Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Black Kite (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 4 April 2014 (→‎User:Nicolescherzingerfan removing/changing material without explanations: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion



    Post RfC actions of Dr.K, Collect, Moxy and myself

    I'm requesting input from the community on whether the (post-RfC) actions taken by Collect, Moxy, Dr.K. and myself were appropriate in light of the results of a recent RfC on the Justin Bieber article. Long story short, I feel that they are deleting information which during the RfC was actually supported for inclusion by a majority of the participants (if you count). I find Dr.K's behaviour in particular to be offensive because he did not participate in any of the RfC's two surveys, and only after the RfC is closed, he starts removing information which only 25% of editors supported deleting. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the long story
    • We have been involved in a content dispute in the Bieber article that started from late January. Essentially, I wish to add content to the article on Bieber's run-ins with the law, and Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. were all in opposition. As a result of our actions (and those of other editors as well), the article was locked from a month from February 10, and an RfC was created by Moxy, and concluded slightly over a month later.
    • At first within the RfC, a General survey was created. All were informed, and Moxy, Collect and I voted. Dr.K. did not vote. Instead Dr.K. took to the threaded discussion section to say that we should clarify this RfC as to the exact incidents which should remain in the BLP ... We should itemise the questions according to each incident.
    • So I took Dr.K's advice, created a point-by-point survey for the RfC, and informed all who had earlier participated in the RfC, including Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. Another response section was created for the second survey.
    • For the second survey, I myself responded with reference to individual points. However, Collect and Moxy made no attempt to address individual points. Collect in particular seemed unwilling to contribute further, saying Sorry -- this is not how discussions normally occur for BLPs and I decline to play a game here ... Cheers -- but do not expect me to contribute to the "wall of text" discussion now or ever. Meanwhile, Dr.K. did not participate in the point-by-point survey he originally helped to propose.
    • Because this was my first RfC, I was unaware of the proper procedure of how RfCs were to be closed. So after one month of the open RfC with discussion having died down for a while, I attempted to round up the discussion.
    • Still, I believe that my conclusion was valid. From the general survey, those who outright opposed addition of the content (5 including Collect and Moxy) were outnumbered by the rest (12- made of 7 who said include most and 5 who focused on including legal issues). But for those who participated in the second point-by-point survey (eight editors), out of the 15 points, only 4 points received more than 25% opposition (2/8), these being points 7, 11, 13 and 14.
    • So after being informed that I shouldn't be closing the RfC, I learnt the proper procedure and requested for an uninvolved editor to close it, and it was closed by Gaijin42 who said that there is consensus for inclusion of the information in some form ... In regards to specific points (1-15) for most of them there is not enough feedback to determine a consensus, but I will say that there is NOT a consensus to NOT include ... #7 and #13 appear to have the closest thing to consensus for non inclusion ... there is a consensus that these incidents are forming a larger portion of Bieber's reputation and notability.
    • With the closure of the RfC, I updated the content in the article, removing #13 and trimming #7. Pretty quickly Moxy jumped back in to remove #15 saying Was there consensus for this BS stuff here? ... this page is Turing into a kids tabloid, and I reverted. Note that in the point-by-point survey #15 was only 2/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 1/8 once reliable source found, which was found. After that Collect went on to delete #14 (4/8 not in favour of inclusion -> 3/8 once reliable source found) and #15 also saying it was trivia of ephemeral significance. So Collect and Moxy didn't bother to vote properly in the point-by-point survey, and now they're removing points as they see fit over a majority opinion?
    • But those weren't the worst actions in my opinion. Dr.K. went on to perform some Assorted removals from the legal issues, removing or trimming points 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7. You can count for points 2, 3, 4 and 5, no more than 2/8 of the 8 editors who bothered to vote properly in the point-by-point survey (not Collect, Moxy nor Dr.K.) opposed points 2, 3, 4 and 5. So Dr.K. seemingly ignores the RfC and does what he sees fit, after not even voting in the RfC.
    • Here's what Dr.K. had to say for himself. I did not participate in the RFC or the subsequent discussion trusting that a resolution could be arrived at, since so many people were discussing these points. But it appears that very little progress has happened. / I just can't believe the editorial judgement which allowed this fluff to creep into this article. Well if so maybe you should have participated in the RfC and voiced your concerns while it was still open!
    • Gaijin42 later elaborated that Its an open issue that may be discussed further ... I do not see a policy based reason for exclusion - it received wide coverage in very reliable sources. this is the type of thing that needs to be resolved via editorial consensus and discretion.' - if so, how come Collect, Moxy and Dr.K. are all employing the "remove first" and "discuss later" policy? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]



