regarding Wikipedia are the right to fork and the right to leave. Everything else is dependant on being a useful contributor, rather than a drain on everyone's time and patience. You appear to be going down that road already, and I suggest that you either reconsider, or find another forum to assert your 'rights', real or imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There are rights and there is courtesy. One of our goal is to encourage new editors. This editor apparently made constructive arguments he now wishes to retract. He may have good reasons. Future editors will still be able to figure it out. (If only editors really did go back and carefully review the details of past consensus formation.) It's all in the history if anyone really needs to see it. WP:REDACT explicitly allows editors to remove uncivil comments. Should editors make a point to include some incivility to retain the right to retract? Let it go. --agr (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My only real reason for deleting my comments was because, from the time of my first post, I read the talk page guidelines, and then I decided to post on the talk page. At that time I knew from everything I read on Wikipedia, the guidelines, terms, etc., that I would not be locked in to leaving my comments on the talk page. I know it is that way on some online forums and such. Furthermore, my original intention was to try to get the article as factual as possible and then remove my comments. I had no idea that I would be met with this kind of opposition, it seems absolutely and incredibly ridiculous. I would have never placed any comments on the talk page to begin with had I originally known that the guidelines were not intended to be taken seriously. This has been an eye opening experience to say the least. The talk page is not a free talking forum at all as described in the guidelines, it is controlled by editors that think they can do whatever they want and you are locked into every little comment and word you put on that talk page unless a "God" editor doesn't like it, then they can remove it at their desire. Incredible, totally incredible. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk pages are not a 'free talking forum'. As the talk page guidelines make entirely clear, they are there for one purpose only - to discuss improvements to articles. As such, it is often necessary to look at past discussions - which is why deleting posts without good reason may be seen as disruptive. That is how Wikipedia works, and if you wish to contribute, you will have to do it our way. Or not at all. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTFORUM. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy's point and the page The Bushranger linked to are clearly relevant. In some cases, when I might, for instance, start a thread saying, "Hey, how come the article (X) doesn't mention he was born in (Y)," then read the article, see that it does, and remove my own comment from the talk page before anyone else said, "Um, it does, didn't you see that?" or something similar where a comment or thread was started before a response, maybe, in some cases, I could see letting the person save face and remove the comment. But, once it gets a response, and becomes in effect a clear part of the history of the discussion, unless the comment itself contains wildly inappropriate aspersions on others or similar problematic content, it is a part of the history and there is no real reason to complicate reviewing the early discussions for someone else by removing potentially half of the conversation. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Removing Comments from others talk pages

    It shows a "resolved" box for this issue under the discussion titled "Removal of old talk page entries, leaving orphaned replies.

    This is not resolved at all. I have editors that agree with my stance and there are 2 editors that disagree, and one other editor who left inconsiderate and mindless remarks on the subject. Actually all editors made incorrect and inconsiderate remarks, calling my comments stupid and dismissing the importance of this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite Ent's closure of this discussion ReadTheGuidelines just reverted to delete his comments again, the 7th time he's tried to remove them in 3 days, so I don't think he's gotten the message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Another revert, and a report filed at WP:EWN. User also posted this comment on his talk page: "You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Violation of WP:CIVIL by user Trust Is All You Need

    Recent post on my talk page by TIAYN contains highly improper language including "you don't know crap about what you're talking about" and the "F" word two times. His posts on user:JHunterJ's talk page also contain language abuses of similar manner - the "F" word [100]. In addition, TIYAN shows highly aggressive behavior in editing political-related and Syrian-related topics (like this and this). I don't think any explanation by myself would help him to improve his behavior.GreyShark (dibra) 20:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I'll stop, but its because he is basing his arguments not on facts, but on his personal opinion.. For instance, there is no difference between "Corrective Revolution" and "Corrective Movement" but he seems to want to push his agenda onto the disputed article without logical reason. If he had based his arguments on actual, verifiable sources we would not have been in this mess. But ok, I will stop, but this attempt at nominating me is more an attempt to block me so that he can ensue his aims.. Why am I saying that? I haven't called him any of those words today, but now suddenly he's nominating me, that's a little bit suspicious.. Anyhow, sorry, I will stop. I am a constructive editor with a bad temper, especially when I meet an editor such as Greyshark09. Sorry. There is currently a move discussion at the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution article, please feel free to join, it would help to solve our conflict.
    But regarding the issue on Single-party state, that is am article, not a list, so why have a huge list in it? its seems, well, wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • GreyShark, such "highly improper language" as you link to is no model of politeness, but I'm afraid it's pretty common on talkpages, and not a reason for admin action. Looking at the links you provide to show "highly aggressive behavior", they link to entire article histories, and nothing aggressive jumps out from merely looking at those histories. Please supply diffs for some putatively aggressive edits by Trust Is All You Need if you want us to look at their editing. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • As another example we have TIAYN adding to my own talk page today, here. I was not appreciative of this comment when he completely changed an article that removed hundreds of items. I wasn't going to re-add 100s of items and it wouldn't let me undo just the removed items. He then left this post on my page. Actionable, certainly not. I simply let him know not to do it again. But in checking his talk page it led me here so there seems to be a pattern of uncivil posts by this editor. He says himself that he has a "bad temper"... well that won't last long on wikipedia if it shows itself regularly. Maybe a warning explanation and a nudge by an administrator is all that's needed here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    TweetiePie1947/Garrejones44444777

    BLOCKED
    That just about waps it up you wascally wadmin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Garrejones44444777] has been editing Person to Bunny to state that this animated short was "originally cancelled," but usually does not provide any references for this claim, and regularly changes or removes the one reference giving an actual release date. (In some edits the user used minutes-old forum posts as sources; presumably these were posted by the same user.)

    Based on similar editing patterns, I believe that is a sockpuppet of User:TweetiePie1947, who has created several socks to make identical edits

    Numerous attempts have been made to contact the user, with no result. Could someone look into this user's edits? Trivialist (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Winston S Smith

    Indef'd per WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Winston S Smith (talk · contribs) is a racist troll. I'd block him myself, but I've become involved in the situation. Can an uninvolved administrator please review Mr. Smith's contributions and take appropriate action? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some have called me racist but I just call it an alternative perspective. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to represent a neutral point of view and not one particular ideology? Is it acceptable to ban users for ideological reasons? As for being a troll, I have always tried my best to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to do so in the future. Winston S Smith (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care what you call your perspective. Your behavior is disruptive. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If I may chime in, I agree with Malik. This user has done nothing recently but complain about perceived slights and promote racism rhetoric on talk pages. They also insist Jews are a "dominant majority" and repeat typical antisemitic claims. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some specific examples would be good. I found this at a cursory glance, but I'm not sure if that's worthy of a block. equazcion� 04:31, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    198.189.184.243 violating topic ban

    User has been banned from fringe science, yet continues posting on the same topic that lead to the sanction. Probably these (among many) count as well: [101][102][103]. User replies to the same thread the user started, with the same style of voluminous posts that dump URLs and quotes. vzaak (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that the user is vandalizing. vzaak (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin not being helpful

    Issue withdrawn. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. Hopefully this is the correct forum to raise this concern.

    Background

    I raised this edit war issue at 3RR. During this issue I was requested to respond to the incident I'd logged. I posted on the admin's talkpage to notify them of this and got an unfriendly reply "Last chance, Lugnuts". The outcome of the 3RR was that I was told I was in breach of 3RR and not to edit the article in question for 7 days. I agreed to this, but had a follow-up question with the admin in question about the 7 days element.

    From this thread on their talkpage, I asked in a civil manner if the admin could update the article in question with some sourced info, as I can not, believing this to be a reasonable request. This was met with a no (which I'm fine with), but I wanted further clarification of the 7 day element, which resulted in the unhelpful response of I have nothing more to say about this except that if you violate the agreement, I'll block you. I've continued to ask the admin to link me to the policy about imposing a random timespan on being able to edit an article, but I've been ignored.

    WP:ADMINACCT states "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct" and there's a bullet point below this about failure to communicate.

    All I'm asking is more info on the length of a random timespan that's imposed on an article following 3RR. Can anyone help? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sensible move by Bbb23. Your edit request to Bbb23 looks like trying to sucker them into being involved in the article so that they can't take any further admin action against you. If they'd aquiesced to your edit request, there would be no way for them to enforce the 7 day time frame on you. AFAIK, there is no policy stating that an admin can drop a time window to prevent an editor editing, except by mutual agreement. Voluntary topic bans are an example. It was a "something for something" exchange. You don't edit for 7 days, you don't get blocked. I'd say that was pretty clear. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. I'm not trying to "sucker" anyone into doing anything. I thought it was a reasonable request to clear with the admin in question. I'm simply asking someone to explain the 7-day threshold on this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely unreasonable request to the admin. They were involved in an administrative capacity, and were being wise enough to stay out of it editorially. Requesting that anyone edit-by-proxy is further inappropriate - that's what the talkpage of the article is for (i.e. gaining WP:CONSENSUS for the edit). Bbb23 has acted very much above board ES&L 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're missing the point. I accept the "no edit via proxy" part, but I was asking about the 7-day part. A simple reply back instead of ignoring the question fails WP:ADMINACCT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    On what planet? Bbb23 is never required to act at any time, as per the same policy you're trying to rake him over the coals with. By stating a position one way or another, you were going to FORCE him into becoming WP:INVOLVED .. how do you not see that? You were out of line, not once but twice ... besides, NOBODY needs to ever reply to you, especially within your personally-invoked timeframes ES&L 11:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you've missed the point. A simple response from Bbb23 is all that I asked. Nothing more. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So you opened a thread here to get him in trouble when he didn't answer that simple question to your satisfaction? Doc talk 11:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't answer it fullstop. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to edit a ton of articles at a quick rate. What's 7 days away from this one going to hurt? It's not a big deal. Doc talk 12:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No big deal - the same as getting a succinct reply to my question from said admin, instead of it being ingnored. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that this is an ill-advised thread to open, and the claim of admin impropriety under ADMINACT a bit preposterous, I do want to point something out that may be... unpopular. I don't want to impose a punative block, but I need to see some insight into your conduct that persuades me that you understand the policy and you won't be disruptive again. The "I don't want to impose a punative block, but" part is odd. It seems like a mixing of the notion of "punitive" and "preventative". Doc talk 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He's saying that it would be punitive if Lugnuts understood what he did wrong, but otherwise not. — Lfdder (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lugnuts was involved in an edit war. A kindly admin decided not to block them, just to tell them to stay away from the article for 7 days. Then Lugnuts appears here to complain about the kindly admin and to stir un an unnecessary fuss. My advice: Lugnuts, stop digging yourself into a hole. Just walk away and do try not to join edit wars. They are pointless. Jehochman Talk 12:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Highlighting a failure of WP:ADMINACCT is not complaining, I'm was mearly asking for more information about the 7-days, but was ignored. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You weren't ignored. You simply didn't get the answer you want. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) i am not sure where you come from, but in most of the world that I am aware of "seven days" means "7 days" and there is not much more clarification that could possibly be given. Exactly what clarification were you looking for? 168 hours? 10080 minutes? 604800 seconds? (Although I would suggest that rushing back in at 604801 seconds to make your edit would be unwise.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
    I know what 7 days means, I was asking for a link to the guidance/policy for this for future reference. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How about WP:AGF? Bbb23 could have blocked you for 7 days but instead he offered you a way out in which all you had to do was avoid the article for 7 days. Rather than being backed by any policy, I'd say Bbb23 was acting with WP:COMMONSENSE. Blackmane (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is great, and was all I was asking for. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't any policy/guideline about an agreements between editors. You agreed to not edit the article for 7 days and Bbb23 agreed not to block you for violating the three revert rule. What else do you want? GB fan 13:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly Lugnuts, from the tone of this thread it almost sounds as though you'd prefer a policy-dictated 7-day block instead of a more-lenient-but-non-formalized 7-day "don't edit this article" warning. Bringing the issue here only seems likely to WP:BOOMERANG on you. I tend to be a stickler for "Can you please cite policy for this?", but in this particular case I'd settle for being happy I wasn't blocked rather than taking the admin to court as it were. My recommendation, were I in your shoes, would be to apologize for bringing it up here and lie low for awhile and try to learn from your experience. I apologize if my comments aren't as supportive as you might like. DonIago (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I can see where this is heading. I thought it was a reasonable request per WP:ADMINACCT. I apologise for bringing this matter to your attention. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#WP:IRE-IRL_and_piped_links where they are changing pipe links to the name of the linked article rather than the text that appears. Pipe links are used for a purpose, bots shouldn't change the text without thought whatever about removing a link. That they then go on arguing that WP:IMOS is wrong is I think over the top. If they want to change that they should set up a section and debate it but until then they should accept it. I do not believe they are fit to run a bot with an attitude like that. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears a large number of articles has [[Irish language|Irish]] become Irish with no link at all and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] become Republic of Ireland. It isn't just changing the text that appears but removing the link as well.--Antiqueight confer 11:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I see no problem with edits of '[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]' to 'Ireland', per WP:OVERLINK; however I do have an issue with '[[Irish language|Irish]]' to just 'Irish'. An explanation is needed; but knowing this user and AGFing it's probably just a script that needs tweaking. GiantSnowman 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and @Dmcq:, I have notified Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) about this discussion as you should have done per the clear & explicit instructions. GiantSnowman 11:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed '[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]' to 'Ireland' would be correct in the articles- but not to 'Republic of Ireland' as has been the case in these edits.--Antiqueight confer 11:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of this "problem" is because the article on the state is located at "Republic of Ireland", and most lazy readers then assume that this is the official name of the state. Exactly the problem as predicted. I see this all the time. I'd say that this particular area is *not* a good place for a bot, and all bots should be banned from WP:IRE-IRL changes. Simples. --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tweaked the script to do as GS recommended. If nobody at WP:IRELAND or here thinks unpiping an Easter egg to the displayed text is a problem, that's good enough for me. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a particularly poor choice of work for a bot (or other assisted editing) to do. The choice to use "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" (WP:IRL-IRE) is context-sensitive (per bot policy) and contentious. De-linking is fine (indeed there was a recent discussion and consensus to do so) but changing the text is not an appropriate activity for a bot process.
    I would also point out that this matter is covered by an ArbCom motion. If Ohconfucius continued to ignore the IMOS and make these edits my plan of action was to seek an enforcement against his script. --Tóraí (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only a poor choice of work for "a bot [sic]" because the link is an Easter egg, that you can't unpipe it to the displayed text without it being reductive or misleading. Of course, I'd be leaving it for the Arbcom enforcers to decide whether this is covered by the remedies. Anything else is pure speculation. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slightly more big-picture, I don't see much to boast about in the linking practices in Ireland-related articles, particularly of the several options for country-names. We would do our readers a favour by not piping without great care to avoid misleading—basically, if there's something (historically relevant in terminology) to convey, do so explicitly rather than expecting readers to obediently click on easter-egg links. This is on top of the site-wide guideline not to link commonly known country-names/geographical features unless there's a special reason to do so. I see no special reasons, but instead a resorting to an unexplained "consensus" by a wikiproject, probably by just a very few people some time ago—but how would we know? (And I'm not sure it matters anyway in the larger circumstances.) Ohconfucius does not flip a switch and go to bed while his script mows down thousands of articles; far from it, he is a careful and thoughtful gnoming editor who has a considerable track-record of sensitivity to reasonable queries. Best. Tony (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this require action? (Ijustreadbooks)

    Yesterday, Ijustreadbooks (talk · contribs) made 25 edits and deletions to the article Paul Robeson. I suggested on his talk page that he use the preview feature or the sandbox, and reverted two edits.

    On the article's talk page, he called my edits a "waste of bytes" and "too low brow".

    On my talk page, he told me "you have 24 hours" to delete an edit, and "your edits were terrible".

