Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Reporting an administrator

Hello,

I had a very negative interaction with the administrator User talk:RHaworth, and hope someone there might have some time to assist him, as he seems to be struggling with positive communication.

This admin has privileges which seem to include deletion and rollback. My interactions all occurred on his talk page, and I took a moment to look at the interactions above mine. Nearly every entry was responded to with rudeness or worse. For example:

• A very polite but scattered letter got a response which began: "What on earth is this "self-reference" rubbish?"

• A very polite letter written from the president of a drama club inquiring about a deleted page. The response: "three infractions - so I ignore."

• A very polite letter inquiring about an email. The response: "Please give details of the alleged "notification". Your email of Jan 4 reached me perfectly well. But why on earth are you trying to email me. Two other things you should have learned in two years of contributions: wikilinks and that refs need a reflist tag but in any case they are inappropriate on user talk pages. OK, your article has been waiting some time for its third review but you must be patient. I do not usually get involved with AfC review so I have no comment on the suitability of the article."

• A very polite letter inquiring about a deleted article. His response: "May I introduce you to the concept of links? You do not clutter this page with article material - you provide a link to your draft. What does it say at the top of Thierry Noritop and fr:Thierry Noritop? "Needs additional citations for verification" and "ne cite pas suffisamment ses sources". This is the hurdle you must overcome if you want to create the Bernie Adam (get the capitalisation right) article. I suspect you are fluent in French so I suggest you create fr:Bernie Adam first. If it sticks it will provide a slight boost for the corresponding article here - which you should launch via AfC."

• A comment about a deletion review. His response: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested."

• An inquiry which stated: "I am curious to understand why you deleted the Orhan Sadik-Kahn page. Interested in learning how to best position on Wikipedia articles. Thank you!" His response: "Possibly mainly because it did not look like a Wikipedia article. How many articles start with == Summary == ? How many bios put the dates of birth and death at the end instead of in the first sentence? Have you noticed that other Wikipedia articles contain wikilinks? Did you think that putting some in yours might make it look more like a proper article. Have you considered the possibility of creating the refs as external links? Please learn the format to de-duplicate references. He is mentioned at least once in other articles - why did you not create incoming links to your article? I have restored your text to User:Kgardner1/sandbox - attend to the matters above then re-submit via AfC."

• A message from an editor who, I assume, had a previously deleted page about a prayerbook restored. He wrote: "I have taken pity on you," and then, "You will receive no further kindness from me until you explain..." Then, "In the highly unlikely event that the text agrees with what you posted, I shall report your priest to the bishop." Then, "my reference to your church was a joke".

• An editor writes: "Hi, I am a brand new editor working on the article of an animated film festival in Kosovo Anibar. I don't know much about Wikipedia, please bear with me. I am working on my personal space before I post the article on mainspace. Thank you for your understanding." His response: "The parrot has not squawked for several days and not yet on this generation of this page so — kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your festival is notable and writes about it here".

• To the next editor: "What colour is this link?"

• To the next editor who clearly didn't realize she had deleted something from his talk page, he writes: "Before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism." She responds, "Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you but I am thoroughly confused. What vandalism? " He responds: "Did you see that the words this vandalism are a link? If you follow that link, it will take you to what we call a "diff report". That report shows the effect of an edit that you did. Please explain why you did it."

• To an editor asking why this administrator had made a rollback, he responds: "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action."

My interaction was next, and was equally negative.

In the real world, people get fired from jobs when they behave like this. The biggest problem though, is it turns new editors off. No kindness. No encouragement. Few suggestions of where to access help.

All of us here are volunteers. None of us deserves to be treated like this. If someone could please take a moment to offer this administrator some strategies for writing to others in a civil way, it would be a big help. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to reply because I don't want to give the impression that you are ignored. I looked over RHaworth's user talk page, and what I saw as responses run the range from brusque to acerbic, and I can definitely understand your concerns. Nothing there crosses the line in my eye to actual misbehavior, not even per incivility which is a much lower bar than personal attacks or harassment. But it's also not kind, either.

To put it in perspective, I wouldn't see any actions from this administrator to be worthy of any templated warnings (even ignoring the fact that templates generally aren't appropriate) but if a request for adminship were run today, these would probably be raised as objections.

I'm not going to offer advice to RHaworth. I don't suggest that administrators are above reproach (I certainly am not!) but for me to suggest to RHaworth that they need to change their communication style feels like arrogance on my part. At least not in the case where another administrator's "style" may be different from mine, but they aren't breaching any policies or guidelines. So I apologize, but I'm not going to take the action that you very politely suggest. All I can offer you right now is an assurance that I do understand and don't entirely dismiss your concerns, I just don't feel that it's my place to try to correct it. -- Atama頭 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama is exactly right. Nothing here rises to the level of incivility as defined by Wikipedia, and even if it did sanctioning other users for civility is controversial to say the least. There are over a thousand admins, with as many individual styles as you'd find in any group of 1000 people. You cite this quote, for example: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested." That isn't insulting, uncivil, or even curt--it's just saying the facts: specifically, that he's not bothered by the DRV and if he cared about the article he would've watchlisted it. Someone who took 3 paragraphs (plus seven links and a picture of a kitten) to say the same thing wouldn't be a better admin, just a more verbose and blustery one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone is acting like a bully and a douchebag, about 40% of the time they turn out to be an admin. Though some of the nicest interactions I've had have been with admins. Power goes to some peoples heads, and couple that with being behind a screen can make people act in ways they would never act in person. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be a caution towards a boomerang. RHaworth, an excellent admin, does not need to be dragged through the mud over this bit over oversensitivity. The OP brought it right here... for what? An admonishment? Move along. Doc talk 09:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How on earth can saying " "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action." be construed as in any way as uncivil? The other comments are at a minor level compared to some on Wikipedia - a number of them are clearly meant to be humourous. I suspect that there are also instances where the quotes have been taken out of context and regardless of history. It's a dirty job out there on the front line and RHaworth in my book is doing a fine job. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is this "bit over oversensitivity" rubbish? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Doc talk 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• What admin action are you requesting that you could not do yourself, Magnolia677? I don't see any of these as more than grumpiness on User:RHaworth's part, and we can all be grumpy sometimes. He isn't going to get a warning or a block for that, and it isn't because he is an admin either. So I don't see what anybody can do, other than maybe have a word with him. Would you like me to do that? --John (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

After I wrote on his talk page "your inability to show appreciation to others who volunteer their time to Wikipedia is disappointing", he responded with rudeness. So sure, have a go. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's funny, I was just over there reading that again. When I review the whole thing I think you just got off on the wrong foot. We are all volunteers here, and RHaworth did everything you asked him to do, and everything that his status demands that he do, promptly and competently. That you found him brusque was probably just him being business-like. Honestly, I would just move on from this and put it behind you, if I were you. --John (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So, it's clear that no action will be taken against RHaworth because while he might have a brusque style of communication, it doesn't cross the line into incivility. Therefore, I think this case should be closed. Editors should feel like they can bring their concerns, especially regarding admins who wield more power than they do, to AN/I to seek counsel Magnolia677 has done so and I don't think they deserve a backlash for believing like this was a safe space to bring their concerns. This should not be discouraged and I don't think questions about admins should cause a defensive reaction. IMO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

I agree with the above comment. The user was justified in bringing his concerns here and talk about boomerangs is inappropriate. I think there will be a good outcome as I am confident that the admin complained about will improve his level of civility to other users after this incident. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

I never meant to say that this was a board that would earn any user a "boomerang" for reporting any alleged malfeasance by an administrator, as if admins are above reproach. I was speaking only to this case specifically. Doc talk 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

RHaworth can be a grumpy old man (by his own definition), but he's usually got a point. I had a look at the discussion over Rutherfurd Hall and can offer the following conclusions: 1) New editor creates unreferenced article in a bad shape 2) NPP tags it as G11 three minutes later 3) Admin declines the speedy but userfies it instead 4) Editor copypastes the article back into main space and improves it 5) Admin histmerges the two versions and reminds the editor that not attributing properly is a copyvio 6) Everyone gets confused and it spills onto ANI 7) Tea and biscuits are served. Did I miss anything? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you missed my most important point, or chose not notice it. RHaworth has been granted the role of gatekeeper of new articles, an important and necessary job. This means he must frequently interact with inexperienced editors who have had their articles deleted. These editors appear enthusiastic and well-meaning, but naive of the wiki ways. They also have no choice but to deal with self-described grump RHaworth. So when this administrator deletes a newcomers user page, and tells them they don't deserve one until they make 50 edits [1], I get a bit concerned. Stating "before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism", to someone who has absolutely no idea what they did wrong, also concerns me, as does seeing an editor's ideas described as "rubbish", or jokes made about their church. I'm disappointed to see so many comments defending this rude behaviour, but maybe I'm just being unrealistic expecting that the front-line face of a volunteer organization should be a kind and helpful one. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Magnolia677 on this point, and i have asked RHaworth on his talk page to restore the user page deleted for "freeloading" and to give an account of his admin actions in that matter. I have mostly had positive contacts with RHaworth in the past, but he is often a bit overly grumpy in my view, and WP:BITE is particularly important for admins to remember. DES ^(talk) 19:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't defend any admin coming across as being rude or biting newbies. The way I interpreted the conversation I mentioned above though, it seemed that rather than being rude or curt, RHaworth was simply trying to explain policy to you, but making a bad job of it. Clearly, it came across as rude to you, which is why you responded in kind. Atama is right - unless RHaworth is regularly violating policy or competence as an admin, there's not much practically that can be done. Expecting him to change his manner and tone just isn't going to happen, and somebody has got to keep an eye on the CSD queue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's something that can be done. Wikipedia is a social environment, and most editors respond to reasonable feedback, especially if given by multiple editors. The problem is the "all-or-nothing" black and white mentality of this place (ANI) -- we don't have to block, ban, template, admonish, revert, fold, spindle or mutilate an editor to have a positive impact on their behavior. So, RHaworth, let's tone it down a bit. NE Ent 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RH, that's my impression also. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Who's a "douche-bag" ? - ^theWOLFchild 19:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, I missed the tea and biscuits. I did not miss the message RHaworth left for Magnolia. Guess everyone else did. Respectfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiyang (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think this might just be a personality/style clash, nothing more? I see nothing of particular note. Some people are merely more direct than others, and this may be interpreted differently by people depending on their own temperaments. "your inability to show appreciation to others who volunteer their time to Wikipedia is disappointing" seems the most uncivil thing on that page, but even that is a damp squib. Second Quantization (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Australian sport naming rules; please review this process and my block of Macktheknifeau

See here for a taste of the regular and frequent disruption that has been caused to our project by the long-term dispute over whether the game Wikipedia knows as association football should be known as soccer, football or something else in an Australian context. With a view to clarifying different understandings of the consensus here, I asked some of the disputants to comment here. Most have responded positively, but User:Macktheknifeau has continued to post personal comments after being warned to stop here, and in spite of the clear instruction at the discussion (For now, please restrict yourselves to stating your own opinion in your own section about the article titles and content, and how this is justified by the consensus. Comments about the opinions and supposed motivations of other editor will be removed.) I have therefore blocked him for 24 hours. Please review the process generally and the block specifically. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think John has A Tiger by the Tail, in that he is attempting to concurrently mediate an interaction nominally about content and enforce civility on the participants with admin tools. The problem is, as indicated by the arbcom finding and the dead in all but name RFC Civility enforcement RFC, we don't have a functional civility policy, which inevitably makes enforcing it ultimately subjective and arbitrary. I've been watching the conversation unfold and participating in my minimalist fashion -- I don't think there is really much of actual content dispute, as there was an RFC last August with a pretty clear consensus ("soccer"). What I saw was tedious WP:IDHT pov-pushing -- including arguments that a local consensus can override commonname with ad hominem attacks against the editor (HiLo48) trying to maintain the article in accordance with policy. Unfortunately, while HiLo48 is a decent editor, they are not skilled at wiki-politics / infighting, which leads to a seriously tl;dr merry-go-round talk page, which makes it time consuming to pick out the signal in all the noise. It is an interesting experiment in dispute resolution and I'm curious to see how it will turn out; 1K WQA and 2K ANI edits have made me a bit cynical about the chances for success but I've been wrong before and hopefully I'll be wrong this time. NE Ent 12:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After checking User talk:Macktheknifeau I agree that User:John made an appropriate decision to block. To get the flavor of this user's attitude, notice their unblock request: "There is an ongoing attack from users connected to Project AFL to destroy football on Australian based wikipedia articles and they are deeply involved in this issue. You cannot silence me and are merely showing yourself to be a pawn of their wiki-lawyering by letting their ludicrous attacks get the better of you." In my opinion the unblock request was correctly declined by User:Jpgordon. The latest consensus discussion that led to the naming of football-related articles seems to be the one from August 2013 at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• NE Ent correctly points out the difficulties surrounding the type of mediation that John is attempting, but the effort is very much worthwhile. I have been supporting HiLo48's attempts regarding this issue since seeing it erupt on some noticeboards, but I would put NE Ent's comments more strongly: HiLo48 has switched to being part of the problem—this is a website based on a self-governing community; badgering John (example) shows that HiLo48 is in full battleground mode. It's obvious that John is attempting to get the participants to actually think about what the August 2013 RfC said, then think about whether any new evidence is available that would justify continuing the dispute. The fact that people are unable to stand back and let that happen shows a topic ban might be required because perpetual bickering is intolerable. The block of Macktheknifeau is clearly justified, and if other participants cannot let a week pass without kicking an opponent, more blocks will be needed. In case people are unaware, the bite in John's mediation is that if it blows up, the matter will be brought to ANI where recent examples of the behavior of those involved will be hung out to dry. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel the need to apply some self defence here. In recent months I have not broken rules here. Others have. It was primarily because of persistent abuse directed at me and others at Talk:Soccer in Australia that John's process began. It's still happening. I am NOT part of this problem, but I am being treated by John as if I am. I am being asked to again go through a process I've been through many times before. This repeated process apparently includes still being insulted. John gave a "final warning" (his words) to one of the editors in question, shortly after this editor returned from a block for throwing insults at me on my Talk page. Within hours that editor told me I needed "think a bit more rationally". John has declared that's not a personal attack. I disagree. In trying to be even handed, John is treating me like an offender, and allowing what I see as unacceptable and unhelpful behaviour from others. I find it incredibly difficult to maintain faith with that process. I don't see that as a battleground mentality. I've made a massive effort here to conform with a culture different from my own, and am still being treated like dirt. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank for the support guys. I have moved the discussion from my talk to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)#Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning if anyone is interested. --John (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Please see the RfC I have started at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). Thanks. --John (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Tristan.andrade.136 - Concerns about competence

Hi, I'm concerned that User:Tristan.andrade.136 may not have the competence to edit constructively.

The user, who we are to believe is a kid, has been warned at least six times not to submit unsourced content, three times not to misuse flag icons, at least five times about disruptive editing, and twice to be mindful of spelling. User has created misspelled articles on Mari Tranior (presumably Trainor), Luitenent Gadget (Lieutenant), has submitted the word "vocied" instead of "voiced" at least six times: ([2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) and continues to add flag icons without any rationale, requiring the assumption that the user is describing two different language dubs, maybe? User has made other peculiar edits like this one. User created an article on Walter's Christmas, which is written very poorly, contains no references and appears to contain copypasta, possibly from here or here. User has created another article here. (Come to think of it, here is a list of all the articles they have created.) User has removed proper {{Start date}} and {{End date}} templates here. More misspellings here, which could have been prevented as "its" and "premiere" appear earlier in the same sentence. It doesn't seem to me that the user understands our procedures and I question their ability to contribute constructively at this time. User was previously blocked in October 2013 by Zad68 and indicated that he wouldn't continue the disruptions, but it's clear that the user (assuming they aren't doing this deliberately) doesn't understand what they are doing is disruptive and doesn't have the ability to preempt or fix the problems they create. Rather than do nothing but template, I have tried on at least two occasions to make an impact through explanation, and I have also recommended the mentorship program to the user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I spelled "Lieutenant" as "Leftenant" for years. In fact, I still pronounce it that way, just like others seem to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I respect your right to pronounce it as such. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship seems best? Obviously a kid who doesn't quite understand dangers of revealing personal information, has undeveloped language, lacks understanding why refs are important etc. If someone would like to kindergarten this guy, that would be the best, I think.Arildnordby (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's unclear what their primary language is. Based on their other interactions with users I don't know how easy it will be to help them, because they don't seem capable of expressing themselves well, or comprehending what others communicate.[8][9][10][11]. I'm personally a little suspicious of behavior this consistently poor, particularly when I've seen a number of vandals who feign naivety and promise to improve, then don't. But that's just my own hangup, I suppose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

His native language appears to be French Canadian based on this edit on his page where it states he lives in Montreal  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I've sent the user a note encouraging him/her to reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Having read a bit further, I am now not altogether convinced your intial concern was false. He might be "just a kid" as I initially thought, but time will tell.Arildnordby (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Arildnordby Well, it's not like we've never seen vandals feign incompetence and naivety to skirt past scrutiny, while committing good hand/bad hand edits. Not saying that's definitively the case here, and I've AGF-ed my fair share, but it should definitely be on the table as feasible. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically, I regard, as for now, your initial argument as definitely rational and well-founded, if a bit cynical (from experience, perhaps??). If he feigns, but desperately wants wiki-inclusion, he'll switch tracks. If he's a well-meaning kid, he'll try his best. If he feigns, but isn't too interested, we've heard the last of him. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the kind of account I wouldn't mind seeing separated from the project for a lengthy period of time. Bad edits despite months of pleas, poor and insufficient attempts at collaborative communication over the history of the account, continuation of the same kinds of bad edits despite a few Talk page comments. As a result the editor is eating up a lot of editing time and patience of others. I believe it's a well-meaning kid and not an intentionally malicious editor but the only thing that matters is the quality of edits and demonstrated capacity for improvement, and I'm not seeing enough of either. If it's a kid, he can come back later; if it's an editor who would be more comfortable editing in another language, then the editor should go edit that language's WP. Zad68 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. Based on his edits at Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond and other articles (Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond is just the most recent involvement that I've had) it's fairly clear that he is just a well meaning kid who doesn't seem able to learn from his mistakes. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A kind, but firm suggestion that he should wait a few years before editing again might, perhaps, be the right solution here?Arildnordby (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi AussieLegend I'm a little confused about what's supposed to happen here. Are we waiting for an administrator to do something specific, or are we going to gently encourage the kid not to edit here anymore? Note also this warning (including the word "charcter"). And this new article and this edit and this edit where "Slugterra TV show had currently 39 seasons divided in 3 seasons". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC) -- (Comment updated 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC))

User:Tbhotch

This user keeps harassing me and threatening to block me and is coming across a bully can someone sort them out for sake of mind? 217.43.162.104 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note this user is THE GTA Guy (talk · contribs), aka AlisaJay (talk · contribs), aka MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs), and evidence can be found at the respective sockpuppet investigation pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlisaJay. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that this user has a few screws loose if all they think they can do is accuse people without facts 217.43.162.104 (talk)

You want facts. One page: Loud (Rihanna album), a constant target of you. Including a reversion of a reversion of the user 86.142.54.16 (talk · contribs), who is blocked and also comes from the same state you are currently located. Your personal attacks and EMPHASIS matches with those of Maria and your IP matches with already confirmed socks of Maria. I don't need CU evidence to know you and Maria and GTA and Alisa are the same person. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you're going 'round calling it a personal attack; ever heard the expression "The pot called the kettle black?" 217.43.162.104 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So calling me "freak" and to ask some one to "fuck me off" are not personal attacks. Neither "dumbass", "you are pathetic", and multiple of your attacks are not personal. It has no sense to talk with you (edit conflict).

In a side note to other users, is it possible to get this guy/girl banned from this site now? Nothing has changed since the User:MariaJaydHicky era, and now this person has decided to play to be a victim of circumstances s/he provoked her/himself. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If no admin agrees to unblock, that's a de facto ban already. Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, people sometimes want it to be de jure. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Community Ban proposal for AlisaJay/MariaJaydHicky/etc

I propose the following:

For persistent sockpuppeteering and ban evasion, which has exhausted the patience and assumption of good faith by the community, MariaJaydHicky is banned from English Wikipedia by the community.

• Support as proposer. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support in principle - Penwhale The last time I raised such a question, I was informed that an indeffed editor is de facto banned as long as there are no admins willing to unblock. And I believe we are still able to revert on sight, and report to AIV without any of the L1, L2, L3, L4 warning formalities. From some of the really incivil things she has penned, this actor seems committed to this hostile "chav" bit and doesn't seem capable of participating constructively in this community project. To formally "ban" might be to deliver a badge of honor. Just a thought. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - clearly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

silly season in full force and vigour at Michael Grimm (politician)

Previous discussion here at [12]

Edit: [13]

IPs and "new editors" are in edit war mode to get the "extended cut" of the Grimm story into his BLP. The editors involved are unlikely to be "truly new" here, and the use of IPs for reverts stinks IMO. Will someone please tell them how the prior discussion here went? All they are saying is "notcensored" and similar stuff now. And the claim is now that it requires consensus to remove the contentious material. Please someone, anyone, help on this. They even push the anonymous claims again -- and I think a stand should be taken on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the unusual course of reverting out the BLP material which was previously discussed here, and full-protecting the article. I thought this was better than blocking people. I'll be happy to unprotect once the dispute is over. --John (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- though I think the miraculous IP edits are less than likely to not be socking :(. Collect (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• The sanitization of this article and protection with tools is complete bullshit. The news event wasn't an "interview," it was a televised threat. BLP claims are bogus. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I charge User:John with tool abuse. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Video links for context, by the New York Times and Alternate Version to YouTube. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• • This is concurrently being discussed here, WP:BLPN and Talk:Michael Grimm (politician). If one of these conversations results in a resolution of the BLP dispute, feel free to ping me and I will unprotect, as I said above. Your melodramatic "charges", Carrite, will be treated, I'm afraid, with all the seriousness they deserve. --John (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You'd better be afraid yourself if your actions are treated with the seriousness they deserve. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• A case where policy and common sense go hand in hand. The first says to edit BLPs conservatively and with very reliable sources, the second says to not pay undue attention to minor events and to limit first-hand accounts since, after all, we're writing an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Activism is for your Twitter account. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

  Bogus. "Very reliable sources?" How about: New York Times. Atlantic magazine. This is a politically-motivated whitewash. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  Are you saying that Collect, John and Drmies are engaging in a "politically-motivated whitewash"? It is not satisfactory for people to have their sins amplified in articles just because a source says it is so. An encyclopedic article is not a place to right great wrongs—wait until something of consequence happens, such as a conviction for an unlawful action, or an independent analysis saying that the politician lost an election because of a bad event. Johnuniq (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wait--Carrite is charging me with being a Republican? That's NPA territory, Carrite. If we were Real Men, I'd challenge you to a duel. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I'd have chosen another noun in your case, rest assured. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Carrite (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• This article is still fully locked down in support of one (tendentious) side of an editing dispute. It needs to be unlocked immediately. This is a flagrant case the use of power tools to bury a content disagreement. Carrite (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Constant arguing over parapsychology

Basically a new user PhiChiPsiOmega has joined Wikipedia a few days ago with plans to do "major" revisions on the parapsychology article, unfortunately this user has not read Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience or fringe theories. So he has ended up ranting on the talk page of the parapsychology article and using it as a forum [[14]] and basically disagreeing with pretty much everything and anyone has said to him. He's now arguing with users here [[15]]

PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs)

69.14.156.143 (talk · contribs)

If you check his talk page he admits he disagrees with the scientific consensus about parapsychology and even wikipedia. He has left some aggressive comments a few times (both on his account and on his IP) on my talk-page, I am not too bothered about this but he's done the same thing on the parapsychology talk-page and elsewhere. I don't see anything positive about this user on Wikipedia. His existence here seems to just want to argue with people because his belief in psi is not supported on Wikipedia. I think he should be topic banned on the topic of parapsychology.

To make things worse, he's now hooked up with a fringe proponent Tom Butler (talk · contribs) (an anti-Wikipedia editor who talks about Wikipedia editors censoring his paranormal views) who has written "Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success." [16] amongst other nonsense.

I can just see these two editors getting worse and worse and they are obviously not on Wikipedia to improve any articles or doing anything productive but just argue with editors so I think a lid needs to be put on it now before their trolling spreads to other places on wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, so the correct venue for this would be WP:AE. I recommend withdrawing this complain and filing it there instead. N^oformation ^Talk 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think PhiChiPsiOmega needs to learn about Wikipedia policy in general and WP:AGF, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTAFORUM in specific. However, as a slight mitigating factor, he is a very new user and I don't want to bite the newcomer. It's clear that he believes very passionately in his topic and there's nothing wrong with that, however the situation on the constellation of parapsychology and pseudoscience articles shouldn't be changed just to accommodate one passionate editor. I think the best thing to do would be to pair PhiChiPsiOmega with an editor who has absolutely no involvement with anything even remotely related to parapsychology as a mentor. Encourage him to learn the ropes of Wikipedia somewhere where he's less likely to enter into antagonistic situations with long-standing editors. After all, passion speaks to boldness and we want bold editors here. However we also want editors who are willing to seek consensus even when it might chafe their passions. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He's a new user (very new) and I think he is allowed some leeway to picking up an understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I know many editors who had a bumpy landing when they started editing WP and, unfortunately, PhiChiPsiOmega wandered into one of the most conflicted areas on Wikipedia. I think that editors who regularly police this area are on the lookout for potential "disruptors" and are overly vigilant. But Parapsychology is not the DMZ or the old Berlin Wall and any editing errors can be reversed. There is no call to block new editors who are not aware of ARBCOM sanctions and the history of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz but you have done comments like this which doesn't help. "Welcome to Wikipedia, User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing!" [17].