    Note Content inclusion in a BLP which is clearly deemed contentious requires a positive consensus - at this point only one editor seems to be asserting that such incidents must be placed in the BLP. As for his insistence that editors must "vote" on his point-by-point wall of text, that is just absurd. As for me calling his posts "wall of text" I invite anyone here to look at the length and number of his contributions and argumentation on the BLP talk page. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP are clear on this, and this forumshopping excursion does not belong at AN/I at all. [1] shows the edit at issue now -- noting that it gives much space to a "White House petition" which was deemed of no value except by basically a single editor, [2] is the talk page discussion thereon. Gaijin, the closer of the RfC, specified that the material requires editorial consensus. One and only one editor says no consensus is needed for the trivia - and I suggest he may be in for a rude awakening regarding his one-man-consensus here, and the tendentious editing thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The point-by-point survey came about due to a call for clarification so that there could be progress. I think it's just lazy that you didn't bother to offer a point-by-point reply. The petition was discussed in the RfC as well, and there were other supporters, although it was certainly contested. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps part of the problem here is confusion among some editors about policy. One would think that BLP policy would all be located at WP:BLP, but there seems to be an important BLP policy that is spelled out at WP:Consensus and not at WP:BLP: "However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Perhaps this quote might answer the current dispute?Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, since that bit has been part of WP:CON for a long time (june '12) [3] it seems there is a decent consensus for that interpretation of consensus. I'd support adding it into BLP and seeing what happens. Regarding my close - clearly there was support for inclusion of the general topic of Bieber's scandals and how they are affecting his image, but the individual points were not widely !voted on (with the exception of 2 that had consensus to be removed). The lack of response on those other points brings up WP:SILENCE but as all of them involved contentious BLP (and some of themBLP that wasn't even about Bieber) it raises the bar for inclusion on those specific points. As far as ANI, this was a borderline close, with a lot of it coming out as no-consensus. Continued efforts to build that consensus are not a matter for ANI, but if there is edit warring or disruption, that is something for ANI. In light of the WP:CON snippet, it does appear that positive consensus for inclusion would be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Although not perfectly aligned with the WP:CON snip above, BLP does already have something along these lines (although it appears to be targeted at the entire article, not individual bits of content). Perhaps the two bits should be conformed more