    Thank you. Richard Apple (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    1. All true
    2. His reverted my edits, I did not revert his edits, yet.
    3. He has 23 hours now to revert his edits. His edits added too many bytes to the article.
    4. His edits were terrible and not helpful. They destroyed the structure of the legacy section.
    5. This is a dispute over content. He added too much detailed content. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am requesting him unrevert my edits. I will eventually unrevert my edits. I am requesting he unrevert his edits. His actions were inappropriate. I have 2000+ edits in the article, and I gave up looking for the number of edits he has after lower than 7. 23 hours for reverting his edits, his edits will be reverted today, tomorrow, new week, next month, or next year- I am in for the long haul. I request he unrevert my edits ASAP. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't own the article, but his edits were really terrible. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    and a total waste of bytes, and completely redundant, in an article that is way too long as it is. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ijustreadbooks' deletions are extensive, and I see no consensus for them on the talk page, so I have reverted them. Since they are contentious, IJRB needs to discuss his proposed changes and get a consensus from other editors for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he means that he has over 2000 edits. 1357 to Bert Bell and 583 to Paul Robeson since his account was created on 24 Jun 2012. The editors work includes really only these two pages with 117 edits to Talk:Paul Robeson and 23 edits to Talk:Bert Bell. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the editor said quite clearly that he or she has "2000+ edits in that article". It would be very difficult to have that number of edits in the article without being one of the two main contributors to it, 66.234.33.8 (talk · contribs), who has 1404 edits, or Catherine Huebscher (talk · contribs) who has 1264. It just so happens that Catherine Heubscher is an indef blocked editor, blocked for sockpuppetry. I would suggest that it might be worthwhile for a CU to take a look at the relationship between Ijustreadbooks, Catherine Huebscher and 66.234.33.8. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I read it the same way that they had "2,000+ edits in the article", not 2,000 total edits. CU would not publicly connect any IP to any named account, but the possibility of a CH connection is intriguing. Doc talk 13:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks to me as if Ijustreadbooks = 66.234.33.8 = Catherine Huebscher. The tight focus on Robeson is the key factor, plus the fact that Huebscher's indef block was not only for sockpuppetry but also for disruptive editing and personal attacks, which seems to be in line with the attitude that Ijustreadbooks projects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @CG: Yes, it would have been, since CH is indef blocked for sockpuppetry, edit warring and general disruptive editing. If she is editing under any IP (which she did after being blocked), that is block evasion, which is de facto disruptive. As I wrote below, I no longer believe that IJRB/66.xx is CH, so that question appears to me to be moot in regard to this discussion, but the general point still stands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    if the account is too stale for CU, than an SPI is not going to do anything that we can't do here by just looking at the editing patterns. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPI is the correct place for that kind of investigation, not here. GiantSnowman 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With a little more time available to me today, I looked more thoroughly at the contributions of CH, IJRB and 66.xxx.xx.x, and have concluded that it's very unlikely that IJRB/66.xx is CH, so I have not filed an SPI and I offer my apology to Ijustreadbooks for reaching the wrong conclusion last night. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not Caterine. Catherine does not do articles on NFL Commissioner's. I am 66.34, whatever ip address. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bert Bell Ijustreadbooks (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1357 edits in the Bell article, + 1268 + 100, Not really that tight of a focus on the Robeson article and Catherine reverted edits ad infinitum, she worshiped Robeson, and would only allow viewpoints from certain authors. Bottom line is this is completely redundant:

    "Several public and private establishments he was associated with have been landmarked,"

    "In 2002, a blue plaque was unveiled by English Heritage on the house in Hampstead where Robeson lived in 1929–30."

    Also, I am probably the edition who put in the original edit that included the blue plaque statement :P

    Maybe someone will some day respond to me on the talk page, no one ever does https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Robeson&action=history Ijustreadbooks (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD concerns

    I have highly expiations about the CSD tagging. I have received many complaints about it, an it's driving me insane. The administrator Nyttend, blocked me yesterday because I was "abusing CSD tags", when really that I was adding F3 "improper license" on various photos that I have seen that day, which the admin had a problem with. I never thought that it would be a "big" problem that could end up me being blocked. Everyday, I see a non free photo with the wrong copyright license, and I always elected it F3. Nyttend have a highly big problem because of it, and honestly, I just have no idea why. I'm just doing my job, not "abusing templates", as what Nyttend was trying to imply. --Blurred Lines 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What admin action are you seeking here? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone comes here claiming that he was incorrectly blocked, I guess he wants other admins to take a look and see who was right (if any). Certainly when speedy deletions are involved, only admins can truly value the edits (since other people can only see the rejected speedies, not the accepted ones). Whether any further admin action is sought (or needed) is secondary to that first admin action. Fram (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nyttend didn't "try to imply" you were abusing the templates, they said it explicitly. There's lengthy conversation on your talk page (now removed) on the topic, by two admins and another editor with expertise on the matter, and if you cannot accept their explanations it's just another case of "I didn't hear that". Sorry, but them's the shakes. The next step is to reread their comments and take it to heart. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But looking at that conversation, at first glance the only example given of problematic tagging is one by Crisco1492, which is indeed problematic, but which predates the warning Nyttend gave. To block a user after a warning, there have to be significant continued problems after the warning was given, and these seem to be missing. There were some minor discussions, and the editor has a learning curve, but I would like some examples (preferably by Nyttend, the blocking admin) of what warranted the block on the 10th. If the editor is to learn, it is best to present examples. Fram (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • CSD should only be used if there is no obvious hope for correction of an image, there are the less-speedy NFC-related ones, like the db-series, that are better suited for cases where there are mistakes that do need to be corrected in reasonably short order. For example, as noted by Crisco, I warned Blurred after he tagged for CSD an image I uploaded where I used a "game cover" rationale instead of a "logo" rationale. That's an easy fix, not a case that CSD should be dealing with. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors (uploaders) should be responsible to the images they upload. Honestly, I shouldn't have to fix anything, that's the uploader's position to fix it, not me. Also, using an invalid fair use tag on a photo is considered marked for a CSD, so warning me for that makes no sense once so ever. --Blurred Lines 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And taggers should be held responsible for their tags--didn't you hear that? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is there is a difference between a fixable problem (which for nonfree, there's a body of db- templates that give warning and 7 days to correct), and a non-fixable problem for which CSD makes sense. A wrong license tag is a wrong license tag, yes, but as long as takes one quick edit to correct, CSD is not the right way to tag that. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The db- template you have just mentioned, the "General criteria", well I don't see anything under General criteria on Twinkle about a warning on improper licenses, and given 7 days to correct the license. I would of tried that, but I didn't see it, so I choose the CSD one instead. --Blurred Lines 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there might be a problem with your use of Twinkle then. Just because the copyright info is incomplete or incorrect doesn't warrant a speedy delete. It is standard practice to give warnings and let the Editor fix the problem. Why the rush to delete over a fixable problem? Liz Read! Talk! 17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blurred Lines, I'm sure you mean well, but you'll need to get a better understanding of the criteria needed to delete a file.

    cFor example, you tagged File:Wikierror10012013.jpg for speedy deletion as a copyright when it was clearly a self-made image. I accepted the request in good faith and it was reverted by an admin as being an appropriate image and not a copyright infringement. Hold off on tagging images for a bit and learn a bit more about them first.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

    If a non-admin user can do stuff such as correcting templates, improving rationales, and the like, then admins are freed up to do the things that only admins are authorised to do, such as delete files. As you may have noticed, we are extremely short of admins who are actively doing administrative work right now – take note of the recent posts at WP:AN about extensive backlogs at AFD, PUF, FFD, NFCR, SPI, etc. etc. Tagging images for deletion that actually only need a bit of clean-up is counter-productive, as admins are taken away from tasks that only admins are allowed to do. Any work cleaning up images that non-admins can take on themselves would be helpful. But Blurred Lines, I don't think you have the knowledge of Wikipedia policies and copyright law to be working on images right now. Since you are receiving many complaints about the way you are doing the work, it's time for you to stop what you are doing – it would be better for you to find another way to contribute for the time being. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly do I not have the knowledge to work on images? If I didn't have knowledge to work on images, I would have never worked with it in the first place. Now the way I hear it from you is kind of offensive, that you think that I don't have the knowledge of doing what I do just because I don't know "Wikipedia policies and copyright laws". --Blurred Lines 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know Wikipedia policies and copyright laws, you don't have the knowledge to work on images on Wikipedia. Also, your signature takes up an astounding amount of code. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Argubly, Blurred does show he understands most of the NFC - bad licenses are a reason to remove an image, for example. But there is a difference between tagging a bad image and one that can be obviously fixed once the issue is pointed out. (This would be equivalent to removing an image for a #10c violation because the name of the article that the image is used on is misspelled in the rationale.) This is potentially harmful per WP:BITE. And no, this is not asking Blurred to do the work, just to .. tag with a less aggressive warning, in a way. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Blurred Lines, sorry if my remarks hurt your feelings. Most of your work has been okay. I am just suggesting if you are getting many complaints about your image tagging, so many that it's driving you insane, that perhaps it's time to try to understand the suggestions being given to you as to how to improve what you are doing and learn to do it better in the future. For example, if Twinkle is not offering the appropriate template for the image you are dealing with, don't use Twinkle – tag it manually. And I do stand by my previous remark that working with images does require a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy and copyright law. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is ok, and I really do agree and respect your judgement 100%. In the meantime, could you tell me where can I get the file templates so I can post some manually? --Blurred Lines 20:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The most common ones are at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. What I've done is created a bookmark folder where I've collected some of the ones I use most often. I also have some pre-made stuff at User:Diannaa/My Templates. I will post some more stuff on your talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thanks. --Blurred Lines 21:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading this thread, I'd say that Masem's comment at 15:14 does a perfect job of describing the difference between immediate deletion and the "slow" deletion that we use for most images. I blocked Blurred Lines because he was treating all of the pages in question as if they were the "emergency" types that we delete instantly, even though the criteria were expressly inapplicable, e.g. tagging nonfree images under F3, which specifically excludes images that "comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content". Note that I blocked Blurred Lines because (1) I'd given a stern warning, (2) Blurred Lines removed the warning, so he obviously saw it; (3) Blurred Lines continued tagging images under inapplicable criteria, and (4) I therefore concluded that he was unwilling to stop mistagging images unless he was forced to stop. Nothing against you, Blurred Lines; I'll be happy to work with you in other fields, and in this one if we can get the process straightened out. Final note Apologies for no response until now; I was on the road today for more than 300 miles (480 km). Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    self-promotional userpage

    The userpage User:Kanagavel2win seems to be a bit too promotional, supported by the fact that these are the users only edits[104]. May be too minor for this board, but I didn't find another. --Túrelio (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Superzohar

    This user, acting in good faith, dumps in Russia-related articles large pieces of unsourced Google-translated text from Russian Wikipedia. On previous occasions, I already tried to explain him that the information should be sourced, and that the Google Translate is not the optimum way to improve Wikipedia. Yesterday, after they added this piece, I left a message at their talk page, to which they did not react. Today, they continued this activity, adding for example, this piece. I am working a lot on Russia-related articles, and it is really a pain to see how articles on which I spent many hours of work get contaminated by badly translated unsourced material, which I have no time to rework. May be someone can explain the policies to this user better than I was able to. Thank you in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Only today I've realized just how much of this stuff was dumped into the articles... which I don't understand, because I've seen this user contribute solid good material on many previous occasions (including translations of reasonable quality). My gut feeling is that all of these machine translations, in their current state, can simply be removed—I don't expect anybody would rush to volunteer to clean up this "Geogology" (sic) section, for example. If someone has an inclination to translate material from the Russian Wikipedia, it is only a click away and is easier to understand and work with than the gibberish linked to above. And, of course, nothing should be translated for which no source is given/can be accessed or for which a verification isn't done using some other means.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2013; 16:46 (UTC)
    Indeed, the guy is clearly acting in good faith and believes he improves Wikipedia. I am concerned with the fact that he stopped reacting to my messages some time ago, which probably means this was not the last time we have seen such pieces added.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I normally revert such additions on sight with an explanation in the edit summary, but I was rather busy in the past few days to catch them... A third opinion would be welcome here, by the way. Anyone?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2013; 18:32 (UTC)
    Hi everybody. I didn't know my edits would attract so much attention, from a negative aspect. It's true that some of my edits are bad because of the google translate, and have no place Wikipedia. But I think I mostly contribute normal edits. Maybe from my rush to add much materials (especially on Russia related issues, that sometimes are really rare I made much emphasis more on quantity than quality). I will do my best to work more on my edits, and if I use google translate, I will review more the results before I write them in Wikipedia. Superzohar Talk 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. If you could maintain the quality of your edits at this or slightly higher level, I don't think anyone would have any problems. Please also consider sourcing the information you are adding. Not everything from other Wikipedias is worth translating; sometimes a short summary of two or three sentences provides a better starting point for expansion (even when it's unsourced).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2013; 01:46 (UTC)

    Kevin Kelly (politician)

    Page protected. In the future, WP:RFPP is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP range keeps adding BLP vios; please consider a rangeblock or page protection. See the history of the page. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that these IPs also remove warnings from their talk pages. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Admin account possibly compromised

    IDIOT
    "Idiot" (temporary) is covered under not perfect, nothing to see here. NE Ent 23:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So I go to check my watchlist and discover 2 protection log entries and 4 move log entries. When I investigated further by clicking on the move log entry I discovered that two of the entries were pointed to a nonexistent target from a full-move-protected page (Jimmy Carter). --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like an accident. See his edit summary. Also, you forgot to notify him, which I've now done. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)Nah, just a mistake. Looks like he was looking to see what the page move form looked like in order to answer a question at the teahouse, and accidentally actually moved the page. pinging User:Fuhghettaboutit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c; Floquenbeam has hit the nail on the head) Hey Bigpoliticsfan. If I ever saw the edit I just made from another admin, I too would assume the account might be compromised. Sigh. Anyway, you definitely did the right thing in coming here. Fortunately (or unfortunately), it was just a bit of temporary idiocy on my part (which I reverted before I was informed of this thread). What happened was that I was answering a question at the Teahouse about whether on a requested move you need to separately ask for moves of talk subpages, like GA nominations. I was informing the user that admins see a note allowing them to move up to 100 pages automatically if an article has talk subpages, but wanted to copy and paste the exact text, so I went to an article I knew would likely have archives. Jimmy Carter, so I would see the field to copy the message. Then "Jimmy" reminded me that I wanted to look up something about Jimmy Buffet and started to type that (obviously with a misspelling) and seeing my cursor was in the move field, went to a different tab, but I must have hit return before I switched or somehow grazed the move page button. Anyway, I didn't even realize I had moved the page until after I looked at the Jimmy Buffet article, and answered the Teahouse question..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Montanabw personal attacks

    No consensus for sanctioning Montanabw. Neither Nikki nor Smeat, the "attackees", seem to care much, although Smeat rightfully says that personal attacks should be discouraged. All the arbitration-related issues belong there, not here, and some of it already is.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the context of a violation of ArbCom restrictions[105] on the Infoboxes case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted), @Montanabw: issues the following post:

    You two (Nikki and Smeat) are a couple of pretentious, small-minded little jackasses. In both cases we are talking about a 5x expansion from a stub. And your threats are just the most snot-nosed, tendentious, obnoxious, prissy tattle-tale example of bullying I have ever seen. Get a freaking life! Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [106]

    This follows on another October ANI report, only recently archived, to which Montanabw's reaction was:

    It doesn't seem that (yet, still) Montanabw is understanding community norms, or the significance of or the need for restrictions in the infobox wars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It doesn't appear that Sandy has tried to engage either Montanabw or Gerda Arendt in discussion on either talk page (per the rules). From Sandy's contribs, it appears that she immediately brought this to ANI. I believe this isn't the proper place for this discussion and it should be moved to one or both talk pages.
    As for Montanabw, I understand your obviously frustration, but that is a blatant personal attack, not cool.
    As for Gerda, restrictions on infoboxes? Come on, they're infoboxes. So I put this before the community, if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I will volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and uncontroversial. I would add the infobox, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Homer, I'll give you two out of three--not the latter one. The infobox stuff is, apparently, important enough to lead to ArbCom restrictions and your kind offer won't do Gerda any favors. The restriction is clear, like it or not. (I don't like any of this, but Gerda, please stick to it: you didn't create Quattro etc ex nihilo.) I also agree that this is not yet a matter requiring admin intervention, and hopefully it never will. And Montana, you know I respect you greatly--you write FAs that have fewer adjectives than that outburst. I hope this thread can/will be closed shortly: this is four of our best content editors, all of whom I respect greatly, engaged in something not so productive. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sandy is right, it's a pretty bad insult and really personal. At the very least, Montanabw should retract it. And I do honestly mean at the least.--v/r - TP 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that ends my thought of closing this discussion. Frankly, I would have trouble taking that kind of comment seriously if it were directed at me, and I can be thin-skinned. I would instead find myself mesmerized by, as Drmies notes, the long list of adjectives. It's more like something a precocious child would say after being contradicted. I don't know how Smeat felt about it, but it didn't seem like Nikki was particularly bothered. As for the infobox stuff, this is not WP:AE, so throwing that in only muddies the already roiling waters. Good night all.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely agree with Drmies. It's very unfortunate that some of our best content contributors are unable to get along, and I strongly suggest that Montana retract her comment and apologize. But really, the last thing we need is more people playing "civility police" here. I think we've all been around that block enough times to know it's a bad idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waking up to this, I don't believe it. The first question: Is there really "a violation of ArbCom restrictions", the premise of this thread? I doubt it. It needs clarification. I spoke there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edits by Collingwood26

    I'm asking for an uninvolved administrator to have a look at the edits of user:Collingwood26 and what looks like personal abuse on Nick-D's talk page. See [108]. Collingwood26 has made some dozen or so changes to the Canadian flag on the info box of War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) over the last year, variously deleting it or moving it. See examples [109], [110], [111] [112]. He has been reluctant to discuss this on the talk page, although after some encouragement, he has. He has repeatedly stated he has "facts" to support his actions although these have yet to be provided. Collingwood26's recent outburst on Nick-D's page seems to be about a short, perfectly proper discussion several days ago between me and user:Nick-D regarding his renewed edits to the Canadian flag on the info box of War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present). I raised it with Nick-D because frankly I wondered if it was worth the bother continuing. Unfortunately user:Collingwood26 has previously featured at ANI in these discussions; [113] and [114] Nickm57 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd add that 1) the discussion on my talk page which Collingwood26 is abusing me over actually concluded before the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Canada in which he's claiming that I'm going behind his back and 2) Collingwood26 has form in attacking me and trolling more generally, and has been blocked for this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive769#Renewed personal attacks by Collingwood26, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Collingwood26: concerns about POV-driven editing and extreme talk page posts. The long-running edit warring in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) appears to be part of his Australian nationalism-driven editing: the goal is to belittle the Canadian contribution to the war while puffing up the Australian contribution, and he's never provided any sources to support his contention that Australia's role in the war has been more significant. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about Canada/Afghanistan. I thought me and Nick-D had worked that out, also how are my edits nationalism-driven? Was it nationalism driven when I put Germany, France, and Italy behind Britain and above Australia? No because I am fair and acknowledge their roles in the war.
    This is not about Canada/Afghanistan, let me reiterate that once more. This is about how I recieved no response from Nick-D after I made a very public apology to him, then when I went to his talk page to write him a message of friendship, here I see him and NickM collaborating against me. How do you think that makes me feel?--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It should make you feel sad that your actions were so bad that they started a chain of events in motion that had taken on a life of their own, so that by the time your made the decision to apologize, more than an apology was going to be needed. It should make you feel sad that you were shortsighted about the effects of your original altercation. It should make you feel sad that had you apologized sooner (or not made the behaviours at all), you could have resolved things much easier and much gentler. Finally, it should make you glad that the article is being fixed as per both policy AND consensus with or without your help, as is the nature of Wikipedia. ES&L 09:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not trying to be rude, but what are you talking about ESAL? I don't understand what you mean? Why is this my fault when I was the one to apologise? Where's my apology from Nick?--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What I said was that if you had done something bad enough that you had felt the need to go back and apologize, then perhaps you should not have done that thing in the first place. Now you forced people to discuss you and your edits elsewhere in order to try and resolve the problems - you shouldn't have been surprised by that fact when you had showed yourself to be difficult to work collaboratively with earlier ES&L 10:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose so, but I don't like being ignored by someone when I'm trying to apologise to them, even worse he didn't have to write those things about me behind my back.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well actually, this conversation is about your dozen or more edits to the Canadian flag on War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present), and nothing else. All you have illustrated here is that you are either unable to reflect on what you've done on that page over the last twelve months, or that you are unwilling to do so. Which I assume means your edits were totally without foundation. Nickm57 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC) But while I'm at it - this edit here "Is this really note-worthy?" [115] at Talk:United States federal government shutdown of 2013 doesn't inspire me with any confidence you understand the problem with your edits at Wikipedia.Nickm57 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Collingwood26, please indent your replies so that the conversation can be followed. I've taken the liberty of properly formatting the section here, please be sure to properly thread the discussion in the future. Thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't NickM57, maybe you need to look into Nick-D and my conversation with him on talk page War in Afghanistan, where we completely resolved that. Think before you write next time.--Collingwood26 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, what Collingwood26 needs to do for a conclusion (on this page) to this matter is a) make an acknowledgement of and apology for the personal abuse of Nick-D that occurred here [116] and make an undertaking never to do this again to any editor and b) make an acknowledgement of the inappropriate edit-warring and an undertaking never to do this again. Nickm57 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What personal abuse? Also I already apologised to Nick-D, now it is his turn and somewhat NickM57 as well to apologise to me, you were talking behind my back about me in a negative light. You are meant to notify an editor if you are talking about them, neither NickM57 nor Nick-D notified me, THAT is why I am angry and deserve an apology.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot "force" anyone to talk to you, and "demanding an apology" is fruitless - apologies cannot be forced. The short form appears to be this: you screwed up, people got mad. They're not ready to forgive and forget yet. Stop your improper behaviour (if you have not already), back away, and rebuild a more positive reputation from scratch - THAT is the way to make friendlier discussions ES&L 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope - that protocol applies to notifying an editor they have been reported here at ANI, not that their edit warring has been discussed on someone's talk page. So it's pretty clear - you have no intention of changing your habits. Nickm57 (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Collingswood26, please indent your replies. Not indenting makes a discussion nearly impossible to follow. (Also continued refual to properly format after being asked to do so can be considered disruptive). - The Bushranger One ping only 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No that protocol applies in a general sense when negatively talking about another editor, in those circumstances you are required to notify that editor, you nor Nick-D notified me of your intentions. You are in the wrong. Also to Bushranger, sorry but I don't know how to indent?--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Collingwood, you're starting to become your own worst enemy. Discussions about your behaviour can take place ANYWHERE without you being notified or invited. There's NO requirement to invite you. However, once you are reported to an admin noticeboard, you ARE required to be advised. You were properly notified of this ANI discussion 3 minutes after it was opened. Let me repeat my advice above, and I hope you pay close attention to it so that we can close this timesink: "The short form appears to be this: you screwed up, people got mad. They're not ready to forgive and forget yet. Stop your improper behaviour (if you have not already), back away, and rebuild a more positive reputation from scratch - THAT is the way to make friendlier discussions" (oh, and read WP:TPG while you're at it) ES&L 12:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    How did I screw up? People didn't get mad I got mad because as I was apologising both Nicks were chatting about me negatively. How Is my behaviour improper when they didn't properly notify me of their intentions?--Collingwood26 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    See the ::: before this comment? That's how you indent; you just add another one for each comment so that it's indented one ":" more than the one before it. Also, they are not required to notify you of anything when they're discussing you on their talk pages. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hauntingwhisper

    Content dispute. WP:DRN is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm asking for an uninvolved administrator to have a look at the edits of user:Hauntingwhisper. Sources says that, since 2011, the wrestling promotion World Wrestling Entertainment changed his name to WWE. here and here you can see the name changeand and WWE Corporative website says WWE, not World Wrestling Entertainment. In WWE Talk Page, other user of the wikiprojeect Pro wrestling agree with the name change. However, user:Hauntingwhisper changed the name to World Wrestling Entertainment in Eva Marie. I talked to him, I give him sources, but he doesn't listen. [117], [118] and [119]. I tried to talk with him, but he doesn't listen, so it is vandalism. Please, help me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That looks like a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. GregJackP Boomer! 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, what can I do? Sources are right, but he doesn't listen and I don't want to have a war. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DR covers the procedures to follow. RfC is where I would start. GregJackP Boomer! 14:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    HHH Pedigree

    I'm not vandalizing Eva Marie's page!! I stated before that WWE is STILL World Wrestling Entertainment, cause it was said by Vince McMahon himself on numerous occasions. I'm not saying that it is not called the WWE, but they do go by both names. Everytime I would make an edit, he would automatically revert it like he is stalking the page for anyone and everyone's edits so he can have it his way. He made the threats to get me blocked, instead of trying to find common ground. I put both names on the page (ex. World Wrestling Entertainment / WWE) because both names mean the same thing, World Wrestling Entertainment. If anything, he hardly lets anyone edit cause it's like you have to answer to him with your edits, like he owns the page. I've been editing for a while now, and I wouldn't vandal a page. If anything, I'm not saying block him either, I'm saying that were both right on the whole WWE dilemma, but agree differently. Hauntingwhisper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't say you're vandalizing, but you're a) going against WP:CONSENSUS, and b) also going against current WP:RS. Either way, this is not the place for content disputes. That said, the FORMAL name for the company is WWE. We all know it stands for "World Wrestling Entertainment" (formerly "World Wrestling Federation"), but the formal branding of the company is quite clear, and this is discussed on the WWE main article. You should not be changing it, anywhere, ever ES&L 16:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Brahma Kumaris: new account - vandalism?

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Januarythe18th created. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi there, A brand new account has just started reverting all the content [120][121] back to how the page was just before the User:Januarythe18th was indefinitely blocked. Might be easier to see from page history. The attack has happened twice in 15 minutes. Requesting this user is also blocked. I hope I'm reporting in the right place. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is kind of hard not to see how the remarkable similarity of user names between the new editor and the previously banned editor might not be a very serious indicator that this is the same person, isn't it? John Carter (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's most likely the same person, though it's not quite correct to call their edits "vandalism". It's just a very big revert. The appropriate place to report this is WP:SPI, but that probably won't be necessary...I expect they'll be blocked shortly by someone else. (If they continue to revert I'll do it.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that January is saying on his user talk page that this isn't him, and it is perhaps possible that someone might be using this name as a red herring to get the blame attached to someone else, maybe, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly bright thing for this alleged other person to do. But SPI would probably be the best place to address this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    I read the user page (of January) as referring to the outing incident. Which comments do you take as referring to this incident with June24th? It's a pretty big coincidence for a new user to start up, choose that name, within 3 days of the block, and revert content to precisely where it was prior to the block.... Danh108 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    5.65.29.109 replacing images of living people for one of hitler

    [122]Along with other vandalism, please block as there is a backlog at AIV Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Tag removal and personal attacks at Uralic languages by User:Taivo

    There's currently an ongoing dispute at Uralic languages regarding how to treat the traditional classification into two branches as opposed to newer theories criticizing that classification. I have largely avoided the debate, as contentious and personal, and have argued repeatedly that our personal opinions do not matter, that what we need to do is provide all scholarly theories and deal with the controversy by attributing them per WP:ATTRIBUTE.diff 1, diff2

    User:Taivo has been intimately involved, and has at least twice attacked another editor for his credentials: "You're not a linguist, so when a linguist gives you some advice on how to reference scholarship, take it like a man" diff and "Since Nug is not a linguist and is ignorant of theory" diff. He is arguing his view of the facts as opposed to the scholar's views. "If you actually knew anything about the field of Uralic, Nug, then you wouldn't even need to ask that question".

    Now Taivo is summarily reverting CN tags as invalid before addressing them and and "by whom" tags without addressing who holds an unattributed "doubt".diff.

    As I file this I now see he has violated WP:3RR: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, and revert 4.

    Please admonish the editor to stop his personal attacks, removing tags requesting attribution without addressing them, and outright edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This report is as one-sided as it could've possibly ever been. The finest specimen from the other party in this dispute: "I just realised that Kansas is part of the American Bible belt, you are not a closet creationist are you?" — Lfdder (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The user you quote without a diff Lfdder, is not a party in this filing, and I am not defending his or anyone's behavior or taking any specific content position. (As far as I am aware, he and I have never interacted once.) But when you get immediate edit warring and personal attacks as part of any attempt to participate in this article or it's discussion page, it makes it impossible for editors like myself to take even reasonable positions. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked at the merits, but if you think someone has violated WP:3RR consider separating that part and filing at at WP:ANEW. It's a much speedier system for edit warring, beyond that its unclear if further action would be needed? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Shock and horror, I didn't include a diff. It's right there on the Talk page, ctrl+F. So it's ok to point to Taivo's interactions with other users in this filing -- albeit they've nothing to do with this filing, apparently -- but not to other users' comments he was responding to? — Lfdder (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, getting your addition reverted is not edit warring; but reverting the revert is. So congratulations, you've been edit warring. — Lfdder (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And really, "admonish"? We're not in fucking kindergarten, are we? Have you even approached Taivo say on their talk page before coming here? — Lfdder (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This filing is not about the 4RR, which didn't occur until I was already 3/4 of the way through writing this report. It's about the personal attacks and removing of tags as if they were invalid and didn't need addressing--basically ownership behavior. Feel free to admonish anyone else who's misbehaving, but please don't tell me one editor's misbehavior is justified by another's. Inability to do anything at this page without immediately being reverted and attacked has kept me away for weeks. I also ask that Lfdder recuse himself if he finds it necessary to respond to the word "admonish" with insult and obscenity. I can't believe the fact I am asking the editor to be warned rather than blocked is a subject of ridicule. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the diffs given such as [123] demonstrate a case since there is insufficient context. If someone was displaying particular ineptitude at the sub-discpline, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with expertise got heated in some way with people misinterpreting the scholarship (I have no particular expertise so I can not easily deduce if that was the case with ease in this instance). Nug also appears to be giving as good as he's getting as Lfdder highlights. Certainly this isn't something to be encouraged, but not indicative of any action needed. The main issue appears to be the content dispute itself. The edit war at 12 Oct looks like a two way edit war between two editors (you and Taivo). It probably would be good for the page to have some temporary page protection. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying that someone is not a linguist, is not a personal attack. It is a statement of what someone believes to be a fact. There is a no case to answer.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "please don't tell me one editor's misbehavior is justified by another's" I did not say that at all. What I said was that you're not presenting a balanced/the full picture here. "I can't believe the fact I am asking the editor to be warned rather than blocked is a subject of ridicule." Oh, so you're doing him a favour then? Bless your heart. "Warn" and "admonish" have different meanings. — Lfdder (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    One has to wonder about some of the strange edits by User:Medeis (μηδείς). Here are some of his/her edits to a sentence that has a valid citation. I think these edits are bizarre. It is legitimate for use to discuss these edits as how Taivo dealt with them is part of the substance of the complaint here.

    Incidentally the claim that Taivo broke 3RR is dishonest. Alleged revert 4 was the reverting of what I perceive as vandalism by an IP editor.