Two issues remain here. PhiChiPsiOmega existence on Wikipedia is to just stir up trouble over the parapsychology article (psi is even in his name). He's made it clear he is not convinced by the scientific references on the topic (the hundreds that are on the article), and he rejects the scientific consensus:

• [18]
• [19]

Here he even claims the arbitration committee is wrong:

• [20]

Basically everyone is wrong apart from himself and he isn't going to stop arguing about the subject. I am bringing this to the Administrators' noticeboard now because if it doesn't stop now it's just going to go on and on. The second issue is that this user Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is a troll off and on Wikipedia. Off Wikipedia he's created countless blog and forum posts against Wikipedia like this, and even an entire website against Wikipedia policies [21]:

Tom Butler anti-Wikipedia comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"After being remained about the futility of trying to reach consensus with Wikipedia editors, my natural reaction is to take my efforts for balanced reporting elsewhere. Perhaps a wiki titled: “Wikipedia Truth Watch.” In their devotion to mainstream ideals, skeptical editors are well organized and help one another while more moderate editors are not inclined toward activism nor are they inclined to organize. Reliable sources are required for every statement of substance; however, that rule is used to say that virtually all publications supporting the study of things paranormal are not allowed as references while virtually any publication negative toward things paranormal are allowed–This is a result of skeptic control of the encyclopedia." [22] "I would like to add my two cents worth. I have been an editor for a number of years and was involved in the decisive administrative action that resulted in a permanent ban of probably the last truly effective editor who was a supporter of fair treatment for paranormal articles." "Editing Wikipedia is truly an exercise in futility. I let myself be drawn in from time to time to at least put my point on record, but also to see how the problem has evolved. I learn more about people each visit, but my wife Lisa and I have otherwise concentrated on countering Wikipedia with education." [23] and he has an entire anti-Wikipedia website here: [24] "The problem is that Wikipedia policies have made it possible for Skeptics to dominate parts of the online encyclopedia. These faceless people have run off virtually all of those of us who think an encyclopedia should say what something is without characterizing it as good or bad. Those who persist in making what they consider more balanced entries are often subjected to abuse that is more like the Lord of the Flies than a collaborative community." [25]

And you only need to look at his Wikipedia user page and comments on Wikipedia to see he is only here to cause trouble. Here is encouraging a user to quit Wikipedia and "give up here" to join his own paranormal alternative [26] On his very own user page it reads "Editors blocked for attempting fair treatment of Rupert Sheldrake The public will know these editors as maters of the search for fairness." and now he's encouraging the user PhiChi [27]. I have no idea why this editor is still on Wikipedia considering all the damage he is trying to do to it on and off Wikipedia (he's even hosted online petitions against Wikipedia). The way for this issue to be solved is to ban these users because they are not here to edit Wikipedia, they are using the site to stir controversies over parapsychology and it is going to spread if they are not warned. That's all I am going to say on this. If action is not taken then in a few weeks time someone else will just be coming back here complaining about these users and it is going to get worse and worse. Goblin Face (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather go there than deal with the lack of objectivity and quote-mining I get here. Look, GF, I understand that psi is an uncomfortable topic for you, but he has good reason for posting those things: You are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. I disagree with the skeptics because they DON'T represent their opponents very well, and that their opponents represent a small niche in the scientific community. Appealing to the "hundreds of articles against" (while ignoring the hundred articles ' ' for ' ' ) psi is just proving my point. Don't you dare do anything to Tom Butler. Neither he nor I are here to cause trouble, as I've said (and as can be seen on my talk page!) several times over. My name comes from the last four letters of the Greek alphabet, not an appeal to "psi". Quit reading into things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to call editors trolls, and one could argue whether "troll" is strictly accurate because it looks like an editor who is not trolling but who genuninely believes a bunch of FRINGE stuff, and is disappointed that it is so hard to push it at Wikipedia.

PhiChiPsiOmega has a highly original manner of editing, changing the opening sentence of Parapsychology to read "Parapsychology (or psi phenomena) is the somewhat controversial scientific study of psychic and paranormal phenomena." (diff). Clearly PhiChiPsiOmega's edits will need extensive scrutiny, and WP:AE can be used if nothing is learned within a week or two. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, but I'm not a "pusher". It is fact that Wikipedia isn't citing the full spectrum of scientific opinion. Not all parapsychologists are woo-meisters or New Age gurus, and a great deal of them are well-respected physicists, psychologists, and statisticians. My point is that the debate can't be just given over to everyone uber-skeptical of psi. I even cited a skeptic who thought parapsychology was a science, but its findings inconclusive. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the inevitable result of this will be that PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) gets shepherded away from Wikipedia articles. He's going to waste editor's time because he seems incapable of understanding basic policies. The break is either going to be voluntary or enforced under WP:ARB/PS, and it's either going to happen sooner or later. Right now, I wouldn't be pushing for a ban, but I think it's ultimately inevitable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable. WP:ROPE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, that was so funny I forgot to laugh. Look, the only reason I'm here isn't because I irrationally believe in the face of evidence, or that I believe non-scientists over scientists, or that I am a woo-pusher who wants to cause trouble. I am here because there is a wide spectrum of opinions on psi, and that, at best, you can call it an extremely controversial science that few defendants hold to, but not pseudoscience. Just because a lot of people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it's classified as such. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fully agree with noformation. ANI threads about disruptions in the topic area of pseudoscience are always problematic. That is why we have discretionary sanctions and this thread should be filed at WP:AE to stop the TLDR text and the peanut gallery. Second Quantization (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wolfie, WP:AE limits us to providing diffs of WP:ARB/PS issues. Tom has a long history of WP:COI, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:IDHT issues. If this isn’t the right venue to deal with a chronically disruptive editor then what is? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions available apply across pseudoscience and fringe articles, broadly construed. This includes all contributions where there are issues such as IDHT, NPA etc in that topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really trying not to be a peanut gallery. I just think it's better classified as "fringe science" than "pseudoscience". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Wikipedia's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Wikipedia are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Wikipedia is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience. For the record, reliable sources also say psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific. That doesn't make it so. And I presented reliable sources to you, which you ignored repeatedly (which makes me wonder why I'm still talking to you). Once again, I've made my position clear: I am not just a pot-stirrer. I'm saying this topic needs to be looked at more. I only disagree with parapsychology being placed as pseudoscience, and even Wikipedia protocol seems to be open to just calling it controversial or questionable, but not completely pseudoscientific. Tom Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's right in saying this has gone in the wrong direction. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi says "And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience". This is nothing more than trolling and it' utter nonsense like all of your other unreferenced personal beliefs that you have spammed on Wikipedia talk pages (you have failed to present a single scientific reference to make your case). It's trolling because there's countless references on the article which indicate it is a pseudoscience but every time you say it isn't. Can you not read the parapsychology article? There are over 10 references which indicate it is an obvious pseudoscience and many listed on the talk-page. It is even mentioned in the lead, and is cited in mainstream books on pseudoscience like Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." This is just a waste of time. No matter what is said you are just going to continue to promote your personal fringe beliefs on the subject, arguing, ignoring what people have said to you and causing disrupt. If someone wants to take this to another venue they can, but I am not wasting anymore time on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave you plenty of references! Your failure to look at them is indicative of something else other than objectivity at work. I gave you plenty of articles from scientific journals and I could have given you more! It's not trolling. There are several authorities who claim psychoanalysis is pseudoscience, even though you still represent the counters of those who support psychoanalysis. They're saying many people refer to it as pseudoscience, not that it's completely pseudoscientific. And even if it is disagreed with, cite the esteemable people who actually support the stuff and are credible enough to get the material published in academic lit: http://books.google.com/books/about/An_Introduction_to_Parapsychology_5th_ed.html?id=rPlsF2BJiHUC. This counters several of the criticisms, and I don't see you even looking at it once! It's hardly something not worth citing like SIGNATURE IN THE CELL for evolution or something similar. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys, let's not have this argument here as well. Let's either take this to the appropriate venue, as suggested by Second Quantization and Noformation or just simmer down and let people cool off a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is only one reason I spend pretty valuable time on Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is read by the public, and as such, the articles that slander living people and give people a false impression about subjects have become effective propaganda for a demonstrably biased point of view. None of my edits, none of my comments on Wikipedia have been contrary to the belief that the public deserves a balanced view. In fact, that is the nonprofit charter of Wikipedia.

As a manager of a nonprofit myself, I am obligated to serve the best interest of the public in the nonprofit's literature. To knowingly falsely represent a subject violates that charter. As representatives of the Wikipedia nonprofit, the editors here are equally obligated to be truthful and slandering people and intentionally giving only one side of a subject, while as a policy, rejecting the other is something I have difficulty being quiet about.

You can ban me, but all that does is confirm my point. The real answer is to get off your pompous seat and try balancing the articles. I am sure editors like PhiChiPsiOmega will help. Tom Butler (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Proponents of Flat Earthers proponents have no claim to be equally represented in their views than Round Earth proponents. Not even at Flat Earth page.Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Arildnordby: How does parapsychology fit in with flat-Earth and YEC nonsense? They have no peer-review, no textbooks, and no wide range of academic literature behind them. Parapsychology, on the other hand, does. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom, you serve no purpose on Wikipedia but are just here to cause trouble. You are anti-Wikipedia and both on and off this site you are promoting libel about various editors who you classify as "skeptics", you even have an entire website against Wikipedia which you believe is "biased". Look over your edit history there's nothing constructive but you are encouraging people to cause trouble on here. It's also stupid you claim to be "neutral" but you have written books claiming people can talk to the dead. Basically anyone who is not a believer in your fringe beliefs is "biased" and you attack Wikipedia in the process. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, if you had read any of that material, you would understand that my behavior here is a learned one as a last resort. I am also demonstrably neutral in the study of these phenomena. For instance, I am a lone voice against a couple of popular techniques. I may seem biased toward the subject because I write about what I learn. Were it otherwise, then I would be preaching and this is not about religion.

If you do not consider yourself a skeptic, then why do you have "This user is a skeptic" on your page?

And to Simonm223, I can support that contention about slander. Rupert Sheldrake was very close to suing Wikipedia for slander. Other living persons have expressed to me similar points. I have even heard talk of a legal defense fund. Do you want to make a case of that? It is the skeptics who use terms like Woo and quack. As a general rule, the most we do is say you are a skeptic.

I will also note that I would not be aware of PhiChiPsiOmega if it were not that many of you were complaining about him on the Fringe Notice Board below where you mentioned my name. I do not monitor the parapsychology article ... it seems silly to try to help those who do not help themselves ... but it seemed only fair to warn PhiChiPsiOmega you were talking about him.

I know it is eating at you that I am inviting editors to come help in Citizendium. You should be happy that I am offering them a way to help that is out of your hair. Citizendium is an outpost on the Internet, but is a good place to develop balanced articles. The existing editors there will assure we do not develop propaganda, but they seem dedicated to balanced treatment of articles. If I were you, and looking at all of the complaints, I would be encouraging people to go there.

I think it is time to stop complaining and either fix the articles or admit that you want them as billboard for your opinions. Tom Butler (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have archived PhiChi's argument on the parapsychology talk page. Goblin Face (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, it is inappropriate to completely archive a talk page. Also, your reasons are way off base. If I am not mistaken, this is a troublesome pattern of some editors that needs to stop.Tom Butler (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will not edit war with you over this, but be advised that the archive is deliberate tampering with an open exchange in information and will not hide the conversation from the world. Tom Butler (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: I've talked with Radin before. He only responds to stuff in peer-reviewed journals. Look at the comments here if you don't believe me: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/06/constructive-criticism.html. That said, if you press him enough, he will respond in a private conversation. I've shared emails with him, and I've kept them. If I'm correct, the skeptical criticisms usually repeat themselves like a broken record (you're defining psi by what it's not, lack of replicability immediately means bad experiment and no further investigation is needed, it'll defy the laws of physics as we know them, etc.), and I'm suspecting Park's criticisms are no different. Radin has responded to criticism, but he doesn't have to respond to every single skeptical writer directly in order to do that. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to quit at all. We're not bullies, and I'm guessing you're valued elsewhere. We'd just appreciate if you would find something of substance to give us and stop playing a victim all the time (which means not accusing someone of being a sock). Mr. Steigmann has good reason to be harsh with Wikipedia. You're only representing one side of the story while pretending that it's neutral. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports the current scientific consensus, which is that paranormal phenomena are fringe science (at best). Neutrality does not factor into it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note another user has correctly removed the comments from me to the sock puppet 67.188.88.161 (talk · contribs) and his comments to me as it was off topic and he has openly confessed to being banned on his account Blastikus and others. I apologise for thinking this sock was PhiChiPsiOmega. Tom Butler's behavior is being discussed elsewhere by admins at Wikipedia Arbitration so I think this discussion should be closed. Goblin Face (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChiPsiOmega, you just need to contact James Randi to set up some tests. If the results of these tests are positive then that will be a notable enough result for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Count Iblis: I'm familiar with the Randi Challenge, thank you, but the Ganzfeld has undergone far more skeptical scrutiny. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

GF: No worries. It's the internet. It happens. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What matters is to get results that are widely accepted. So, assuming for argument's sake that you are right and that in Ganzfeld experiments a positive result does show up, one still has to demonstrate this in a way that will gain acceptance within the scientific community. If we also assume for argument's sake that you initially don't gain acceptance because of unreasonable skepticism, you still have to deal with that problem before you can claim a positive result (however unfair this is).

Randi was dealing with the opposite problem in the late 1970s, at that time certain results like Uri Geller's mind of matter results were accepted as proven by the parapsychology community while his criticism of these results were totally ignored. It took several years for him to prove that he was correct and that the entire parapsychology community was wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little skeptical about James Randi at times. Scott Rogo, an eyewitness to the Targ-Puthoff experiments, seems to have disputed many of Randi's claims. Also, even if Targ and Puthoff's work is as terrible as it seems, more controlled experiments have been done in psi tests since then. In any case, skeptical arguments are often met in the parapsychological literature, which is quite academic, and written by respected scientists who still have their jobs. If the literature shows that the criticisms have been met, I don't see any reason to not include them. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles follow WP:REDFLAG—the science which makes planes fly and phones ring finds there is no evidence to suggest that parapsychology is any different from all other junk FRINGE stuff. Of course some eye witnesses dispute Randi's claims—that's what fringe people do. Johnuniq (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... WHAT??? You're dismissing eyewitness accounts because James Randi said so? Is that ' 'really' ' your argument? Again, the "science which makes planes fly" is mostly agnostic on the matter. The "professional" skeptics are those who actually care most of the time, and every time someone says "the scientific community rejects it", they're often referring to this crowd of skeptics. Other scientists' feelings about psi being unscientific seems proportional to those who hold that psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Er... WHAT??? is exactly the response of mainstream science to parapsychology. My prediction that this will end up at WP:AE for WP:REFUSINGTOGETIT still stands. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue debate on policy. Unless an admin plans on handing out sanctions, there's nothing else to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this thread should be closed as no action is likely, Second Quantization (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalising climate data for months

75.191.173.190 (talk · contribs) has been on a trail of disruption, including undoing the transclusion of established templates, falsely claiming "updates" to data (when most government meteorological agencies only update normals every decade), "adjusting" temperatures that have been verified countless times without changing the source, among other crimes. Since this has been going on since at least New Year's Day, a several-month-long block is in order. GotR ^Talk 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the user? What do they say? --Tóraí (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but to no avail. GotR ^Talk 00:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually discussed with them specifics of what is wrong with their edits? All I'm seeing in the above link is a generic templated message about unsourced material. (Such a discussion would also be helpful to administrators, as I'm not seeing any outright intentional vandalism, not knowing the specifics or intentions of the IP editor. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I told them to: 1) make their edits directly to transcluded templates, not supplant their transclusion with several more KBs of code; an example is Minneapolis#Climate, which transcludes {{Minneapolis weatherbox}}. The user was told by others to obey this custom. 2) False claims, as I find it hard to believe the IP does not notice the main source presently used at {{Seattle weatherbox}} is the same as the "new", and "more accurate" source the IP has been claiming to use; the user may be lying 3) I also hinted to them of the vastly superior quality of normals, which include smoothing for missing and suspect data, over simple arithmetic averages. Therefore, this user has indicated no will to cooperate, and this is a behavourial issue, not a mere dispute over the undisputed official status of Normals. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• The IP has blanked warnings from their talk page and ignored discussion. They're engaged in the same edit warring on Minneapolis, Honolulu and other cities. I've requests page protection. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

At it again, and even reverting the edits of countless others (this one to Madison, WI has nothing to do with climate, too!). Also, Dennis B, thank you for bringing attention to this matter in another venue. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 16:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So if I go to editing in {{Minneapolis weatherbox}} is it fine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You are still reverting, and after all these hours, you have finally come here. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Another revert, after edit warring warning. (I would not recommend that Lieutenant of Melkor revert again -- let an admin respond.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All my renewed datas are from NOAA include Average temps and there's no any false informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.173.190 (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that he's not putting out blatantly false data, so we can't just treat this as vandalism. But he is changing the data without changing the source (or even the time period of the source), which indicates either that all of the data was false to begin with or that the IP's numbers don't actually match the source he's claiming they come from. It may be, however, that he's putting out data that matches the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and just neglecting to say so or change the source. It does seem that at least some of the data he's adding (I didn't check it all; NOAA's data access takes more steps than it should) does indeed match the 1981-2010 NOAA climate normals, and therefore should stay in the templates if at least the source is changed. —Soap— 02:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

These are the official normals; anything else isn't. I had went through and corrected the templates, mostly temperatures, to match them over the past year. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Repeating the same revert six or seven times in a row, as at Template:Boston weatherbox, is not the way to overcome other editors' objections. 2. There has been no explanation forthcoming, that I can find, as to why any changes are necessary to the climate information for any of the cities involved. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been nearly 24 hours since the last comment on this thread. So are we going to silently allow this disruption to continue as it likely will? "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 02:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And indeed it has resumed. Administrator attention needed here. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user socking

On 27 February, Worm That Turned declined the unblock request of User talk:Arri at Suburban Express, a user with an already long history of socking and disruptive editing.

Three days later, there are edits on it's owner's article from 99.67.249.6. Geolocated to CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS; the IP removed substantial information from the article. Can we please get a semi-permanent way to deal with this sock?

Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, a ban or something like that? Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Arri is blocked, has had an unblock declined after functionary review, and is probably socking would strongly imply he's de facto banned (see WP:BAN). As such, and given sufficient behavioral evidence (since CU won't confirm IPs), any admin should feel free to issue lengthy blocks to the IPs in question. If we want to have a formal community ban discussion I think we can do that, though it really wouldn't change anything (and I'm not clear on whether we can have a community ban if ArbCom or the functionaries have asserted jurisdiction over a case, not that I'm sure that's happened here). Regardless, endorse blocking 99.67.249.6 of any length greater or equal to one month (prefer three). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personally I wasn't sure if a ban was the most effective way or just get an admin to block the IP. Given that either action needed an admin anyway, it was best for me to comment here and let other admins look into this. Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 10:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well at this point this is probably going to be declined as stale since the edits were a few days ago. It also looks like there are a lot of IPs that may be being used here, so a simple block might not do much. But according to the IP tools, 99 is a static IP, so blocking for a period may help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Trolling from Holdek

Resolved

 – I believe there is consensus this wasn't trolling, and it's been four days since the last activity. Can it be closed by an uninvolved admin? Holdek (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently he is back with a vengeance [28]. I have no idea what his templated "warning" is about, but it seem to be payback/harassment after I commented on his behavior in previous ANI thread involving him. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody indef hem back please? How many times should this user be blocked so that everybody understands they are net negative?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that; that's Twinkle's automated notification that happens when someone tags a page for speedy deletion--in this case, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Holdek. I think using the "attack page" rationale is a bit much, but not wholly unreasonable; in any event, the post to your talk page is just a side effect of that tagging. It perhaps wasn't deliberate. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I have figured out what that cryptic warning on my talk page was about. It's an ArbCom matter now. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Toddst1.2FHoldek Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you even look at Holdek's talk page before coming here (much less discuss things on it)?unnecessary sass, although the point about discussing things before coming here stands Check out the User_talk:Holdek#Unblocked thread, wherein WormTT explains why it wasn't found to be socking. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That's correct: it was an automatic, unforeseen by me, and unintentional result of my deletion nomination for Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Holdek.

Usually with Twinkle-based delete nominations that I'm familiar with it just gives a templated notice on the creator's talk page that the page they created has been requested to be deleted, with an invitation to object. Indeed, the box I checked was "Notify page creator if possible." I did not know that it would give a warning instead. Also, the other rationale box I checked was "Empty categories."

I will go ahead and remove the warning, and FWIW I think Twinkle should be fixed so that misunderstandings like this don't occur. --Holdek (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't found it to be "not socking", I found that Toddst's change of block from 1 month to indefinite due to socking but without decent explanation of why to be inappropriate. It might well be that Holdek has been socking, and anyone who feels that is likely should file an WP:SPI with evidence. I'll point out again that Toddst1's 1 month block was good and if Holdek has carried on with past behaviour an indefinite block would be the correct course of action. As it is, Holdek has removed the warning, and blamed Twinkle which seems plausible to me. It'd be a good idea if Holdek and Someone not using his real name did their best to ignore each other. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

FYI: The edit summary demonstrates that it was Twinkle, and describes it as a "notification": (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Someone_not_using_his_real_name&diff=prev&oldid=597988758). Holdek (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale and Rachel Reilly articles

• Carriearchdale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rachel Reilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Carriearchdale has shown a frankly unhealthy interest in Rachel Reilly and articles related to her. Reilly is a moderately successful reality TV contestant with a very few acting credits. Carriearchdale signed up for this account in 2007, but had no edits until two months ago. On her first day of editing, she was blocked for edit warring at Jodi Arias. On her fourth day of editing, two editors asked her to stop reviewing AFC submissions due to her lack of experience, and she responded with accusations of threatening and bullying (User talk:Carriearchdale/Archive 1#Articles for creation reviewing). On January 20 problems were raised with her activity in the GOCE's backlog-reduction drive/competition.[29] At that point, her editing shifted to (mostly) using automated tools to tag-bomb newly created pages with little apparent regard for the accuracy of the tagging (eg, [30], [31], uncategorized tag on properly categorized pages; [32], [33], inline-citations-needed tag on well-footnoted, sometimes impeccably footnoted pages) In February, she moved on to detailed editing of individual articles (rather idiosyncratically), using edit summaries where the term "copyedit" was used to characterize virtually any sort of edit. And, on February 17, she turned her attention to the articles on Reilly and her husband, Brendon Villegas.

Carriearchdale began by challenging as inaccurate Reilly's declared date of birth, sourced to her own Facebook page (as well removing a citation to a newspaper article discussing Reilly)[34], with a rather specious edit summary. She has proceeded to make a long string of destructive, borderline vandalous edits to the Reilly article. Here for example, she replaces two perfectly appropriate reference citations (dealing with Reilly's college career) with a "citation needed" tag [35] (misdating the tag as well). Here she removes a cite to TV Guide regarding a TV casting, claiming that "show business magazines" are, across the board, not reliable sources for show business information.[36] Here, the article is tagged for COI for no reason other than that the article's subject's husband contributed a picture in which the subject was recognizable (replacing an inadequate one where guesswork was needed to pick the subject out of a crowd).[37] She has repeatedly added zero-value tabloidery to at least two articles about a sexting incident involving Reilly's then-boyfriend, now-husband. [38] [39] And, finally, in a display of truly appalling behaviour, Carriearchdale went to an online pay-for-access "background check site" and created a "Criminal Record" section, even though the "crimes" listed were little or nothing more than routine traffic offenses, many of which were dismissed or otherwise did not result in conviction or the equivalent.[40][41] After I removed the content on February 16; she reinstated it 3 days later, only to have it summarily removed by a third editor.

I find this fascination with detailing the supposed failings of very minor "celebrities" one has no connection to genuinely creepy, aside from the many violations of editing standards involved.

I don't know how much of this behaviour can be attributed to gross failure of WP:COMPETENCE, and how much to disruptive intentions. But she was at it again earlier today, removing valid sourcing in favor of citation-needed tags in the guise of a "copyedit".[42]

I therefore propose that User:Carriearchdale be topic banned from all articles and other pages related to Rachel Reilly and Brendon Villegas; that she be required to use accurate edit summaries, and specifically instructed not to use "copyedit" as a description of substantive edits; that she be prohibited from using automated tools like "Page Curation", which she as frequently misused, for a minimum of six months, until she was demonstrated competence in applying relevant guidelines; and that she be cautioned that further misbehaviour of a similar nature, regardless of the articles involved, is likely to result in substantial loss of editing privileges. I also hope somebody, when this is settled, will RevDel the most inappropriate material she added to the Reilly article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• response from Carriearchdale (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all please everyone review user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and his block log:

14:57, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) unblocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(Per discussion on user talk) 13:21, 2 April 2012 Tristessa de St Ange (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Edit warring: violation of the three-revert ruleand edit-warring under colour of WP:NFCC: Linda Ronstadt) 08:11, 27 January 2009 RandomXYZb (talk | contribs) blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Disruptive editing)

Regarding the Rachel Reilly article, and all the other ravings of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would first say that the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been following me around from article to article wiki-hounding me. You have the evidence right in his "ANI" report. I think that is a bit creepy to wikihound another editor, and try to make a big hullabaloo about miniscule incidents that may have occurred over a several month period. When that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz started trying to cause trouble, I did the correct thing and posted on the rachel reilly talk page for the article the following statement, which I might add this accusatory user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who has been wiki-hounding me totally ignored. An invitation to discuss??? No discussion was ever entered there by the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I guess he was too busy creepily filling out a laundry list of crap so he could get an ANI posted. So be it!

Here is the post I put on the rachel reilly article talk page. Please ask yourselves, why did the user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz not try to come to a consensus there? and to not even make a comment?

I propose that the aforementioned user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from all BLP article issues regarding the Rachel Reilly articles as well as others as the admins may see fit. I would ask that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be instructed, and or advised to stop wiki-hounding and harassing me, and that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz would be notified on the proper protocol to attempting to come to a consensus on any article. I always thought discussion between editors on a talk page comes before directly going to file an ANI. After all, the post sat there on the rachel reilly talk page since 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC). Apparently I am not the first, nor I am sure, will I be the last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

post that was placed on the RR talk page: at 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"==This article's factual accuracy is disputed==

• This article has been extensively edited by the subject, and other persons with a conflict of interest.
• This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Superfluous references are constantly being added to this article. For example, anyone can write on a facebook page that they are 97 years old. Now if the person is actually 17 years old, but the facebook pages reads that they are 97, then that would be a superfluous references with no true cite value.
• This article is written from a fan's point of view, or an extremely positive point of view rather than a neutral point of view.
• This article needs to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it simply neutral in tone.
• More than one person or editor has a very close connection with its subject.
• The neutrality of this article is disputed.