    To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

    Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing out that BLP quote. It seems pretty clear that material about "run-ins with the law" is contentious material that falls under these provisions of policy, so it should all be removed unless there is consensus to include or retain (assuming it's all presented in NPOV fashion, reliably sourced, etc).Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Starship.paint did very well here...the majority of his text has been implemented because of the RfC. But there is however points that did not have consensus at all that were not re-implemented. Leaving out a poll and info on his friends antics was the out come of the RfC from what I can see. -- Moxy (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    These are my edits of the 19th of March, which offended Starship.paint so much that he had to drag me to ANI, albeit with a nine-day delay. I try to avoid ANI as much as I can if for nothing else than to avoid the drama. So I wasn't planning to reply to these allegations, except that I felt that I had to address his comments (personal attacks) about my "offensive behaviour". He does not seem to understand that Bieber's biography is no place for showcasing the results of what police found in his bus while he was absent. Neither is Bieber responsible for what was found on the body of his friend Lil Za. That is why I removed this stuff. I also removed ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities. on the basis that "upsetting authorities" is a vague and comical allegation, unworthy of inclusion in his biography. I also removed the bit that Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood. as trivial and unworthy of inclusion in a serious biography. Residents are frequently upset with their neighbours, especially if they happen to also be leading the lifestyle of rock stars. And finally I removed: R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber. What does that have to do with Bieber? I did my best to improve Bieber's bio by removing this tripe from his biography. After a nine-day delay and without replying to my comment on the 20th of March on the talkpage of Bieber's article Starship.paint brings me to ANI. He could have tried to reply to my points there instead of transplanting the dispute to this forum. Finally, as I remarked on the talkpage of Bieber's article, I find that Starship.paint frequently badgers opponents with walls of text. That was one of the primary reasons that I did not take part in the RfC. I simply could not discuss this tripe while anticipating to be showered by walls of text defending the trivia. Perhaps Starship.paint can be advised to try to improve the encyclopedia in more substantive ways than trying to relentlessly defend the addition of inconsequential crap in Bieber's biography and subdue the opposition with showers of text. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So now you're blaming me for not replying to your arguments, when your last post on the Bieber talk page called for me not to reply to your arguments because you know my stand well already. Do you want my arguments or not? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't exactly tell you not to reply. I told you to wait until someone other than yourself came to defend your points, since this is a wiki. I had hoped that you would get the message that since after nine days noone came to defend your arguments, that your points were not popular. Now I see that the message you got was to bring me and two other editors to ANI. I am not going to comment on the wisdom of that action. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty simple to me; you, Collect and Moxy are "regulars" of the article. It would seem that the majority in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC aren't such "regulars" editing the article. They apparently don't monitor the talk page, therefore they don't comment. If they disagree with me they can post so. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once I disregard #7, all of this information you removed was supported to be included by a majority of participants in the RfC. General survey had 12/17 supporting the inclusion of the legal issues, point-by-point survey had 6/8. How is it that it's possible for you to ignore participating in the RfC, then coming around to remove points after the RfC ended with a majority of participants supporting these points to be included. I just don't think it's right. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The RfC results on those points were debatable. Even the closer of the RFC commented they should be removed. These points were demonstrably irrelevant to the BLP as I have stated before. We cannot allow BLP-violating, irrelevant, nit-picky, low quality etc. etc. points into the article just because the RfC results were murky. That would be an utter failure of the collective editorial discretion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Debatable". Nice oversimplification. Imagine that you did bother to participate in the RfC's two surveys, and voted against every single point. Then 6/18 would be against the legal issues (33%) and 3/9 in the point-by-point survey (again 33%). It's a very non-murky "minority". Gaijin42 singled out points 7 and 13, not 2-5 (which you targeted). starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Starship.paint: WP:CONSENSUSis not a vote and your use of numbers and "votes" for your "list of points" has no value whatsoever, and the fact is that WP:BLP is a very strong policy which means that policy-based arguments trump "I hate Justin Bieber" arguments every single time. At this point, moreover, you appear to have a bad case of WP:IDHT which may well be addressed at this point, as it quite appears that tendentious point-pushing may attract undesired attention to yourself. Verb. sap, applies. Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • We've been through this before. Given that it is undisputed that each content point I have tried to insert has multiple reliable sources, I bring up a sub-policy of WP:BLP, which is WP:WELLKNOWN. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative.
    • This is exactly what happened the last time. You bring up policy, I bring up policy, we revert each other, RfC was started to gauge the wider community's stand on this issue so that we could have progress. RfC concludes with more people tilting towards include. I know RfCs don't rely on voting, but this is exactly what the community feels, and I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that.