    Taivo's removing of inappropriate tags seems fine. His/her removing a citation needed tag and immediately afterwards replacing it with a citation,[124] is the behaviour that citation needed tags are meant to produce.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Telling someone they have no linguistics training is not a personal attack, especially when it is clear from their comments and their user contributions that they don't actually know the field. Indeed, the other editor has never claimed otherwise. I might note that two of the alleged reverts were actually one: I reverted Medeis' tags, then as I was writing up the reference to deal with the citation issue, he reverted me two seconds after my revert. I then had to revert again (see my edit summary) in order to paste in the reference I prepared while Medeis was rapid-firing on the revert button. --Taivo (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    So, Taivo's entitled to remove cn tags, yet we are not allowed to restore them, because we should psychically know that he is working on a citation? When did revert first, cite later become the way to edit? And Taivo's entitled to respond to everything an editor says with an ad hominem comment because the comment is true? Is this behavior okay to continue? μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And, Medeis, were you just sitting in wait so that you could lightning revert? That sounds more like edit warring than writing a citation to address your referencing concern (which was legitimate). --Taivo (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what's bizarre with my actions here. Nug made an edit inserting three tags, "peacock", "weasel" and "cn". Kwami immediately reverted it saying Nug didn't know what he was talking about; yet another personal attack on Nug's competence. I agreed that the "peacock" tag was unnecessary, so I simply restored the "weasel" and "cn", tags which were both perfectly appropriate. (I did not "insert" the weasel tag, I restored it when it was not answered.) In comes Taivo simply reverting the edit wholesale first without providing the cite. Then when the cite was finally provided after an angry edit summary comment I changed the "weasel" tag to "by whom" because I have been arguing on the talk page that we need to attribute these claims. Then we get Taivo's third wholesale reversion removing the "by whom" tag without attributing to the source. At this point we've got tag teaming insults and reverts coupled with days worth of abuse on the talk page, and myself asking that we attribute claims, but facing 4rr if I restore a "by whom" tag reverted without answering. The "by whom" tag needs to go back up, and the editors reverting valid challenges on the basis of their opinion that an editor is not competent to challenge them needs to stop. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Medeis, you apparently didn't read my edit summary when I reverted your last "Who" tag. The tag is ridiculous because the references are at the end of the sentence. We don't go along placing a tag or reference behind every single word in the sentence. When the entire sentence is the subject of a reference, then the reference comes at the end. Or would you actually prefer to see the same reference repeated after every single content word? --Taivo (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This dispute has grown rather tiresome, and it comes on the heels of a dispute about the speaker population of Hungarian using Fyodor's tourist guide as a reference. Bit of a Randy in Boise problem. I reverted because the tags seemed POINTy and I wasn't going to bother separating the silly ones from the valid ones, so thanks to μηδείς for doing that. Using "peacock" for calling an agnostic classification "agnostic" suggests the user doesn't know what the word means. The cn tag was appropriate, and Taivo supplied a citation. But 'weasel'? "Growing more common" is a referenced statement of fact, so neither the weasel tag nor the by-whom tag was appropriate. (If the ref that is already provided fails to support the claim, then we have specific tags for that.) So there's nothing inappropriate about removing the tags, and as for the "attacks", well, how is pointing out that Randy's argument shows an ignorance of the literature an attack rather than a relevant evaluation of his argument? — kwami (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was notified on my talk page that I was mentioned in this discussion, so I suppose I should comment.
    The contentious article statement "Doubts about the validity of most of the proposed higher-order branchings (grouping the nine undisputed families) are becoming more common" is vaguely attributed and implies something stronger that the original source statement: "Especially after the analyses by Häkkinen (1983, 1984) it has become increasingly clear that the traditional view of the interrelationships of Uralic languages depicted by a binary or nearly binary tree is based on much less solid evidence than has been tacitly assumed."[125] In this case "it has become increasingly clear" in the original text is a reference to the author's POV but the way the statement is written, without proper attribution, e.g. "Doubts about…" rather than "Salminen has expressed doubts about…" and the addition of "are becoming more common", it implies something stronger that is not actually represented in the source. Hence the unattributed line is weaselly worded.
    Kwamikagami's "Randy in Boise problem" exemplifies the arrogant assumption of bad faith (FWIW I have a postgraduate qualification too), WP:OWNERSHIP and apparent dishonesty that has been endemic to this content discussion. The problem started the Kwamikagami's removal of "Finno-Ugric" from dozens of articles as documented here and here. In response Kwamikagami claimed: "That's what was done in the discussion when we decided to abandon FU. It's not my area, but the consensus was they made a convincing case."[126] Kwamikagami has since ignored all subsequent requests to provide a link to that discussion, so it seems he lied. He went on to claim a particular image I derived under creative commons was "fraudulent" (even though an identical image exists in the Finnish language article[127]) and then edit warred the image in commons[128] and in the article[129],[130],[131], then made a series of WP:POINTY edits [132], [133], before reverting it back to the original [134].
    Nor am I particularly surprised that Taivo has now be caught up in edit warring too, given his apparent WP:OWNERSHIP issues, assumptions of bad faith, and sad to say, apparent difficulty with honesty, for example perversely accusing me of somehow being "slippery" about sourcing[135] after I pointed out his error in attributing a chapter to the editor of a handbook (and not the actual author, thus rejecting the source)[136] which was earlier cited by Kwamikagami (and not me)[137], and continuing the claim I was wanting to virtually remove all mention of other points of view from the article[138] even after I had explicitly told him[139] that I called for the presentation of all viewpoints according to due weight and opposed the total removal of any mention of "Finno-Ugric" from articles as originally reported here
    For all of Taivo's tiresome touting of his and Kwamikagami's alleged PhD qualifications[140], he seems to have difficulty understanding WP:FIVE and particularly WP:WEIGHT and how to identify and present majority and minority viewpoints. --Nug (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And that, folks, it what we've been dealing with for weeks. — kwami (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for succinctly demonstrating your attitude. --Nug (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. The fundamental problem is that Nug doesn't understand linguistic methodology and when it is pointed out to him, he resorts to 1) wikilawyering, 2) proof texting from sources he doesn't completely understand, 3) making personal attacks. But none of Nug's comments above have anything to do with Medeis' charges against me (not Kwamikagami) here--1) personal attacks, 2) removing tags, 3) edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrug. I don't think attempting to bludgeon your content opponents with your allegedly superior qualifications is compatible with the WP:FIVE pillars. I stated why I believed that unattributed sentence was weaselly worded, and obviously I don't think you were justified in edit warring over the tags. The question is, if you are shown to misrepresent the arguments of a fellow Wikipedian you disagree with, as linked above, can you be trusted not to misrepresent the arguments presented in sources with which you disagree? I guess that's a question you probably ought to reflect on, or not, I really don't care. --Nug (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What is interesting is that even in this forum you continue the personal attacks and your own claims of persecution from the "big, bad scholars". --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Brahma Kumaris - repeated outing

    user:Januarythe18th has inserted a link on his talk page repeating the outing here. This link goes straight to the search that contains the personal profile that the account was blocked for outing in the first place. Given we've just had our first sock, and the previous blocked user from this advocacy group had quite a list of socks, is there something pre-emptive that can be done? e.g. can the IP's that user operated their account from be blocked? Also, can the OS deal with the repeat outing? Thank you. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't post on a high visibility noticeboard about outing. Send an email direct to oversight, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeekk....sorry Danh108 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Roscelese's [seemingly misguided] proposed deletion of a page

    NAC: Nothing to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This post concerns user: Roscelese & this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_hardaway. The user has put forth a claim that the page should be deleted. From my perspective, it seems as though this person has offered contradictory reasons for proposing deletion. He/she has stated that the subject has a number of Google hits from multiple sources -- yet claims there aren't sufficient sources substantiating the article (There are 7 separate sources ranging from a premier lifestyle magazine to a respected university). It seems as though more than enough sources have been provided to show authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesteel9 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Any editor is entitled to propose deletion: this noticeboard is not an appropriate place to dispute proposed deletions or to complain about someone who's tagged a page in good faith for deletion. You've removed the PROD tag, so it rests there unless someone wants to start a deletion discussion. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This thread can be closed. To the OP: opening an AfD is like starting a lawsuit. Anybody can sue anyone for anything, but frivolous lawsuits will be tossed rapidly and those filing them will very quickly find trouble for wasting the community's time. Worry about the deletion debate in the appropriate place. No cause for action here. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another Comment - Trout for Roscelese for running a PROD on this barely more than one hour after creation. There's at least 1 source counting to GNG in the footnotes. Give content creators a little time. Carrite (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Obvious sockpuppet

    Megscaves123 blocked as an obvious sockpuppet. ElKevbo is whacked four times with a foam bluejay for an edit summary that couldn't be repeated on broadcast TV. :) —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can someone please block the latest sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Elkevbo is harassing me, cursing me out, reverting my edits and accusing me.--Megscaves123 (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved

    This used is biased agains Turks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerevanci

    Keeps deleting or nominating for deletion my file for I know. this file is genuinely mine Turk Bilge Tonyukuk Monument.jpg

    Here is the original source. http://orhunyazitlari.appspot.com/media/tonyukuk2.jpg


    In general, Armenian users are naturally biased against Turks Turkey, Azerbaijan due to history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismet11 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the obvious problems with bigoted personal attacks and failing to WP:AGF that you've exhibited in this very discussion that Proudbolsahye has hinted at, your actual statement makes no sense. How can the image be 'genuinely mine' yet have an original source that's a webpage? The original source will be your camera or since this image is edited, a combination of that and your computer. BTW Yerevanci is not and doesn't appear to have ever been an admin so it's literally impossible for them to have deleted your images, they could have nominated them for discussion or speedy deletion but that's a distinct thing (in particularly it implies someone else agreed with their reasoning). Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've formally warned this editor under WP:ARBAA2 for the focus on ethnicity. Any further accusations of this nature or focus on the perceived ethnicity of other editors should be reported for arbitration enforcement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur, and I've indefinitely blocked them under normal administrator authority per WP:NOTHERE. People who spam many pages with statements like "Armenians are natural bias for Turks, Turkey, Azerbaijan, they must be banned modifying Turkey / Azerbaijan related pages" are unlikely to have much to contribute to a neutral reference work. This block can be lifted if the user can explain that they understand why that is so. This is without expressing an opinion about the image copyright issue; that can be addressed via WP:OTRS if need be.  Sandstein  14:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated deletion of blocked user's block appeal

    This seems not right. Editor Dr.K., who had a user blocked in the first place, is repeatedly deleting this blocked user's block appeal. Rol 459302 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be because the supposed "Unblock requests" are full of WP:OUTING and WP:NOTTHEM - as such, they are not valid unblock requests, and have now simply led to no chance of that person EVER being unblocked. Seeing as blocks apply to the person, not to the account, they've really screwed up badly. ES&L 08:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Might want to revdel those edits, and some of the edit summaries. Also might want to check for a WP:BOOMERANG on the OP, who registered and immediately came here... - The Bushranger One ping only 11:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Musarabbyahmad

    Done by Alex Bakharev--Ymblanter (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user needs to be reblocked [141]. Thank you in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    + [142]--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    It seems likely that User:MyVoiceIsHeard is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia

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

    Resolved

    It seems likely that MyVoiceIsHeard (talk · contribs) is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia.

    The user was initially blocked for disruptive editing which included changing the sourced percentages of people to unsourced numbers. It was clearly explained to them that doing so was not allowed: [143] Within their first three edits back from the expiration of their block, the user jumped back in to do the same thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. Considering the dubious demography-related edits and stuff such as this, it's probably better if this voice is no longer heard here. Blocked indefinitely.  Sandstein  14:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ongoing harassment of administrator by editor

    Summary. Twc and Todd had an acrimonious dispute on an article talk page. Since that time, Twc has been harassing Todd by refactoring Todd's talk page, not staying away from Todd's talk page, and by refactoring comments on Twc's own talk page.

    Disclosure. Todd asked me to look into this. To my knowledge, I've never had any contact with Twc before this.

    Details. The dispute began on September 20 on the talk page of Intellectual disability and revolved around the term "mental retardation". Todd noted that the term was politically incorrect but that it was still widely used. Twc jumped in on October 2 and rather than focus on whether the term is still used and supported by reliable sources went off on a soapbox about how the word "retarded" is offensive, particularly to the disabled community. Twc equated the word "retarded" to the word "nigger".

    Todd tried to bring the discussion back to what the article should say per reliable sources, and said that Twc's WP:ADVOCACY was irrelevant to Wikipedia. Twc criticized Todd for not being civil (Todd asked if Twc was "incapable of reading the OP", which is, in my view, mildly uncivil and unnecessary, although provoked). There was also a fight over Twc's allusion to Michelle Bachmann (he called her ignorant for apparently using the word). Todd told Twc that it was a violation of WP:BLP for Twc to say that. (My view: not a major violation of BLP - stronger argument is it was irrelevant and evinced continued soapboxing by Twc.) Todd left a template warning on Twc's talk page regarding Bachmann. Twc complained about it on the Intellectual disability talk page and called it administrative abuse. Twc then left a warning on Todd's talk page about Todd's comments at the article talk page.

    Skipping over some of the intervening details, Twc then left another warning on Todd's talk page (same idea - first one had been removed by Todd). Todd removed it, and Twc escalated the warnings here. Todd replaced the warnings with a new section entitled "thewolfchildish behavior" (not a great idea, in my view) here. Todd concluded his new section by telling Twc to stay off his talk page unless he was notifying him of an ANI discussion. Twc ignored Todd's directive here, promptly removed by Todd. Twc then changed the section header to "thewolfchild behavior" here. @EatsShootsAndLeaves: reverted here. Twc reverted back here, claiming that Todd's word choice was a personal attack. Todd then changed the header to "thewolfchild's inappropriate behavior" here. Twc removed the word "inappropriate" here. Todd restored the word and again told Twc to stay off his talk page here. There was then a battle with ESAL having the last word.

    It was after this (same day, though) that I got involved and left this comment on Twc's talk page. After Twc responded (not helpfully in my view, but you can read it in the history), @Writ Keeper: commented, essentially telling Twc to leave Todd's talk page alone (here). Twc removed WK's comment (no problem with that) but also changed my section header from "Toddst1" to "Abusive Admin" (here). That pissed me off, and I changed it back and told Twc not to do it again here. Twc then removed the section (what was left of it) from their talk page and pasted it on mine here with a parting shot, "The hypocrisy is starting to give me nausea anyway." There were a few side discussions as well with other users. You can see it in Twc's contribution history, but I'm leaving them out as this is probably already too much detail.