• • • This is quoted from a talk page on a different article, but it may be something to ponder upon.

"When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

• • • Any information being added to an article may be due, but the article needs to conform with wikipedia's high standard of quality while remaining neutral in tone.

Let's all just discuss.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)"

• Comment - Concur with Carrie, Wolf appears the be the one with "creepy interest" in Reilly. Otherwise why would anyone go to such as extent as the bizarre explanation given above. --50.148.165.229 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur Carrie seems to be the victim here. I cannot understand any of Wolf's complaint outside of having and editorial disagreement. I see no reason to believe Carrie was outside of the lines. The accusation of Wiki-hounding and the supplied cot combined with this strange afi does cause concern.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Also just to clarify my comment above regarding that I was sure I was not the first nor last victim of wiki-hounding by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I include for anyone's perusal a true laundry list of "behaviors and their turmoil and consequences regarding user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz": Carriearchdale (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list; a third editor reverts HullaballooHullaballoo again blindly 30 KB (5,145 words) - 00:38, 5 December 2010 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter 301 B (35 words) - 08:38, 18 November 2011 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter 11 KB (1,814 words) - 08:38, 18 November 2011 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-07-01/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz trouble with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, they know better than I do the way HullaballooWolfowitz has acted toward 8 KB (1,418 words) - 11:46, 10 August 2010 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz edit-warring across articles with several editors) each name, Hullaballoo Again deletes the list a third editor reverts Hullaballoo:::Hullaballoo again blindly 523 KB (91,839 words) - 09:35, 8 August 2010 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131 (section Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 17:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 1. Jimbo Wales' talk page is used as a forum 210 KB (36,345 words) - 01:36, 2 April 2013 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive680 (section User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) carrots→ 08:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC) User: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz User repeatedly reverting against admin-placed 474 KB (74,163 words) - 09:36, 19 March 2011 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137 (section Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 11:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz This matter does not fall under the ArbCom 170 KB (28,934 words) - 01:36, 2 August 2013 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries) the behavior of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Starting out with his own conclusion, Mr.Wolfowitz used blinders 571 KB (100,031 words) - 15:03, 26 July 2013 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive646 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz Resolved ...apparently gets off on undoing 510 KB (87,248 words) - 21:32, 17 January 2012 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1/Archive (section Comments by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) pretty credible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Wolfowitz, I haven't been 18 KB (2,992 words) - 20:04, 14 September 2011 Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 38 (section Abuse from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Abuse from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz First of all I apologise if this is not 192 KB (33,789 words) - 01:39, 3 September 2012 Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive68 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 04:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Stale Hullaballoo Wolfowitzis reverting my edits on 164 KB (29,397 words) - 18:08, 1 August 2011 Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 32 KB (4,808 words) - 12:15, 28 February 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 3 KB (434 words) - 06:54, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Article alerts Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 2 KB (245 words) - 06:52, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive15 (section Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) 2006 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Please change Harmonica Wolfowitz toHullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you 62 KB (10,668 words) - 05:38, 12 April 2010 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions policy, both on en-wiki and at Commons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) What 24 KB (4,196 words) - 18:50, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Inland Empire task force Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 11 KB (1,557 words) - 09:58, 20 January 2012 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents other ravings of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would first say that the user HullaballooWolfowitz has been following 154 KB (26,767 words) - 19:31, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Frost reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (319 words) - 20:06, 14 February 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Article alerts Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 6 KB (968 words) - 06:41, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Dominican Republic Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 9 KB (1,329 words) - 01:55, 19 January 2014 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (section User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Sportfan5000 (Result: Declined)) links | watch | logs)User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 43 KB (7,206 words) - 18:47, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination) you cite them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz, your continued 5 KB (787 words) - 20:17, 24 July 2010 Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 23 KB (3,510 words) - 06:57, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 10 KB (1,532 words) - 23:21, 22 September 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella Soprano (2nd nomination) there's no salvageable content to merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (302 words) - 05:29, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 6 KB (954 words) - 06:50, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and will be rejected by the community. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Thank 155 KB (26,489 words) - 19:34, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Article alerts Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 5 KB (718 words) - 06:44, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers there's no salvageable content to merge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 125 KB (21,027 words) - 19:13, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of post-Ellen American television episodes with LGBT themes is encyclopedic -- but this lst isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The 31 KB (5,213 words) - 17:12, 15 December 2009 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive102 (section User:Swancookie reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: wrong board)) for a period of 24 hours 3RR violation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has also reverted four times but appears 160 KB (27,881 words) - 01:35, 2 July 2009 Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/California without explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 75 KB (12,290 words) - 06:04, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Asian Americans/Article alerts Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 472 B (78 words) - 06:42, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Fong and the article has WP:NOTPLOT problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Keep 6 KB (1,057 words) - 22:00, 28 October 2009 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 9 mentioned in the articles on its "winners." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Note: I 2 KB (306 words) - 15:20, 16 April 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Towers (2nd nomination) article expansion beyond the existing stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Delete: 2 KB (329 words) - 18:32, 11 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson (pornographic actor) SilverserenC 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is being needlessly tendentious and calling 11 KB (1,723 words) - 01:14, 6 April 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron James (pornographic actor) Benjeboi sock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40 2 KB (337 words) - 00:39, 20 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Jolie rather conspicuous porn-industry kayfabe. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Note: This 4 KB (643 words) - 20:00, 26 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fáy András Economic High School reason for an exception has been advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC) So that 4 KB (654 words) - 19:15, 9 October 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boroka sourcing for any biographical information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC) Delete 4 KB (654 words) - 21:42, 23 February 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devlin Weed the "well-known/significant" standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Comment: 2 KB (312 words) - 22:11, 6 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Santiago has no significant non-Playboy credits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Keep, weakly 5 KB (782 words) - 09:52, 18 April 2011 Wikipedia:Requests for page protection include is redundant and less NPOV-balanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC) This isn't 17 KB (2,670 words) - 19:21, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Dominican Republic/Article alerts Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 531 B (89 words) - 06:48, 28 February 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trinity St. Clair reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Note: 4 KB (690 words) - 17:18, 2 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercede Johnston was Delete. I considered a redirect per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz put felt that it was not appropriate given 2 KB (394 words) - 23:57, 8 October 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femjoy virtually all article sourcing is promotional. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (256 words) - 19:24, 2 May 2011 Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 23 pointed out by Drilnoth, Black Kite, et al. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz correctly points out that some of the images 59 KB (9,707 words) - 19:01, 17 August 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariush Talai no other valid rationale for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (324 words) - 19:36, 25 August 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynne Austin margin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Keep perHullaballoo Wolfowitz. Unless 2 KB (340 words) - 00:56, 3 April 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Della Terza 2014 (UTC) Merge to Vote for the Worst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Merge 2 KB (318 words) - 10:35, 28 February 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean Martinez (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c) was closed as keep by DavidLeighEllis 26 KB (3,770 words) - 19:42, 23 January 2014 Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts/Archive PRODed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was deproded 30 Apr 2011 – Megan Mason PRODed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was 89 KB (14,344 words) - 06:54, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ava Addams (2nd nomination) updated version of WP:PORNBIO. Moreover as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz previously argued "Fails the GNG, no nontrivial 4 KB (626 words) - 23:09, 13 January 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Driller reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (287 words) - 08:53, 30 January 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claire Dames comment by an IP with no edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Note: 4 KB (633 words) - 11:51, 7 May 2013 Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey Starr (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (6 participants) 21 KB (3,291 words) - 17:30, 16 April 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitten (pornographic actress) to "civilians," not a bona fide honor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (357 words) - 13:45, 2 September 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Addison content. All references are promo pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC) Delete Same 2 KB (409 words) - 20:53, 9 May 2012 Wikipedia:WikiProject California Leeane (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (t · c); see discussion (11 participants) 93 KB (14,874 words) - 16:02, 1 February 2014 Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 13 subject's copyrighted 1988 autobiography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC) File:Walter 3 KB (530 words) - 08:56, 18 December 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilian Edwards mentioned by others, award cited in article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) When 3 KB (587 words) - 23:00, 14 November 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinky (pornographic actress) site that is devoted to "free mixtapes." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Keep - 13 KB (2,294 words) - 19:23, 25 June 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikayla Mendez Negligible reliably sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 4 KB (706 words) - 11:45, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717 only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'll admit having little patience 703 KB (124,039 words) - 14:28, 4 November 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Radcliffe (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The above 1 KB (230 words) - 23:48, 4 May 2011 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Woody Allen Clubintheclub (talk · contribs) – filing party Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) Clubintheclub (talk · 3 KB (558 words) - 06:31, 19 January 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Martinez (2nd nomination) Prior AFD withdrawn over bundling issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (380 words) - 19:45, 26 February 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Lexx (2nd nomination) candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC) HullaballooWolfowitz (talk) 02:52 2 KB (327 words) - 04:46, 18 March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Sagat's Incubus promotional. Porn puffery if not outright spam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC) Keep: Incubus 27 KB (4,660 words) - 10:45, 24 March 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan Filone (2nd nomination) treatment of the notable fictional work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC) I did consider 4 KB (654 words) - 18:38, 24 July 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malena Morgan to meet relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (251 words) - 18:12, 28 September 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Kerwin McCrimmon TV/print media coverage, if only briefly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Well, 2 KB (321 words) - 16:48, 3 August 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards Wikiproject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Delete - PerHullaballoo Wolfowitz, fails 5 KB (843 words) - 20:08, 3 July 2010 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie incident." As constructed it is too one-sided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Can you 10 KB (1,793 words) - 02:55, 28 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francine Dee 2009 (UTC) Delete as per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) The above 2 KB (318 words) - 20:08, 21 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misti Love of the above and per my original prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The above 2 KB (292 words) - 20:53, 8 July 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code result was keep. While i mostly agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is a clear consensus to keep. Kevin 11 KB (1,986 words) - 22:51, 6 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roca Skolia to libraries and colleges, for example.)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC) It's the 8 KB (1,302 words) - 18:46, 1 August 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Johnson (Singer) why that wasn't noted in the relisting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Keep. 5 KB (871 words) - 04:08, 28 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savannah Gold GNG or any other specialized guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (278 words) - 02:43, 5 February 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Victory (2nd nomination) significant contribution to notability, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (318 words) - 09:54, 19 December 2011 Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting should take place on the article talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC) The above 21 KB (3,694 words) - 01:48, 18 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy Hope substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Delete 2 KB (295 words) - 23:04, 2 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadie West reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Note: 2 KB (310 words) - 17:09, 3 March 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelle Marie (2nd nomination) every reasonable editor on the project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC) 5 KB (919 words) - 22:17, 17 September 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Wells with no independent reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Relisted 2 KB (292 words) - 07:41, 18 February 2014 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassia Riley any other potential basis for notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Relisted 1 KB (244 words) - 23:30, 13 December 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Dark scene-related, zero sourced biographical content Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Note: This 1 KB (249 words) - 18:12, 12 May 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Ryan retailer to promote products it sells. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC) What 5 KB (809 words) - 18:49, 26 April 2012 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Red King (novel) Cited in reference works, too. [4] [5] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Relisted 4 KB (646 words) - 19:01, 24 August 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Bangkok awards. No reliable/nonpromotional sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The sources 3 KB (529 words) - 12:40, 12 May 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Droke 2011 (UTC) Keep, appears to meet WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Delete 3 KB (576 words) - 03:27, 16 January 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm McKay provides useful content in problematic form. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Keep 2 KB (365 words) - 01:35, 14 October 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherokee D'Ass (3rd nomination) awards do not contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Comment 7 KB (1,258 words) - 10:53, 17 June 2013 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The November Criminals (2010 novel) strong keep per the reference found by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. However, I'll keep an eye on the article 2 KB (259 words) - 14:11, 22 April 2011

Note: Content was condensed due to its length. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a WP:Topic ban is going to do it, unfortunately. Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your thoughts? What would you recommend here? Cindy(talk) 01:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I posted on Talk:Rachel Reilly (as 199.15.104.149 - my IP address as I forgot to log in, something I keep forgetting to do lately...full disclosure and all that) after seeing this on AN/I. I re-edited the article last night to remove the excessive tagging because, to put it bluntly, Carriearchdale is making a fine mess of things there. I don't know what her aim is but I suspect it's to muck up the article so much that it either gets deleted or to simply disparage the subject because of some personal dislike of her. I have no dog in this race as I don't even know who the subject is but a quick look at the history shows that Carriearchdale seemingly doesn't understand (or care) that we don't tag content with incorrectly dated fact tags that are followed by a source that clearly supports the preceding sentence and template the article with multiple issue tags, we don't tag obvious, non-contentious statements, we don't add "Scandal" sections about a subject's disagreement with her boyfriend supported by gossip sites and we don't scream "COI!!!" without giving some sort of proof for the claim. There are several issues at play here, the most obvious being WP:BLP violations, a lack of understanding about what a WP:RS is, civility issues and possibly WP:COMPETENCE. I think a block is in order if the edit warring, BLP violations, tag bombing and addition of dubious sources continue. If she can hold off on those, I still think she would benefit from a very patient mentor and a topic ban from Rachel Reilly and related articles. She needs someone to help her developed the capacity to work with others as her knee jerk reaction to my (admittedly curt) post was to accuse me of being a sockpuppet, accuse me of acting as "judge, jury and executioner" and then she asked me if I was Jimbo (I wish but alas, no). She didn't address the content, the points I raised or even explain why she's tagging content that is already sourced. Even her response here is nonsensical. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm intensely concerned by the very bizarre attempts to boomerang this. There is no valid basis for any of the content under the "extended content" hatting, I have no idea who the IP is (and their argument is bordering on trolling, unless they're a sock), and Bob is a quite new editor. Carrie's comments about HW's blocklog are not relevant in this discussion, and are evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. The combination of tag-bombing, invalid removal of citation needed tags, BLP violations and woefully inadequate edit summaries make me think that this user either needs a full topic ban from BLPs until they have satisfied a mentor that they will not engage in this kind of behaviour again, or just a blanket indefinite block under WP:CIR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I see no weight whatsoever in the comments of the throwaway IP or the relatively new user "Bob the goodwin", and interesting to note that the subject of this ANI filing alsp leaps to goodwin's defense in his section below. I commented at the Reilly article last night, but so far no follow-up. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of throwing good faith out the window, I think WP:DUCK applies to the IP commenting in this thread as well as Bob the goodwin's appearance here. Carrie has a tendency to answer/post with bullet points just like Bob. Both also have a healthy disregard for WP:BLP and neither will back down despite being told that contentious material needs to be impeccably sourced and we don't include every bit of tabloid fodder in an encyclopedia. The combativeness and the possible socking are enough for me to throw my suggestion of mentoring and topic banning out. This isn't an editor that will help the project or add anything to it except extra work for editors like Hullabaloo who try to keep the crap in pop culture article to a minimum. I know reality "stars" and Woody Allen aren't as important as truly controversial subjects like gun control, global warming or politics but the pop culture area of Wikipedia gets bombarded with this kind of POV warrior all the time. It's the kind of stuff that burned me out which is why I scaled back on editing myself. Carrie/Bob/whomever will lay low until the heat dies down and start again. Pinkadelica^♣ 18:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC) (resigned using account name as I forgot to log in. Again!)

• Yes, you have thrown good faith out the window in a really big way. My name actually is Bob Goodwin. Send me an email and I will reply with my name, address and if you insist my W2. I Will not speak for Carrie, but I have the strong opinion that she is female, and you are welcome to confirm by any means necessary that we are not the same person. I work in the software industry, and publish articles periodically. She is a publisher, but I do not know in what areas. In the spirit of throwing bad faith, I notice that since I backed up Carrie, that Wolf has started to post on talk pages against me. So Cabal paranoia seems to be overtaking Wikipedia. Please look at what is being proposed rather than assuming bad faith. If you think inexperience is playing a role, try writing a sentence drawing equivalence, and watch people change their mind. I change my mind every minute.Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Bob" here accuses me of "start[ing] to post on talk pages" against him after he "backed up Carrie." My post to which he refers, on Talk:Ronan Farrow, was made at 00:38 this morning [43]. "Bob"'s post backing up Carrie was made at 1:47 this morning (see above), about an hour later. It's also worth mentioning that I've participated quite a bit on the general discussions on the Allen accusations, going back to mid-January. "Bob", please apologize for your misstatements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wolf is 100% correct, and I profusely apologize for a false accusation and my inability to read time. Bob the goodwin (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• rebuttal I agree with your concern about the burn out on editing. I do not agree that comments on ANI pages should exclude new editors. I also do not agree that that I have significant disregard for BLP. I have done exactly two edits in Ronan Farrow page (the biography is about Ronan, BTW, not Woody), the first edit was supported by an administrator on the BLP page as appropriate, and the second was to precisely respond to an experienced editors request. I have gotten ZERO feedback on any BLP violations except ad-hominem attacks. I am primarily a medical editor who is trying to learn the skills of controversial editing in an area with less importance (and zero importance to me, but I intend to see it through to its logical end, which could be as simple as an experienced editor with a calm voice saying: "bob, do X", which I will instantly). My position is well researched and your accusation is unfounded. As for my returning the favor to Carrie of reading the record and commenting, as we had previously tried to work together in another article. We have some established good faith, with exists broadly within Wikipedia editors, so can hardly be considered bad. I have read the transcript, and gave my opinion. You have chosen to attack the messenger with no assumption of good faith. I assume your good faith in wanting a good encyclopedia, but perhaps you might want to listen and see if there is a good argument being made by Carrie or I, and dispute the content on the basis of balance rather than assumptions. I doubt that you will find two more earnest editors than Carrie or I on Wikipedia, and if you want to attract more earnest editors Wikipedia should find ways to engage each of us on content rather than false accusation, misrepresentation, POV, or what you think our intent is. Wikipedia will die if it cannot find new voices and chooses to descend into a vacuous testosterone pit.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely no one said new editors cannot comment on AN/I. What some people did observe was that the timing of your defense of Carrie seemed odd especially since you aren't involved in the editing of Rachel Reilly. Assuming good faith isn't a suicide pact and no one is bound to it eternally. So you're not Carrie's sock or vice versa - that's all you had to say. Also, three editors have attempted to engage Carrie and she hasn't responded. Listening, engaging and good faith is a two way street. I don't care if your voice is new and your ideas are revolutionary, we all have to play by the old boring rules if we want to edit here or we lose that privilege. I presume the rest of what you wrote has to do with what the Woody Allen et al debacle and has no place in this section. Let's not conflate the issues please. Pinkadelica^♣ 04:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I am concerned that User:Carriearchdale has now offered to help with BLP and language/linguistic RFCs and sent a WikiLove message to a user blocked for socking over 2 years ago. WP:CIR and all that. Woodroar (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well on the last one there, the user probably meant to put the message on the page of User:Sportfan5000, and mistakenly inserted an "s". Let's not attribute malice to something that can be more easily explained as an error, or however the saying goes. Tarc (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's get back to the meat course here. The numerous walls-of-text and obfuscations added by Carriearchdale seem to have succeeded in taking peoples' eyes off the ball. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz laid out a number of assertions at the outset of this thread, supported by diffs. I find they do support his case that Carriearchdale has WP:COMPETENCE issues; misused automated tools to - very inaccurately - tag-bomb articles; failed to WP:AGF and engaged WP:IDHT mode when experienced editors raised concerns about her editing; has a very poor grasp of WP:RS with regard to BLP; has a very poor grasp of BLP policy (paying a 3rd party to access trivial criminal records in order to disparage a subject on a BLP! Fucking shocking.); and demonstrates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards the project. I'm in agreement with Woodroar also: this is an editor that is editing beyond the limits of their competence. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 10:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I have sat back a few days, and just listened to what was being said or posted here because I was hoping I might learn something new about how different people work together, or each give their opinion on some issue in hopes of coming to some semblance of an agreement or consensus. I am a general believer in the good faith in people, and hope that most people would set aside their prejudices, and preconceived notions about other persons, and let the weight of different things they were considering each have a due weight when they were figuring out which side of some issue they were going to vote on.

Unfortunately some, but certainly not all of the users/editors/admins who are here at wikipedia are acting with some sort of gang mentality and prejudice toward newly registered editors and or long time editors who may have more recently start to active edit here at wikipedia. I mean I was shocked to read one statement were one of the people insinuated that someone who had registered here only a few months ago, that that newer registrants' opinion on some issue such as these at the ani shouldn't have as much weight even in the voting of how many people are in support or against a certain issue. So in going by that sort of thinking, there should just be a mini paragraph at the top of this ani board letting some of the newer editors or users here that their opinion won't even be considered here until they have been registered and apparent actively editing for X number of months or they have X number of edits down on the wikipedia books.

To pretend that everything is "equal" here is such a big hypocritical mess, that no one would even believe it unless they the whole situation with their own eyes. The paranoia abounds around here to the point where one or two of the posters here were accusing me and Bob the Goodwin of being one person operating as sockpuppets??? OMFG!!! I wish Bob the Goodwin and I were one combined person because maybe then we could ask for some sort of lower combined tax rate from uncle sam! Actually I am quite honored that some of you were thinking Bob and I were alike in writing bullet points and whatever else was said and written here, because Bob the Goodwin is the most earnest writer and editor I have had the pleasure of working with on a few articles here. I read what Bob wrote up earlier in this list of postings and I do agree with him on at least one point that he spoke about.

Wikipedia itself has become a sad sad sad victim of the cesspool of mire and cultural rot caused by all the prejudicial actions taken as well as the gang mentality when all the troops are brought in to put their no or oppose down to somehow stuff the balance box and have the outcome be "what the popular kids want who have been here the longest." I mean really this all sounds like high school antics to me. If that the way it's going to be, at least be honest and upfront about. Post and paragraph and state which users will be pronounced to have been here long enough so that the other will let their vote count. It's called transparency people. But alas I fear dear wikipedia is too far gone already being sucked down into the infected mire of the cesspool of cultural rot it has become based on all the gang mentality, bullying, harassment, and prejudice among many other nasty, dirty, underhanded things that go on here. It really is a shame. Jimbo had a great idea here, but wikipedia is swirling away deeper and deeper into the cesspool of cultural rot. Wikipedia will soon die a slow and painful death...It is quite sad really, very sad indeed.....................

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Another irrelevant, diversionary, wall-of-text. Meanwhile, other editors are having to trail you with a mop. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that user that you say was mopping there was going around herself as part of the gang to articles I had edited long ago, and then she tag bombed the audy item article. I went back in after she tag bombed it, and fixed the issues she had tagged. So then she went right back to that article, and tag bombed it again. Obviously she never even read, or looked at the changes there, because there was a new lead written and several extra references had been added. But that is okay with me. She or anyone else can play whatever kind of games they want around here. It is all really quite amusing to me. I thought we had the goal of making an encyclopedia here, but I can see that many, but not all of you have your own issues, agendas, and persona vendettas to carry out, so go right ahead! You all seem to still be acting in the way I described in the paragraphs above. I really do not expect that anything will change here, but in the interim wikipedia is dying a slow horrifying death as it keeps slipping deeper and deeper into its' cesspool of cultural rot!!!

ciao!

Have a great day everyone!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A much bigger problem is the number of admins who abuse AGF to allow obvious trolls like this to continue for as long as they do. 199.47.72.58 (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Zmaher, again

Hi everybody,

This is the fourth time that Zmaher (talk · contribs) has been mentioned here. Seven months ago on edit warring, four months ago for unconstructive edits and last week for the same reason. It was also four months ago I reported them to AIV, after that they got a personal message from @User:PhilKnight and @User:Zad68. Since that time, they hav shown no changes in their approach to Wikipedia. Again and again they are adding unsourced content and adding long, long lists of trivial information concerning concert tours of several rock bands. He was also playing a genre warrior, to which @User:Mlpearc issued several warnings. Yesterday, they added almost 22,000 characters to another concert tour article. I don't think that the occasional constructive, helpful edit is worth all this trouble. This has been going on for far too long, could someone please take some action? --Soetermans. T / C 13:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a typical example of what happens when an editor does a lot of rather low-level disruptive editing, spread out over a long time. Because the disruption is at such a low level, nobody actually blocks the editor, despite the fact that all that low-level stuff adds up to more disruption than would have led to a block long ago had it come in a more concentrated form. For the moment I have blocked for a week, and I hope that will serve as a wake-up call. The block length is a compromise: on the one hand, a week is a long time for a first block on a good faith editor, but on the other hand he/she frequently has gaps of a week or more between edits, and if he/she makes no attempt to edit while the block is in force, he/she may not even know the block took place, so it will have no effect. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think blocking the user for a week is a sensible decision. Obviously, we could go the WP:RFC/USER route, however considering the user isn't very communicative, and everyone else seems to agree there are serious concerns regarding their editing, we would just end up here again. PhilKnight (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I am new to this process but I need to clarify actions which seem to cross a line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenebrae has been engaged aggressively for a couple of days on an edit, and has escalated to and administrators board once, and also started an RFC. The debate is simple, and has been covered by administrators. I am not arguing here whether I am right or wrong. My concern is ongoing uncivil debate that has the following attributes.

• He has repeatedly claimed that my language stated that Woody Allen was a child molester. He was called out on this multiple times, and kept repeating the assertion. My language was only that the person that was the subject of the article has made an accusation that Woody Allen was a child molester. Even after the Admin discussion agreed that my language was accurate, the previous argument was continued.

• He has stated that since no trial occurred, that he is innocent (in the eyes of the law). Since the article is not about Allen, it is about Farrow, I thought it would be unbalanced not to include a vigorous defense of Allen without a counter claim that is based on even stronger RS, but that my preference was to do neither. Whether I was right or wrong, he repeatedly claimed that I wanted to claim Woody Allen was a child molester, and repeatedly took my comments out of context in ways to repeat the claim.

• Before I was even involved with this article, he was also making Ad-hominem claims against another editor, and continued to make those claims on the administrators message board.

• I have proposed a simple solution, which is very neutral, which is simply to link to the main Allen article, which is the correct place to address the facts of the investigation and the court record, and leave the Ronan article neutral. \

• He has repeatedly accused me of POV bias because I said that I could easily come up with RS to bolster the other side of the argument, as a means to prevent the article from being one sided. I asked him repeatedly not to do this, and he remained hostile.

• Venue shopping. After getting opinions on the administrators page, he starts RFC and rewords much of the debate to move the argument.