    • I've already argued before how each individual point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, so I can do it again if you want, but you'll probably call them "walls of text" again and ignore them, just like how you've done so in the past. Tell me you want me to prove how each point satisfies WP:WELLKNOWN, go on. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 14:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that Dr.K. in particular is ignoring that. Please leave this nonsense. Repeating it will not make it true or put people in a zombie-like hypnotic trance to do your bidding. But I think I know why you have invested so much time and effort to defend adding this trivia which is unrelated to Bieber directly. The common thread between Bieber's bus inspection by the police while he was absent, Lil Za's cocaine bust and Khalil's arrest is that you want to associate Bieber with these events and imply that he is guilty by association. You want to editorialise: "Bieber's bus is bad, Khalil is bad, Lil Za is bad, everything around Bieber is bad, ergo Bieber is bad". The same goes with the rest of the events with the neighbours and "making authorities upset": "Bieber makes authorities upset, neighbours upset, ergo Bieber is bad" This is a WP:BLP-violating WP:SYNTHESIS project on a grand scale designed to attack Bieber by painting a synthetic angle using a patchwork of tabloid news fodder some of which is not attributable to Bieber directly. You want to create a feeling of malfeasance about Bieber using a collage of trivia. I suggest you abandon that BLP-violating approach or action may have to be taken so that you can stop targeting Bieber this way. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This may all be caused because Starship.paint is use to writing about wrestling were the whole topic is fake. as seen here the topic its self is fuelled by speculation put out by the community to draw interest. Writing about characters over real people may be where there is a problem. Wrestling survives on guess work and made up associations, but the rest of the world does not work that way. I think Starship.paint does a great job for the kids that are interested in wrestling articles, but needs to understand that associations and things like public polls is not what we consider valid for real bios. The RfC was pretty clear to me that the majority did want to mention the topic of legal problems overall, but they also had reservations on some points as did the closer of the RfC. Need to read what people are saying not just look at there vote. -- Moxy (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair analysis. Thank you Moxy. Staship.paint seems like a capable editor if only he could be guided in the right direction. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So instead of countering WP:WELLKNOWN, Dr.K. takes a sidestep to claim that it's WP:SYNTHESIS. To counter this, let me say that all the reliable sources of these "previous incidents" that Dr.K. removed were only written when reporting Bieber's first arrest, which means that the reliable sources have made the connection between the previous and current arrests. Several reliable sources listed the multiple incidents Bieber has been involved in since 2011 or 2012, and they even listed more than 12 incidents in 2013 itself. How is it WP:SYNTHESIS if reliable sources can make this connection?
    • And oh Moxy, you had to bring up my editorial background in wrestling? The notion that wrestling is based on guesswork is ridiculous. Also, you're again portraying my content as silly kids stuff again, hardly fair to me.
    • I'd really like a third party opinion on Dr.K's removals and the current arguments on this topic (that said, I hope Dr.K. will reply to my arguments as well) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion: When eight or more other editors do not share your position, you are unlikely to convince others by iterating your same arguments over and over and over and over in interminable walls of text. I suggest you take a step back, have a cup of tea and drop the stick -- right now it is apt to do you far more harm than good to keep this up. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Collect said. And some more advice: Here we are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a patchwork quilt of guilt by association in which we are going to try to suffocate Bieber's reputation. There is such thing as editorial discretion. Please try to exercise it more often. Also ANI may be a lot of things but it is not an editorial advisory board. Except, of course, if you consider bans or blocks some type of editorial advice. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go again. It's really not the first time my opponents have ignored my arguments when I've brought up policy to trump them. "Walls of text", they say. Funny how Collect pulls out the number 8 now and previously dismissed all the numbers that were in favour of inclusion of the legal issues in the RfC (12). I simply stand by what many very reliable sources have said about Bieber, which counters your assertions of WP:BLP and WP:SYNTHESIS. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are reaching the point which some might call tendentiousness incarnate. I suggest you note that absolutely no one here is accepting your POV, that the RfC closer did not back you up, and that your use of AN/I for Forumshopping has failed as a hint, but it appears you need a stronger hint. Will someone please oblige starship.paint? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been zero third-party comments since Dr.K. replied. Again, I request a third-party opinion on the subsequent arguments on display; I believe my opponents' have been whittled down to asking for subjective 'editorial discretion'. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Seems to me that Starship.paint is a bit obsessed with this topic and ought to step back a bit, while Collect and Dr.K are wikilawyering. There is a ridiculous amount of sourcing about that petition from every sector, including an academic journal using it to criticize the WH petition process[[4]], legal analysis from as far away as India,[5] Michelle Obama responding with parenting advice,[6] a US congressmember complaining that Bieber will get favorable treatment because of his celebrity and wanting to change US immigration policy,[7] a counterpetition supporting Bieber (opposing his deportation) and calling for equal treatment for other immigrants who get in comparable trouble (opposing deporting them too) [petitions.moveon.org/sign/treat-all-immigrants] (had to un-hotlink due to edit filter) documented by Fox News[8] copycat petitions being started as publicity stunts,[9] etc. There is more than enough sourcing to write a separate article about the petition all by itself. It seems to me ridiculous under WP:NPOV to not mention it in the Bieber article (one could reasonably debate about how much weight to allot it). Could a similar wikilawyering effort at the Bill Clinton article remove the documentation that Clinton was impeached? It undermines our credibility as an encyclopedia that publishes all the relevant info about the article topic if we have an article (as a deletionist I'd rather have far fewer such articles to start with, but Bieber is extremely notable). That all said, the RFC is kind of sprawling and if the petition is the main remaining issue of dispute, maybe it's simplest to open a new RFC focusing on just the petition. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • First you accuse me of wikilawyering then you embark on a lengthy rebuttal centred around the petition issue, even though I have not once referred to the petition. I don't call this informed criticism. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And can you explain to me how is it wikilawyering to say that what happened to Bieber's tour buses, while he was absent, is gossip unfit to be in Bieber's bio, quote:

    • Police in Detroit and Stockholm each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present. They found marijuana in Detroit, and unspecified narcotics and a stun gun in Stockholm.