    Proposal. Twc's behavior is wrong on two fronts. From an article standpoint, it's never a good idea for our world views to interfere with our ability to edit Wikipedia neutrally. Also, expressing our personal views on article talk pages is unhelpful at best. From a pure conduct standpoint, Twc's notion that they can attack other editors, admin or not, just because they don't like what they're saying is disruptive. Twc has been blocked a few times in the past for harassment, although it's been over a year. Apparently, they haven't learned. Although they appear to have stopped posting to Todd's talk page, I don't sense that they have learned anything from this experience, which does not bode well for future disruption. I leave it to others to decide whether sanctions are warranted and, if so, what they should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • So I guess what you're asking for is an independent analysis of who's being a bigger dick to the other? OK. I've looked at the whole conversation at the article talk page, Toddst1's talk page, and TWC's talk page, and I'd say it's 65% Thewolfchild's fault, and 35% Toddst1's. Maybe 60-40 or 70-30, it's hard to be precise.
    I'd be inclined to say that since it is not overwhelmingly one person's fault, and since the section of the article talk page in question has been archived so it isn't disrupting other editors any more, and since either one could stop this by not reacting to the other anymore, that we should stay out of it until they both get bored and move on. But I don't imagine that will get much traction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the independent analysis, @Floquenbeam: and I don't disagree (as you can see from my self-interpolation) that Todd has not behaved perfectly. I didn't relish taking this to ANI because these kinds of disputes, no matter how much mud is slung, generally come off sounding petty. And I wouldn't have brought it here if it hadn't been for the sly shot Twc took in changing my section header on their talk page. Before that, I was going to leave it up to Todd to take whatever action he deemed appropriate, including none, given that, as you say, Twc was no longer editing Todd's talk page (finally) and the discussion at the article talk page had been shut down. But, right or wrong, the section header change, after everything else, altered my thinking and led to my opening this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I see it differently from Floquenbeam. In reviewing twc's recent edits, my first thought was that his account had been hijacked. This is the third time twc has been at ANI (previously here and here), and the last time he escalated the situation until he was indeffed for gross incivility and for maintaining an obnoxious WikiWarrior mentality. Given that background does it make any sense at all to return to this behavior with a vengeance and to furthermore make repeated self-destructive requests from multiple (1, 2, 3, etc.) editors and administrators in the last few days to please please bring him back to ANI? If this isn't a hijacked account, this kind of action demonstrates a remarkable lack of WP:CLUE. And the more you scrutinize his edits, the deeper the rabbit hole goes.
      I've been skimming through twc's talk page for the last few minutes and I have to say I'm inclined to agree with Bbb23 that it really doesn't look like anything has changed at all since the last indef block. Nearly every single interaction twc has had with other editors seems to result in a massive epic-length battle. This isn't an editor who is interested in collaborating. This is an editor who is interested in getting his own way all of the time and at any cost. Rhetoric and advocacy for one's positions is one thing, but the level of acrimony twc brings to the project is distinctly unhelpful. Toddst1's use of the term "thewolfchildish" isn't model behavior, but it appears he had good cause to be frustrated and honestly I find the term apt given twc's childish punning of previous foe User:Nick Thorne's username into "a prick" on twc's talkpage record of past battles. These heavily edited, propaganda-spun summaries of twc's phyrric bridge-burning "victories" that he hangs as badges on his talk page under "old news" make for pretty outrageous reading for anyone who believes in collaborative consensus-building. That this "Nick Thorne - prick" equivalence comes simultaneously with twc's claims that Toddst1 has breached WP:CIVIL with his "wolfchildish" term is just the height of hypocrisy - something that twc has ironically claimed nauseates him. If this was just a single incident then I'd recommend a slap on the wrist, but this is his third appearance at ANI for the exact same behavior and he's only been here for a little over a year. A review of his interaction with other editors throughout his career here demonstrates fairly clearly that this is pattern behavior. I do see a single example of him reaching out to another editor he previously had conflicts with, and they seem to have put the conflict behind them so I'd like to hear her thoughts on the matter. Are there any redeeming qualities to this editor that have been overlooked here? -Thibbs (talk) 20:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unfortunate you have taken the point of view you have, as there is a great deal of needless negativity in your summary of what you think I'm all about. I will try to address a few points, in the hope that you can try to take a more neutral approach to your evaluation. Yes, I was open to anyone opening an ANI on this issue. I was at my wit's end trying to deal with this on my own. I simply wanted the abuse of my username, and these empty accusations to stop. A major part of the problem here is incivility. I don't think that calling me (or Toddst1) a "dick", or continuing to refer to me as "a child", or "childish", is going to help solve any civility issues. You are right about the subject header I used, on the list of comments, by Nick Thorne, that I have. As with most of the headers, I simply employ a tongue-in-cheek type of pun. That's what I was attempting to do here - equate the stinging sensation of when you are pricked by a thorn, to the 'stinging' comments he had made. I had no intention of trying to imply Nick is a "pr*ck". We all know that would not last very long, and would be subject to sanctions. Whether you choose to accept my thanks or not, I will tank you just the same for pointing it out. Quite simply, I missed it. Whether you choose to accept it or not, I did. That was not my intent, and as such, I have changed it. Should Nick choose to contact me regarding it, I would certainly offer my apologies. As for the rest of the threads I have 'archived', there is no malicious reasoning behind that at all, despite your suspicions. They are not "heavily edited, propaganda-spun summaries of [my] phyrric bridge-burning "victories" that [I] hang as badges". They are, for the most part, simply 'copy & pasted' from other talk pages, as is. I simply keep them for review. I do realize that from time to time, I do become engaged in content disputes, that in some cases, are lengthy. After my last block, I though it would be a good idea to keep a copy of some of these, so that I can review what works and what doesn't. They are somewhat of a learning tool, and I didn't realize there was a policy forbidding this. If there is, I will remove them. If there isn't, I don't see why they would need to be so heavily and prominently focused on here, on an ANI about something else entirely. I don't see how they are disruptive to the project. And, if I am using them for improvement, how is that a bad thing? (I wonder... if I did not have those threads for you to so easily access, would you hold the same harsh opinions?) While I realize that at ANI, just about everything is open to scrutiny, that also leads to problems sometimes as well, as the issue at hand came become so diluted, that it is not always properly addressed (though there are some limits on just how much digging off topic is appropriate) Since everything is looked at, that includes everyone. I hope that you won't use the perceived misdeeds of one user, to gloss over the actual misdeeds of another. Unfortunately, I already see that occurring, but I hope it won't continue. I thought these ANI's were supposed to be neutral, I hoping this one will be - thewolfchild 07:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure I'm being neutral here. I've never interacted with either of you to my knowledge and my intent in examining both of your edits was to see whether this incident was a one-time thing or whether either or both of you have intractable editing problems. The first thing I noticed is that whereas Toddst1 has a clean block log, you have previously been indefinitely blocked for incivility and battlegrounding. My next step was to review your talk page which you had altered considerably from its original form. By reformatting and recondensing these comments under tongue-in-cheek headers you've greatly obscured the record of back-and-forths and of course you've removed numerous comments that you apparently didn't think appropriate to archive. So I went back through a few of the article talk page discussions. I first examined your discussions at the aircraft carrier articles. What I saw was a textbook example of caustic battleground behavior. I then examined your battle over Christine Aguilera and again found it to showcase the way of the warrior rather than a collaboration-oriented consensus-seeking discussion. The same behavior is evident at the "Justin Timberlake", "The Avengers (2012 film)", and "Clausewitz" squabbles among others. The pattern behavior is quite evident. So in trying to determine the background of this current issue I see two editors who have both obnoxiously templated each other. One seems to have lost his cool, and the other seems to be an unrepentant WikiWarrior. I was particularly struck by the hypocrisy of the fact that this "thewolfchildish behavior" term appeared to be the crux of your battle when less than a week ago you had titled the summary of a dispute between you and User:Nick Thorne "Botany 101: Beware of thorns, you might get a prick" - arguably a more offensive bastardization of another editor's username. I accept your thanks in pointing this out to you, but I feel your explanation rings falsely. From my perspective the whole argument between you and Toddst1 is just another example of your longstanding battleground mentality - something which must end whether through your own resolve or by another indefinite block. Toddst1's "crimes," which amount to a tongue-in-cheek type of pun on your name and calling a member of congress an idiot, are completely trivial compared to the lengthy and rancorous battles that you engage yourself in wherever you edit. Anyway that's what it looks like to an uninvolved outsider. -Thibbs (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I don't particularly find you being all that neutral. You have not only been quite heavy with your criticism, but completely one-sided. And above all, I do not appreciate being called a liar. You raised an issue about my archiving discussions on my talk page, that I don't even think is an issue. You have cited, again, the subject heading involving Nick Thorne, without mentioning the actions I have since taken to correct it. Despite that, you depict it as "arguably a more offensive bastardization of another editor's username". - "Arguably" indeed. If you can't see the difference, then I am at a loss on how to further address this with you, so I won't. You complain about my "cherry-picking" certain quotes, but you yourself are now guilty of that, right here, right now. You mention discussions such as "Avengers" and "Clausewitz", yet they are from a year and a half ago (and prior my last block), and you throw them out here as if they are obvious examples of wrong-doing, solely on my part, when they are not. You mentioned a "battle at Christina Aguilera"... it was actually a discussion at the BLP Project talk page, and it involved the BLP's of many actors and entertainers, Aguilera and Timberlake, included among them. You failed to notice that as lengthy as it was, it involved one other person, an admin, and we didn't result to personal attacks, nor did he post false warnings on my talk page and threaten to abuse his admin tools. I don't see you condemning him for remaining in the discussion as long as I did, nor do I see you mentioning the multiple users that supported my position in that debate. It's relatively easy to go thru any user's contribs, pick and choose a handful of edits that suit your need, and then call it a "pattern". But your opinion of me as an "unrepentant wiki-warrior", is one that I will be taking with a grain of salt. I will say however, that as much as I disagree with you, I am not completely dismissing all of your comments. I will take them under advisement, and in the future, try and avoid any actions on my part that may actually validate your concerns. I thank you again for your contributions here, and hope that you will now give others an opportunity it to contribute. - thewolfchild 23:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand why you would have a difficult time evaluating the neutrality of my observations given that you are heavily invested in one side of the dispute and given that I am finding that side more at fault than the other side. Obviously I have no motivation to be non-neutral except as warranted by the facts of the case, though, so I will be taking your implicit accusation of bias with a grain of salt myself. You are quite right that it takes more than one editor to battle and that the battlegrounds mentioned above involve other editors. But there is one common element that runs through all of these battles, and that element is User:Thewolfchild. I haven't mentioned the admins you were doing battle with because they only took part in individual battles whereas you seem to be in the habit of engaging in battles wherever you edit. And I should note that I get this impression primarily from your own battle archives that you've now wiped from your talk page. You're still pretty new here and there is no good reason why you should have engaged in upward of 10 acrimonious and epic-length arguments so far nor why this should be your third visit to AN/I. At a certain point you have to stop pointing the finger at everyone else and accept that it is your behavior that is most likely at least partially to blame. I'm encouraged by your claim that you aren't completely dismissing all my comments and that you'll take them into advisement. I really hope you do because, again, as an outside observer I see very little in the way of improvement since your last indef. block. You're walking on eggshells and you're carrying a bludgeon. Not a clever vantage point from which to be challenging administrators to bring you to AN/I for evaluation. -Thibbs (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Twc is well aware of both WP:TPG and WP:UP ...and if he wasn't before today, he became more aware here. Nevertheless, even with that knowledge, he has continued his harassing behaviour. I honestly felt Twc could be brought on board, even with his issues over the past year - this, however, is turning into WP:CIR and WP:BATTLE. Absolutely fricking clueless behaviour, even though clue has been liberally applied ES&L 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    thewolfchild reply

    The term "ongoing harassment" is being used here both irresponsibly and quite cavalierly. This ANI is being presently with one hell of a slant that the facts simply do not support. While Bbb23 is obviously (in his own words) "pissed off", it is also obvious that this ANI is really in response to this edit, specifically the last paragraph, posted by me on his talk page at 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    The discussion at Talk:Intellectual_disability#Mental_retardation_as_a_term (ID), speaks for itself. I can certainly admit that I wish that thread had gone differently, but I was not the driving force behind the terrible, downward spiral it took. Toddst1 created that thread, out of what can only be described as a bizarre, self-contradictory agenda, intent on confrontation. Unfortunately, I happened to the one to respond. My first post was completely proper, reasonable and supported. This was met with unsupported accusations of advocacy and bias, followed by increasingly rude, dismissive and condescending comments, with edit summaries that are just as bad, if not worse.

    In my opinion however, a major turning point was Michelle Bachman. He used a faux pas from one of her campaign speeches, found on youtube, to support his position of wide usage of the term mental retardation (MR). My response was that it was ignorant of her to use that term. Somehow, he felt that was a "violation of BLP", and posted a warning on my talk page, threatening to block me. I found this to be completely inappropriate. He is an admin, he is in a dispute, and in the middle of that dispute, he places a trumped-up warning on the talk of the user he is in the dispute with, and threatens to block them? Not only is this a complete violation of policy, but the threat of abuse, by an admin, is in of itself, admin abuse. What makes this worse though, is the fact that in his own edit summary, Toddst1 wrote; "Michele Bachmann is an idiot but...". That is a clear violation of BLP, and should result in both a block, and at minimum, a review of Toddst1's admin privileges. Not only is this an offensive violation, but now we have an administrative representative of the project, referring to a sitting member of congress as an "idiot". That's putting WP at risk and is inexcusable.

    I removed the warning from my talk page, and placed it back on Toddst1's talk page. While I'm sure some here may find that action questionable, this pales in comparison to some of the actions by Toddst1. If, I am advised that this was wrong, I have no problem acquiescing to this, as I have never done this before, and would promise not to do it again. Anyways, as I found his warning to be an improper use of a template, I placed a notice, advising him of such, on his talk page. A notice that I feel was proper and, as of today, remains on his talk page.

    Following that, I clearly tried to steer the discussion back on topic, at the ID talk page. However, this is where I was met with more abuse, as seen with this edit, and in particular, the edit summaries; "More false accusations and disruption from the child" and "enough bullshit". Following this is where Toddst1 began to bastardize my username, to use it as a personal attack. (ie: calling me "a child", referring to me "as childish", etc.) This carried over to Toddst1's talk page, where he created a section titled "thewolfchildsish behavior". I asked him stop, as did another editor. Despite our requests, and the fact that this violated WP:NPA, his response was to tell me to "shut up" (several times) and to "change my username is I don't it".

    Further to the insults, abuse of my username, rudeness, condescension, constant profanity, unsupported accusations, threats, etc., etc... Toddst1 has demonstrated that he will, and has, used the term "retard" (or "retarded"), as a pejorative, (despite the crux of the very discussion this all started with). This is seen with this edit, or more seriously, with this edit, in which he clearly is referring to me, and is well beyond any boundaries of civility here. Toddst1's behavior became so offensive, that I finally had to state that I would no longer interact with him, in the ID talk page, and I withdrew (closing the thread).

    Aside from the ID page, I did try to have Toddst1 cease his continued insults, personal attacks and obscene behavior. I placed two (2) warning templates, with supporting diffs, on his talk page, first a level 3, and then a level 4, after he failed to comply with the level 3. I felt these were proper, reasonable and within policy, but he simply deleted them. This edit shows all the templates that I added to Toddst1's talk page.

    Following the deletion of the warnings, the "thewolfchildish behavior" section title still remained, and with this edit, Toddst1 posted comments directed at me. Since he did request that I no longer post on his page, I replied to that comment, and acknowledged his request, at the conclusion my post. With my reply, I had attempted to explain my position, in one last hope that he would be reasonable, and discontinue his behavior. The continued abuse of my username was nothing short or taunting, baiting, uncivil and unreasonable conduct on his part. He simply deleted that post as well.

    At this point, I'm not sure if the accusation of harassment in this ANI stems from my own accusation of admin abuse, (which I stand behind), or the subsequent edits I made to Toddst1's talk page, which I will explain now. I made 5 additional edits. The first edit, I simply removed the "-ish" from "thewolfchildish". With respect to Toddst1's request, I added no comments. I felt this was within my right to do so, and I states as much with my edit summary: "WP:NPA violation".

    Following this, user EatsShootsAndLeaves (EASL) reverted my edit. At this point, I was not sure why EASL would suddenly involve himself in this matter, and in such an odd way, but I soon found out.

    My second edit was to revert EASL's revert, and again remove, the "-ish", with all the same reasoning from my first edit still applied.

    Following this, the section title was changed from "thewolfchildish behavior" to "thewolfchild's inappropriate behavior". Again, I found this to improper, baiting, unsupported accusation using my username. My third edit was to remove the word "inappropriate", but I in the edit summary, I wrote "inappropriate how?". Again, I posted no content, as requested. I was hoping for at least some sort of explanation. Quite frankly, at this point, I had pretty much decided to let the whole matter drop. We were done on the ID talk page. I had not taken any admin abuse accusations to ANI. I had posted no further warnings. I did not engage Toddst1 anywhere else on the project. I wanted to know why he could not just let this go, and discontinue the abuse and accusations with my username. This matter could have been put to rest, had Toddst1 been willing to end this provoking behavior.

    Following this, Toddst1 posted a comment, and as it was directed to me, I responded, to that comment, with my fourth edit. Unfortunately, within 20 minutes, my reply was deleted. Not by Toddst1, but by EatsShootsAndLeaves (!). This was somewhat bizarre, as I do not even know if Toddst1 had an opportunity to read that comment, before it was deleted.