• Consistently taken my words out of context in order to establish a different meaning. I asked him to stop, and it continued.

• Overagressive. Requested RFC and two noticeboard requests. At least two of these were triggered before any talk page discussion.

I do not think that this can be resolved by slowing down the process for more discussion, because there has been escalation (to another notice board and also for RFC) at the first sign of dissent, and this does not lend itself to any discussion of the actual content.

Thanks. My apologies if I used this forum incorrectly. [44] [45] Bob the goodwin (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to every page of whatever type on Wikipedia. Allegations of a criminal act are pretty much posited to be "contentious claims", and WP:BLPCRIME applies. Allen is well-known and the allegation has been in the press, but that does not circumvent the need for us to be scrupulous in how we handle any case. In the case at hand, the material that the allegation was deemed unfounded or insufficiently grounded by others is clearly pertinent. If we are to err, it must always be on the side of the person accused. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal view. Allegations of defamatory kind, or even to the point of criminal conduct of living persons might well be notable (and therefore worthy of inclusion), but extreme care in language must be exercised. This is such a delicate balance, that if you at all are to include such material, my own opinion is that you must constantly say that these are the words of the allegator, as well as ample inclusion of possible motives for a false motive, as long as such has been given by reliable sources (say, that the allegations occurred within the heated context of embittered divorce proceedings). Furthermore, formal dismissals of allegations by police/court MUST be included in context with the allegation, again with reliable sourcing.If you cannot find any reliable sources for motives for, or dismissals of, cited allegation, DROP THE MENTION OF THE WHOLE ALLEGATION, even if it appears in a reliable source.Arildnordby (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* I agree this should be handled very cautiously which is why I was alarmed by the disruptive behavior of a relatively experienced editor. It was impossible to debate the merits of the sources, the denials and accusations when an editor is accusing you of bad intent, misrepresenting your opinions, and most alarmingly trying to speed up the process with multiple ANI's and RFCs. His second ANI already established by an admin [46] that the four words I added were appropriate, and there were discsussion of improvements. Tenebraewas also repeatedly asked why he considered an accusation made by the subject of the biography was the equivalent to the editor making the accusation. He never even tried to answer, except to repeat previous talking points.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* I note that Tenebrae is cited on three different issues on TODAYS ANI board, in addition to the ANI on BLPN, and he also initiated an ANI on another editor in the last few days for this same article. Plus there were multiple RFCs, that seemed to be more aimed at speeding up discussion by creating one sided arguments in the middle of the night that would attract the desired opinions. I prefer measured discussion and to have time to research when new issues are raised. Tenebrae raised new issues when he cited the Yale report as exoneration, which has been discredited widely, but I need to slow the conversation down if we are to collect and weigh evidence.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* I received the following note from Tenebraeon my talk page [47] in which he states that ANI's should not be written by people with 2 months of experience on Wikipedia, and further mentioned Boomerang. I welcome feedback to my actions, and welcome honest discussion of encyclopedic entries, especially if I am wrong. I do not want to focus on abusive editing, I want to focus on making an encyclopedia.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* Lastly I want to not that this article is not about Allen, it is about Farrow. I completely agree that an accusation should not be left naked. But the fact is that there are two different PR machines pushing different narratives, and Tenebrae is claiming copying text from Wikipedia is equivalent to doing proper research. I do not want to leave the article as is, it is too one sided against Allen. I do not want poorly researched prose inserted into this article when both the prose and the article itself has such different context. I also would prefer not to be pressured to present incomplete research by a disruptive editor when this could result in unintentional bias. It is not controversial that there is a lot of RS on both sides of the debate. A careful conversation is desirable if we are to correctly include a notable action by Farrow, while neutrally protecting both the integrity of Farrow and Allen. I suspect that an Administrator will just make a decision to break the deadlock. Or perhaps this article is too overheated and we should shut it down for a few days and let others take a shot at the best treatment. Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

* If I made a mistake by starting an ANI, I would appreciate that feedback. In the last 24 hours read the civility sections of Wikipedia three times. Only when I started to get angry at the abuse, and felt I could not slow down the process did I ask for help. I do not think I ever showed my anger, but continued engagement would likely have escalated. Thanks for the assistance of the admins and all editors who will work this hard to get a few words of prose correct.Bob the goodwin (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. - It seems to me after reviewing all the information stated above that Bob the Goodwin has been relentlessly trying to bend over backwards to get the story down in a succinct manner so the situation can be appropriately so that the admins can make an analysis of the issue or issues.

As far as the message Bob the Goodwin quoted where the other party stated that anis should not be written by someone with two months of experience on Wikipedia, frankly I am quite appalled by that comment. I have found that many but not all user/editors try to pull that card out frequently. After all we are all adults here, or at least I hope so.

Although some weight can be given to the amount of time a user/editor has been registered at Wikipedia, the great part of a user/editors skill sets and experience to include being a published author, writer, editor, and or publisher should be given it's due weight as well.

Again, all this doesn't really surprise me here at Wikipedia. What happened to not being bitey to newer editors?

WTF?

I hope everyone will have the best day ever today, only to be out-shined by a brighter tomorrow! Never give up!

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Given the high-dudgeon walls and walls of text Bob the goodwin has been posting, tarring me from pillar to post, I'm not going to take an hour of my time to rebut his claims point-by-point. The fact is, his inexperience is a direct factor in his disruptive, argumentative, policy-violating behavior, in which he thinks it's OK to include unproven child-molester claims without including the denial that WP:PUBLICFIGURE required when the accused has made. Here's what I wrote: "I just now have seen that you've only been here since December 28. You're defending disruptive OR and POV biases when you've been here barely two months, rather than try and learn from longtime, experienced editors? And then starting what appears to be an ill-advised ANI when you're the one violating policy? Wow." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will rebut one thing: I did not say "ANI's [sic] should not be written by people with 2 months of experience on Wikipedia." Read it, don't skim it: I said people with two months' experience should not defend disruptive OR and POV biases. What I said about his ANII was that it appeared to be ill-advised — and that would be true no matter if he had been here two months or two years. Stop misrepresenting me, Bob. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The goal is to edit an encyclopedia. If an AFI helps create calm, I need nothing more. Passion is good. Our conversation, no so much. But I am happy to assume good faith going forward.Bob the goodwin (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

AD HOMINEM attacks have continued despite my asking for help (and some editors have helped, I just want to get the issue closed), Blatant misrepresentations of my position and the evidence I have presented also continue. I am confused by the rules at WP. Is this behavior acceptable? Is this what a newcomer is expected to experience? Politeness seems to invite challenges.Bob the goodwin (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be an extension of the matter moved to Wikipedia:BLP/N#Calling someone a child molester. We really shouldn't be re-hashing this here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think you are misdirecting. I am willing to be told in one sentence how to handle BLP by an administrator or respectable serious editor and not debate further. Are you willing to ignore the issues that I brought up?Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also I was accused of DUCK and BLP violations in [[48]] and responded. Seriously, if people want to give me fair feedback, I am all ears. But so far I have done two edits (one edit had two different versions) on Ronan Farrow, one which was supported by an editor as reasonable on the BLP page, and the other in response to the only editor on the Ronan talk page talking about the content without ad-hominem attacks and misrepresentations. I came to Wikipedia because there was PR requesting new editors, especially in medicine. It was suggested I practice in an area I had no prior experience. What does Wikipedia want from new editors? Please make your intent known. I have responded constructively to every comment. Bob the goodwin (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not responded constructively and you're not being truthful here about your edits. Not a single editor at Talk:Ronan Farrow#Request for comment: molestation allegations agrees with you — all their Support comments go against you. At least three and perhaps four editors are asking you to stop making edits to the article, and after more than a week of several of us trying to be polite with you — with no one "attacking" you — one editor now flat out says you're either a liar or malicious. I certainly find much of your comments disingenuous pettifogging. You have not been showing yourself a constructive editor. Wikipedia does not need or want disruptive, misleading people pursuing POV agendas. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Am I feeding the trolls? Is that what God is teaching me? I also support the statement in the consensus that you claim I am violating. We have moved so far beyond that. Please do not pretend that you have been polite, and please focus on the article, and not the people. Bob the goodwin (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tenebrae has now made multiple requests of editors to ignore a poll I requested to ask specific questions about the inaccuracies and mischaracterization in the material he placed against my objections into the article. I offered to completely back off if there was a consensus that the existing material met Wikipedia standards. Since Tenebrae owns the article and the other editors are following his lead I am looking for next steps. My questions are specific, and recommendations and options are given. I know the rules say that if I get no response in 72 hours that I am free to make changes, but I am not interested in confrontation I am interested in consensus and a discussion of the article. Any administrators willing to tell me I am wrong? Just go into the talk page, and say that these sentences accurately reflect Wikipedia standards of accuracy and balance. 24.16.135.152 (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

SpongebobLawyerPants: new User disrupting an AfD

Admin DangerousPanda has now blocked him for another week and has our thanks. Stalwart111 03:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

---

SpongebobLawyerPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user persistently disrupting an AfD.

• All caps shouting: "YOUR VOICE DOESN'T COUNT" [49]
• Blanking other editors comments: [50]
• Accusing other editors of bias: [51], [52], [53]

Attempts were made to counsel this user on their Talk page [54], [55] but it doesn't seem to be getting through. Someone with the mop needs to have a chat with them, please. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the user is definitely out of line, but its just essentially a WP:SPA who is about to get their article deleted, and consensus is strongly in favor of the deletion so far. So, they're not going to be getting their way, and things will probably be over once its inevitably deleted. Still, no harm in a talking-to either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

They're now posting abusive remarks about each new commenter: [56] and [57]. Options are a block until the AfD closes, or perhaps a WP:SNOW closing of the AfD as a way to end this bad behavior. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given them a level four warning for personal attacks; seems more useful to block them for a little while if they carry on, and let the AfD draw to a close in peace. We may even manage a little rational discussion of MUFON as a source if SpongebobLawyerPants doesn't keep interrupting with boldface accusations of bias and ignorance. --McGeddon (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

...and there we go, "i think Wikipedia should get rid of poorly qualified users like you" twenty minutes after a final warning. --McGeddon (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• non-involved note* The editor tried to delete the entire discussion twice. 2.223.97.5 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And he's now been blocked. He tried blanking the entire deletion discussion, and the deletion notice on the article, but I believe everything has been restored. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to McGeddon for alerting me to this. I blocked the user for 12 hours, hoping that he'd calm down in that time. I'll monitor what he does after that: a longer/indef block will obviously ensue if he doesn't reform.  —SMALLJIM  17:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(Since he deleted the notice from his talk page, I've reminded the editor about this discussion. Suggest it's not archived till his 12h block ends. Ta!  —SMALLJIM )

@Smalljim: WP:COOLDOWN states categorically Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption. Please don't commit the same mistake again. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As I read it, the key word there is "solely". There were other reasons for the block. I think SmallJim was saying he might have made the block even longer but for the hope the user would cool down in the interim. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he was repeatedly deleting the entire AFD discussion, and the AFD notice on the article. Pretty certain he broke 3RR over it, and continued to refuse to stop. Block was completely warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73 and Dwpaul: I was reminding the administrator especially in the light that their response suggests that the block was done exclusively as a cooldown block and that the "Admins are Corrupt" party would love nothing better than to scream while jumping up and down on their soapbox. Denying them the opportunity to to point out the problem (because there is none) is the first step in diffusing the party's platform. Hasteur (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh alright. I thought you were nitpicking/lecturing on a bad block. You're just talking more about "less-than-ideally-worded-rationale". Fair enough. Sergecross73 msg me 20:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Hasteur. Yes, I'll admit that my comment above was less than ideally worded for ANI, but the others looked into the circumstances and "got it".  —SMALLJIM  20:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD as a WP:SNOW delete. Hopefully that will encourage SpongebobLawyerPants to concentrate other things after their block expires in a few hours. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• He's back, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enfield Monster trying to delete the nominator's comments and elsewhere posting rants relating to editor Barney the barney barney. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and has learned nothing from his block. Stalwart111 21:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See for instance this diff [58]. Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

---

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

User:IPadPerson

I've brought this to all of your attention before but it slipped into the archives, although a few users noted that IPadPerson's behavior, specifically their edit summaries and attitude, have been unacceptable.

See the last ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#User:IPadPerson - there are plenty of diffs there of the users' past edit summaries that were disruptive, which I can copy and paste here.. or you can take a look at if you'd like over there. IPadPerson received multiple warnings about this issue. [59], [60], [61].

A look at their user page also can give you an idea of the attitude this user has. Directly copied, it says "If I EVER find someone trash talking me about an edit, you will DEFINITELY be reported to an administrator FOR REAL. Don't play those silly games with me. Also, I will NOT and NEVER WILL tolerate anyone invading my privacy by revealing my IP address (71.77.78.28), which is an alternative thing that I use when not logged on. Anyone who mentions me anywhere on Wikipedia better have a good explanation why."

Recently, they've sparked back up with the edit summaries: "You shouldnt've even changed the damn infobox in the first place." "Don't be adding no bullcrap without no source!" "Bullshit."

I think you get the point. Gloss • talk 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I see what might be categorized as WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but (at least in the diffs) I'm not seeing any personal attacks, WP:HARASS, or outright disruption. I do, however, see a lot of warnings on IPadPerson's talk page. Could you provide more diffs of disruptive behavior or personal attacks, please? Otherwise, based on your current post all I could support is a trout. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say they personally attacked anybody. The comments like the ones I've brought here are all uncivil. Gloss • talk 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Gloss, but I'm with Jorgath here. Uncivil, maybe, or maybe sure, but such relatively minor infractions, that's not something admins block for. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If that's the kind of behavior we're endorsing, something has gone wrong with this project. Gloss • talk 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it help if someone warned him/her about the uncivil text on their userpage? As for the the edit summaries, perhaps a harsher warning. --Gourami Watcher ^(?) 20:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't endorse it. We used to have WP:WQA, but some brilliant people determined that trying to get people to interact civilly was not important. We also have a civility policy that apparently has as many teeth as a 40 year old mule, and with half as much kick. You want to file an WP:RFC/U for chronic incivility, go ahead. Until they actually attack someone, we're somewhat neutered DP 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've read about the closing of WP:WQA and I still don't understand why it was shut down. It seems like it would be useful if there was some place, between talk pages and AN/I, where editors can bring their problems working with others. It would be most useful to new editors, who would find AN/I or filing an WP:RFC/U very intimidating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reason it closed was because it was such a drama board (made AN/I look like a middle school summer romance) that no one had the patience to deal with it all without violating civility themselves. Which is a pity - the board was a good idea, no matter how difficult to deal with in practice. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Jorgath. It's hard to imagine a noticeboard with more drama than the existing ones. Doesn't sound pretty. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim that WP:WQA was more of a drama board than ANI is not correct. Of course there were eruptions from time to time, but it was not as troubled as ANI. The problem was that WQA had no discernible function—if a discussion decided that editor X had badly violated WP:CIVIL, there was no path to do anything about it (I did not quite agree with that as I saw several discussions where a good result came from the fact that uninvolved people had politely told X that we don't do that here). It was decided that (bad) content disputes should be at WP:DRN, and behavioral disputes where some editor may need a sanction should be at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That idea is what I got out of skimming the discussion to close the board. That and that it had no teeth. Not saying you're wrong, just saying where I got the idea from. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• WQA had some good things come out of it. this not-yet-mainspace template, this essay, this useful warning (not yet mainspace), this nice way to extend an olive branch. I spent eons in WQA trying to a) create processes, b) start interactions off correctly from the start - especially when new editors arrived, c) stop things from coming to ANI, and d) bringing things directly to ANI when it was required. DP 09:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's why I'm glad at least the Teahouse is around for newbie editors. When I went from being a casual editor to a more involved editor last summer, well, it was a frustrating experience. I'm sure some of my edits in my IP years were reverted but I was unaware of when it happened. I completely empathize with new editors who are shocked when they find themselves reverted or their new articles deleted. Since they are not familiar with how common this is, they take it personally and get frustrated. They don't know about noticeboards or get no response on talk pages so they act out. I'm not condoning this misbehavior but I understand why it happens unless a new user goes to Help or the Teahouse to get an explanation and direction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The biggest personal attack I could personally find off bat (which Gloss mentioned on IPadPerson's talk page) that IPadPerson made was this by telling someone to "fuck off". I haven't searched in depth, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This just in, he called another user's edits "stupid". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like nobody wants to do anything about it. It's apparently perfectly okay for this kind of edit summary. Gloss • talk 21:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If so, I find that surprising as it comes off as an insult towards the editor that IPadPerson reverted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Borderline personal attack. Gloss • talk 22:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IPadPerson left the edit summary: "Do not remove "U.S.". I'm serious." here. I removed what IPadPerson warned other editors not to [62], because it was incorrect. This type of intimidation is uncomfortable and unwelcome. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy

Dwy (talk · contribs) has been behaving disruptively on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura, defying consensus as to how we should represent the various origin theories of the poet. After a two-month-long debate, we had reached a rough consensus, only to have him turn a full 180 and reject the very position he had earlier been arguing for, apparently just to be disruptive. User:Shii[63] and User:Sturmgewehr88[64] have also taken note of this, and Sturmgewehr[65] at least agrees with me that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE of a politically-motivated user pretending to compromise when in fact there is no hope of compromise. He has been misrepresenting sources in order to get his POV across in the article ([66]: there is in fact no "consensus view" but rather several mutually-exclusive theories that Dwy has WP:SYNTHesized into a "consensus view" that in fact contradicts all of our sources) and completely changed his "view" of the subject after we agreed to include his POV in the article ([67]: he had previously said numerous times that "it is a fact that Okura was descended from the imperial family" but when I tried to include this in the article he suddenly changed his mind). He also flagrantly violated WP:RFC by posting a very non-NPOV lie in his opening comment in an RFC, thus biasing any third-party opinions.

As for the action I would like to see taken, I want a TBAN for Dwy for "links between Baekje and ancient Japan". It is pretty obvious that Dwy, having no genuine interest in or knowledge of this subject, is politically motivated by his dislike of modern-day South Korea (a fact borne-out by the fact that more than half of his article edits before this dispute related to geopolitical disputes between Japan and South Korea).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Dwy is WP:NOTHERE. He initially fought against the adding of "Okura is from Baekje" (Torajin Theory), using the argument that the Shinsen Shojiroku says that "Okura is descended from the royal family" (Imperial Descent Theory). Once we reached consensus and were allowed to add Torajin Theory to the article, we also added Imperial Descent Theory to show both beliefs. Immediately, Dwy turned around and took the exact opposite stance, and began arguing that "Okura is not of imperial descent". This is just disruption at this point. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

His latest edit[68] also violates WP:POINT, inserting a request for a source into the article, when one is already given. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Reece Leonard

User Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism [69], [70], [71], [72]. User has been given two 3RR warnings: [73], [74], as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling. User has begun spreading an unhelpful piece on other user's talk pages - to make sure they "understand the situation fully" regarding another user's (User:STATicVapor) "biased" position: [75]. He later amended this post to include me, and added it to two more talk pages: [76], [77], and has begun canvassing other (uninvolved) editors with this same material as well, [78], [79].

I also believe he's been violating several of the pillars of NOTHERE. He has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively. Of his several hundred edits, at least 90% of them relate to Lady Gaga articles or disputes on talk pages caused by his edits to Lady Gaga articles. He changed "favorable reviews"→"acclaim" on Bad Romance, and removed "mixed" from the intro of Alejandro. Despite his summary on the Alejandro edit, no-one changed it. It had been "mixed to positive" for at least two years prior. He has also removed/replaced positive information from the articles of some of Lady Gaga's contemporaries, such as Lana Del Ray: [80], [81], [82], [83]; Katy Perry: [84] and Britney Spears: [85]. He was given notices/warnings regarding some of these edits [86], [87].

It's clear from his talk page and his edits that he's here for Lady Gaga: a single-purpose account with an unneutral point of view. Some admin intervention would be appreciated, otherwise this will keep going on indefinitely. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE. He has resorted to harassing and attacking other editors when they disagree with him, and as you can see from the diffs Homeostasis07 provided, the user has been canvassing attacking myself and Homeo on other user's talk pages, which is incredibly inappropriate. They have a clear not WP:NPOV when it comes to Lady Gaga and her works, and refuse to contribute constructively and discuss civilly when their disruptive edits are challenged. STATic message me! 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have to be honest: when the article was first created, it ended up on my watchlist. Over the last bit, I've seen edits by Reece that made me shake my head - so much so that I took it off my watchlist, rather than see countless, repetitive ad nauseum bad edits. Might have been here for some reason, and might have started off with good intentions, but they left that cake out in the rain long ago ES&L 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that the only reason why this argument got so out of hand was STATic's ridiculously rude, inflamatory rhetoric, including calling me childish, incompetent, etc. He has a lengthy history of insulting various users (evidenced by his talk page) and that leads to this kind of uncivil discussion. He also admitted that he disliked the artist who's page we were discussing twice. Homeostasis has previously been blocked for behaving unprofessionally on Lady Gaga pages. I've stated numerous sources that back up my claims, although I recently ended this debate because I realized that it was ultimately pointless as these two have no intention of compromising at all. My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, in my time with StaticVapor, he's has been a very good editor with a strong grasp on Wikipedia and its policies. Without any clear difs, I'd be likely to doubt any claims of "uncivil discussion" or rudeness. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perusing Talk:Artpop, I have to disagree with Reece Leonard's assertion that this is all the fault of STATic. I believe that the main issue is Reece's dismissive attitude, which he demonstrated somewhat just above me, "My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye." I see that Reece communicates in this manner consistently, proceeding by essentially stating that he is correct, everyone else is wrong, and there's no need to debate the issue. I'm not saying that Reece refuses to get involved in discussions, he most certainly does, but he too frequently refers to those who disagree with him as vandals, and often refers to an editor's past conduct issues as a way to discredit their arguments (as above where he points out STATic's block history). Stating that WP:NOTHERE applies is hyperbole, I believe that Reece is sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia, but he has a lot of trouble collaborating, which is a major problem. -- Atama頭 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I can assure you i do not live a double life on here, I am the same person. Reece just seems to enjoy making up things and harassing other users when the conversation is not going their way. He was owed a WP:NPA block for the insane focus on commenting on fellow contributors as you can see above rather then the topic at hand. I have been stating over and over, i have no bias, I can edit any subject, keeping a perfect WP:NPOV, a serious problem Reece has, which can be based off the entire discussion and his other edits as explained by the OP. @Atama: Just saying, he was referring to Homeostasis' block history. NOTHERE might not apply, but WP:COMPETENCE clearly does. When there is clear WP:CONSENSUS he has to learn to drop it, not just keep harassing editors for days and pressing the issue. I feel like this user has attempted to drag my name through the mud on way too many pages through this, as can be seen through the 5+ user talk pages he was canvassing his malicious harassment [88], [89], [90], [91], [92] through. STATic message me! 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it was my block history Reece was referring to, and not Static's. That was a block for 3RR 6 months ago. Since then, I've not come close to infringing 3RR (ie, lesson learned), so, again, this is just another example of Reece saying anything he can to discredit another editor's position. Attempting to use a 3RR block to suggest that I'm "biased" against a particular subject (see the last 4 diffs Static posted above) isn't cool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bringing this discussion back from the dead. I would like to see some sort of action against this user for the extremely inappropriate behavior as detailed above. The user seems to believe this was "declined" and they have done no wrong, which is clearly incorrect. Since the last comment they have added a false certification which ties in with the WP:NPOV issue bung up above, started genre warring, not abiding by BRD, which they are aware of, and have resorted back to the personal attacks and refusal to not focus every single post to comment on other users rather then the topic at hand. STATic message me! 09:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not declined - what User:Reece Leonard should have got from this discussion is that ANY future similar behaviour would lead to a block. Consensus above was that their behaviour was problematic. As they were involved in the discussion, they know that. You cannot get more of a warning that to have your wrist slapped by consensus. They ALSO learned from above that STATicVapor's actions were NOT overall problematic - again, a good thing to have learned DP 10:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This user has been harassing me since this discussion was tabled, attempting to goad me into some other argument so that he would have any excuse to bring up this discussion again. If my original actions were punishable by a slap on the wrist then STATic's are as well. He has repeatedly been rude and aggressive with me after I repeatedly told him that I wanted to avoid any kind of issue with him again. His actions in the original debate were absolutely problematic as he called me and another user children, and has accused me of being illiterate numerous times, amongst multiple other issues that I brought up above. I never stated that this board thought that I had done nothing wrong; that is a fabrication. I stated that my actions were not punishable by a block, which they obviously were not. I've not started edit warring; one revert on one user does not constitute an edit war. The user above has consistently used ridiculous hyperbole to blow all of my actions way out of proportion and has issued so many baseless warnings to me with the hopes that I either react violently or cease editing altogether that I can't keep track of them all. I've attempted to move on from this issue and distance myself from STATic to avoid any kind of other problems in the future and he has refused to do the same. I realize that I should've made more of a case for myself originally, but seeing as how I assumed that administrators would review ALL of the information necessary to come to a verdict instead of the stuff that one user gave them that supported their side, I didn't think that would be necessary. I've repeatedly tried to move on and even stated that I would cease all interaction with STATic, and he has responded by bringing this up again with no actual basis for doing so other than what he has attempted to blow out of proportion. Reece Leonard (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Thanks for stating the facts of the matter. The thing is, they have returned to the behavior as seen here. My behavior has been respectable, Reece yours has not and you need to address it rather than repeatedly deny it. I did not call you a child and definitely did not call anyone else that. I only questioned the literacy due to you refusal (see WP:COMPETENCE) to read or understand any of the guidelines or policies I have linked to you including most of all WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. You still have yet to do that. Your "issues that you brought up" are non-existent. Not publishable by a block? The users above sure think so, along with a few in the discussion. The warnings are not harassment, every warning I have gave you was 100% deserved, as would be a block. I am not trying to get a reaction out of you. All the information was reviewed and it is clear as day you are the only one in the wrong. Nothing is being blown out of proportion, how do, you think, this, is, okay??? STATic message me! 17:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Enough

Based on Reece's comments above, I have a proposal:

1. User:Reece Leonard is indefinitely topic-banned from Artpop, Lady Gaga and related articles.
2. User:Reece Leonard is subject to a mutual interaction ban with User:STATicVapor