    • Can you also explain to me how is it wikilawyering to state that what happened to Lil Za is irrelevant to Bieber's bio, quote:

    • Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for cocaine possession.

    • Can you also explain to me how is it wikilawyering to state that what happened to Khalil is irrelevant to Bieber's bio, quote:

    • R&B singer Khalil was also arrested together with Bieber.

    • In my eyes these edits are a transparent attempt to attack Bieber by implication using a web of unfair WP:WEASELWORD insinuations. Do you think this is any way to write the bio of a living person? Or do you think this is wikilawyering? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got the order in reverse. A lot hinges on the Khalil point, which is not an attempt to 'attack' Bieber, but simply a fact of the case... was Bieber arrested (DUI of drugs) alone or along with other people? Then you have an NBC News report that nine days after Bieber and Khalil's arrest, Bieber and his friends/entourage were smoking a lot of marijuana on a plane.
    • Under WP:WELLKNOWN we can include content by reliable sources if they are relevant and notable. Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant. Notable because Lil Za was arrested on drug charges, Bieber's tour buses raided twice on different continents, drugs found. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS here because reliable sources like Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, BBC News, CTV News and Times of India have reported these past and 'future' incidents together. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly as you mentioned above: Under WP:WELLKNOWN we can include content by reliable sources if they are relevant and notable. Yes, we can include facts if they are relevant and notable. Except in this case they are irrelevant to Bieber. Bieber has nothing to do whatsoever with Lil Za's drug possession, Khalil's arrest or with the fact that drugs were found on his bus. These were not Bieber's drugs. Or nobody alleged they were. Therefore they are irrelevant to Bieber. He was not arrested for them and no one accused him of carrying them into the bus. They are irrelevant to Bieber and have no place in his biography. And your comment: Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant., is still not true. That's still Bieber's biography and details about his friends do not belong in his biography because they are irrelevant to his biography. That's where your WP:SYNTH comes in. You want to convert Bieber's bio into the synthetic article "The sordid history of Bieber, his friends and the bus incidents". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are never going to agree on Based on the future history of Bieber and his friends being arrested as above, the past history becomes relevant. From WP:SYNTH, in this case the reliable sources are saying A and B in the same article. If they were so irrelevant why did many reliable sources report past history in current incidents? Let's just leave it at that.
    • Also, you're neglecting to mention on the other previous incidents directly involving Bieber which you removed as well. Relevancy is definitely not an issue here. Multiple instances of neighbours accusing Bieber of dangerous driving. Bieber's graffiti upsetting authorities in Australia and Colombia. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wrote:

      ...and his graffiti also upset Australian and Colombian authorities.

    • Well, as it turns out I checked the references and ctv news supports the "upset authorities in Colombia" bit but not "Australia". There is no mention in any source that the Australian authorities were upset. In fact the BBC citation mentions:

      The hotel, QT Gold Coast, said in a response to a comment on its Facebook page: "We are stoked to have Justin Bieber's artwork on our wall." It added that it had given Bieber permission to paint on the wall.

    • So not only your edit about "upsetting authorities" is vague, trivial and unencyclopedic, but you added things which did not exist in the citations and also you failed to mention that the hotel in Australia approved of the graffiti and had given permission to Bieber to do it. That completely invalidates any culpability on Bieber's part but your edit makes it appear as if he had run afoul of the law because of his graffiti in Australia which is simply not the case, quite the opposite, since he was encouraged to do it by the property owners of the place. Your edit fails both WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Colombia bit said "upset authorities". Since Bieber wasn't charged but the Australian authorities did respond negatively, I wrote that he upset the Australian authorities too to summarise, which seems like an adequate summary when you consider that BBC wrote:

      Gold Coast City Council said it would order the graffiti's removal ... Council said that while the graffiti was on a private property, it was in public view and an eyesore ... "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti" ... Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate described Bieber's behaviour as "really silly".

    • After all, everyone's been calling on me to summarise, summarise, summarise the past issues of Bieber, no need for so much detail, so that's what I did. If you feel it's an inadequate summary then fine, we can have another reliable source by Huffington Post that says in the title Justin Bieber angers Australian mayor with his graffiti.
    • completely invalidates any culpability on Bieber's part - so Bieber is not to blame at all?See BBC source: "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti", so what if the hotel approves? The city's approach still stands. I didn't add the hotel approval part, but I won't stop anyone from mentioning it as long as the Australian authorities' response is included.
    • Therefore, while the following sentence is clunky, it should satisfy Dr.K's intepretation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV: Bieber's graffiti also upset Colombian authorities and angered an Australian mayor despite the Australian hotel approving it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I mentioned earlier, this is a trivial incident which does not deserve to be in the article. Even your present formulation is inadequate. Acording to the BBC:

      Earlier, Gold Coast Mayor Tom Tate described Bieber's behaviour as "really silly". "Just come and clean it up and we'll be happy with you. Alternatively come and sing at our mayoral Christmas carols on 7 December for an hour and I'll let you go."