    By this point, I am ready to give up. I had simply wanted to know why Toddst1 felt that my requests for him to stop abusing my username, somehow equated to "inappropriate behavior" on may part, and beyond that, I still certainly wanted him to stop what he was doing. As a last ditch effort, I resolved to stop trying to deal with this on his user page, and instead, I emailed a copy of the last comment to him. My fifth, and final edit, was to simply add the {{You've got mail}} template to his talk page, but even that was deleted within the hour, again by someone else.

    As far as I'm concerned, these 5 edits were completely justified, and even if that is disputed, they could hardly be considered as "harassing". If anything, I am the one being harassed.

    As for EatsShootsAndLeaves, he simply has no business being involved here. As was pointed out, I was blocked over a year ago for NPA, and, part of the reason I was blocked, was because I was supposedly rude to EatsShootsAndLeaves, who then was going by the name of Bwilkins. There was an ongoing situation between us that was quite antagonistic. I asked repeatedly for him to stay away from me, while I also committed that I would stay away from him. He could hardly be considered neutral here, as based on our history, he is clearly biased. The last thing he should be doing, is involving himself here, hiding behind a alternative sock identity, surreptitiously baiting and passive-aggressively provoking things. No wonder he keeps popping up, deleting content from other users talk pages, and is now taking a position opposing me in this ANI. I will ask again, that EatsShootsAndLeaves/Bwilkins please stay away from me.

    As for Toddst1, while this did mainly start at the Intellectual Disability (ID) talk page, there was one recent, previous incident between this Toddst1 and myself, involving this edit. To my knowledge, I had no previous interaction with Toddst1, prior to this somewhat obnoxious comment that he abruptly posted on my talk page. To me, it appeared to basic trolling, with the not-so-veiled insult regarding my education. Please note that in response, I did not engage him in the hostilities that he was apparently seeking, but instead, I simply asked him to no longer post on my talk page.

    That pretty much concludes my statement. The sad thing is, as lengthy as it is, it still does not cover every instance on abusive, insulting, disruptive, obscene, editing on the part of Toddst1. Nor the questionable actions of the users who have shown up on both my and his talk pages, clearly in support of him, regardless of how neutral and uninvolved they claim to be. But to be honest, I don't really care. I am only participating here to defend myself. Despite the many opportunities, (and dares), I had to bring this to ANI myself, I didn`t, because I am not really interested in this sort of stuff (actually, speaking of interesting, it's curious how it wasn't Toddst1 that brought this ANI either, but Bbb23. and there is also the timing - right after my post on his talk page...) I don't really care what comes out of this. The community can/will review what I have done, but should certainly review, in great depth and detail, what Toddst1 has done, along with his companions, and in the end, what even happens, happens. For me, I don't feel I deserve to be blocked... all I want is that my username is no longer abused. - thewolfchild 06:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the reply, and as lengthy as it is, I actually read the whole thing. I'd like to address just a few of your points. First, the easiest one. I assure you that what prompted my coming here (tipped the balance) was precisely what I said, your changing of the section header. The copying of the discussion to my talk page didn't bother me a bit. Your comment at the bottom was unhelpful, but it wouldn't have been enough in and of itself for me to go to all the work to create this thread. I deleted the whole thing from my talk page, but that was only because I opened this up, and it made no sense to have multiple discussions.
    I'm having trouble figuring out Todd's edit summaries (when he uses the word "retarded") and your reaction to them. I'm curious what others think. I'm not a fan of obliqueness (I tend to be direct), and I generally avoid it.
    Overall, you appear to have strong feelings about certain issues and a stubborn streak in defending your behavior when those issues are involved. It would be helpful if you had a little more insight into those two areas and were more willing to deal with them appropriately on Wikipedia. You can't change who you are, but you can change your behavior here. Regardless of your perceptions of Todd's behavior and your dissatisfaction with what he did on his talk page regarding your user name, you should have dropped it. Ignoring these sorts of things is almost always the best thing to do. Sometimes it's hard, but most of these sorts of things just fade away if you let them, and if you really think someone is intentionally provoking you, the most effective response is not to be provoked.
    Finally, I intentionally did not request a block or a ban. Obviously, I have an opinion on how you could improve your behavior, but I don't have a strong opinion about sanctions. As I stated at the beginning, I'll leave that to the community.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted the comment I did, because I was, (and still am) somewhat confused at your position regarding the section titles on both Tossst1's and my talk pages;
    - On his talk page, he had a section titled "thewofchildish behavior", posted as a follow-on to his referring to me as "a child". I found this to be an unacceptable manipulation of my username, specifically for the purposes of a personal attack. Apparently, you have no issue with that.
    - Yet, there was a section on my talk page, titled "Toddst1". The discussion involved my contention that he was abusive as an admin, and as such, I changed the title to "Admin Abuse"... and you find that so unacceptable, that you had to create a ANI over it? You don't see an imbalance there? I do, and while "nauseating hypocrisy" might not be the best way to characterize it, there is still a troubling deficit, none-the-less.
    I have no problem figuring out Toddst1's edit summaries. He regularly uses them to post obscene and insulting comments, ostensibly comfortable in the assumption that talk page summaries don't get looked at very often, if at all. That's no excuse, and many of his comments are clearly inappropriate.
    As for my "stubbornness"... you and I see the debate on the ID talk differently. I did not start the thread. I did not make constant, poorly supported arguments in favour of retaining a term that is no longer used professionally, is both legally and morally censured and is now widely considered an insult. I supported my position, and once the fake templates, threats and insults started flying, I was the one that disengaged from the debate, and even closed it. So, really... how do you find that stubborn?
    What I was stubborn about, however, was my pursuit to have Toddst1 stop his insulting abuse of my username and his continued, provocational and unsupported accusations towards me. The fact that, in response to his comments to me, I tried emailing him, instead of making another edit, shows that I had "dropped it". Once he posted the WP:HARASS comment, I left his talk page and tried to find another means to reason with him, to have him stop what he was doing.
    Yes, I have been blocked before, but just like Toddst1, you, ESAL, and everyone else, I am not perfect. I am always working towards improvement, just as everyone should be doing. But ultimately, this isn't about me vandalizing an article, disrupting a discussion or even actually harassing anyone. I was in fact, trying to get another user to stop harassing me. There is a huge difference between adding harassing comments, and simply removing three letters, from your own username. - thewolfchild 21:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to addresss one point. If you want to say that Todd's behavior is inappropriate on your talk page, as he did about you on his talk page, or if you want to say that Todd is being childish on your talk page, as he did on his talk page, that would not be a violation of any policy or guideline. Even calling him abusive might be acceptable on your own talk page (at some point certain kinds of polemics can be problematic), but that's not what you did. You made it look like I called Todd abusive. You changed my comment on your talk page. That is absolutely unacceptable. It was deceitful.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is certainly not the first time I've seen Toddst1 involved in abusive behaviour. Is s/he fit to be an admin? Tony (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting attempt by twc to deflect away from his behaviour. As I'm an adult who doesn't hold grudges, I do not recall previous negative interactions with twc ... I'll take it from their response that they indeed do hold a grudge, and that some form of negative interaction may have occurred. Nevertheless, that's a red-herring. Toddst1 was well within their rights to request that twc STOP editing their talkpage; period. My only reversions of twc's posts were AFTER that message was loudly and clearly stated. Toddst1 went so far as to link to WP:HARASS, so it was clear to the world that he was 100% serious. My reversions were protective in nature - indeed, they were an attempt to protect twc from further action under harassment. Unfortunately, he believes that ethics and rules don't apply to him, and although "no (posting) means no (posting)", he doesn't give a shit. If he had a problem with the discussion on a page he was not permitted to post on, then he should have escalated it to a place where he WAS permitted, rather than repeatedly break the rules. ES&L 11:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvios by User:America789

    User:America789 has been plagiarizing several articles up until now, even after I had warned him about it in April. The following passage in its entirety was ripped from parts of this blog post in this edit: "The Army does not intend to spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market. Up to 140 candidates are being considered. Due to budget constraints, the selection process has a relatively tight deadline of 24 months. The field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a requirements document that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors. After a light tank is selected, the Army will buy a handful for testing and turn them over to the XVIII Airborne Corps for trials. The plan is called 4-14-44: four vehicles at the platoon level, 14 at company level, and 44 for a full battalion..." Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Even despite today's notice, this user is still creating violations: [144]. Among other close paraphrases in this edit, we've got "expressing his government’s opposition to British military operations against Boer (Dutch) settlers in South Africa. and need for prohibiting military small arms projectiles “which aggravate wounds and increase suffering” focused on the British RL2 9402, Mk III .303 bullet," Suggest a block to minimize harm. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The disputed section on M8 Armored Gun System has been rewritten. On .303 British, the section in question was not written word for word from the reference; instead you did rewrite it that way here, adding in words I did not write. Just because parts of a sentence were written from the reference, and not all of it, does not mean I am plagiarizing. America789 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you did write the words, at least the ones in italics. Even for some of of the words not in italics, all you did was change the derivation (for prohibiting → to prohibit) or the word order (e.g. The Netherlands representative → A representative from the Netherlands. That you wrote this is the same voice and in the same chronological order as the article tells me that all you are doing is copy-pasting the article. Please read WP:Close paraphrase. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there's this edit: "Elton said that the upgrade, which has so far provided 14 aircraft that (The Stinger gunships) have been deployed to Afghanistan, was needed to replace the aging AC-130H gunship and provide an example for the new AC-130J Ghostrider. Modifications began with crews cutting holes in the plane to make room for weapons, and adding kits and bomb bases for laser-guided munitions. Crews have added a 105-millimeter (mm) cannon, 20-inch (in) infrared and electro-optical sensors (,) and the ability to carry 250-pound bombs on the wings." The italic text are America789 words and the words in round brackets where his words differed from the source text. A whole sentence and the following sentence (with the exception of an added unnecessary serial comma and two abbreviations) are straight from the article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit: "(The) Air Force Special Operations Command wants (the ability) to pack up an MQ-9 Reaper in less than eight hours, fly it anywhere in the world aboard a C-17 (Globemaster III), and then unpack it and have it ready to fly in another eight hours." and "MQ-1 and MQ-9 drones must fly aboard cargo aircraft to travel long distances because they (the) unmanned aircraft don't have the refueling technology or the speed (to travel themselves)." plagiarizes this source. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Useddenim

    I'll try to keep this short this time, since an admin didn't comment on the last report. Useddenim began proposing changes to Template:ETS LRT route on 15 August 2013, and a discussion went back and forth on what to do with it until 8 September 2013, when Useddenim left the conversation. I continued to make proposals, on 9 September 2013, 14 September 2013, and 2 October 2013, and asked him to rejoin the discussion on 19 September 2013, 20 September 2013, 30 September 2013, and echoed him on 2 October 2013. He acknowledged the discussion on 5 October 2013, but without a reply to my propsed change (WP:SILENCE), I made the edit on 11 October 2013. Useddenim then reverted it, without detailing his rationel on the talk, and reverted it a second time without explaination. I have made it obvious that I am open for discussion, directing discussion to the pages where concerned editors will see it, and replied to all of Useddenim's comments. Useddenim has "boldly" edited without much discussion, and despite my many warnings, makes edits he know is controversial without participating in discussions. 117Avenue (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a content dispute, and thus not an AN/I matter? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You couldn’t get anyone to censure me last week so you’re reporting me to ANI again? That is just so petty. Useddenim (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is difficult to have a dispute when the one side does not talk. Is it not disruptive editing when a user vandalizes or edits against consensus without explanation? 117Avenue (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Cardenio.jpg opposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

    This image is nominated for deletion. I suggested the nominator to use FFD rather than NFCR. But Future Perfect at Sunrise interferes by removing the image in The History of Cardenio. After several reverts in both pages, he threatens to block me or Beyond My Ken if either of us remove the tags again. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently, FPAS feels that admins are privileged editors, per the edit summary: "Next time a non-admin removes this tag, they will be blocked". (emphasis added) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • FPaS is correct about this not meeting the criteria, period. We can replace this poster with a poster for a pre-1923 production (for example), or a US production from before 1970-ish which had no copyright notice. Y'all need to calm down. The non-admin bit was likely meant so that individuals who are hoped to have a better understanding of Speedy can see it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, Crisco, that is not correct, please take a closer look at FPAS' actions, including his filing of an editorial opinion in the deletion discussion. The edit summary was clearly meant as a threat, and FPAS did nothing to disabuse me of that in commentary on his talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • When we're talking about another editor's actions, we are kinda supposed to WP:AGF. I don't support FPAS' edit summary, but I understand the sentiment (as I've written above). In the case of CSD, particularly as clear-cut as this, it may feel pointless to wait however long FFD is taking nowadays. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, reverting this is clearly valid, as uploaders / creators are not to remove CSD tags. Period. See WP:CSD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not the image creator or uploader, I merely cleaned it up at one point, and previous versions were deleted as non-free. The edit history of the image will confirm this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Crisco, please read the article section where the image was included. No pertinent images would exist prior to 1994 as that is when The Second Maiden's Tragedy was first claimed to be a slightly altered version of The History of Cardenio. FPaS is arguing that the image is replaceable because he says the information can be covered sufficiently with plain text. He made four reverts to remove the image, but claims it is an "obvious violation" of the NFCC per the preceding argument and therefore exempt. I do not believe he can validly claim the 3RR exemption in this case.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The History of Cardenio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and File:Cardenio.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should help. Is that not enough? Is further discussion unnecessary, like FFD? George Ho (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The larger point here is that admins are indeed charged with enforcing our NFCC policy to the best of their understanding, but it is the communuity as a whole which decides how the policy is to be applied. If an admin such as FPAS runs into good-faith objections from editors in good standing, and a deletion discussion is opened, the admin needs to step back and await the result of the community discussion. Admins do not make policy, or, ultimately, decide how policy should be applied, they follow the community's lead. If the deletion discussion were to result in the image being delete, I'd have absolutely no problem with that, and wouldn't even bring it to DR (if there were grounds). What is not acceptable to me, or I imagine to George Ho, is for an admin to usurp the community's perogative when they come face to face with community resistance to their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Further, as I commented on his talk page, FPAS cites policy from WP:3RR allowing him to edit war in enforcing NFCC, but that policy clearly says that the immunity is only valid in cases where it is "unquestioned" that the material violates the policy. Here, there obviously is a question, since there is a deletion discussion under way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some perspective: If the CSD tag on the article is left alone, the file could be deleted on the 15th. If the FFD discussion is allowed to go on, the file could be deleted on the 20th. Compare this to the fact that the image has been in the article for more than 2 years; I don't see the rush. Are these 5 extra days worth fighting about? In either direction? It seems fairly obvious to me it doesn't meet NFCC, but it also seems fairly obvious to me that BMK is making a good faith objection, and he's not crazy. If it's as obvious as I think it is, it will be deleted on the 20th. BMK: FP@S can be abrasive, but he's very often right. FP@S: BMK can be abrasive, but he's very often right. People like you two often bump heads, and it takes time away from each of you that you could be spending being right about something else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe being right can only excuse so much and it does not change that he is also abrasive when he is wrong but thinks he is right. Do you think an admin should be making shaky claims of 3RR exemptions, edit-warring with two different editors, and then threatening to block both of them after making four reverts on one page and three reverts on another, most of them within a few hours, in a dispute where he is involved? He does that sort of thing enough that he is known for it (what you call being "abrasive") and that is not the sort of thing for which an admin should be known.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the image unquestionably violated NFCC, I don't think the article removal and the CSD tag and the deletion discussion all need to be steadfastly warred into use simultaneously. Only one should've been considered important to address NFCC concerns. I'd say once the deletion discussion started, that would take precedence; it's no big deal if the CSD tag stays off at that point, and the article use remains, until the deletion discussion ends. Basically per Floquenbeam, there's no particular emergency, but I think FP@S' reaction was the more hasty in this case (I know it's more fashionable to blame both parties equally, but I think people learn less from those niceties). equazcion� 23:44, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)
    When an image is at FFD, it should not be removed from the offending articles until the FFD is completed, so that editors in the FFD can see the image in context. The few days it takes the FFD to close is not going to harm us under NFCC rules. Future's actions are out of line in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You people here are defending Future Perfect at Sunrise and shunning the image. But we haven't heard his comments here yet. We'll be patient for his awaiting comments. In the meantime, let's discuss his administration priviledges instead of the image. We have at least one admin scolding that person here. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I was asked to opine here. So I will. a) The image clearly violates NFCC, and FPaS is justified in removing it, b) threatening to block editors who disagree with him has the appearance of impropriety. He should instead ask the community to perform the block at WP:ANI or on an administrator talk page, c) edit warring was inappropriate from BMK. What's more, BMK actually had the audacity to taunt FPaS by WP:TEMPLARing him.[145]. d) BMK's removal of the {{rfu}} tags on the file was beyond inappropriate. First off, he didn't let the tag run its full course of one week; the proper course is to use the disputed tag. Second off, he used the rollback tool to revert FPaS. Third off, if he is going to assert the right to act as an administrator and remove the tag, then he needs to show the maturity and knowledge of an administrator, neither of which he showed here, given that the image is obviously replaceable fair use. e) It appears that Wikipedia has conflicting policies. One says that someone may removing a fair use image with invalid rationale as often as s/he likes; the other says that the image is supposed to remain on the article until the deletion process is complete. Can someone clear up this contradiction? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG!!! How dare a rank-and-file editor template an admin for edit warring!!! What total gall for a non-admin to remove an inappropriately placed tag!!! Clearly, I do not know my designated place in the Wikipedia scheme of things (which appears to be down a substantial number of rungs and to the right a bit.)