These restrictions will be logged, and violations will be subject to escalating blocks. These restrictions can be appealed on AN/ANI no sooner than 6 months after their implementation ES&L 18:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support as exhausted voice of sanity ES&L 18:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Incredible idea User:EatsShootsAndLeaves. I was just about to ask for an interaction ban from this user. STATic message me! 18:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga articles? I certainly support an interaction ban, but I do not deserve to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages indefinitely. That's an extreme measure and unfounded, as @Atama: agrees that I'm not operating with a WP:NOTHERE. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support but with a reminder to all that indefinite is not infinite. Would like to establish a scheduled topic ban review in a few months. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Edit to add): And by a few months I mean sooner than that 6-month thing in the initial proposal. 3 or 4. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would I be banned from editing these types of pages at all? The user above has admitted twice that he dislikes the artist at hand and... I would be blocked from editing her pages? Why? What grounds are there for that? The grounds based on STATic's repeated accusations? Reece Leonard (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do not enjoy listening to her music, not my cup of tea at all. When did I ever try to hide that? You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love. I only watch listed the page to combat vandalism on a popular page and my contributions have been nothing but constructive. The difference between us is that I can edit without a bias. You would be blocked from editing them since you refuse to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. If you can prove that you are a proper editor on other subjects, then you can have a review in a few months, good luck. STATic message me! 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You claiming that your edits have been constructive doesn't make them so. I ALWAYS abide by the guidelines you just cited. You claiming otherwise because I don't agree with you on ONE edit doesn't make it so. Absolutely not. Stop attempting to make me out to be some rabid fan off the leash attempting to misrepresent wikipedia articles. I gave NUMEROUS sources to back up what I was saying and you responded with the same argument over and over again. You repeating that you can operate without a bias isn't an argument and it certainly doesn't prove that I can't operate without bias. You repeating that I'm biased over and over again doesn't make it true. You have no evidence to support that claim, other than your own view of a person who disagreed with you on an edit and who you're now attempting to get blocked to shut them up. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, I do not support the statement, "You are not supposed to focus all your editing on subjects you love." People should definitely be free to edit subjects that they have interest in, I believe that's how most article creation and improvement comes about. Anyone who does so for a subject they feel strongly about (positively or negatively) must adhere to our neutral point of view policy, or risk sanctions (because their editing becomes disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia), but if we maintained that people could not focus on subjects they liked we'd have an even bigger problem with participation than we already do. -- Atama頭 19:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: That is why I said not all your editing, obviously 90% of the article building I do goes into subjects I enjoy, but enjoy and interest are two different things. I never implied that editors should not edit subject they like, or edit subjects they do not more often, it is just about adhering to the neutral point of view policy, which Reece has failed to do continuiously after many warnings and comments about it. STATic message me! 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You aren't showing any evidence of my supposed refusal to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. I had sources that backed up my claims; that's not just some biased opinion, and you repeating it doesn't prove anything. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - With the provision that Jorgath suggested. As I said before, I don't think Reece is deliberately disruptive, but he is definitely having problems with collaboration. I don't know if that is just how he is as an editor in general, or if it is due to the passion he feels for the subject making it hard to be objective. It looks like the mutual interaction ban is accepted... mutually... So there seems to be no problem with that portion of the ban suggestion, although it would be difficult to adhere to if they continue to edit the same pages. It looks like Reece has an interest in 30 Rock and other subjects, maybe taking a break for a few months to work on other articles would be a positive change. -- Atama頭 19:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Atama: Just to be clear, what part of this are you supporting? It reads like you support the interaction ban and not the ban on my editing certain pages. And why would I be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages and not STATic? If the issue is us interacting, why would you only ban me and not the person who's admitted to disliking the artist? I've never operated on anything other than neutral point of view and have always listed numerous sources that back up my changes and STATic has no evidence to support his repeated claims otherwise when I've given evidence of his own bias against Lady Gaga. I will point out, once again, that he had no reason to bring this discussion up again. I did nothing to incite this kind of hyperbolic response and his listing of various guidelines and accusations of myself not following them have no factual basis if you will look into what he's saying. Again: there are no grounds for BANNING me from Lady Gaga pages. That's an extreme measure that punishes me for arguing with STATic when he originally initiated the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. If this is the attitude that wikipedia administrators take (older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them), it's no wonder that you have a serious problem with editor participation on this site. Reece Leonard (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously Reece, you have been the single most disruptive editor on Artpop since its creation. Hands down. Trust me ... I've had it on my radar since then. The problem seems to be that you cannot recognize how disruptive you're being - THAT is the reason you need to be topic-banned from it. This isn't rocket science, but you're not even using the right textbook when it comes to editing this project as a whole. "Indefinite" means "until the community is convinced that your behaviour will not recur", it's not "indefinite" - I even proposed a review date, which some folks are being kind enough to lower to 4 months. By then, you might have learned how to get along with people DP 21:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure very single person involved in the Artpop discussion would support your topic ban from the page, rather then mine. That goes without saying though considering the nuisance you created there. You do not edit with a neutral point of view, saying you do does not change the facts, that is the reason for the topic ban. Myself and User:Homeostasis07 listed more than enough diffs and points, and I am tired of repeating them if you refuse to acknowledge your horrid behavior. "Bringing the discussion up again", it never closed and I am so happy I brung it back to the main page because we are finally nearing closure and sanctions for your behavior. About the whole last part, completely incorrect, stop trying to play victim now after all the malicious harassment that you have done. Any result here is 100% deserved. STATic message me! 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

YOU saying that I'm operating with bias doesn't make it so. You cited multiple instances where YOU gave me warnings because you didn't agree with my edits. And of course you're happy: that's what you want. You want to ban me because I disagree with you and create a monopoly so that you can continue on editing pages the way you see fit without opposition. I gave numerous sources that stated exactly the point I was arguing for, which proves that I wasn't basing my argument on my own biased opinion. You repeating that I'm biased and ignoring the fact that multiple publications stated exactly what I was saying makes zero sense. And finally: "brung" is not a word. It's just not a word. This entire process, you've repeatedly insulted me, told me that I was illiterate, called me a child, and questioned my intelligence while continually using non-words and phrasing sentences in nonsensical ways. When I point these glaring instances of hypocrisy out to you, you claim that they are "personal attacks" and proceed to rant and rave about how "malicious" I am and how I'm "slandering" you, and then you have the gaul to accuse me of playing the victim. There is absolutely no basis for banning me from editing Lady Gaga pages as the argument I stated was backed up by numerous sources (DigitalSpy, Metacritic's weighted consensus of generally favorable, The Huffington Post, Entertainmentwise, YahooMusic, Pride Publishing Group, Off the Shelf) which completely negates your arguments of bias. If this is an opinion shared by multiple journalists, it's obviously not some fabrication of my supposedly "biased" mind. I did nothing to warrant you re-opening this case and even told you that I wanted to avoid these kinds of issues in the future multiple times, and you responded with another attempt to get me blocked for disagreeing with you. You DID originally initiate the argument by baselessly accusing me of being biased after I simply raised a question in the ARTPOP talk page about the consensus. And now you're continuing to further your goals of banning all opposition by continuing to claim that I'm biased without real evidence to back your claims up, when you previously admitted you didn't like the artist at hand twice. Look: I recognize that my argument wasn't a majority opinion. I took it past the point where it made sense and continued to argue with people when there was no realistic expectation for anyone else to change their mind. This is something that I will absolutely keep in mind when editing pages in the future. That being said: banning me because STATic has accused me of being biased when this is clearly not the case is a ridiculously hyperbolic response and again: If wikipedia administrators seriously think older editors can do whatever they want and make baseless claims and have people blocked for disagreeing with them, it's no wonder that this site has a serious problem with editor participation. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

...and with that, it looks like case closed. Thanks for proving me, Static, and every single past editor of the Artpop page correct. DP 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What?! What are you talking about?! Did you even read my paragraph?! Reece Leonard (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reece, I'm supporting both bans (the interaction ban and topic ban). I'm enthusiastically endorsing the interaction ban, and less enthusiastically supporting the topic ban. My lack of enthusiasm isn't because I think that you're not exhibiting a problem, it's because I'm not sure that the problem is going to be solved by restricting you from particular topics. It's more an issue with your communication style.

I will state that it is at the very least counter-productive for STATicVapor to insult Lady Gaga fans on the talk page of one of her album articles. Whatever a person's feelings, it's disruptive (almost trollish) to make statements that will rile up a group of people that are likely to be participating at that page. Combine that with the earlier statement about people not editing topics that they love, and it indicates to me that this topic ban might also be extended to STATicVapor as well. If they have and acknowledge a bias against Lady Gaga topics, why should they be editing those topics? -- Atama頭 21:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If I'm going to be banned from editing Lady Gaga pages for four months purely because of the way I communicate (which I don't understand, seeing as how you're not attempting to ban other members of the Artpop talk page who use aggressive rhetoric), STATic should absolutely be banned for insulting Lady Gaga and her fans, exhibiting a clear bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

.... @Atama: What? I never insulted her fans, the only one ever offended by my comments has been Reece, of course in his backwards world where they refuse to acknowledge any wrong doing of there's. You obviously did not read my post above (starts with That is why I said not all your editing), where I was replying to you. I have never ever ever said I had a bias, and I have had to repeat that over and over already to this single editor. My edits and discussion show zero indication of someone that does not have a NPOV, that just sounds ridiculous to me. STATic message me! 21:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1) Yes, you did. 2) I acknowledged the fact that I took the argument too far above. Read my arguments before commenting on them, please. 3) I wasn't offended by your insulting her and her fans; I pointed out that you making fun of her constitutes bias. Reece Leonard (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: You either have a poor memory, or you don't consider these to be insults, which itself is concerning (and I'll note that Reece has linked this diff previously, which you ignored). Whatever Reece's behavior problems, you've certainly exacerbated them. -- Atama頭 21:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is what I was talking about earlier. Yes, I went too far with the arguing. I'm honestly extremely apologetic for the way that I approached the situation because it ended up wasting months of my time (and others' time) on users who were never going to change their opinion no matter how many sources I gave them. At the same time, me behaving inappropriately doesn't explain why I would be banned from certain articles. That doesn't really have anything to do with Lady Gaga; it has to do with how I approached this particular situation and how I will revise my behavior in the future. STATic has exhibited a clear negative view of Lady Gaga. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes one diff, the only point he has had. Still no where close to the malicious slander that Reece has brought into this project, need I repeat just this example of links [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]. I have no negative view at all, I never said I hated her music or had a bias or negative feelings of her as a person. Its pretty clear by my user page and edits I prefer a different type (hip-hop/rock), rather than pop, but I am a lover of music in general. I can neutrally edit any article and I did not cause extreme disruption as Reece did. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think the user's comments above speak for themselves. Also, while "brought" was the word that should have been used in the context "brung" was, Mr. Webster would like a word about the contention that "brung" is not a word. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I forgot to address that as I got used to ignoring the irrelevant little attacks they want to throw in their responses. It is most certainly a word, but that goes without saying really. STATic message me! 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, pointing out your consistent grammatical errors to combat your own claims of my illiteracy would, in no way, constitute an "attack". You're using insanely hyperbolic rhetoric, as an administrator stated earlier. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've seen this going on for a while and this proposal works fine for me. If this discussion isn't enough to show why the proposal is receiving the support it's getting, I'll just say my reasoning for supporting this is the same as others above me. Gloss • talk 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger:, @Gloss:, What about @Atama:'s statements of banning STATic as well? And can you two please point out exactly what you're having an issue with in my arguments? I'm inquiring with the goal of avoiding this kind of situation again in the future. Reece Leonard (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Easiest solution for now, and can also be escalated further if the disruption moves elsewhere. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Best thing for now!, And as per Luke if it gets any worse It'll be extended. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Even though I'm an involved editor (ie, I created the original ANI complaint), I think we can agree that enough is enough of this. The user started off editing some articles about 30 Rock, but then moved squarely on to Lady Gaga articles, and shows no sign of moving on from the topic (read any of his replies above or his contribs page). He shows no sign of ending his disruptive editing. Even though it's been disputed by other editors, I still believe that he's NOTHERE. He's here to "correct any bias" that he comes across on Lady Gaga pages. He's clearly not NPOV. A topic ban (for whatever duration) is warranted. If the user then returns to his old habits after the ban expires, more serious measures might be required. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support the interaction ban and Artpop ban, but I'm not sure about banning from Gaga articles. Since I haven't looked very far into Reece's editing history of Gaga articles, could someone provide examples of his edits to those other pages that would qualify for topic ban? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• It says nowhere on my page that I'm on here to correct any bias on Lady Gaga articles. Linking to my contributions page in no way proves that statement. I'm am operating with NPOV as multiple administrators on this page have stated, and while I don't understand why these administrators would institute a topic ban on myself if the way I communicate it the issue here, if they are going to issue one to myself they would absolutely need to block STATic as well as he has proven he is not operating with a NPOV here: x Reece Leonard (talk) 02:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support the ban on complete non-interraction with these two users, Static and Reece. I do not support ban from other Gaga articles since Reece has not disrupted them I can see. For Artpop edits I think an edit review needs to be done for both their contributions as well, so that no further issues like this crop up. In nutshell, Static and Reece do not edit the article, any contribution you want to make, take it to the talk page first, others have it listed on their watchlist. And zero tolerance on Edit warring from both of them. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment In regards to sanctioning User:STATicVapor I recommend a simple trout and perhaps a warning, since they have recognized that they did cross the civility line and have apologized for doing so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jorgath: That was actually me that apologized. His response is just underneath mine. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that - without any intention of offence whatsoever - @Atama: could do with reading the entirety of the Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception page, to avoid confusing the situation. Reece's contention that StaticVapor is somehow biased against Lady Gaga seems to stem from this edit. But if you read it for yourself, StaticVapor in no way suggests that he is biased against Lady Gaga. He in fact says the opposite: that he's there to provide a neutral POV. Reece Leonard immediately misinterpreted/manipulated that edit to make it sound as though StaticVapor was biased, something Reece is still mentioning to this day. But those two diffs I just provided should speak volumes. A certain user has been attempting to misconstrue this entire situation to his advantage for several weeks now. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama DID read that section of the talk page and even cited it himself above in support of his conclusion that it warranted banning STATic as well. I didn't misinterpret anything, and Atama attests to that above. Reece Leonard (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Reece, just because STATicVapor said Gaga isn't his "cup of tea" doesn't mean he has a bias when editing articles relating to her or anyone else. In fact, many people make edits to articles of people/things they aren't particularly fond of and never are biased in such edits. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I really doubt he/she read it all, or even close to it if they supported your side in the slightest. As you can see every person that has followed the discussion from the start is clearly on my side, as they know the insane amount of disruption you have caused. Reece also give up the hope I am going to be banned too, it is clearly not going to happen. Thanks XXSNUGGUMSXX, I do not get how Reece refuses to understand this after I have said it no less than a dozen times now. STATic message me! 03:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama DID read it and cited to you the specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans. How can you claim that they haven't read it when they commented on your specific statements in my diff? And you keep referencing the fact that you've denied that you're biased against Lady Gaga, but that doesn't mean anything. I've denied having a bias when it comes to her and yet you keep accusing me of having one anyway. I cited a specific instance in which you made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (here, for the third time: x) and Atama agreed that that would constitute grounds for banning you from her pages. Atama also stated that you certainly exacerbated the discussion with this kind of "trollish" rhetoric. You can't just claim that anyone who agrees with me hasn't read the discussion. That's a fallacy-based argument. Furthermore, not all the users on this page have advised for me being banned from Gaga pages. Multiple users (IndianBio, XXSNUGUMSXX, etc.) have argued for the interaction ban and not the ban from editing Gaga pages. As user Atama stated above, you're ignoring certain pieces of the conversation and presenting a one-sided, inaccurate summation of this page. XXSNUGGUMSXX, the point I'm trying to make here is that I've cited an instance in which a user made fun of Lady Gaga and her fans (with rhetoric user Atama has described as "trollish" ). If you're attempting to have someone banned on the grounds that they're biased and you don't have any proof to back that claim up (other than vague links to my contribution box) and then go on to make fun of the artist in question, that argument obviously just doesn't hold up. Repeating over and over again that my bias is obvious or clear, etc. doesn't prove anything. When you have an administrator blatantly stating that they believe that STATic is biased (As Atama does above), that certainly does support my case. Reece Leonard (talk) 04:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

STATic didn't make fun of Gaga herself as far as I know, though calling her fans "childish" was rather unneeded. However, I don't think he was describing all of her fans, just lots that he's interacted with. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if there other Wikipedia editors who are Gaga fans that he certainly wouldn't describe as such. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comparing that one comment to the vile, malicious personal attacks and harassment that Reece has made is like comparing apples to watermelons. Yes I referred to the actions of one of her fans (Reece) childish. This thread is just another example of his refusal to act like a adult in a professional environment and I am just tired of responding saying the same thing over and over. Yes a single admin said they thought that, before they had even read my response to them where I refuted that point. Do not forget they still supported the topic ban for you. Multiple editors/admins have stated here that I do not have a bias, while to quote a very knowledgeable one: "Its clear Reece can't handle himself objectively in these areas." Couldn't have said it better myself... Since there has been ten supporters of both points brought up by User: EatsShootsAndLeaves can we move to close and end this already? STATic message me! 06:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

XXSNUGGUMSXX, he stated "what do you expect from Lady Gaga fans, lol, back to some Ghostfacekillah", insinuating that he has a negative viewpoint not only of Lady Gaga but pop music in general, and then called myself and IndianBio children, as I have sourced above. STATic, disputing with a user who is attempting to have me banned is, in no way, childish. Please stop referring to my actions as "vile" and "malicious" and "attacks". That's ridiculously hyperbolic. The instances you are referring to and have linked to were instances in which I attempted to enlist help from other users and conveyed to them my opinion that you had a biased view of Lady Gaga, which user Atama has contested to above. That's it. That's what you're attempting to spin as a "vile" and "malicious attack", when you have personally insulted my intelligence and my maturity, in addition to calling me a child, illiterate, and have subsequently attempted to have me banned after posting numerous, unearned warnings on my talk page every time I would make an edit that you disagreed with. You're deliberately misleading these administrators. I am not a fan of Lady Gaga; you are making an accusation with no evidence other than your own opinion. I don't know where you got that ten users agreed to both of these provisions. Seven agreed with both while several have stated that I should not be banned from Gaga pages, and two voiced the opinion that you should be banned from her pages as well. You and Homeostasis are involved parties and can't support these provisions. None of these users have explicitly stated that you don't have a bias. That's a fabrication. One of them has stated that you do, point blank, after you alerted them to the response that you allege "refutes their point", so that is, again, a fabrication. Can you all see now why I behaved the way I did on the discussion page? It's impossible to have a civil conversation with someone who refuses to intellectually debate an issue, ignores valid points and makes up points in his responses. Reece Leonard (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Its clear Reece can't handle himself objectively in these areas. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Admin edit request at Talk:Murry Salby

Could an admin look at the edit request on this BLP? The article was locked while I was trying to add basic information to the article. As it stands the article is largely negative in nature so this would help balance out that concern. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about another aspect not related to edit request

Note: The NSF content is not a part of this uncontroversial edit request whatsoever. This is to fix a BLP problem that everyone agrees needs to be addressed - that the locked down version of the short article is mostly negative - and only an admin can do it. The NSF content discussion should stay at the article talk page. The NSF content discussion should stay at the article talk page. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually the BLP is a total NPOV mess, and the "proposal" is to make it even further from NPOV, IMO, as it indicates either total financial recklessness or actual dishonesty on his part. No actions appear to have been taken as a result, other than proposing that he not get NSF grants for five years, and the source given is specifically a primary source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be looking at another section of the talk page. This edit request has no mention of his NSF troubles whatsoever, or anything about his dishonesty, which by the way suspended him from grants for three, not five years. This request is to add content about his two textbooks, more fill out the positions he has held, and adding a specific 'positions held' timeline. This is specifically to address that the locked version of the article is very negative and lacking NPOV as a whole. This is to address that. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The NSF findings are clearly notable. This is not a primary source; it's a summary report from the National Science Foundation in which the NSF "established an extensive pattern of deceptive statements made by the Subject to his University and to NSF", as well as serious and undisclosed conflicts of interest on Salby's part. The NSF also found that Salby's "focus on his personal financial gain conflicted with accountability and disclosure requirements, both to the University and to NSF. When these conflicts were uncovered during the investigation, the Subject's response was to continue and expand his pattern of deception and obfuscation, and to begin personal attacks on his former colleagues."

In contrast to Collect's insinuation that no significant action was taken, it should be understood that a 3-year disbarment is typically the maximum penalty imposed by NSF, except in truly extraordinary cases. I cannot see how this is not a notable part of his biography; being described as deceptive and dishonest by the National Science Foundation, and being barred from funding for 3 years, is an extremely unusual sanction in any scientist's career. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: NO comments have been removed or refactored -- all that is done is unhatting a discussion hatted by one participant on his own, and not by any disinterested observer. Hatting discussions one does not like is "not done." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I hatted it simply because it was blatantly disruptive, and deflecting away from addressing an easily solvable BLP concern, which everyone agrees should be addressed. And, ironically, an area you continually suggest to be better versed in than everyone else in discussions, until enough people demonstrate otherwise.

But here you are again, obstructing a process for … well I don't know why you bothered to post here as you apparently didn't even read the content in the edit request. Instead you started railing about the NSF content which no one has proposed adding to the article as of yet.

When you feign surprise that other editors see you as battle grounding, consider this a pretty good example where you interrupted a process, then continued to do so despite clues that you were specifically disrupting.

I don't know if you intended to prevent non-controversial content from being edited to a BLP that everyone agreed was too negative, but here we are on day three of article lockdown, and only the first part of the content proposed has been added. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ford Taurus

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

---

Over the last couple of weeks, this user has come to my attention as a very oddly behaving one. Some of their edits are constructive, such as [98] and [99]. However, the majority are very dodgy. Things such as [100], the edit summary here, this attempt at edit-warring a message back onto Mr.choppers' talk page, and this edit summary, [101], this set of edits and [102] show a mixture of trolling, no grasp of reliable sources/appropriate links, and flat-out vandalism. The user also has had an image deleted as a coypvio, an article deleted under CSD:A7, initially copy-pasted the entire Ford Taurus article as their userpage, and created a "bot" alternative account (that was promptly blocked). Normally I would attempt to discuss things with this user, but I'm doubtful that doing so with someone who is clearly a troll, but smart enough to do just enough constructive edits to avoid a straight-off-the-bat block for trolling, will achieve anything. I'm also pinging User:Mr.choppers, User:Knyzna1 and User:Meters, all of whom have had some involvement with this user. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Also note this talk page sub thread, which is very bizarre, and Mr.choppers has expressed the belief that the IP and this user are the same person - which, given the trolling nature of both the account and the IP, seems quite likely. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I wasn't copyright violating. The picture that was deleted from here was my girlfriend next to the Pagani. She gave me permission to publish it on Wikipedia. Ford Taurus (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think that comment pretty clearly shows exactly the sort of issue we're dealing with here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Or this! Ford Taurus (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, cut the crap, Ford Taurus. Even if the girlfriend thing were true or at all plausible, copyright doesn't belong to the subject of the photograph, so she couldn't give permission, and "to publish on Wikipedia" isn't strong enough anyway, so that's still a copyvio. Constructive editing, even with a sense of humor, is welcome, but trolling isn't, so do the first and not the second, k? More trolling will result in a block, so quittit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, she gave me permission to publish it on Wikipedia. Strong enough now? Ford Taurus (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Will I get sued, though? Ford Taurus (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • See, that would've been funnier if you had actually used <strong></strong> tags instead of the single quotes, but oh well. Still got a chuckle though, so not bad. Anyway, in seriousness, the point about copyright is that things can't just be released for Wikipedia's use; they need to be released under the complete terms of the CC-BY-SA license to be used freely on Wikipedia (with a few narrow exceptions). And again, it's not the subject of the photograph who gets the copyright over the image, so the photograph subject here wouldn't be able to release anything anyway. And no, I doubt you'd get sued; that's why we delete copyvios. Despite all appearances, we do try to run a (relatively) serious project here; humor is fine, but you've went a bit overboard on it. Tone it down a bit, don't direct it at articles or other users (unless you're absolutely sure they'll get the joke and appreciate it), and we're fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
        • LOL! Ford Taurus (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have no problem with humour being used in the right place. The issue here is not just the incorrect tone in article space, it is the usage of highly unreliable sources (and persisting to use them even when it is explained to you that they are not appropriate) and the borderline/actual vandalism that has occurred. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note this: [103]. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's simply wrong and is in fact WP:VAND, albeit likely meant as a joke. Ford Taurus should not do something like that again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• I initially thought thought that user:Ford Taurus was simply incompetent to be editing, but quickly decided that he was instead a troll. For example, after being reverted several times for adding non-reliably sourced entries to List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration and several talk page explanations of why youtube videos are not useful sources, he correctly removed a non-reliably sourced entry here [104] with a summary showing that he was doing so because it was not a reliable source. Nine hours later he restored it here [105]. When I removed it he left this [106] abusive message on my Talk page. I suspect that he is also further confusing/trolling by making other edits using an IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 01:12, 6 March 2014‎ (UTC)
  • I don't edit under IPs on purpose — only when I click Save page and I don't realize that some glitch keeps logging me out. I always Incognito. Ford Taurus (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing but a vandal - prankster would be too nice. Occasionally does a few useful edits when he senses trouble brewing. I haven't bothered reporting him because of his countless alter egos and ip edits. I am pretty sure that Ford Taurus is the same as User:Mrtacos2 and User:Jasons99Contour, but blocking only seems to whet his appetite.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who Mrtacos2 and Jasons99Contour are. Will you please explain to me who .... wait, Mrtacos2 is my teacher's account!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But seriously, who is Jasons99Contour? I don't know him. Ford Taurus (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Waste of time. Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• And just in case any person wandering around in here thinks this was unfair, check out this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Trolling. Good block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This editor is User:Altimgamr continuing to evade the earlier block. I've now blocked mail access after receiving a taunting email message. Cindy(talk) 20:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Delsorting removal

Can I get some oversight on the repetitive removal of delsorting being done by ‎Yambaram (talk · contribs)? He initially removed the country delsorts regarding the Jews and Communism AfD debate on 4 March [107] and charged it as being a "clear WP:CANVASS attempt". [108] He was reverted by another user, but again he removed them after voting "delete", and personally proclaimed that "only Judaism, politics (and maybe Russia) should be listed, and they are already have been" while failing to explain any of his reasoning for this. [109] I explained that "the historically significant events being discussed in the article take place in those countries. Of course the delsort was entirely appropriate as there was no "mass", "biased", "partisan", or "secret" posting." He has refused to respond and has chosen instead to edit war with this ludicrous comparison: "the Torah is also related to jews, that doesn't mean it should be included" [110] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I left a friendly reminder about WP:3RR on USER:‎Yambaram's talk page. No comment regarding the content issues, however the editor seems to be misunderstanding WP:CANVASS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, this report could now backfire. Administrators, please look:

In addition to this call by ‎Galassi (talk · contribs), and the suspicious fact that this thread was posted a few minutes after I responded to ‎DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) on my talk page, I just found some possible sock puppetry evidence - and both DIRECTOR and PRODUCER might now be reported.