    • The mayor was not really angry, he was just playing politics. By the time this trivial incident gets explained properly, it is way past its WP:UNDUEWEIGHT quota for the article. And in any case, since the hotel gave Bieber permission to paint the graffiti, Bieber is completely exonerated from any responsibility, so by mentioning the anger of the mayor we imply Bieber was somehow culpable although he was not. Then we go to what "making authorities upset" really means, which I analysed just above and I think it is meaningless newspeak for tabloid fodder, completely unfit to be in a serious BLP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as your coment: "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti", so what if the hotel approves? The city's approach still stands. No, it does not. You assume Bieber knew about the Australian city bylaws but Bieber is not an expert on international municipal law. And then, how was Bieber expected to know that the "city has a zero tolerance approach to graffiti"? Who is he? An Australian city-hall insider? The hotel gave permission to Bieber to paint, Bieber painted. End of story. Bieber had no idea that the city council would go after him post facto. He has no responsibility whatsoever. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mayor "not really angry... just playing politics" is your interpretation. The Huffington Post reliable source says that he angered the mayor, which is the crux of it; it was definitely a negative response. Almost everybody isn't an (edit conflict) international lawyer expert on international municipal law - does that mean they are exempt from obeying municipal law in countries they are visiting? The hotel is culpable as well, but Bieber isn't exempt. Ignorance or "they told me to do it" is hardly a good answer to disobeying the authorities. If he were really that blameless, this would not have been covered beyond TMZ or Daily Mail. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay Dr.K, we probably reached the point of ultimate disagree-ability again, for the sake of completeness, how about you argue your reasons for removal of the final point: multiple previous incidents (N) of neighbours accusing Bieber of dangerous driving, given that he was arrested for dangerous driving (DUI) later on (R). WP:WELLKNOWN asks for relevance (R) and notability (N), which I believe it thus satisfies. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the stuff you attempted to add to the article and which I removed:

    Bieber's neighbours in [[Calabasas]] have accused and confronted Bieber about his [[reckless driving]] and [[Speed limit#Excessive speed|speeding]] in the neighbourhood.<ref name=APImage/><ref name=BBCFirstArrest/><ref name=ABCtroubles>{{cite web|last=Fisher|first=Luchina|title=Justin Bieber Arrested for DUI: Inside His Past Troubles - Bieber's Showdown With Keyshawn Johnson|url=http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/justin-bieber-arrested-dui-rough-year-continues/story?id=19366534#5|publisher=[[ABC News]]|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBBwA6kO}}</ref> Police in [[Detroit]] and [[Stockholm]] each raided Bieber's tour buses in 2013 while Bieber was not present. They found [[marijuana]] in Detroit, and unspecified [[narcotic]]s and a [[Electroshock weapon|stun gun]] in Stockholm.<ref name=CTVtimeline/><ref name=TOIsurprised>{{cite web|last=Bandyopadhyay|first=Bohni|title=Justin Bieber busted: Are you surprised?|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/english/hollywood/news-interviews/Justin-Bieber-busted-Are-you-surprised/articleshow/29310019.cms?curpg=2|publisher=The Times of India|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBC0RogB}}</ref> Nine days before his first arrest, police searched Bieber's home and arrested Bieber's friend Lil Za for [[cocaine]] possession.<ref name=APImage/><ref name=LAtimesCulm/><ref name=BBCdisgracefully>{{cite web|title=Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25860563|publisher=[[BBC News]]|accessdate=January 25, 2014|archivedate=March 19, 2014|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/6OBC4KPXL}}</ref>

    The sources may look reliable at first, but they are their entertainment sections and are sensationalist in nature, similar to tabloids. Check their sensationalist headlines:

    Justin Bieber busted: Are you surprised? [Times of India entertainment section]

    Justin Bieber Arrested for DUI: Inside His Past Troubles - Bieber's Showdown With Keyshawn Johnson [ABC news entertainment section]

    Justin Bieber - Growing up disgracefully [BBC news entertainment section]

    Do these headlines look sober, reliable and encyclopaedic to you? I think you are mining the sensationalist entertainment sections of online media to scrape any sensationalist tidbit of information that you can find about Bieber. This is no way to build an encyclopaedia.
    Then you have problems of transcription. In your edit you make it appear as if Bieber's "reckless driving" is a fact. You wrote:

    Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.

    But the source qualifies the speeding by using the terms "alleged" and "allegedly":

    Police were ultimately called and now the district attorney's office is investigating Bieber for a second case of alleged reckless driving... Then, at the end of May, Keyshawn Johnson confronted Bieber for allegedly speeding through the neighborhood while the former NFL star's kids were playing outside. "You got a 19-year old kid feeling entitled," Johnson told TMZ about why he later chased down the singer at his home to discuss the incident with him.