    (Or could it be that Magog the Orge has a perhaps somewhat distorted view of what the duties of an admin are, and how they differ from ordinary editors? My understanding -- but then, I am clearly not of sound mind -- is that rank-and-file editors can do anything that admins can do except those things which require the extra buttons which the admins are entrusted with when the community endows them with the mop. If Magog the Orge has a different understanding of the role of the admin versus that of the lowly editor, then I would ask him to point out where this understanding comes from in Wikipedia's policies.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you actually read what I said in context, I said that you are perfectly well within your rights to act as an administrator, but that your actions were completely incorrect (for several reasons) regardless and would be deserving of censure no matter what your status as editor is. The appeal to ridicule response isn't helping your cause. Now please explain to me why I shouldn't remove your rollback rights right now for using them as part of an edit dispute. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be helping my "cause", Magog the Ogre, but it did wonders for my blood pressure. (And, believe it or not, I did read -- and understand -- what you said, as well as the tone in which it was said. My mom always told me it's nmot so much what you say, it's how you say it.) Bye. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason that one is allowed to exceed 3RR (per WP:3RRNO) is when " content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)". This is a very likely vio of NFCC, but it is not unquestionable, so is not exempt from 3RR. (One might be able to argue that the poster of the more modern play is necessary, but someone would have to do the legwork to get that). So it falls back to the regular routes for deletion and while those discussions go on, the images should be left in place. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if you are clear on the context. The performance is of The Second Maiden's Tragedy, which is purported to be a slightly altered version of the original play The History of Cardenio, but is believed to actually be a play by someone else. Said claim about the play was first made in 1994 and since then performances of that play have been stating plainly that they are performances of the lost play Cardenio. FPaS claimed that it was not NFCC-compliant to use the image related to one of those performances because he believed plain text was sufficient to convey that performances of The Second Maiden's Tragedy have been presented as performances of Cardenio.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the image likely fails NFCC and it should be removed (in part, as that specific version of the play is not the subject of the, and there's no specific discussion of the image.) I am saying, however, that failure to meet NFCC is not crystal clear to justify exceeding 3RR or conflicting with the current FFD. It's a due process in case someone can find a strong justification to keep during the FFD period. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, FPAS may be right. If I was feeling a bit more charitable (unlikely at this moment, after being inappropriately raked over the coals by Magog the Orge), I might even concede that he was "likely" right, or "very possibly" right. But, as you imply, once the FFD discussion is open and under way, it is no longer FPAS' job to determine whether he is right or not, that has become the community's perogative, which he may not usurp. Maybe the community will agree with him -- fine, but that does not excuse either his behavior or his edit summary.

    In any case, everyone makes mistakes. Some recognition on his part that he blew this deal would go a long way toward calming the waters here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - NFCC images will "fail" certain parts of the criteria depending on who judges them. Doc talk 04:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is essentially why a community discussion decides the application of the policy when there is any doubt about it. Generally, speaking, the collective opinions of many is what we're about, although the individual is also to be respected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • And know, I will do my utmost to refrain from further comment in this discussion, unless someone chooses to ream me a new one again. I believe I've made the salient points that represent my thinking on this issue, and would only be repeating myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If you can't punish Future Perfect at Sunrise, would any administrator here at least add back the image, so anybody can access to the discussion easily by either the file page or the caption? --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    My warning stands. And the argument of visibility during discussion is bogus: people who comment at FFD know how to use page histories. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? Is any administrator allowed to namecall my argument that way? Anyway, since when a general reader with no technological knowledge knows or cares about page histories? --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, where do you stand on NFCRs and FFD? --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Is that a question to me, about what I think the functions of these two venues are? (In general, you might want to try and make more of an effort to be coherent and comprehensible in what you write; that might make communication with you less difficult.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure of whether the response was polite or impolite, but why are administrators allowed to comment about my communication skills the way you did to me? As for the question, yes, that is what I meant. --George Ho (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's got nothing to do with me being an admin; I'm simply pointing out one of the factors that may be contributing to you causing so much unnecessary trouble. This [146] edit of yours in particular, which started the whole mess yesterday, was little short of incoherent gibberish. But to your question: NFCR quite often leads to deletion, so in that sense it too is a deletion process. It is simply less strictly structured than FFD and therefore more suitable for the more complex and messier types of questions. I personally prefer FFD over NFCR for most cases, but once a file has been listed in either venue, there is rarely a good reason to process-wonk and push it around from the one to the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I merely stated that FFD should have been used first because that guy used failure of "contextual significance" as a reason for non-deletion review. The image looks replaceable or irreplaceable, and significant or insignificant. Poster of one production cast looks irreplaceable and significant, but someone else would disagree. However, why overthrowing FFD process in favor of one single action? --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, as I said. Incoherent bordering on gibberish. You definitely need to work on that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    DigbyDalton

    Hi, I hope this is the right place to request this....

    In this edit, DigbyDalton displays a colorful disregard of the principles highlighted in the ARBCC decision. DigbyDalton's broadside begins

    "I'm not going to read ARBCC because I already know that the communists have taken over the Global Warming article on Wikipedia..."

    This was in reply to my third informal head's up about ARBCC (prompted by edit warring, etc). Two of the informal ARBCC warnings I gave him are in his user talk page thread titled

    and a third head's up is on his talk page in the thread titled

    Both of those threads include DIFFS for separate instances of recent climate-related edit warring.

    ACTION REQUEST Pursuant to WP:ARBCC would some uninvolved admin please give DigbyDalton an official ARBCC warning and then make an official record of that warning in the notification section of that decision?

    Thanks for your attention and assistance NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    PS User was notified of this request here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @NewsAndEventsGuy: I give up. I've looked everywhere I can think of. Is there a template for the notice or do all the admins just copy and paste the same text? Shouldn't be this hard.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can find them at Template:Uw-sanctions. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    e/c

    @Bbb23: There is a template that doesn't really get used much
    {{subst:Uw-sanctions|topic=cc}}
    and a sample of commonly used copy-and-paste text is
    [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose, at their own discretion, [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|sanctions]] on any editor working on pages broadly related to [[Climate change]] if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], any expected [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standards of behavior]], or any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. Inappropriate behavior in this area may result in sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Final decision]
    Thanks for your interest
    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I used the template Paul pointed to. It may not be commonly used, but it has a very pretty box. Besides, I like templates for this sort of thing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    At least it wasn't Nazi Communists infiltrating the article... - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cau7ion POV editing and insults

    User:Cau7ion is engaged in POV editing of White American and insults to me. He does not understand or care about the rules of Wikipedia that I furnished to him:WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCE, WP:CON. He just repeats that he could provide sources, but does not do so. The changes he makes to this cited article are based, as he says, on what he believes to be right regarding his questions on the 'legitimate whiteness' of White Hispanic Americans and other such assertions; he does not provide reference citations for the content changes he makes in the article. In an edit summary reverting his edits, I pointed out his changes were 'made without a discussion resulting in an agreement on these changes'; his response in an edit summary was 'that has to be the most idiotic reason for editing my changes'. In the Talk:White American where I pointed out the rules WP editors must follow, his response started out with 'you must be an illiterate fool son'. Perhaps an administrator can help here as I am uninterested such dialog; my only interest is in content based on reliable cited sources. Hmains (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There was no biased editing for White Americans.

    I fixed grammatical errors and used the non-Hispanic white population as a reference (63.7%, etc) and that's an official number from the Census regarding the non-Hispanic white population and actual white population used by most sources and even the census.

    I did not delete the White Hispanic reference from the White Americans article but did not use their percentage and number for the overall white population because they get a separate category from Europeans, Middle Easterners, and North Africans for their number and percentage. There is subliminal connotations about their legitimate whiteness regarding their ancestry -- hence the reason they get a separate category on the census.

    See: social definition on the White Americans article.

    Using the non-Hispanic white population on the page is not POV editing, but using an actual percentage reported by the census and used by most sources.

    I already elaborated on my edits in the talk section on the White Americans page regarding Hispanics.

    This also appears to come off as more of a content dispute than a legitimate problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cau7ion (talk • contribs) 06:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    - Cau7ion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    this editor Cau7ion does not seem to care about wikipedia policy, on other pages the POV pushing and edit warring are also going on.learn to use talk page and wait for that process. action must be taken if he/she does not stop.--Inayity (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that some diffs be provided to show this behaviour. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol at Inayity talking about biased editing when his information on the Musa_I_of_Mali page isn't even from a legitimate source (deemed that by another editor by the way) and in the talk page I have already provided a source that shows how his information is false.

    See: legacy.

    He put up information from an illegitimate source, made up information that isn't even in the improper source too, and says I don't care about Wikipedia policy?

    Hilarity at its finest.

    As for Hmains, he was mad for me disagreeing with his changes on the White Americans page in a feisty-esque way.

    I already provided sources regarding the non-Hispanic white population too.

    How much more do you want me to provide?

    http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/white-not-hispanic-population-percentage#map

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/trulia/2012/11/13/finding-diversity-in-america/

    There is two more, just for you.

    Someone who isn't registered edited the page earlier today, so I had to revert it back.

    Apparently me pointing out false information on pages, changing this info to correct information, and rectifying grammar on these pages is violating Wikipedia's decree?

    Lol, sure...

    - Cau7ion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've certainly been vexed by User:Cau7ion re Musa I of Mali, where I have actually checked the older print sources for the article myself and they manifestly have not. I do rather catch a whiff of an odious POV when someone starts to talk about "legitimate Whiteness"; all User:Cau7ion's significant edits seem to be race-related. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Loss and damage

    I believe this page should be deleted or at least moved, though I'm not experienced at doing this, and don't feel comfortable doing so, so I thought this would be the best way to bring it to an admin's attention. I believe it's pretty obvious why it should be moved, but I've put a message on the talk page explaining this. Thanks. TeragR | talk 05:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Cyberbot II, take 2

    Could somebody shut down the blacklisted links task again for now please? The bot seems to be going wild again — it's now tagging old archive pages, talk pages, user pages, log pages, process pages, etc., for blacklisted links.[147][148][149][150] There is a broader discussion to be had somewhere soon about this bot and its many problems, just hoping to avoid a bunch of nonsense tags for now. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is currently disabled, see User:Cyberbot II/Run/SPAM. This of course means that all those unintended tags will not be removed again automatically. Amalthea 08:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this bot needs some major changes before it is allowed to run again. It is too unstable, has made numerous errors and obviously lacks supervision: in this last run it tagged 950 pages erroneously over a four hour period. I have started to revert these manually, but it would be good to see the bot operator, Cyberpower, help with this job. Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I can mass-rollback those if desired. Amalthea 13:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought about that. That would be great idea... I've done a hundred manually and it is a slow job; and there are 850 to go... Can you point me to the page where the mass-rollback procedure is described? I guess I could probably do use mass rollback myself, but I think I'd rather let you do it this time so that I can watch and learn.Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A mass rollback script is at User:John254/mass rollback.js, there are probably others. In this case I'll do some work first to make sure no other edits are rolled back, and I think there was an option to add a "bot" flag to hide the reverts from recent changes. Amalthea 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will watch how you do it from your contributions, I guess.--Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot is operating normally again after resetting the connection to the API. The connection was apparently "half-dead" for a lack of a better choice of words. Provided the bot is switched on, the bot can remove it's own mess.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Amalthea (bot) has already kindly taken care of cleaning up the mess. Cyberpower, I realize that you are frustrated, but by far the best thing you can do is to wait for consensus to develop about this bot, hat it should be doing and how. I will have some concrete proposals for the community to consider shortly. --Slp1 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind my question. When it gets the data from the API in it's serialized state, PHP doesn't seem to be able to unserialize the data. I don't know the cause at the moment. As a result it's getting blank data in place of the page that tells the bot which links and pages to ignore. Once I have the bot working again, I will re-enable it to have it remove the incorrect tags.—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "I have no idea what's causing it" that's one of the problems with this bot... Overall, there needs to many changes to this bot and its operation before it is let loose again. Please do not re-enable the bot again until there is consensus to do so. Too many editors have too many concerns about it over a period of more than a month. Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There already has been a discussion about its concerns and consensus has already been established, if you ask me. It could also be a PHP error. There is no logical reason why the bot can't read the API anymore. I have made no change to the framework recently that could affect it. Ordinarily the bot should terminate itself in the event of an API failure. I'm going to try a reboot of the script to see what happens once the run completes.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than attempting some sort of half-arsed diagnostic analysis here, will you please accept that there is sufficient concern about your attempts at automation for you to cease and desist this process until you can satisfy people who actually know what they are doing that you have the necessary grasp of development, testing and execution to prevent further examples of the wholesale incorrect and disruptive tagging with which your bot has been associated in recent weeks? Leaky Caldron 14:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And with that snarky comment, I have just disabled all of my bots.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I think that is a very good decision.--Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant I shut them all down.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had understood that.--Slp1 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so we are clear, that means RfX Reporter, tally, adminstats, badimage task, afdbot, rfubot, rfppbot, noombot, and others as well. If that's how you're interpreting it, then I'm going to ask, why? If not, now you know.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 17:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, you are right, now I do know. Your behaviour is a variation of WP:DIVA and taking your ball and going home. Is that really what you want? I doubt it, I truly do.--Slp1 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. I am responding to Leaky Caldrin's statement. Just as editors here with competence issues shouldn't be editing here, the same principle goes for botops. Since Leaky called me incompetent, I shut down my bots. Where did I get that accusation from incompetence from? Well...I was apparently "attempting some sort of half-arsed diagnostic analysis" and apparently I don't "actually know what I'm doing" and "that I don't have the necessary grasp of development". The bolded as been changed from second person to first person but is still within context.—cyberpower ChatOnline 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Loads of editors raised concerns no more like a few who have decided to almost stalk the bot if you ask me and on top of that Leaky caldron's comment above is completely out of order. The bot has one fault just now and on all previous runs its not been a fault with the bot but rather users not happy with links being on the blacklist. What on earth is the point in having a blacklist if we don't enforce it. The answer is their isn't one at all. Think maybe a RFC specifically on how we enforce the blacklist and remove links that have sneaked in is the way forward getting full community support so that the few who aren't happy with it being enforced can have no complaint. Very disappointed in some users conduct regarding this.Blethering Scot 14:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyberpower, there's about 3 or 4 editors who attack your bot every chance they get. Don't let them convince you they're a bad idea with everyone else saying otherwise. Leaky cauldron, this has came to ANI once already, and to WT:BRFA, and neither of those established consensus that the task should be stopped. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the bot has had multiple problems, and in fact has had to be stopped twice in the last two days for errors in tagging [151]. And please note accusations of stalking require serious evidence. It is also disappointing that other editors are choosing to misrepresent the concerns from other editors: as far as I can see on all the discussions all editors understand the problem and that blacklisted links removed or whitelisted, but are unhappy about the method that has been chosen, most especially when the bot seems to be quite unstable and often runs unsupervised. Having said that, I would thoroughly agree with Blethering Scot that an RFC about how we deal with blacklisted links is a very good idea. That should be the first step before this bot is renabled. I was actually about to launch something in this line. Slp1 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)We all know that consensus can change. There is clear evidence that this bot has random characteristics that may be doing harm and creating much work to rectify. There can be nothing more off-putting to lay readers (not wikipedians) who see a wall of text at the top of an article they are researching that talks about blacklists, whitelists and what to do about essentially technical errors on the page. It's about time we looked at this from the perspective of the general public user of our articles, not those of us who simply maintain the stuff. These messages in their current location are gobbledygook. If it was accurate gobbledygook that would be one thing. It turns out that much of it is inaccurate gobbledygook. Leaky Caldron 15:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I am apparently an incapable bot op. I supposedly don't supervise my bot. I apparently can't debug things. I shouldn't be running bots. With that being said, since bot work has become my contributions to Wikipedia, I have nothing more to do here. So I will make this statement. This bot has resulted in the whitelisting process to be more responsive. This bot has freed 1500 pages of blacklisted links, where only a small fraction resulted in actual removal of the link. This bot has resulted in fixing a good chunk of a faulty blacklist. The bugs that happened, was a result of a labs NFS shutdown confusing the bot. This bug isn't logical.—cyberpower ChatOnline 15:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of those links are blacklisted for copyvio - and copyvio links don't belong anywhere. I'd like to see the bot working again for that reason and because we should be enforcing our blacklist. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anybody disagrees that we need to get rid of the blacklisted links. But there are other ways of achieving the same end with some changes to the bot's method of operation without causing so many problems. Please see the suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval that I am about to post. Slp1 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    To my eye 98+% of the "problems" are "ermagherd there's a big ugly tag scaring people away from clicking this link". The solution to the "problem" is the removal or whitelisting of the bad links - something that would still be in ostrich mode if not for the bot. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A trout to Leaky Caldron for their utterly inappropriate comments. And to Slp1 for some of their comments. These are two users who clearly have next-to-no coding knowledge whatsoever, otherwise they wouldn't be making the downright stupid comments they have made (such as claiming it is a good idea for all Cyberbot programs to be closed down, despite the fact that the issue is one minor bug that isn't even necessarily the bot's fault) and they would also understand just how much effort coding takes. Without bots like Cyberbot, Wikipedia would be a far worse place. Bushranger is 100% correct; rather than bitching and whining about "omg there's this big tag on mah article" (when the tag is no larger than the COPYVIO tag, and is potentially as important), people should actually make the effort to get the link whitelisted, or replace it. It would be FAR more constructive if people did so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who suggested that he shuts down all of his bots? It wasn't me. Cyber decided to chuck all of his toys out of the pram, don't blame that on me. I might not be able to code - but I can read. I stick by every word. You know what you can do with your trout. Leaky Caldron 22:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor making multiple slight changes to album and TV release dates