Regarding the removal, I'll explain everything again now. First, let me start by saying that another user agreed you were canvassing there. And as you should know, an editor is entitled to revert vandalism, canvassing, wrong information, or anything that violates Wikipedia's policies. I removed irrelevant wikiproject-links, and just because you disagree with me and other editors doesn't mean you are right. Yes, like others I also think that could easily be classified under WP:CANVASS. No other editor agreed with you that the deletion discussion of the article Jews and Communism should be linked to "list of Austria/Germany/Hungary/Romania/Poland/Ukraine/US related deletion discussions". By this twisted logic you're using, I could also link that deletion discussion to "list of Israel-related deletion discussions" because Israel is a Jewish country, or to "list of crime-related deletion discussions", because communism has caused a lot of deaths and crime. I must note that this behavior of yours is also reflected in that deletion discussion where you accused everyone who didn't agree with you of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and such. But for now, you'll be reported for Sock-puppetry. -Yambaram (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza, I kindly as you to take a look again: I reverted 2 times in 24 hours, and only then reverted again. The 3RR rule says "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Deletion sorting is not canvassing in any way, shape, or form. Even inapproppriately overapplied deletion sorting, if that was the case here, is not canvassing. Period, full stop, end of line. In addition please be reminded that spurious sockpuppetry accusations are considered a personal attack. "They have similar names and post in similar places and both disagree with me" is not adequate evidence for a sockpuppety accusation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Bushranger. The sockpuppet accusation was settled a long time in a self-endorsement by Direktor. It appears Yam's tactic is to do whatever necessary to draw attention from himself. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

"Just because you disagree with me and other editors doesn't mean you are right." One can heed one's own advice. Again you bring up false equivalences that no one could possibly entertain. Thanks Joe, but it appears he is actually bragging about his attempt to circumvent 3RR and edit war without penalty. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

'The Bushranger', of course I personally don't know for sure if it was a canvassing attempt or not (at least one more user said it was.. Sorry, I didn't mean to rule out the possibility that it was not), but yes, I definitely think he inapproppriately overapplied deletion sorting links, which is why I reverted him, and this is the proper way of doing it. Please do not accuse me of bragging or anything.. I just carefully followed the rules. -Yambaram (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please partially revert this edit as you changed a post to which Bushranger and I already responded and have per WP:REDACT "deprived the reply of its original context". It distorts Bushranger's comment, making it appear as if he exaggerated and got the similar names bit from thin air rather than your post. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

PRODUCER, it's clear that my intention was not to distort Bushranger's or anyone else's comment in any way, I just decided to re-think and re-word my response. I mean, you did that too in the the page we're discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism, where you modified a few of your comments.. Exaggeration, overstatements, and minor mistakes[111] happen. I don't know where we're going with this, after all, no editor here has said whether he/she thinks these deletion-sorting links should be there or not. Yambaram (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think The Bushranger said it quite succinctly that there is nothing wrong with applying deletion sorting. And, I'd be careful with those sock accusations, Yambaram, if I were you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Whether it was your intention or not is irrelevant though it appears you're progressively acting in bad faith. I urge readers to read the diff to get the full context of Bushranger's comment as Yam has chosen not to revert. I note he still has not rolled back his delsort removals and has even added Israel in an effort to prove a point. [112] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Liz. And no, 'The Bushranger' actually didn't say his opinion about these deletion sorting links at all. Also, I explained very clearly why I added Israel too [113]. Read it and see that it was not "an effort to prove a point" as PRODUCER wrongly accuses me (again, and it's a personal attack as well). On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism they had still appeared and so I thought someone brought them back to the deletion sorting pages. Anyway, even though no one here (other than PRODUCER) said these deletion sorting pages should stay, and while there's opposition to them in the deletion discussion itself, I self-reverted myself now. Yambaram (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this continuous WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. Pointing out your behavior is not a personal attack as it is quite obviously not in good faith. You've edit warred, gamed 3RR, refused to discuss, threatened sockpuppet investigations, and disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point. You've done all sort of gymnastics to make the delsorts of countries in which the events discussed take place appear invalid and then added Israel to prove point since you couldn't get your way. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Producer is a bully and continues to be belligerent. He needs to be reprimanded if not blocked. USchick (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your recommending I be blocked on the basis of being "bully"? You probably shouldn't accuse me of being one while simultaneously personally attacking me. Your conduct is not much better than that of Yam. What with the extensive blanking during the AfD [114] and your urging of users to revert in your favor [115]. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While Director was busy canvassing, I was actually editing the article, which no one is allowed to do apparently. USchick (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please note I have warned the user not to revert based only on his own suspicions, but to follow policy and report. He replied to the effect that the delsorting was "vandalism" and that it was his right to remove them. [116] -- Director (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

PRODUCER, I respond to bad faith behavior with bad faith, because such behavior is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. I've not edit warred or gamed 3RR (another accusation based on your assumptions while evidence shows otherwise), I didn't "refuse to respond" (another false claim) as I clearly responded here and here, I'm not "threatening sockpuppet investigations" but am telling you I'm going to start a new investigation soon as I and at least one more user suspect something, and didn't "disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point" - the deletion sorting remained pages so I added another country, Israel, per your broad inclusion of them. 'Director', you're now saying I called it "vandalism"? Are you aware of the fact that lying about someone else on Wikipedia has serious consequences? I wrote "an editor is entitled to revert vandalism, canvassing, wrong information, or anything that violates Wikipedia's policies." Inapproppriately overapplying deletion sortings falls under "anything that violates Wikipedia's policies. You're twisting another editor's words, again. And I fully agree with ‎USchick (talk · contribs) - you're very right about PRODUCER. -Yambaram (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing, but I believe you are directing your remarks to Director (above), not PRODUCER. They are not the same editor.

Also the attitude "I respond to bad faith behavior with bad faith, because such behavior is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia", I hope you can see that you are also arguing that your own bad faith behavior is "not to be tolerated". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no user is "entitled" to remove comments or delesort notices because they believe it to be WP:Canvassing. The only actions that an editor can take is to notify the offending editor to stop, then report it to WP:ANI if they don't. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#How to respond to inappropriate canvassing for the specific language. I also recommend that you read up on what canvassing actually is, to influence the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is that is considered inappropriate. At this point, you have not explained how a broad delsort listing will influence the outcome in an inappropriate way vs bring more uninvolved editors to the discussion. The fact that you removed the AfD from the deletion sorting pages 3 times IS edit warring.[117][118][119] 24.149.117.220 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Yambaram, and I don't think we ever worked on any articles together, so I'm not defending him. I can say that Yambaram is actually proposing solutions and moving the discussion forward on the page in question. Users Producer/Director have a history of tag teaming and driving people crazy until they get their way, which is not acting in good faith. USchick (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

More and more harassment. Yam why are there scare quotes around Director's name? Unless you have compelling evidence for an SPI then I suggest you refrain from such nonsense. How one can you one second claim others are "inapproppriately overapplying deletion sortings" all while jumping on the Israel delsort to prove a point? You even explicitly stated "I wouldn't link this deletion discussion to 'list of Israel-related deletion discussions'". [120] Honestly. USChick why are you still alleging Director "was busy canvassing" when you and Yam have been told by numerous uninvolved editors that that is simply not the case? Also I've had one prior interaction with you yet you feel you're qualified to claim a "history of tag teaming and driving people crazy until they get their way" and without a single shred of evidence. Finally, why do you feel it's necessary to alter my comments? [121] I'm really growing tired of these sneaky tactics. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was copying a link and I must have grabbed the wrong thing by mistake. It was not my intention to alter your comments. This is an example of Producer/Director and TFD ganging up to shut down any meaningful conversation from other editors. Talk:Jewish Bolshevism/Archive 4#Antisemitic? USchick (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to get annoyed here. I am not Producer, which should be obvious in a dozen different ways [122]. Will someone please intervene and put a stop to this? It is insulting to be referred to in such a manner.
At this point I must say that USchick is a novice and, by my estimate, a young person with little or no understanding of either Wikipedia policies or the subject matter being discussed at these articles. She actually blanked half the page because she thinks "Marxism" and "Communism" are separate things (as opposed to the former being a variant of the latter), she refers to the word "Soviet" as a "concept", she equates "Communism" as an ideology with the ideal Communist society - i.e. she doesn't understand the term, etc. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and all that wouldn't be a problem - if she didn't stubbornly defend such obvious folly and actually take offense at attempts at explanation. Her input neither contributes much to the discussion, nor expands the article. It offends and annoys.

As regards Yambaram he's just trying to delete the article, that's all. And to that end he removes notifications he thinks might draw more neutral participants. That ought to be perfectly obvious. He should be reverted and formally warned by an admin. Then if he continues to revert-war in attempting to remove other users' talkpage additions - I'd sanction him. Or rather, I myself would sanction him right now, but I suppose I might be biased. -- Director (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Producer wanted an example and I provided one. Are you still holding a grudge about my nomination to get The Jewish Bolshevism article deleted? USchick (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't even remember you doing that, nor do I recall anything about the issue. What I do recall is both TFD and myself trying to politely ask you to leave. -- Director (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lockean One

User:Lockean One is a single purpose account who has been engaged in protracted, wearying debate at Talk:Libertarianism since December.[123] Today, he edit-warred to remove all reference to capitalism from Libertarianism, a change which involved the removal of, by my count, 34 sources from the article.[124] In my experience, User:Lockean One does not cite sources, but rather explains how the article should be based on his own ideas of logic and history, some of which are idiosyncratic.[125] He claims that all of the sources (maybe 20?) which are cited for the left-libertarianism sections of the article are illegitimate or biased.[126] My understanding is that he is not here to help build an encyclopedia, but to endlessly debate his own personal views on libertarianism. — goethean 22:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing to add, except that there's a previous ANI case of this editor warring on the same article, which resulted in a 24-hour block. Finx (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem goes beyond Lockean One, but he is definitely a top contributor. The Libertarianism article has been mired in ideological debate for some time—reasonably understandable considering the nature of the topic—to the point that consensus is essentially impossible. As goethean stated, Lockean One has a habit of misrepresenting capitalism and socialism and concluding that these views, authoritative in his mind, demand the removal of well-sourced material. He rarely brings forth reliable sources to support his views, and instead relies on claims that a socialist libertarianism is only evidenced by biased sources. I must admit I don't find this rationale persuasive, as he is more than happy to retain classical liberal sources talking about classical liberalism, but refuses to admit anarchist sources talking about anarchism. (These two terms—classical liberalism and anarchism—are alternates for the most popular currents called libertarianism and are often ideologically opposed, which is why so much vitriol exists on that page.) The impetus for this ANI was a mass removal of article content with a clear intention of feeding a feud with another user (User:Finx), who retaliated to Lockean One's aforementioned comments favoring the elimination of libertarian socialism from the article by demanding the removal of capitalist libertarianism (i.e. classical liberalism). I reverted Lockean One's mass deletion as it was blatantly fueled by petty vindictiveness, and received this note in the edit summary when I was reverted: "I'm not joking, mentioning capitalism is [un]necessary and Finx should undo it if the suggestion was not good faith." Honestly, I'm so disgusted by editor conduct on that page, from both sides of the debate, that I am leaving Wikipedia as soon as I finish a translation of the French article on Le Libertaire. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The talk page may not be the most appropriate venue for satire, but I'd hardly call a tongue-in-cheek proposal a feud or retaliation. I'd call it a joke, with a point in there somewhere. Whether on not the brand of libertarianism some editors want to evangelize can stake a claim to classical liberalism, this crusade to expunge disagreeable political views from the article has been going on for years, and I don't know why anyone entertains it when it offers nothing new to the discussion. I want to see an encyclopedia article and some other users apparently want to write a political brochure for the USLP. That makes things considerably more difficult than they need to be. Anyway, I hope you reconsider leaving. Finx (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One argues that only free market libertarians are real libertarians and therefore other libertarians should be removed despite the fact free market libertarians reference non-free market libertarians. Obviously a POV editor who has wasted our time for months. Recommend a ban on editing libertarian articles. TFD (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been a bit of a pseudo pseudo moderator there for about 3-4 years. The main decision that started quenching the flames 3-4 years ago was a decision to cover all (significant in sources) strands of libertarianism. The term has widely varying meanings, and there are lots of complicated debates, and people who want more coverage of their preferred type and less of others, but I don't think that there is any ongoing underlying conflict. The "flames" were more a tower of babel situation than an underlying conflict. People immersed in vastly different definitions of libertarianism each sincerely thinking that the definition that they know was the correct definition. The more recent activity started when Lockean One made what I thought was a pretty convincing case that libertarian socialism is socialism, not libertarianism. I ran the idea of dropping that sub-section explicitly up the flagpole (even including it in two edit summaries, and the article has about 950 watchers) and there were zero objections over 2-3 weeks. I then did the edit and was reverted, and then a substantive discussion ensued. While various general discussions of the topic occurred (which would be OR if put in article space but not out of line for a talk page) in the end Lockean One's argument was not an unsourced assertion, but that persons arguing to keep it were making an unsourced assertion (that libertarian socialism is a form of libertarianism.) IMHO sufficient arguments for keeping it were made where I now believe it should be kept, so now I do not agree with Lockean One on how it should end up, but do not consider their arguments to be mis-behavior. A new (now admitted to be a wp:pointy in response volley) suggestion was made by Finx and Lockean One went with it (or a part of it) and made one edit which I think had some merit / a good point (that pro-capitalism is permitted by but not an element of significant libertarian philosophies) that was a bigger and bolder edit than I would have done, and they went to 2RR trying to keep it in, (and MisterDub went further to (but not past) 3RR to undo it). I do not see what they have been doing overall as "reporting level" out of line Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

A quick comment, North8000... you say that Lockean One made a "convincing case that libertarian socialism is socialism, not libertarianism," but I think this betrays a deep misunderstanding you two have of libertarian socialism; it is socialism, but it is also libertarianism—in the original sense of the term, no less. Anarchism is the libertarian side of socialism, as opposed to the authoritarian socialism of Marxism and its variants (Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc.). American individualists called attention to this difference, stating that "the fact that State Socialism during the last decade or two has overshadowed other forms of Socialism gives it no right to a monopoly of the Socialistic idea." (Benjamin Tucker, 1897. Instead of a Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One.). "After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference — the fundamental one — between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." (Sacco, Nicola and Vanzetti, Bartolomeo, 1928. The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti.). In other words, this libertarianism, up until the modern American movement appropriated the term, was necessarily socialist in nature. Murray Rothbard acknowledges this fact in The Betrayal of the American Right: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ... 'Libertarians,' in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...". -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, thank you very much for that! I guess two things added complexity. One was that my comment was referring to the moment 2-3 weeks ago when the conversation was much more limited. The second is that I guess (at least in the US) "Socialism" has picked up a common meaning which is different than it's technical meaning, basically that of (or limited to) country-level implementations of socialism in modern times. That might even be the cause of the disagreement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

North8000, I think that is exactly the cause of this disagreement, and were I able to locate Lockean One's first posts—before he was a registered user—I would quote him here to illustrate this. As I stated in my initial comment above, he "has a habit of misrepresenting capitalism and socialism" by equating them with voluntary exchange and domineering economic control, respectively. As for the "explicit" call for comments regarding the deletion of this material, no new section was ever made to specifically discuss this. It was appended to a previous discussion that had severely waned, and no one but you and Lockean One were paying attention to it anymore. Hence, it actually was a surprise when the material was removed. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This quote from Lockean One demonstrates well his bias and intentions with the article:

The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. ... It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition.

— Lockean One, as IP 166.147.72.36 [[127]]

Sorry, it took me so long to find this; the conversation was hatted for violating WP:FORUM, which prolonged my search. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I ended up disagreeing with Lockean One (and thus with my own original edit) over inclusion/exclusion of the material, (and think that that item is settled) but do not consider it to be misbehavior to argue otherwise, particularly since that argument is valid under one common meaning of the term socialism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You think it's okay to edit war over the removal of 30+ sources from the article, because one party believes that they are biased? Because that's what User:Lockean One did. — goethean 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the removal of the "libertarian socialism" subsection, or of the capitalism related edit related to the section that Finx started? North8000 (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not a "common meaning of the term"; it's a wrong interpretation, used by people ignorant of what it means. We shouldn't be promoting ignorance on Wikipedia. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Common meanings/uses are what create definitions  :-) North8000 (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld / The Banner dispute

There is a dispute going on between Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and The Banner (talk · contribs), both long-term editors. See Blofeld's talk page as of now. I don't know what started it. Lately they have been warring over the semantic distinction between parish and village in County Clare, Ireland. This is childish. Can someone step in and try to resolve it. Maybe some sort of ban or at least rap on the knuckles. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

After removing some inappropriate grave dancing from Banner on Blofeld's talk page, he left this charming bad faith response for me, with no reason, no evidence and no truth to the insults. - SchroCat (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading over the gist of the dispute, it seems like it was completely avoidable. Dr. Blofield was cleaning up a large area of articles on Irish parishes and Banner took issue with several, when they were mostly likely a work-in-progress. It's unfortunate to lose someone who has been such a productive editor and I hope he returns to editing. It won't happen with this "win/lose" mentality. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I had told him before that the list of civil parishes in County Clare was a total mess that had to be cleaned up first. I did that here: User_talk:The_Banner#County_Clare in a rather friendly discussion. The discussion at Talk:List of civil parishes of County Clare, including some remarks of mr. SchroCat, was already more desperate, topped up with this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of civil parishes of County Clare. It did not help at all. And from here it spiralled down is a fast pace. The Banner talk 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Civil parishes? More like be civil, or perish! I'm here all week... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Banner, of course: it's all to do with everything that everyone else is doing, and nothing to do with your actions or reactions at all. Perhaps you could read through the various topics again and put yourself in someone else's shoes, asking if your comments needed to be as pointy as they were, and whether you could/should have reacted differently. - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat, could you please stop throwing fuel at the fire? You are absolutely not helpful in resolving this case. The Banner talk 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Banner, I am not "throwing fuel" onto anything. I have pointed out that your behaviour has been sub-par, which is why someone has brought the matter to ANI. Your approach to most of the things Blofeld has been doing has not been constructive and you need to accept a large part of the blame for that, not just try pointing the finger at others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While we are here, it should be known that The Banner grave danced all over Dr. B's talk page when the latter took some time out to cool off. If anything, THAT would be "throwing fuel at the fire". Cassianto^talk 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation of trolling was also very useful. And yes, it is hear warming to see how many of Blofeld friend are coming out to protect poor Blofeld, but nobody is talking about the behaviour of Blofeld and his accusation of bullying by me. You guys could spend you time more usefull than hanging around here. In a few days Blofeld has dried is tears and is back. Just like the last time. The Banner talk 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And your accusation of me being guilty of owning and primma donna behaviour was just laughable. Your uncivil approach to people just because they disagree with you is the reason a third party has brought this to ANI. It's reflected in the fact that your pointy (and pointless) attempts to delete an article like Kilmoon was kicked out with absolutely no-one thinking you had a leg to stand on. Your approach is belligerant, you treat discussions like a battleground and your stalking of Blofeld's activities needs to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Reporting multiple personal attacks by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Immediately below this line is a copy paste of the complaint and discussion on a different page. You may read this, or go there to see the original postings themselves. I did ask for a second look there from an admin or maybe a different admin but apparently ( I always try to assume good faith )the matter had already been judged and could not be reopened there.

I asked for a second look or reconsideration of the outcome there Here is what I asked and am asking here:

"If you care, here is the proof I saved everything I posted on HW talk page. There was no edit warring by me, I do thank you for having taken the time to look into the matter. But when the victim of three or more personal attacks gets warned for "edit warring" when I did not, but only reported and warned a user about the personal attacking he did towards me. I am not sure of the protocol here, after an admin closes an issue here.

BUT, I do request another look by the same admin, or another admin of his/her choosing. Thank you........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014 "

The instructions there at the top of the section said further review would have to be brought up here. Also as per the instructions. I will be bold enough to put the notification template on the reported editors talk page, even though when I did only that before, I was accused of edit warring on the reported users talk page, and accused of repeatedly re-posting the same info on said page after the editor himself reverted the notices each time I placed another one. (placed as the personal attacks went on) As the personal attacks went on I posted on the offenders talk page templates to please stop a couple of times. You certainly can go back through the history and diffs at that talk page if you like, or for my and your convenience I kept a log of everything that I posted on that talk page.

It is included here for clarity: the link to the page where I kept the log is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale check there or read below

my log starts here

Extended content

March 2014 This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brendon Villegas, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You may not remove well-sourced text involving noncontentious subjects from a BLP without good cause. Your apparent dislike for the subject is not good cause. You are also clearly edit warring on this an related articles, and may be subject to loss of editing privileges even if you avoid breaching the 3RR limit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC) the above warning to this page was in response to placing a simple required template on the users page regarding an edit warring discussion that he was involved in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz_reported_by_User:Carriearchdale_.28Result:_no_vio.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents this warning was placed on his HW talk page (placed here for clarity since hw keeps reverting warnings to him placed by other editors. "personal attack warning[edit source] Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Regarding using an edit summary to personally attack an editor link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history "(go somewhere else (preferably off-wiki) if you're going to keep up your caterwauling)" cat·er·waul ˈkatərˌwôl/ verb gerund or present participle: caterwauling 1.(of a cat) make a shrill howling or wailing noise. "the caterwauling of a pair of bobcats" synonyms: howl, wail, bawl, cry, yell, scream, screech, yowl,ululate More" _________________________________________- this is the final warning I placed on aother users page - placed here for clarity since user keeps reverting the warnings so as to believe they never occurred "You may keep reverting warning notices placed in good faith on this talk page, but that does not mean you were not warned. This is your final warning against personal attacks against an editor: from the history (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:53 . . (-628)‎ . . ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎(rmv caterwauling; Undid revision 598127011 by Carriearchdale (talk)) (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:51 . . (-244)‎ . . ‎Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎(remove caterwauling; Undid revision 598127250 by Carriearchdale (talk)) (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:50 . . (+244)‎ . . ‎Carriearchdale (talk | contribs)‎(→‎personal attack warning) (diff | hist) . . User talk:DragonflySixtyseven‎; 10:48 . . (+512)‎ . . ‎Ezhiki (talk | contribs)‎ (Kostino) (diff | hist) . . User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎; 10:48 . . (+628)‎ . . ‎Carriearchdale (talk | contribs)‎(→‎personal attack warning: new section) cat·er·waul ˈkatərˌwôl/ verb gerund or present participle: caterwauling 1.(of a cat) make a shrill howling or wailing noise. "the caterwauling of a pair of bobcats" synonyms: howl, wail, bawl, cry, yell, scream, screech, yowl,ululate More _________ This notice was placed on the same users page (of course he has already reverted it - copied here for clarity) This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. end of my log** the following is the info on the other complaint page starts here ___________________________________________________________ User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: Both warned) This is now closed as an edit warring case. If you want further review use WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Page: User talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz (edit|user page|history|links|watch|logs) User being reported: Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts: notification listing of more than 8 reverts in the last hour or so TODAY Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 1 minute ago Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 21 minutes ago Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 23 minutes ago Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 40 minutes ago Hullaballoo Wolfowitz left a message on your talk page in "March 2014". This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brendon Villegas, you may be blocked from editing without further n... 1 hour ago | View changes Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes) 1 hour ago Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 1 hour ago Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 1 hour ago Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes) 1 hour ago Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history Comments: Comment - I don't' have the dif gathering skills that others do, but I'd like to comment on the fact that this is an ongoing issue with User:Hallaballo Wolfowitz. Granted, I've seen this User make good edits as well, but I have also seen this user attempt to discredit long standing sources as well as misrepresent information in those same sources seemingly to further their POV. One example is "here" in an article for deletion discussion. Furthermore, under the auspices of BLP policy (among others) I have seen this user outright ignore WP policy such as 3RR in instances where the exceptions hardly seem to apply. Additionally I've tried to communicate and "make peace" with this User only to have my comments erased with an accusatory edit summary. A quick perusal of this User's Talk page edit history reveals what this person thinks of attempts to communicate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Users are permitted to remove warnings placed on their own user talk page - removal indicates that they did see the notice. However, people who repeatedly re-add such material are in violation of Wikipedia norms of conduct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Result: The two parties to this dispute are both warned – Carriearchdale for edit warring on a user talk, and HW for using personal attacks ('caterwauling'). If this behavior continues from either party blocks are possible without notice. Anyone is permitted to remove notices from their user talk and per WP:3RRNO this does not count toward 3RR. But anyone who reinstates the removed notices is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your input, but I never reinstated any removed notices on the talk page of HW. As he continued to personally attack me, I did put notices on his talk page which he immediately reverted, I understand that he is able to do that. Please do not characterize my actions against someone, who was personally attacking me 3 or 4 times, by reporting them and putting simple notices on their talk page as the instructions say is proper to do as edit warring n my part. Really? Really? Yes really... If you care, here is the proof I saved everything I posted on HW talk page. There was no edit warring by me, I do thank you for having taken the time to look into the matter. But when the victim of three or more personal attacks gets warned for "edit warring" when I did not, but only reported and warned a user about the personal attacking he did towards me. I am not sure of the protocol here, after an admin closes an issue here. BUT, I do request another look by the same admin, or another admin of his/her choosing. Thank you........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014 ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC) __________________________________________________________---------- edited to sign did not sign at bottom when posting just now

thanks,

I really do hope everyone has had the most magnificent day ever!!!