    This seems to be a recurring problem, coming mostly from someone using 109.xx IP addresses. They basically turn up once every few weeks, make a huge number of small changes to dates in infoboxes and leads, often using the edit summary "fixed". I haven't actually checked any of the latest ones, but unless those details were all wrong before these clearly aren't genuine corrections. This is the latest spree. Here is a previous one, and here another. Could all their latest additions be reverted? I assume any kind of block as a longer-term solution will be problematic as the contributions come at random times from different IP addresses. N-HH talk/edits 09:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted. Is this a known long-term abuser? Would there be much collateral damage from a rangeblock, those who do such things? (In terms of his fix, he actually removed the source that contradicted him in one edit.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is an old and ongoing problem. There are multiple editors doing this and I think there may be some form of automation these vandals are using to find target articles. I've mostly noticed this kind of thing among the children's cartoon articles where these edits blend in perfectly with goodfaith edits by actual children. Broadcast date templates, infobox release dates, and acronym-related vandalism seem to be common traits. I believe height and weight-related vandalism became so common on BLPs that they've created a special flag for it. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for more info. And if you can think of a good solution to this crap then please let us know! -Thibbs (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am new to patrolling AIV and I have definitely noticed these. Because the changes are (mostly) subtle and the existing article content isn't sourced anyway, it's very hard to tell whether the changes are vandalism, good-faith but mistaken, or actually fixing something. They take up an inordinate amount of time to check out. Options are, in rough order of risk-to-existing-content to risk-of-collateral-damage: 1) Ignore them because they changed unsourced information to other unsourced information; 2) Investigate and block one-by-one (as we're doing); 3) Liberal long semi-protection of affected articles as we run across them; 4) Rangeblocks. I am really not sure what to do. Zad68 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your thoughts, Zad68. The only thing I'd note is that your option #1 assumes that these vandals are only changing unsourced information. I'm really kind of stumped as to how to fix this except perhaps by tagging edits when we have a non-autoconfirmed user rapidly changing dates. -Thibbs (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the list of past ANIs you've pointed to, this is an ongoing problem lasting a year or more. Based on what I've seen, if there were consensus to enact long-term semi on the affected articles, I'd be happy to try that. I think we should also have a "AIV Top 10" list--a quick list of common subtle vandalism types and what the suggested action is to handle them (as determined by consensus after discussions like these). Zad68 15:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    They look like good-faith edits but without sources - this edit, (an attempted correction, if BFI is correct) was reverted, and the article now has two different places of birth listed; this matches the date on the official site but others are repeated errors (see history of Extra Virgin article for an example - the album was originally released in 1996). Those edits are not from 109xx IP addresses, but are from the same ISP. What's disruptive is the number of edits and lack of sources, and that the edit summaries are sometimes misleading; it's just unfortunate that it matches a common type of vandalism. Peter James (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You can make a good argument (and I guess here I am making it) that all such unsourced data changes reverted or reported as vandalism have failed to meet WP:BURDEN and therefore are disruptive editing worthy of action (block or protection) after enough instances and warnings. If such a rule were enforced on all such edits in this area, it would fix at least two problems: 1) The articles would improve because over time more and more of the currently unsourced data would become well-sourced, and 2) It would make it very clear who is doing sneaky vandalism and who isn't. Zad68 17:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody is changing "unsourced information to other unsourced information" then neither old nor new can be trusted; so the first response should be to blank it. If possible, try to source it, but that's not always practical on recent changes patrol and is perhaps best left to somebody with subject-matter knowledge who has the article on their watchlist &c. If it's a serious or repeated problem then I would support blocks, protection &c. But back to first principles: If we can't trust something is true, the encyclopædia shouldn't present it as fact; and when a random passer-by tinkers with unsourced numbers, we can't be confident that either the old or the new version is true. We're not on a mission to accumulate as much text as possible regardless of accuracy. bobrayner (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And changes from one source to another, where the dates given in those sources are different? Peter James (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A rangeblock is not possible. The editor is on the largest and busiest ISP in the UK. Even in the three examples given, they are hopping not just from IP to IP, but from subnet to subnet. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jimthing

    After an AFD that closed as "no consensus", Jimthing (talk · contribs) reverted my bold merge and disambiguation of Control Center into iOS 7, canvassed every possible outlet (including my talk page) to remind everyone that it closed as "no consensus" and thus, must not be deleted in any way (because "merge = deletion"), and proceeded to call me an "idiot" in edit summaries.

    This is inappropriate conduct in any situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What part of "No consensus to delete" do you not understand exactly. This has been explained to you now several times, yet you continually ignore other users. It's plainly clear you're now involving yourself in disruptive behaviour, ignoring other editors who almost exclusively said "NO" to your AfD, hence the final editor closing it accordingly with this note. Yet you have still just gone ahead and attempted to use completely false reasoning in trying to explain this as a merge, which this IS NOT — it's a redirect to a disambiguation page, which effectively achieves the same result as DELETION, so is NOT a merge. Learn how the site works before insisting you're doing something you are clearly are not doing, and taking other editors time and efforts up in the process. Hence in sheer frustration, making them call your behaviour idiotic. Thank you. Jimthing (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Viper, there was no consensus for the Afd. I don't know why you see Jimthing as pushing his opinion when you are at fault. KonveyorBelt 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Still, he used a personal attack. That isn't allowed in any situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that both Jimthing and Konveyor Belt are quite wrong. A "no consensus" AfD close is not equivalent to a "Keep". No consensus is effectively a null result to an AfD, and does not preclude any editor making any change to the article that would be valid in normal circumstances, whether that be redirecting, merging or indeed re-nominating for deletion. Of course, any other editor is welcome to oppose that change, and gaining consensus first is preferable, but ViperSnake has not done anything wrong here; the only thing wrong here is Jimthing's personal attack on ViperSnake, which he would be well advised not to repeat. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; Keep means Keep, No Consensus means, as far as the article is concerned, that the AfD never happened, basically - "normal" WP:AGF, WP:BOLD and WP:BRD come into play just like any other article. Also, the "merging is deletion!" meme gets annoying after awhile... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Harriet Beecher Stowe

    Long term unsourced or poorly sourced addition of content, going back at least to August. Primary intent appears to be the promotion of a property that Stowe purportedly rented. I've removed this content too many times, and rather than continue to edit war over this would really appreciate help. I've issued numerous warnings and tried multiple times to engage these accounts in discussion, to no avail. I've also requested page protection and opened discussion at the article's talk page, but the situation is complicated by the apparent use of multiple accounts and the lack of outright vandalism. Nonetheless, this is a persistent disruption. Thanks, JNW (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Author, Playwright Gary Beers: Ref.: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gary_Eugene_Beers

    Dear Wikipedia,   Please see the following link on Wikipedia concerning a well respected and loved, author: Gary Beers. Here is Wikipedia's link to same:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gary_Eugene_Beers

    As you can see, the culprits removed the author's and playwright's photo; (Gary Beers). These persons responsible are vandalizing his name and successes with horrible sayings with no regard to this writer. Such writings of these persons, cannot be true of such a successful writer, as Gary Beers.  This Wikipedia source on Gary Beers must be edited, the photo returned to the article, along with the initial information intended for the Wikipedia audience to read and enjoy by Beers's fans around the world. Please make note of this right away. The page needs to be edited and returned to its original luster it once had prior such efforts by the vandals to destroy the good name of writer and children book writer, Gary Beers.

    Many thanks, Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.227.16 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a long history of vandalism at this user page. I've reverted back to the version of 1 Sep 2011, the last time that User:Gary Eugene Beers edited the page. I've also added the {{User page}} template to mark that this is a user page and not an article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this is a user page clearly masquerading as an article, in contravention of WP:FAKEARTICLE, Shouldn't it be deleted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to an MfD being opened. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a note at User talk:Gary Eugene Beers - I'll see if there is any reply, and if there isn't one, start the MfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a clear G11. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably for the best. I was actually beginning to wonder whether it was a 'fake' fake article, given the poor level of literacy demonstrated by the supposed 'renowned author'. Could it perhaps have been written by someone with a grudge against Beers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AndyTheGrump

    He calls me names. Ban him Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's see..."no". I assume this is the "pov-pushing" reverts which is not "callig names", and we're not banning anybody, but you might want to look out for a WP:BOOMERANG.- The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) It's customary to notify editors when you report them at this noticeboard. I have done that for you. As for name-calling, I see nothing at all in recent edits to suggest that Andy has done anything of the sort - would you be so kind as to provide diffs? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. here's a name: clueless Islamophobic POV-pusher. [152] The article concerned says nothing whatsoever about archaeology.
    As for Indiasummer95's long history of Islamophobic posting, it's hard to know where to start - though the obnoxious little shit's last post [153] seems quite sufficient evidence to justify a boomerang block - preferably indefinite... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Obnoxious little shit? Bit racist of you. And if the article mentions the Gospel of Barnabas, then that is archaeology. LeftoIslamofascist wank stain nonce. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of sizeist and scatophobic too. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That was in response to Indiasummer95 adding me to category:Islamofascism. As for his later comments above, I think WP:COMPETENCE seems relevant, since Indiasummer95 evidently doesn't know the meaning of the word 'archaeology'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Does IndiaSummer95 realize his name is based on a Native American pornstar? :) Dan skeptic (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter what the provocation, it is unacceptable to come to this board and call another editor "an obnoxious little shit" and Andy should be sanctioned for it.Smeat75 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Give Andy a "slapped wrist" Barnstar, quick. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    For further evidence of Indiasummer95's POV-pushing agenda, I'd draw people's attention to this disgusting rant posted in August: [154] And note the inconsistency: Indiasummer95 alternates between denying that Islamophobia has anything to do with racism (as in this post), and accusing others of 'racism' when they criticise him (see also this confused post on my talk page [155]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy’s “obnoxious little shit” is in clear violation of WP: NPA. A quick look at his block log indicates that he has a history of such personal attacks. Also, Andy is at 3RR at Rochdale sex trafficking gang and closing upon the same at Oxford sex gang.Tristan noir (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, the situation would need to be considered. If you prod someone enough, they react, and being added to the Islamofascist article [[156]] is certainly a big prod. To be honest, looking at Indiasummer95, It appears much like the page of a British Neo-Nazi, and particularly problematic one at that. I would suggest that he probably shouldn't be editing articles anywhere slightly related to Islam? It would seem a topic ban broadly construed would be in order for Indiasummer95, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    ATG has indeed been uncivil from time to time, and this wasn't an ideal response. On the other hand, best save any scolding or remedy for an occasion where the target doesn't deserve it. Making a big deal of this right now serves no purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As deeply obnoxious at this indiasummer character is, Islam is not a race. I had to say. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you prefer, you can replace "racist" in my comment with "discriminatory, offensive, hateful speech disparaging an individual's religion and violating WP:BLP to boot". My view of the proper remedies would stand. MastCell Talk 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to say that per MastCell above, indiasummer is indeed being "discriminatory, offensive," using "hateful speech disparaging an individual's religion and violating WP:BLP to boot". --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 00:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indiasummer95 is clearly Islamophobic and that bothers me however I think do to how new the editor is we should give them a second chance. Maybe this situation will cool them down. As for AndytheGrump, while me and him do have various disagreements I do not see him as an aggressive editor and I think his comment was a singular incident that I don't think will happen again.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indiasummer95 been here over a year and made more than 5,000 edits. And I don't see how spending more time on Wikipedia will help him learn not to say stuff like this. It's not a question of acquiring technical proficiency with wiki-markup or familiarity with sourcing policies; it's a question of attitude. People generally don't learn basic human decency through pseudonymous online interactions, so I'm not sure why we should expect him to improve with additional editing. MastCell Talk 23:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't examine India's past contribs in detail before blocking, so I'm not opposed to extending the block. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Wikipedia is a worse place for nasty bigoted people like that around. As for Andy's comments, surely WP:SPADE is at least partial mitigation. Reyk YO! 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding Indiasummer95's contribution history, could an uninvolved person take a look at the biography of Azad Ali that Indiasummer95 recently created? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    POV and UNDUE issues to be sure, probably needs to be heavily reworked or rewritten. KonveyorBelt 00:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should all learn to stop using unnecessary adjectives and stick to report the facts on problematic editing behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Herr chagall (talk · contribs) and repeated violations of WP:NFCC

    The user in question is repeatedly inserting File:Cameo Word Up rear.jpg into the article Word Up! (song). There is zero critical commentary of the rear of the cover, fails WP:NFCC #1,3,8. Can someone please give the user a clue about policy? I have warned the user but they refuse to listen, I think only a block will be effective. Werieth (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=577214792"