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Carriearchdale, is this just cut and pasted from a talk page? It's better to just provide a link to a long discussion. It is very hard to follow and I doubt many editors will take the time to make sense of it. Better to be succinct, make your argument in your own words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. It's a total mess. Try again, and (1) make it consise and (2) use diffs like this to highlight the edits that you're talking about. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm collapsing the "log" section; it's all viewable on Carrie's talk page, linked here, and the EW board, linked from the TP. ₆an⁶sh₆ 02:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• What a mess by Carriearchdale ... not just here on ANI, but on that article. Perhaps you should take a break from that subject, as you're certainly not helping there. While you take that break, re-read WP:EW and WP:WIAPA as you appear to have been edit-warring, tag-bombing, and have not at any time been subjected to a personal attack. What you've succeeded in doing above is showing us your issues on Wikipedia ... not HB's issues. When you wrongly accuse someone else of something either on Wikipedia or real life, you always expect some type of response - I think HB's has been a pretty tame response considering your behaviour. If you're not willing to voluntarily remove yourself from that article, I'm willing to suggest at least a 2 week topic ban DP 11:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have sat back a few days, and just listened to what was being said or posted here because I was hoping I might learn something new about how different people work together, or each give their opinion on some issue in hopes of coming to some semblance of an agreement or consensus. I am a general believer in the good faith in people, and hope that most people would set aside their prejudices, and preconceived notions about other persons, and let the weight of different things they were considered each have a due weight when they were figuring out which side of some issue they were going to be on.

Unfortunately some, but certainly not all of the users/editors/admins who are here at wikipedia are acting in some sort of gang mentality. I mean I was shocked to read one statement were one of the people insinuated that someone who had registered here only a few months ago, that that newer registrants' opinion on some issue such as these at the ani shouldn't have as much weight even in the voting of how many people are in support or against a certain issue. So in going by that sort of thinking, there should just be a mini paragraph at the top of this ani board letting some of the newer editors or users here that their opinion won't even be considered here until they have been registered and apparent actively editing for X number of months or they have X number of edits down on the wikipedia books.

To pretend that everything is "equal" here is such a big hypocritical mess, that no one would even believe it unless they the whole situation with their own eyes. The paranoia abounds around here to the point where one or two of the posters here were accusing me and Bob the Goodwin of being one person operating as sockpuppets??? OMFG!!! I wish Bob the Goodwin and I were one combined person because maybe then we could ask for some sort of lower combined tax rate from uncle sam! Actually I am quite honored that some of you were thinking Bob and I were alike in writing bullet points and whatever else was said and written here, because Bob the Goodwin is the most earnest writer and editor I have had the pleasure of working with on a few articles here. I read what Bob wrote up earlier in this list of postings and I do agree with him on at least one point that he spoke about.

Wikipedia itself has become a sad sad sad victim of the cesspool of mire and cultural rot caused by all the prejudicial actions taken as well as the gang mentality when all the troops are brought in to put their no or oppose down to somehow stuff the balance box and have the outcome be "what the popular kids want who have been here the longest." I mean really this all sounds like high school antics to me. If that the way it's going to be, at least be honest and upfront about. Post and paragraph and state which users will be pronounced to have been here long enough so that the other will let their vote count. It's called transparency people. But alas I fear dear wikipedia is too far gone already being sucked down into the infected mire of the cesspool of cultural rot it has become based on all the gang mentality, bullying, harassment, and prejudice among many other nasty, dirty, underhanded things that go on here. It really is a shame. Jimbo had a great idea here but the wikipedia is swirling away deeper and deeper into the cesspool of cultural rot. Wikipedia will soon die a slow and painful death...

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And how does this explain your actions? You didn't follow the rules, but you're blaming others for that? Odd. DP 09:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to explain any of my actions here. And what rules are you speaking of? I followed the instructions on how to report and deal with someone who was harassing and personally attacking me. This ani is about Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz and HIS actions while he was personally attacking me multiple times. You are trying to turn a victims report of being personally attacked right back on the victim. Can you really be that short-sighted? I guess you can. I have see it done constantly over these ani pages. Like I said earlier, the gang mentality abounds here. You guys keep quoting this policy and that policy in each and every sentence you post. It looks to me DangerousPanda that you are saying it is fine for someone to call another editor Bizarre, and write multiple times over and over that the person is caterwauling this and caterwauling that. You DangerousPanda look like you had your mind made up to tell the victim of the multiple personal attacks that they never happened. Now the protocol will be to gather the gang up and have everybody post for or against. Just go ahead and do whatever you and the gang have already pre-decided. You are acting just as I described above. and this thing we call wikipedia is still a cesspool of cultural rot, and is continuing to swirl in a downward spiral to its' imminent death. It really doesn't matter what I post or type here, because some of you are so power hungry and ready to gang up and try to beat down anyone who might not agree with you, or someone who might have only been registered here a short time. This whole ordeal, and the way stuff is handled here is truly a shame.

I quote the great leader Jimbo here, even he sees that editors are leaving left and right due to some of the draconian action and prejudices I have listed above.

"Wales spoke of contributors leaving as one of the main issues. "We are not replenishing our ranks". At 90,000 active contributors by March, the goal is to attain another 5,000 by next June. Speaking about its contributor base, the typical profile appears to be a "26-year-old geeky male", while others leave as there is a short supply of further articles to add. But as the fifth most visited site on the web, and nearly a decade old, it is struggling to maintain its community effort with so many contributors are leaving. Wales acknowledges the issues with Wikipedia from a founders' perspective, yet others who actively engage with the site see other barriers.

Speaking to ZDNet's senior technology editor, Jason Perlow, for which has his own Wikipedia entry, resonated similar feelings earlier with me on the phone in regards to Wikipedia's fundamental issues. "Wikipedia appears to have a strange undefined organisational structure, or lack thereof. It seems to be run by some Mad Max-like community stuck in the middle of the desert. Contributors have to submit to many editors that follow meticulously baroque editorial guidelines, which are imposed in an inconsistent fashion."" source= http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/wikipedia-losing-contributors-fatal-flaw-the-community-editors/54144

I am really just going to wash my hands of thus whole particular issue. I really feel any input I post on here is often taken and then tried to be be twisted and thrown right back onto me.

So go ahead and do whatever you think is the fair and equal thing to do. But maybe you all should look up fair, equal, neutral, unbiased, and non-prejudiced in the dictionary before you speak or post, because this cesspool of cultural rot called wikikpedia that you all have been swirling around in for so long has definitely muddied up your understand of being fair and equal across the board to all users/editors/admins/people here.

On a more positive note, I do hope everyone will have a clearer day today, and maybe if you open your eyes a little wider you will be able to actually see what is going on here. I doubt it. But I do always try to assume good faith, you never know. Maybe someone, anyone will get an epiphany and the downward spiral of wikipedia into it inevitable cesspool of cultural rot can be slowed and possible turned around someday. I really do not think so, but one can only hope.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

10.4.1.126

I'm puzzled by the activities of 10.4.1.126 (talk · contribs). It appears to be a logged-out archiving bot (or a user acting like one), but as an IP it can't create pages, so it fails from time to time. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See #IP bot fails to archive — Lfdder (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:An#Possible_bot_malfunctioning.3F. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, closing then, thanks. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot trouble

10.4.1.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bot editing while logged out, which is not in conformity with WP:BOTACC. Administrative assistance in blocking the IP, and editorial assistance in identifying which bot this is would be appreciated. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Merging with the above: I was the third person to note this, you're fourth. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I just backed out the archiving at WP:AN3 before I saw this. I've left the others alone. I find the whole thing troubling. How many bots are archiving using this IP?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a few different IPs, User:10.4.1.65, User:10.4.1.102, User:10.4.1.125 and User:10.4.1.126. GB fan 02:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming this is still correct, possibly a fair few, as it seems to be an internal IP/proxy. In any case, the ones mentioned so far (the ones ending on .65, .102, .125 and .126) aren't quite the only ones. 10.4.1.34, 10.4.1.74, 10.4.1.127, 10.4.0.115 and 10.4.0.156 also all have had bot-edits-while-logged out in the past few hours. Probably a fair number of them in the same range that I haven't spotted yet showing the same issues. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Don't block any internal IP addresses as it will cause misdirected XFF blocks. Legoktm (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to stick an appropriately worded template on internal IPs in the 10.4.1.x range, if that's the range the bots inhabit. While I, to my own astonishment, recognized it as an internal IP, others might not have the same delusion of technical competency. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I saw "abusefilter-warning-spambot-allowed" in the edit summary when this bot tried to archive WP:COIN, but looking at the IP's edit history I could tell it was User:lowercase sigmabot III which normally archives that page. -- Atama頭 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, this was noted at least as early as 02:30 (UTC) yesterday - User:NeilN found that User:Legobot was editing whilst logged out, and I reported the same thing at 14:20. So it's a site-wide problem, not just one bot; maybe the WMF technical team need to take a look? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The best I could figure, at the very least DPL bot, one or more of the AIV Helperbots, Legobot, Lowercase Sigmabot III and Hot Articles Bot have or have had the issue in the past 24 or so hours, so yes, doesn't look bot-specific. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't know they were bots I would've sworn they were socking. I hope this is not a portend of things to come. In any case let's hope they are aware of the Three Laws of Robotics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Found another one cleaning the sandbox: 66.55.144.246. 174.26.246.240 (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrsud

Hi everyone. I'd be grateful if someone could have a word with Mrsud about his contributions in the last 24 hours. He has created IBook21.com three times, and it was deleted under CSD G11 each time (two of those deletions were also done under CSD A7). He has also been edit warring with me and Bonadea at List of social networking websites to add the iBook21 site. My message on his talk page didn't seem to get across, as he has since reverted again, so if someone else could have a try perhaps it could help him see that he's not going about things the right way. I've reverted him twice, so I don't want to take any administrative actions regarding him, and someone else might have more success anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mrsud_reported_by_User:JoeSperrazza_.28Result:_.29 JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mrsud didn't breach 3RR, Joe (you counted one non-revert diff), though he certainly did edit war, and there are obviously other problems too. I've posted a comment on the 3RR board, and also a somewhat stern question about possible COI on Mrsud's page. There's another now deleted page he created, BinPy, where the COI is obvious, as admins can see. I'd like to wait at least half a day for a reply; after that, I won't stand in the way if another admin wants to block. Note that Mrsud is a new user, not in Wiki age, but in contributions (less than 50 since he joined the site in 2012). Bishonen | talk 21:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC).

Thank you for that, Bishonen. Mrsud hasn't edited today, so it looks like we will have to wait to see if that worked. Fingers crossed... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User page redirect to apparent self promotion article

I'm an admin myself, but I'm new to this topic and wanted to watch someone else handle this so I can learn. User:Villainsdance has a redirect to Villains Dance which is also up for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains Dance. Sensing that the user page violates WP:G11 I put up a speedy tag on the user page... but it's a "user" page and can a "general" speedy apply to that? I think so because deleting the user page doesn't delete the user account... but then we may need to consider blocking the account as well. I've notifified the user on their talk page but I think this needs the attention of an admin with more experience than me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It was moved from the user space to the article space with the create redirect box checked. Ideally it should have been moved with it unchecked. Speedy deletion isn't really needed; just blank the page and explain why in the edit summary. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer the general question: yes, the G criteria are applicable everywhere on the project, including user pages. Using G11 on user pages is actually not all that uncommon; it seems that some people choose their account name for the purpose giving their spam-laden user page a more relevant title. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Users are told they need to create an account to create an article, so I imagine they assume the account name needs to be the article name. LFaraone 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't think non-admins even have that checkbox to avoid redirect creation, so the redirect isn't the user's fault. Huon (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

And if the name appears to represent a company, organisation or product, as in this case, it should be indeffed as spamusername. Daniel Case has done this one. The Easyblock script is your friend! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Huon's right, non-admins do not have that checkbox - which is bloody annoying. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Poepkop

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

---

Resolved

 – Sockpuppetry confirmed by checkuser for Golfballtruck and Big Menu 5 Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

He (or she) is continuously adding nonsense on Skeleton about a non-related matter, my revert summaries warned him (or her) about the mucking about and now I have no choice but to report him or her because the page stands vandalized[128]. --Golfballtruck (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I just reported this vandal to via my Twiki, just check the diffs of the Skeleton article, involving blanking of relevant materials including refs etc. . Thanks. Poepkop (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this has something more to do with just simple vandalism, User:Big Menu Board 5 added this and then User:Golfballtruck truck showed up to revert war. Interestingly enough the accounts were both created today. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not vandalism. This looks like edit warring with possible socks involved. Enigma^msg 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Big Menu Board 5 lol my thoughts exactly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the section in question is a copypaste of the "segmentation" section from the Arthropod article; I don't see how it's particularly relevant here, so I think Golfballtruck is in the right here; I've declined the AIV report accordingly. Poepkop, perhaps you should slow down on the Twinkle and make sure that what you're reverting is stuff that actually should be reverted? I don't think this is a question of socks; I think this is just a case of simple vandalism from BMB5, and then a case of mistaken intent after that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

They just admitted it on the SPI. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The vandal admitted it. Golfballtruck denied it. That might be grounds for a good hand/bad hand check, I suppose, but it's hardly conclusive. man, seems like everyone's jumping to conclusions today... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Was that a denial or a play on WP:DENY by GBT if you noticed that account is not being used at all at the moment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I found this on AIV. Golfballtruck reported Poepkop for vandalism. I can't say exactly what's going on with the new accounts, but it's fishy, and Golfballtruck's edits don't seem to be in good faith. Enigma^msg 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No, isn't that the other way around, I (Poepkop) reported Golfballtruck to AIV, from his contribs I cannot see he/she reported me anywhere except right here at ANI? Poepkop (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. Enigma^msg 21:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's what happened; it doesn't look like Golfballtruck has any contribs to AIV at all. I mean, if the CU comes back with a case of good hand/bad hand, that's one thing, but other than that, I don't see how Golfballtruck's contribs could be a sign of bad faith. They're getting increasingly agitated, but considering that (honestly mistaken) people keep reverting their efforts to keep vandalism out of the article, that's pretty understandable. His reversions to Skeleton were definitely good edits. Again, unless the SPI comes back positive, this looks like honest mistakes all around. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ehh Okay so what just happened? One person - possibly - having fun at eliciting edit wars or confusing antivandalists using 2 accounts, is that it? Anyway I stand corrected, to me the diff(s) looked like a piece of references-containing biological text randomly deleted from a larger biological text; I did not look further back through the History of Skeleton than CLuebot's correction - the adding back of the materials. And no, I never rolback before checking out the diff - in this case the "adder" chose a pretty similar-topic text. And given Golfballtruck's unfriendly edit comment like this one [129] I figured he/she be a vandal. Oh well. Poepkop (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Sock puppetry by an admin

I would like to report myself for making this edit from a single-purpose account. My motivation was:

1. To avoid being attacked by Eric's supporters
2. To avoid people complaining about how I work for the WMF and the WMF is trying to "police Wikipedia". Yes, I'm a software developer for the WMF, but I was made an en.wiki admin 5 years before being hired by the WMF and have been an active member of the en.wiki community for nearly 10 years. My work and principles as a volunteer are separate from my employment at the WMF, but that seems to be a difficult concept for some people to recon with.

Initially, I did not consider this edit sock puppetry as I was not involved in the interactions I was reporting, but simply wanted to report them anonymously. After talking with some other people, I've come to the conclusion that this was an incorrect assessment and my action was a violation of the sock puppetry policy, specifically "avoiding scrutiny". Since I have interacted with Eric in the past, and even once blocked his previous account, it's only fair that this past interaction be open to scrutiny when evaluating my report. No one has threatened to out me or take any negative action against me, but as an administrator I feel it is important that I hold myself to the same standard as I expect from everyone else. I apologize to everyone for violating this policy and I apologize to Eric for not being forthright in my interactions with him. Also, I apparently misread Eric's comment to Bencherlite, so I apologize for that as well.

Clearly, I have strong feelings about civility on Wikipedia and these feelings have caused me to act in a manner unbecoming of an administrator. In light of that, I hereby resign my administrator rights. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your very principled stand. Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• What complete rubbish! You had no fears of attack from Eric's supporters here [130] and continuing to justify your atrocious attack. It's quite obvious that you have been rightly checkusered and have chosen to go before you're pushed; doubtless thinking that will make for an easier return. The whole case was a disgrace to avoid the bad timing of negative publicity for the first officially paid Wikipedian [131],which woudl have been very embarassing for those supporting paid Wikipedians. You just added to the whole hypocrisy and deceit surrounding that case. Giano (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to confirm, Kaldari's admin rights were removed this morning and the SPA User:Vox Brevis was blocked indefinitely a couple of days ago. WaggersTALK 09:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Before this is hurriedly archived, I do have a few very petinent questions for Kaldari: Your sock account was blocked almost three days ago [132]; why has it taken so long to come to this 'honourable' decision? Secondly, you are an employee of the WMF; were you socking from a WMF computer, if not - from where the edit was made during business hours? and thirdly, how do your colleagues at WMF feel about one of their own being investigated for abusive socking, especially as that sock was smearing an editor who had already been insulted by one of its former employees/interns. I would like to hear the answers to these questions. Giano (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Aww, how cute. You're playing at being an attack dog. And by virtue of that, you're only proving Kaldari right. Resolute 14:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Resolute, you might want to think about that for a minute. The sock was obviously an experienced user using deceptive socking to focus attention (whether or not appropriately) on someone whose edits he had been following - and in at least one case misinterpreting. Checkuser is standard in those cases. A lot of other people's information got caught up in those checks; Giano isn't the one who brought the WMF into this. But make no mistake, this was nailed down three ways to Sunday by standard CU investigation. What does the community usually do if experienced editors use socks in this way? Full disclosure, Kaldari and I spoke yesterday before he posted this statement, and part of that discussion was weighing the risks and benefits of resignation of administrator tools against the inevitable request for arbitration. I agree that his admin resignation was a better result for everyone involved (especially the community) than a long, drawn-out and nasty Arbcom case would have been. Risker (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit. That is the fair result based on what Kaldari did. But at some point Arbcom is going to have to start looking at things like why. And despite Giano's hilarious protestation, there is validity in Kaldari's stated reasoning. I think we both know that Giano and his ilk aren't happy that Kaldari resigned, because it took away part of another opportunity to harass their enemies. They will just find another avenue, however. Resolute 15:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hold on. What you're saying is that it's okay to sock on this noticeboard if one is worried someone might question the motivation for the report. But the inability to examine motivation and history is exactly the reason that our socking policy forbids such use of alternate accounts. And I think you might be missing something I've said obliquely in my prior comment. Risker (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• What part of "I think Kaldari did the right thing by handing over the bit" means "I think it is okay to sock" to you? I'm not defending the socking. But if you don't think there is a legitimate concern over harassment and attacks for daring to question these users, I really don't know what to say. Certainly members of the current Arbcom share that fear given the kid gloves treatment; One that dared stand up to them ended up eating a barrage of misogynistic attacks for her trouble. Kaldari was wrong in their actions, but at some point, you might want to take a serious look at the why, especially their first reason. Resolute 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if anyone would argue, but is there an official statment anywhere this is "under a cloud"?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That particular "offical" statement would be best at the 'crats noticeboard IMHO. Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Good point Pedro, I've reposted my question in the thread on that board.-Cube lurker (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An "attack dog" is just a personal insult, and I am sad to see it raised here, but the points raised by Giano are pertinent. It is an issue of bringing an institution into disrepute by actions that have caused grief for more than one person in the past.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And we have another sock tagging this sock. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the account and a sleeper. Not sure what skin they have in the game but judging by previous account contributions they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To be an administrator means to be targeted for attack by certain people. This isn't a "have pity on the poor admins" statement; to the contrary, administrators use the tools knowing that they're going to be subject to harassment from people on occasion (sometimes relentlessly). It comes with the territory. If at some point an administrator feels that they need to use deception or some other means to deflect retaliation in the course of performing the administration role, rather than taking those steps (like creating an undisclosed sock account) they should consider whether or not they should resign the bit. The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps. -- Atama頭 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this course of action you describe would certainly be gaming the system to retain, after a break, one's admin status. If discovered, it should certainly result in a removal of tools, just as has happened in this case. This is because it shows a distinct lack of desirable qualities and morality, and a distinct excess of deceit that would render that person unsuitable to be an admin, in my opinion.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I don't think Atama was saying what you were suggesting - I see no suggestion to pick the tools back up in what Atama said. However, even if that were what was implied, I would think, instead, that it would be thought of as "taking a well-deserved break", and encouraged. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"Under a cloud", in Wikipedia-speak, is solely a way of saying you have to go through another RfA to be resysopped, so presumably there was an implication of picking the tools back up.

ddstretch, I think you misunderstood: Atama was suggesting resigning as a wise alternative to socking, not something to be done in conjunction with it. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Emufarmers: I agree with your comment about the implication. As for your suggestion of a misunderstanding by me, I can explain my reasoning as follows: What Atama wrote was "The best thing for Kaldari to have done would have been to resign the bit before taking any of these controversial actions, as doing so would have prevented disruption and would not have involved giving up the tools under a cloud. I'm just making this suggestion in case another administrator feels tempted to take similar steps." Amongst the controversial actions Kaldari did was undoubtably and clearly creating a disruptive SPA sock from which an attack was mounted against Eric Corbett which contained errors of fact amongst other undesirable accusations. So, Atama seeems to be suggesting that it would be acceptable to resign the admin bit so as not to be under a cloud before taking the actions that Kaldari did (creating a disruptive SPA account). If we consider this as a "thought experiment", then taken together with the tactic of resigning not under a cloud, if this disruptive SPA account was not detected, then they would certainly be apparently free to take up the tools again. It is this which is the attempt to game the system that I was objecting to, because it would have evaded correct action that should be taken here. This should be detectable and counteracted because it automatically, in my opinion would provide sufficient evidence to deny the former administrator the tools ever again. Now, may be I have misunderstood what Atama wrote, in which case, I must apologize, but I certainly would not think that the actions could be described as "a well-deserved rest", and even less "encouraged", if looked at in its entirity.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if an administrator feels that they need to use sockpuppets or do something else to avoid scrutiny because of the added pressure and attention that they receive from being an administrator, just give up the tools. I'm not saying to give up the tools, and cause disruption. I'm also not just saying that so that an administrator can come back and ask for the tools again, because anyone who has given up the tools because of the stress that comes with them would have to think very hard about whether or not they want to deal with being an admin again. No need to apologize for misunderstanding me, I apologize for not being clear enough originally. -- Atama頭 20:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest archiving this discussion. Whatever everybody involved has done, Kaldari is down now, and should be treated with understanding. Please don't kick a man when he's down.76.126.140.150 (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation; I hope the WMF are taking this breach of trust, using its own computers, seriously. I have always refused to identify to the foundation because of just such a employee have access to private and sensitive records. Quite frankly this is just not acceptable and only confirms my view. What steps are being taken to prevent another breach of trust. Giano (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Giano, first, your question is predicated on a misunderstanding: Mr. Kaldari had no such access to private or sensitive records about volunteer identity. In fact, such records do not exist. We've made it very clear that we destroy documents submitted for identity verification once that's done, so no such files exist for him to access. The Wikimedia Foundation takes this circumstance extremely seriously. I don't know that your statement "using its own computers" is true - I also do not know that it is not. I see, above, where you asked that question, but I do not see a response, so I would urge you to be careful about presenting it as fact. As to your question regarding breach of trust, I'll be happy to carry any suggestions forward on your behalf. I believe that it's too soon for us to come to a knee jerk statement about changes to policies or steps to be taken; I'm the wrong person to speak to that regardless. It sounds like a question better suited for our executives - probably Gayle Karen Young, the Chief Talent and Culture Officer. It's rather outside of my purview and I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment or commit the Foundation to anything there. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation: You destroy documents that if ever there was serious legal problem would have to be used in a court of law? How extraordinary. Anyway, destroyed or not, there is word of mouth from those that have seen sensitive material. Are you seriously suggesting that unlike all other offices in the world, the WMF does not have at least one very large mouth. This is just not acceptable, is this person still in WMF's employ? Giano (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• With certain well-defined exceptions, there is no requirement for any individual or organization to retain information just because it might be used in some future lawsuit or criminal case. You can't delete things once you know about the legal action, but having and following a data-retention policy is allowed. One of Philippe's jobs (along with the entire legal team) is to figure out what information we need to retain and how long to retain it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, let's kick. Dishonesty needs to be dealt with. Admitting it (in odd circumstances) is mitigation, not absolution. 3 month block. 6 months if it's member of WMF. If it interferes with their day job - tough. Been more than enough mischief caused by WMF Admins. Leaky Caldron 18:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why does this person work for the WMF? This isn't the first wiki that Kaldari has created a sockfarm on either, see en.wikiquote. I say get the WMF to cease paying them, and remove any advanced permissions, since they obviously can't be trusted with them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ajraddatz: I think you have them confused with Kalki... --Rschen7754 19:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • That I did, sorry. Rather similar usernames O_o. Still, a block would seem appropriate here, as would firing them from the WMF. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
• Kaldari should be blocked, pure and simple. Resigning their admin status a few days after deliberately creating a disruptive sockpuppet should not change that - at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Can you show evidence of ongoing disruption or the threat of it? Resolute 20:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Standard procedure is to temporarily block anyone who deliberately games the system via a sockpuppet. That this person was originally an admin, and took the coward's route out, should not make the slightest bit of difference. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that a block serves a useful purpose here other than being a ritualistic "he socked, therefore he should be blocked". Unlike some others, Kaldari has recognized the problems with his actions, and has taken steps to mitigate them. He has self-reported. He has apologized (which is more than can be said for many others who have walked this path before). He has taken steps to eliminate the need for an extensive and caustic arbcom case. I see more value in encouraging Kaldari to restrict his participation to more circumscribed areas of the project (some interesting but not very controversial topics would be a good place, for example, or doing copy editing or AWB or AFC reviews); after an error in judgment like this, it's important for everyone to take a step back. Risker (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Risker. A block would just be an expression of unhealthy excitement IMO. Would it help the encyclopedia? No. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC).

HE brought the issue to AN/I on his own initiative, acknowledged his mistake and resigned as an admin. I think that is a fair punishment for creating a sock account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's rather naive. The course of events is that he was caught by a checkuser and decided in consultation with others a few days later that this would be his least damaging course of action. So let's hear no more talk of a "principled stand". But having said that I don't see what good blocking him would do, even though he's blocked me for less. Eric Corbett 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

This is possibly one of the bigger "facepalm" acts I've seen in a while (well, that someone has owned up to). Agree that blocking pointless at this juncture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've very recently become aware that Kaldari operates this rather unwholesome site, which is rich given the recent events in which he took part. What was that about "principled stand" again? Eric Corbett 22:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone signed up to take a look? Is it what it says it is?? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's worse. Wikipediocracy has it. I dropped the link here earlier, but someone deleted it. It's as bad as you think it is. I'm disgusted. [133] Hell might be other people (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it is it makes his original complaint about Eric in the Kevin Gorman case look more than a tad hypocritical. Leaky Caldron 23:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It is and it does. And it doesn't seem like an appropriate activity for an employee of the WMF. So what are they going to do about it, having recently sacked Sarah Stierch for paid editing? Eric Corbett 23:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps creating a website that mocks and belittles the brutal, real-life rape and murder of a 6-year old girl is not against the WMF's T&C of employment? It ought to be, of course. Either way, they can fucking whistle up their arses for any more donations from me: I'm not paying his fucking wages any more. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What this episode and others like it has shown is that the WMF carry out no checks at all on their future employees, they just have to be friends of friends. Doesn't seem like a good way to run a top-ten web site. And true to form Jimmy Wales is nowhere to be seen. Eric Corbett 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, Jimmy Wales is exactly where everyone knows they can expect to see him. Why fault him for granting deference to the community noticeboards, or expecting that if one wanted his opinion, one would feel welcome to ask?—John Cline (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I see below that he has been notified; I suspect he will answer – and I've only just learned of snuffster, which precludes my ability to support Kaldari or rationally discuss this matter further.—John Cline (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Time for a block?

Is there any real argument against blocking, really? Do you really need to consult the endless WP:* arcana of rules and essays and policies to tell you that this is an a) deceptive and b) disgusting human being that no one in their right mind should wish to be associated with? I realize this runs counter to the hipster/libertarian streak that permeates much of this websites these days, one that loathes to ban people just because they believe in or advocate distasteful thing. But seriously, a WMF staffer masquerading socks and operating a faux snuff site has to be a scale-tipper here. Tarc (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's not very often that I would publicly call for someone to resign or to be fired, but I feel this has to happen here; Kaldari's position is now untenable. Talk about falling on your own sword in spectacular style. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• I totally agree this is some of the most offensive stuff I have ever seen, considering I survived a fucking suicide attempt back in October and I'm dealing with a mother who might die any day now. Anyone who takes death as some kind of pleasure and entertainment should be banned from Wikipedia and let the foundation deal with it. Secret ^account 00:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The site appears to be a parody / art project, not associated with actual deaths. Are we seriously going to try and use that as an excuse? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• JonBenét Ramsey is an, quote, "actual death." Go set up an arty-farty "parody / art project" about that in Boulder, Colorado and see what happens. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Jon Benet Ramsey page shows four photos which are various modeling photos of her, nothing to do with her murder or body. It is in poor taste, but does not depict any violence. We ALSO have no way of knowing who signed up with that profile; I believe everyone who's looked at the site had to sign up, correct? So you understand that it could be anyone's posting of material there, not Ryan's? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Squirm all you like in defense of kaldari. Your premise has been proven false. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
• He hosts the site, pays for registration fees, approved the user login who is listed as a friend. It's beyond sickening. It's worse that you're defending the indefensible because of misplaced loyalties. If he were not employed by the WMF, this would already by a ban. Hell might be other people (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Really? I saw much more real blood and wounds at the last Folsom Street Fair than on that whole website. Frankly I am not sure there were any wounds depicted on the whole site that had more damage than the two IV lines I had inserted while in the Emergency Room last Monday. While in poor taste, this is absolutely tame compared to any real blood/gore sites. The idea that anyone who participated in a parody this tame would need banning from Wikipedia is ludicrous and absurd. I certainly am not going to praise him for it, but he's put it behind a sign-up wall, it seems all fake (as opposed to any number of non-protected sites with real bodies, body parts, etc), and is obviously self-posted parody by most of the members. Get a grip. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Don't turn up to a gunfight with a knife, hombre. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's very similar to some of the material hosted at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which various well-known Wikipedia editors and functionaries are or have been involved with. (Whether that makes it "OK" or not is another thing.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be accused of being a shithell etc, discussing blocking here is, of course, acceptable but behaviour related to Kaldari's employment isn't (simply because this simply isn't the correct venue). I would ask that this be raised with the Wikimedia Foundation through the proper channels: Maggie Dennis the community advocate, the three community representatives on the Foundation, SJ, Phoebe and Raystorm, and of course, Jimbo Wales. ANI and the administrative corps of this site, well, we're completely unable to do anything about the behaviour concerns relating to employment. All we can do is block Kaldari's own account or instate a ban against the user's own account, if that is the wish of the community. Nick (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've notified Jimbo's talk page, but we have every right to discuss Kaldari's future; people who donate to the WMF pay his wages. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've pinged Jimmy to try and attract his attention. I've no issues with you discussing it at all, just that this page really isn't the correct venue (you might be better off discussing employment related concerns about their editing behaviour their extra curricular behaviour somewhere on Meta) and we are unable to take any administrative action other than blocking Kaldari's personal account. Nick (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's own policy on socks such a blatant abuse of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny, disruptively edit, deceive the community and pose as an uninvolved editor, is deserving of a ban. Per Wikipedia's own policy on kiddie fiddlers I would report any concerns I might have about any user's obsessions with dead-kid-porn to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. As should anyone else. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• A single edit under an an undeclared alternative account when not used to carry out an administrative action or make an abusive edit is not reason to block anybody. I would not even have argued that it is adequate rational for a de-sysop after the explanation given. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• You are free to interpret policy ("The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects, as well as the (potential) public exposure of any "real-world" activities or personal information deemed relevant to preventing future sock puppetry or certain other abuses") however you want in order to defend one of your own. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user Redmen44 deleting unblock request comments

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

---

Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently blocked for edit warring, has removed twice[134][135] another editor's comments regarding their current unblock request at User talk:Redmen44 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs). Community discussion in unblock requests is common. Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#What_happens_when_you_request_unblock says "Often you will find more than one user commenting on your block, or a mini-discussion happening". This discussion cannot happen if a user insists on removing these comments. I was bold and also modified Wikipedia:User pages‎ to close this apparent loophole.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed (and denied) the editor's latest unblock request and left a comment regarding the removal of those comments and, indeed, his earlier warnings (since in his first unblock request he claimed he stopped edit warring after the first warning). WaggersTALK 09:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Balochi tamur & Thbaluch

The users Thbaluch and Balochi tamur (perhaps a pair of socks) keeps removing a blpPROD-tag from Dr Haneef Shareef. Balochi tamur also tries to bribe multiple users (me included) with barnstars and such things for removing the PROD-tag from the article. I will not revert any of the users agin, because I think I have already passed the 3RR. (Block me as you see fit!)

I am requsting assistance! (t) Josve05a (c) 08:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Josve05a:

"You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

- I think that's pretty clear. There's nothing wrong with removing a PROD tag. There's a lot wrong with replacing a removed PROD tag. If you're still convinced an article should be deleted after a PROD tag has been removed, take it to WP:AFD. WaggersTALK 08:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just note that Balochi tamur, presumably trying to make a childish point, PRODded the obviously notable Veena Malik after that. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that Josve05a was attempting to use a "sticky prod" as described at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. In the case of "biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, without any sources (reliable or unreliable) or links to support the claims made in the article may be proposed for deletion and will be deleted unless at least one reliable source is added." When this process is used, the sticky prod may not be removed unless a reliable source is added. Josve05a actually didn't use the {{Prod blp/dated}} (i.e. sticky prod) tag so it wasn't a "blpPROD", just a normal PROD and of course it was declined. For reference, however, the article did contain sources/external links at the time of the proposed deletion and even unreliable ones like those preclude the placing of {{Prod blp/dated}}. --RexxS (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I need to correct myself. User:Smsarmad quite properly placed the original {{Proposed deletion}} tag. Josve05a incorrectly restored it, apparently thinking it was a {{Prod blp/dated}}. --RexxS (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

But the reason is this that this article is completely correct but Josve05a is inserting blpPROD-tag,why?

article had clear great external links,imdb links are link to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thbaluch (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the deal: the article has already been tagged with a PROD tag, and so such a tag cannot be reinstated (I'll be removing the current one in a moment). A BLPPROD would also be inappropriate, as the article does (at the time of writing) contain two sources - they aren't sufficient to establish notability, but they are present in the article. The appropriate action for those who feel the article should be deleted woudl be to perform a check for more suitable sources and then, if none are forthcoming, start an AFD discussion. I'll do this myself in a few moments. No-one's at fault here - Josve05 was only trying to put the BLP policy into action. There's no need for further disputation on this noticeboard, although I'll log a note here if I do find it necessary to file an AFD. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:11 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Sorry if we did mistake,again we will not do it,i love wikipedia,and i am creating good and real articles.

Please don't delete other users' comments. I have proposed the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Haneef Shareef, having found no sources that would make him suitable for an article here. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for that again we will not remove,but my article Dr Haneef Shareef is completely correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 12:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome to make a case for the article at the AFD discussion, but please read Contributing to AfD discussions first. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge my error by replacing the tag, and for that I'm truly sorry. I also appricate all the help in this matter. But one thing remain, as I mentioned in my first post above, the question must be asked. Are the users socks? Same writing styles, non of them signes their posts, simiular editing style etc. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries, we all make cock-ups sometimes. As to the socking... mmm, I have my doubts. The Haneef Shareef thing is the only time these editors have actually interacted, though the both have a number of edits to other articles, and their approaches and responses to the situation have been somewhat different. I think what we have here is two separate Balochstani editors who happen to both be interested in a particular page - if they were socks, I would have expected some actions by Thbaluch on some of Balochi Tamur's other articles relating to Shareef (most if not all of which are now up for deletion). The similar writing style is to be expected, given that neither of them has English as a first language, and the different spellings of Baloch/Baluch in their usernames suggest different systems of romanisation. If this came up at SPI I'd be hesitant to take any action, and so I'm inclined to AGF and give them the benefit of the doubt. If one is indeed a sock of the other, it will become evident in the future, but I doubt that that's the case. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Yunshui: How about Balochifilm? Recreated an article which Balochi tamur created which was deleted. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, that's a sock. Wary of blocking it myself due to a degree of WP:INVOLVED, but it's so obvious that an SPI would be a waste of time. If a passing admin would like to do the necessary, please? Yunshui 雲‍水 22:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: See thread below Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sorry_for_my_all_mistake_but_solve_my_articles_issues. CaptRik (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I originally deleted Saeed Shad per WP:CSD#G12. It was recreated by User:Balochi tamur. It was created by User:Balochifilm without the same copyright violation and has now been nominated for deletion. I've blocked Balochifilm indefinitely as a sock puppet and Balochi tamur for two weeks as the master. There may be independent bases for blocking Balochi tamur for longer. I haven't reviewed all of their edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by Empire of War

User talk:Empire of War has been reverting the article Forced adoption in Australia

See below (all times UTC)

• 07:06 7 Mar 2014
• 07:09 7 Mar 2014
• 13:06 7 Mar 2014
• 13:16 7 Mar 2014

These are clear reversion, but there are actually a number of edits in between that technically could be described as reverts, and certainly edit warring, but I have not bothered to provide those diffs since I think what I have here is enough.

I first reverted the user here, advising him to take it to the talk page, explaining here and here what was wrong with the article and why I had removed the excessive references at a single point in the lead (10 refs!) The next time I reverted I advised EoW that another revert would earn a trip here and advised EoW not to exceed 3RR in this article talk page post. EoW does not seem to understand how 3RR works and the edit summary to his last post makes it clear that he intends to continue reverting. Hence we are here. I recommend he receive a 24 hour block with escalating periods if he continues down the same path. - Nick Thorne ^talk 14:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Nick I followed all your advice and we settled it on the talk page where you told me my edit was okay but I shouldn't have so many references in the opening, which I took on HiLo48's advice. So whats the problem exactly?--Empire of War (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC) I have just reverted another edit by HiLo as he continues to stoke the flames by saying, "read the advice you were given". What advice? I've followed everything, and have asked repeatedly on what grounds do they have to revert my edit? Both HiLo and Nick Thorne have failed to answer me. I gave credible references but that apparently was not good enough for HiLo so I now suspect he is pushing a personal bias in the article.--Empire of War (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Empire of War and User:HiLo48 both blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Dpmuk (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have appealed my block and been unblocked, and I now have a simple question. I was never advised of the existence of this thread, and so was unable to even attempt to explain or defend my behaviour here. Was my block EVER valid? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN issues on WP:MOS-JA

Ryulong (talk · contribs) has been behaving very badly on this guideline page for a very long time and I'm not the first to notice it. You can look at the entire page history and see him liberally adding/removing material himself, but demanding that everyone else get "consensus" on the talk page first ("consensus", unfortunately, seems to mean permission from him despite the consent of everyone else[136][137]). I could cite legion examples of him opposing changes just for the sake of opposing them (not providing any other justification), but for me the breaking point was "Ah ah ah: you need my permission before you're even allowed touch this page; I on the other hand am allowed introduce radical changes on a whim". It might be worth noting that a currently still-open RM is affected by this, and while Ryulong appears not to agree with me on that RM he decided that radically altering the relevant guideline page would be more constructive than directly opposing the move. For good measure, he also decided to revenge-revert me on a completely unrelated article at the same time.[138] (His edit summary claimed to only be reverting a separate edit by a separate user three weeks earlier, but he chose to revert said edit hours after mine, and "accidentally" got my edit too.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have engaged in talk page discussion on all relevant issues. Reverting undiscussed changes to WP:MOS-JA, particularly in a recent case still somewhat under discussion on the guideline's talk page where another editor removed a large swath of the content with no preceding discussion, is not WP:OWN. If my rewriting of existant parts to be clearer in their intent without changing the meaning is improper, then I will accept that judgement. I have raised a question regarding the old wording and the new wording I implimented on the guideline's talk page. However, I believe that Hijiri88 is grasping at straws here with the remainder of his arguments.

His reference that I was "opposing changes just for the sake of opposing them" was in regards to Nanshu's arguments for changing the guideline that are peppered with ad hominem attacks towards me that still take up a good portion of the guideline's talk page. I have admitted that I refused to acknowledge his statements at first due to their excessive length and because he repeatedly called into question my intelligence, as well as a false assumption that I was the original author of the content that he so opposed. However, I have since acknowledged the arguments and put forth an alternative that appears to have acceptance by other parties. Hijiri88, on the other hand, has blatantly admitted he would oppose anything I've suggested simply because he believes I am violating WP:OWN, which is a definite WP:POINT threat.

And I did not "revenge revert" Hijiri88 at New Ishigaki Airport. I intended to revert Jpatokal's use of an improper romanization and I just went back several revisions because undo would not work. Either way, that reference that Hijiri88 removed seems useful, as it seems to be sourcing the fact that the unofficial name of the airport is in use.

I would gladly like to solve this issue amicably, but Hijiri88 has already made up his mind about me and I've no use in dealing with someone who refuses to assume good faith like this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You make an average of like 100 edits a day: why did it take you weeks to revert Jpatokal but you just happened to do so less than hours after I edited the page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

And again: I wanted to resolve this issue amicably (I think I even had the good faith to tell Ryulong my real name in an email a few months back), but after a full year Ryulong's position of "my changes don't need to be discussed, but everyone else's need not only to be discussed but to be approved by me" has only gotten worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't have New Ishigaki Airport watchlisted and didn't see the implimentation of "paï nu sïma" until yesterday. It may have been because I saw you edit the page through your contributions, but your deletion of a single ref tag really doesn't weigh much in the scope of things. And what does your fight with JoshuSasori have to do with this mess?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. That's why if you re-read my comments carefully and thoroughly you will find that I did not mention him once. You went back and read my e-mail to you, and published that particular piece of information from it. I would ask you not to publish anything else that was in that e-mail, or my aforementioned good faith will wear even thinner than it already has. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not like the JoshuSasori dispute is secret.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're trying to intimidate me by bringing up completely unrelated bullshit, it's not going to work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my all mistake but solve my articles issues

But why my all articles have issues?I deleted all copy rights and also i deleted these websites,so please my humble request to you admin make clear all issues,and delete these all tags and deletion nomination.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balochi tamur (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This thread is related to the above thread titled Balochi tamur & Thbaluch. -- SMS ^Talk 16:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Splitting Crimea article into different articles

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

---

I need an admin to intervene at Talk:Crimea. Sanctions are not necessary, just involvement.

Basically, there was a discussion to split into two different articles the information being hosted at Crimea about the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and the "Crimean peninsula". I performed a non-admin closure to retain Crimea as the article for the republic and restored the old article at Crimean peninsula as a standalone article (since it was a redirect at the time with a rich history).

After placing Crimean peninsula as a stand alone article, another user requested that we renamed Crimean peninsula to Crimea while Crimea is renamed to Autonomous Republic of Crimea simultaneously (of which we are having a discussion right now). However, as discussion was ongoing another user reverted Crimean peninsula back to a redirect and we now have two separate distinct discussions going on at Talk:Crimea: one on whether we should split the article, and another on what do we do with the article titles.

Everyone involved is acting in good faith so I'm requesting simply involvement from an admin to fix this mess rather than impose sanctions.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have some time to help in this matter. But to be clear, here's what I read from the above:

• You want Crimean peninsula to be this version: [139]?
• You want Crimea to be this version: [140]?
• What do you want with Autonomous Republic of Crimea?

-- Fuzheado | Talk 18:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, this is what I would like:

1. Crimean peninsula restored to this version: [141] (like you mentioned)
2. Crimea to be left as is (nothing needs to be fixed here)
3. Autonomous Republic of Crimea to be left as a redirect to Crimea (as it is right now, nothing needs to be fixed)
4. To close Talk:Crimea#Split proposal (since consensus is to split the article)

HTH,

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, the actions performed by User:FutureTrillionaire seem better. That way we will have a thorough discussion about the split. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Reporting an administrator

Commons matter, not relevant to English Wikipedia

After being accused by administrators Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) here Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 for being already engaged in known license laundering, I requested explanation on his User talk:Magog the Ogre and leave the following message: To accuse someone of license laundering is a serious matter. I find photos with appropriate license(CC BY-SA 3.0) and then upload them, no more no less ! I do not contest the images validity but if someone have to be accused of License laundering address your concern and warning to the panoramio and flick users not me! I did not find any rules that said that prior to upload a file with a valid license(CC BY-SA 3.0), I must go through extensive research. If I am wrong prove it, otherwise review your wording as I find it extremely offensive, totally unjustified especially when it comes from an administrators who obviously do not respect one fundamental: USER GOOD FAITH ! Fredtham59 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Then surprise. Administrator Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron make a clear threat: The above user is apparently trying really hard to get blocked for license laundering. This is a serious breach of WP:ADMIN Wikipedia:Civility WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL conduct. Furthermore : Commons:License laundering make it clear that license laundering is not my fault since such uploads may evade detection as copyright, since the source website appears to provide "evidence" for the license. I do not contest license laundering I contest of being wrongly accused of license laundering. I also tried my best to explain why I have reason to not suspect "license laundering" prior to upload the files hereCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fredtham59 following an invitation on my talk page. Administrator are expected to be fair, exercise good judgment. Visibly we do not have the same concept of "Fairness" Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others WP:NOTPERFECT. Does the treat he made should be regarded as respectful and civil ? Harassment"Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats". Are administrators above wikipedia policy ? Although I do not care on the photo outcome, since the administrator leave the treat message on a user talk page involved with the dispute resolution, there is a clear COIWP:CONFLICTand WP:NPOV for both users Magog the Ogre here User talk:Marcus Cyron within the consensus-forming process. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia but that right is denied, before I can explain myself I am already labeled as guilty of license laundering. WP:ADMINABUSE I did follow the procedure by leaving a message on his talk page, he had time to make treat on other user talk page but can't respond to my polite request.Administrator are expected to give explanations and be communicative as necessary Wikipedia:Administrators. It seems that this administrator have little concern with that. I am not asking much: My right to participate to the dispute resolution without treat of being banned. Be fairly treated, unless an other administrator will make the final decision, I have good reason it will not be the case. Reword template and conversation that said "This user" by " the photos author" Formal apologize from the administrator. Best Regards Fredtham59 (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC) @Fredtham59: I can't seem to find the discussions you're talking about. Are you sure they aren't occurring on Commons, rather than here on the English Wikipedia? If they are on Commons, you'll have to take it up on Commons directly; we can't do anything here about the behavior of editors on other projects. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Ok thanks and my sincere apologize for this mistake Fredtham59 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User removing Speedy Deletion Template on page they created

User:Kamie256 has repeatedly removed a speedy deletion template from Kamie Jimmie King, a page they created. The page does not seem to meet the guidelines for notability and is ridden with poor grammar, external links, and badly formatted references. Evidence of the removals can be found here, here, here, and here. Also, judging by the user name, and the fact that they have only edited that page, they may be attempting to create an autobiography. G S Palmer (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the article, it was an odd mix where the creator was taking pains to promote the subject yet at the same time failing to assert the subject's importance. I agree that it was likely an autobiography due to the preponderance of candid images and the unlikelihood that the subject is well-known enough for someone unconnected to him to be inspired to write it. -- Atama頭 20:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I also deleted the redirect (the article had been moved from its initial name). I'm normally pretty forgiving about A7 criteria, because it's a pretty low bar to clear, but this was not enough even for me. -- Atama頭 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles

To whom this may concern,

I apologize to have to bring this incident to your attention, but while I was doing some edits on behalf of WP:MDP, I found that Talking bird was listed on the page. Before I did any substantial edits to that page, or related pages, I noticed that there was a dispute happening in regards to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Talking bird". Since I was not one to boldly determine this term's primary topic, the only edits I did for the time being were cleaning up the disambiguation page A and editing a few hatnotes due to no primary topic being established B, C, and D (revert of my hatnote edit due to what I am about to state.)

The reason I performed the edit in diff "C" was due to JHunterJ reverting the non-consensus based move from Talking bird to Talking bird (mimic) - E. The original non-consensus move was performed by CYl7EPTEMA777 - F. This move was performed without consensus, and there is currently a related discussion on Talk:Talking Bird (mimic) that has yet to conclude. In addition, there is currently an AfD discussion for Talking bird (cognition) happening.

Even with all of these events happening right now, mainly in regards to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, CYl7EPTEMA777 has been performing a series of disruptive edits on Talking bird, Talking bird (disambiguation), and Talking bird (mimic). In a situation such as this, I am aware that the standard procedure is to kindly inform the editor of the disruptive editing on their talk page. However, this editor went out of their way to "threaten me with an "unlimited block" on my talk page", as shown in the following diff: G, and then seemingly seemed to mention/threaten other users with a block in the next diff: H. So that all editors' names in that diff are listed, here they are: DrChrissy, Johnuniq, Kurt Shaped Box, Boomur, Epipelagic, and Dbrodbeck.

After reviewing the conversation on Talk:Talking bird (mimic), it looks like CYl7EPTEMA777 has threatened a block at least once already. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that CYl7EPTEMA777 also has problems understanding Wikipedia copyright policy - for example the paragraph entitled 'Aimee Morgana' here [142] is a direct copy-paste from the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[143]

(after edit conflict) CYl7EPTEMA777 has threatened to get people banned in the past for little to nothing. I told him to knock it off at least once. See Talk:Talking_bird_(mimic)#mimic_vs_utter_in_lead_sentence for the background to this. As far as I know, English is his second language, and I suspect that there have been communication issues here. Also of relevance is an IP editor who has issues with User:DrChrissy in the past (not sure of the full details) posting on CYl7EPTEMA777's talkpage with allegations about DrChrissy's 'gang' of POV/COI-pushers - which CYl7EPTEMA777 appears to have accepted and run with, I think leading him to believe that every editor not with him on the issue of talking bird cognition must be working against him in a coordinated manner. Hence the list of names posted on Steel1943's page tonight... For the record, I am not a member of DrChrissy's gang - should any such gang in fact exist, or otherwise. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no gang....Honestly! Please can we drop any reference to this complete falsehood or the IP hopping Troll will pop up again creating work for us all. ...and I for one am on the verge of leaving wikipedia bcause of the sustained and unwarranted attention.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In response to Kurt Shaped Box's very peculiar assertion, I would like to counter-assert that, for the record, I am not a member of Kurt Shaped Box's gang - should any such gang in fact exist, or otherwise. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I returned the Talking bird (mimic) article to the base name again, and move-protected it for 2 weeks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CYl7EPTEMA777 has been causing a large number of problems at a few articles. He/She has a poor grasp of English (see [144] for example). This editor has accused a number of editors of being sock puppets of each other, with no evidence [145] for example, oh and in that same edit he or she has edited another user's comments on an AFD. He or she has used non helpful or descriptive edit summaries such as [146]. There is a complete lack of civility (the user continually calls user DrChrissy 'DogChrissy' which stokes me as uncivil [147], or see [148]. I propose an indefinite block, there is an issue of WP:COMPETENCE and this editor is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, user DrChrissy was also threatened with "unlimited ban" by CYl7EPTEMA777 [149]. Additionally, Johnuniq was individually accused of sock-puppetry on an earlier occasion [150]. CYl7EPTEMA777 admitted that their English was too poor to write a full article alone [151], but ignored advice from other users after writing up a draft in their sandbox, which they went on to publish. Also, having been accused of being in cahoots with DrChrissy and other editors, I would like to go on record saying I have had no contact with the other editors involved with the exception of our discussion on public talk pages related to the Talking bird dispute. It's not really clear to me what CYl7EPTEMA777's intentions are, but regardless of whether or not they are trying to be constructive, they do not seem willing to cooperate with other editors. ~ Boomur [☎] 23:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of my actions

I blocked User:HiLo48 for edit warring at Forced adoption in Australia. The original report on this is at #Edit warring by Empire of War. Although they've now been unblocked, they've complained to me on their user page and seem, to me at least, really quite unhappy with my actions. As I'm still relatively new at being an admin and they've been around a long tine I'm asking for a review to see if my actions were reasonable so I can possibly do things different in future. Dpmuk (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)