    Did you see also the reference to TMZ? Now we have the sensationalist entertainment section of abc news recycling tabloid information from TMZ. So you want to add recycled gossip from tabloids about Bieber's confrontation with his neighbours over an alleged infraction while at the same time you do not edit in a careful fashion when you add these allegations into the BLP thus making it appear as if the allegations are facts. This is no way to build an encyclopedic BLP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So now I'm "mining the sensationalist entertainment sections of online media to scrape any sensationalist tidbit of information"... eh, nope, I just googled, saw a BBC source, a ABC source and a Times of India source so I added the information. Frankly, do you really expect Bieber to appear outside the Entertainment sections? That's exactly where he belongs, even in articles about his music.
    The word "accused" is already present and it is quite similar to "alleged". If you have a problem with me not using "allegedly", by all means, include the word "allegedly" - accused and confronted Bieber about his alleged reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.
    I found the TMZ source you mentioned. It has a video of Johnston accusing Bieber. It should be thus treated as a primary source, instead of an unreliable one. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "accused" is already present and it is quite similar to "alleged". Not if it includes the possessive "his": "Bieber's neighbours in Calabasas have accused and confronted Bieber about his reckless driving and speeding in the neighbourhood.". The syntax should have been "accused him of reckless driving". If it is "alleged" it is not "his" and it is a BLP violation to express it that way. In any case spats with neighbours about alleged infractions are not serious BLP material especially if gleaned from tabloid journalism with headlines like "Bieber busted: Are you surprised?" dripping with prejudicial sarcasm, or headlines such as "Growing up disgracefully" which are full of undue and insulting negativity or sensationalism such as "Showdown" etc. Such tabloid-level references are not the objective, sober, serious sources, which are expected to be used in a serious BLP, utilising careful and objective analysis of the facts, especially if we have to include negative material about the BLP subject. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I add that you happened to leave out the ? at the end at "Justin Bieber: growing up disgracefully?" You can argue that the sources were kinda sensationalist, but firstly, that is to be expected from articles about Bieber, and secondly, that doesn't detract from the content that neighbours accused Bieber of dangerous driving. Neither does it detract from the fact that Bieber was later arrested for dangerous driving.
    If you have a problem with my phrasing, I am very willing to discuss so that it does not violate BLP. We can work together, instead of against each other.
    The key thing to note that while you have produced better arguments now than anyone who has argued against my content before, the question is... why did it take you over two months to do so, because I have been trying to implement such content since late January, and you've been present all this time. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban proposal

    For User:Starship.paint for tendentious editing of BLPs and refusal to understand the significance and need for WP:BLP This is done only after the interminable postings above wherein the problem is laid quite bare for all to see. Topic ban to encompass all biographies of living persons, broadly construed, for a period of six months or as determined by consensus below. Collect (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, so apparently I should be banned from all BLPs for six months because I am adding (mostly) negative content to one BLP, discounting all my other contributions to other BLPs (the wrestlers? Natalia?) My edits for Bieber abide by WP:WELLKNOWN, a sub-policy of WP:BLP for public figures. Unable to counter my policy-based arguments and counter-arguments, you have resorted to this. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No -- but you seem to accuse anyone who points out the requirements of WP:BLP or acting in bad faith and collusion, and iterate your claims often and frequently and repeatedly at various venues, and open a clear forumshopping exercise on this noticeboard. I suggest you see how many will note your stridency here and on the talk pages of the BLPs you have been active on, and add two plus two. The aim is to make you aware of the policy and to abide by it, not to banish you, and hopefully you will find other areas to edit in constructively and without making accusations about every editor who demurs with your stated positions. Cheers and Godspeed. Collect (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    stridency here and on the talk pages of the BLPs you have been active on - have you even seen any of my contributions on any other BLP? And where exactly have I accused anyone of editing in bad faith? I'm sure you're acting in good faith, but I don't agree with your methods. You clearly want to protect BLP articles, but I think you're over-protecting by removing reliably sourced negative content. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Given staship.paint's long and multifaceted campaign to add irrelevant facts into Bieber's bio and his continuing defence of his actions which show insufficient understanding of WP:BLP and specifically WP:WELLKNOWN, a fact that could cause harm to Bieber's bio, I think that I would be prepared to support a ban from Bieber's bio. I think he needs to take a break from that bio. This ban could be extended if similar behaviour arises in other bios. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The legal issues in particular (which Dr.K. removed) were supported by a majority of RfC voters (12/17); I am merely the most outspoken. So all 12 of us don't understand WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN, which warrants a ban?. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban It's reasonable that people have trouble understanding why they can't use space-fillers and excited commentary to garnish a BLP with reports of an audience booing the subject (diff), or posting waffle about a petition (quoting the essentially self-published opinion of the petition regarding "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations youth") (diff). However, after all the explanations that have been given, the only thing left is a topic ban. I will add a brief extra explanation about BLP—controversial people attract a lot of pro/con commentary, and it is not satisfactory for editors to cherry-pick choice bits for display in an encyclopedic article about the subject of a biographical article (which should focus on the big picture). If a secondary source ever comments about how the subject's career took a nose dive because an audience booed them, then the event may have some long-term significance that warrants its insertion in the article. Until then, it's just cherry-picked gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody discussed the booing, which was not inserted into the "career" section, but the "image" section. The significance is that he was booed by his own countrymen, ironically while receiving a Fan's Choice award, which reflects on his public image. That significance has been picked up by many news sources such as BBC. Look at this commentary piece by TIME. Bieber’s superstardom has taken a hit in both the U.S. and Canada over recent months - it's clear that Justin Bieber's image and reputation in Canada and America (the petition to deport Bieber was the second-most supported ever, the poll with more than 50% negative opinion) is going down. The problem is that those in favour of protecting the article as a BLP is indirectly causing censorship because all these incidents (booing / poll / petition) are apparently too trivial, despite coverage of many reliable sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban Per Collect, Johnuniq and per my comments regarding the editing methods of this editor. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban but only to Justin Bieber articles - A BLP bans is veery extreme as his edit to wrestling articles looks fine to me - yes lots of the wrestling edits are news based gossip, but this is how wrestling is trying to survive - making its own controversies. I think I should speak up as a total BLP ban would not help the community at large and this is the way things are going. YES a Justin Bieber articles ban is ok ....after all the time spent trying to insert the negative news about third part affiliations and this new addition I am inclined to believe that there is some personal hatred of Justin Bieber. Also after thinking for a bit on the recent edits - fighting to keep mention of a poll by only 571 people over 2 days as if it represents the American point of view as a whole aslo leads me to believe the same thing. Context is every thing and this is not being represent well at all. No one should edit topics they have strong POV's for. -- Moxy (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really rather insulted by your comments on professional wrestling. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with adding negative content to BLPs, especially when I do my absolute best to only use reliable secondary sources for the negative content. Personally, I don't hate Bieber, but I do feel that he's not a good role model.
    IMO we should provide both positive and negative content in articles and let readers judge for themselves. For the poll, you can balance the negative content (that more than half of the Americans polled thought negatively of Bieber) with the countering "positive" content (only 571 people polled). Instead you want to totally remove the content, just as how you want to remove me from editing the article. You fail to recognize the significance of the content, which many reliable sources have. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what your upset about - as I said you do a good job with those articles - its not your fault its a dramatized athletic spectacle that survives on made-up grudges and personalities. As for the poll there are many out there some positive some negative but we dont list them - why - because a small amount of people dont represent a total population. -- Moxy (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you're upsetting CM Punk. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:06, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose topic ban Oh give me a break, this is way too drastic. Gloss • talk 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose topic ban Yep, quite ridiculous. You do not request any type of ban or block just in order to win an argument. Starship.paint definitely does not have a problem with editing BLPs and his side is also the side that had the most support during the RfC, so it is not like he is disruptively going against the result of the RfC... like some users. STATic message me! 03:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose topic ban I've known Starship to lend a good hand. His work on wrestling related articles, included BLPs, has always been regarded as productive. We can all lose our head at times when things get heated but this seems to be an isolated incident. A topic ban seems like a draconian action... Such measures should be taken to protect the encyclopedia and are not to be punitive. Starship's edits to BLPs are, in most cases, constructive. A topic ban wouldn't protect the encyclopedia, it would do the opposite.LM2000 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose general BLP ban. He does good work elsewhere. Support backing away from the Beeb for a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:47, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
    • Oppose: This is silly. We only have one instance of having problems on one BLP, and you propose a ban on editing all BLPs? This problem is specific to one article, and it has not been demonstrated that this is a problem for the editor on all BLP articles. If you do want to propose something, keep is specific and relevant to the topic of Justin Bieber. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This is too harsh. If he just adds latest news/gossips, I'm sure it's in good faith. I met him at Natalia Poklonskaya article, and he questioned the reliability of sources, removed unsourced info, fought vandalism, and now we are discussing how to make the article tell everything how it really happened cause many reliable sources had everything mixed up. So I see him wanting everything to be as close to the truth as possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - quite frankly, I'm with starship through and through on this. He had a consensus and ran with it, the editors who lost in the RfC continued to edit war. Now granted, I didn't read the entire two discussions, but based on what I did read, just drop the stick and move on. CRRaysHead90 | #RaysUp 18:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, seems a disproportionate response to issues pertaining to a single article. McPhail (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose broad blp ban as not enough evidence to support something that drastic. neutral for Bieber ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review my block of Macktheknifeau

    Macktheknifeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is unhappy that the consensus went against him here. The outcome has been that editors have decided to use "soccer" to describe the sport in an Australian context. Rather than challenge the consensus in a collegial way or try to establish a new consensus or a compromise of some kind (any of which I would be open to), he made a series of edits which changed "soccer" to "football", the opposite of what was agreed. This is a sample. I have blocked him for 48 hours for violating WP:POINT. Please review this block. --John (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen these edits on my watchlist and read the other discussions around naming conventions in australian sport. I agree that the series of edits Mack made recently are quite pointy, but I note he is not actually changing from "Soccer" to "Football", but from "Soccer" to "Association Football". As "Association Football" is the correct formal title for the game. My understanding from the previous discussions was that consensus was reached to use "Soccer" over "football" to avoid confusion with Aussie Rules. As the edits here do not do that, though they are pointy, they do seem to put the articles in a position where there can be no confusion and there is no issue over whether a "correct" term is being used. Fenix down (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It varies. This edit changes soccer to football. This is the opposite of what the discussion agreed. --John (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:ENGVAR applies. It's also called "soccer" in Canada, even though we have the "Toronto Football Club" that plays Association Football. DP 13:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire discussion, in which Macktheknife participated, was to stave off discussion for a while to let cooler tempers prevail and work on other things than the name. The block for pointiness is thus warranted. Drmies (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Macktheknifeau's attitude was clear even before a consensus was reached. Their vote said: "Small group of Victorians can't be allowed to dictate changes to globally recognised name. Victoria doesn't have priority over planet." When Mack then defied the consensus, a block was justified. The post-block discussion between John and Mack is progressing somewhat. Mack claims that the anti-consensus changes they made were "inadvertent", although at the same time calling the consensus "illegal" (whatever that means). The last comment in the discussion is from John attempting to get Mack to have some insight into their behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had my own run-ins with this editor over football/soccer-related articles (believe it came to ANI then as well), they are disruptive and do not abide by consensus or policies/guidelines. Good block. GiantSnowman 13:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not commenting on this specific case, but in general, I think it's a good idea not to do a block and then ask for a review. Instead, please discuss before blocking. If the threat is so imminent that there's no time to discuss, then obviously the block is necessary and there's no need to discuss. Jehochman Talk 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's up to the admin which way to do it. There's a spectrum between "imminent" and the length of time a discussion may take such that if one waits for a conclusion, the block may not be timely. It's not easy to forecast how long a discussion will take.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it our goal to avoid blocks? If a problem becomes stale without a block, but isn't repeated, that's a good thing. If the admin isn't certain a block is needed then and there, don't do it. Discuss the problem with the user or at AN/I and see if a resolution is possible. If the user goes and does the problematic thing again while the discussion is ongoing, then block. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am absolutely certain a block was needed there and then. This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy. That block was reviewed at this board here. The general issues surrounding my enforcement of this area were discussed there and also here, here and here. I committed at the start of this process to having any admin actions taken in this area reviewed here at AN/I as a form of transparency and accountability. So far the community has been kind enough to endorse my actions in this area. If you have any serious qualms after reading these links I would like to hear them; if not I will continue to work to try to solve the problem. --John (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block. This editor has engaged in exactly this sort of behavior before; hopefully the block will result in an improved editing process for them. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really a fan of this idea of block review and as such agree with Jehochman, but in cases of disruptive editing (rather than simple vandalism etc.) a block is often a signal, a word to the wise, and a review, if editors and admins agree of course, can strengthen that message: this was not just a block by a single grumpy admin, and the behavior for which a user was blocked is indeed deemed disruptive by a group of editors and admins. Stronger signal, fewer claims of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I participated in the soccer vs. football discussion, and I don't think it would be desirable for me to express an opinion on the block. However, I support the unusual mentoring that John has undertaken to resolve the long-term bickering, and I support the idea of bringing blocks to ANI for review as an exception to what is normally done. The benefit of discussions like this is that the participants will learn whether John's actions have the backing of the community, and whether future claims of INVOLVED are likely to be successful in derailing the process. There should not be many blocks, and the time spent reviewing them would be much less than the time required to deal with the soccer/football war if John's mentoring fails. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is very wrong to block an editor and then a tart a discussion about them in a venue where they can't respond. While it may not be John's intention, he has engaged in public humiliation as a form of punishment. Blocks aren't to "send a signal," they are to prevent harm. If you want to send a signal you talk with the editor and if that doesn't work, go to this board and ask for additional feedback. Blocking and then denouncing the editor while they are blocked is not fair. Jehochman Talk 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you actually read John's post at 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC), especially the bit that said "This has been discussed previously with the user and the user has previously been blocked once before for a similar but less pointed breach of policy"? This is hardly a first offence by an otherwise perfect citizen. I have been routinely abused by this editor for being a member of and posting as part of some sort of evil group of supporters of another sport. He has been doing it for years. It is only John's incredibly thorough approach that is finally highlighting to administrators where the real problems lie in those discussions, and how bad they really are. Those of us who have been posting in good faith for years, and occasionally becoming frustrated at the absolute nonsense being repeatedly presented by a small number of editors, are finally seeing some justice. Anyone who bothers to have a proper look at what has been going on there, as John now has, will see the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jehochman: Your concept is flawed. An editor who does not respond to comments left on their talk page may indeed respond to a short block -- that's just (unfortunately) human nature. That makes the "sending of a signal" a legitimate part of the overriding concept that blocks are preventative, not punitive. Not everyone is predisposed to talk about what they're doing, some have to be persuaded to do so with a bit of force. The choices to be made differ from editor to editor, and espousing a blanket policy regardless of circumstances isn't particularly helpful. You might think about that the next time this kind of situation comes up. BMK (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately Macktheknifeau returned from the block and went straight back to edits which I regard as disruptive. Here they announced their intention to 'replac[e] obsolete terminology', and here they said 'I believe this consensus is invalid and will always work to correct it'. Here the user adds "football" in violation of the consensus and here in a particularly POINTy edit changes 18 instances of 'soccer' to 'football', in violation of the agreement. This edit to their user page is also illustrative. I have blocked one week with the intention that the next block would be an indef. I have also raised the possibility of a topic ban which would allow the user to contribute in areas where they can do so without disruption. --John (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block, bad thread. That is, fine to do the block, no benefit to starting an ANI discussion after the fact. NE Ent 21:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I take your point. Per this I will no longer post admin actions in the area for review here automatically. I will ask an uninvolved admin to scrutinise them instead. Thanks for your patience and support as I tease this issue apart. I think it is almost there now. If anyone felt like reviewing User:Macktheknifeau's latest unblock request in light of the above, that'd be great. Otherwise we are maybe done here, except to ask one last time for any other admin eyes on the area, to preserve admin accountability and transparency in this rather unusual exercise I am attempting. --John (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting a block for User:Thesunshinesate

    This user has been busy constituting nuisance and fighting everyone on wikipedia. he/She seems to be here for his/her own personal agenda and he/she has been making articles to be biased. As I see it, he/she is always removing anything 'Anti-Ghana' and it doesn't matter to him/her whether they are sourced or not. Here are the following reasons I think this user should be blocked.

    • Personal attacks - he/She is always against people who reverts her propaganda posts and she results to personal attacks, name calling. etc on the user talkpages. You can see an example of that at the bottom of my talk page in this revision. That was just because I placed a warning on her talk page concerning his/her disruptive edits.
    • Gross Incivility - he/She reverts edits with flimsy excuses and never discusses with other users, an example can be found with his/her various reverts on Ghana article history. he/She reverts anything antiGhana in the article even if they are appropriately sourced. he/she seems to be the only one against the contents. Various warnings has been placed on his/her talkpage, but he/she is never ready to discuss the concerned article/content. Instead he/she removes such warnings instantly and instigates a fight on the users' talkpages. You can see the various warnings placed on her talkpage (including mine) by clicking on the history of the talkpage.
    • Edit Warring: he/she has been reverting a particular content like since forever on the Ghana article. Other users keep readding the content but he/she keeps removing it. This is the Content. Please note that the other IP addresses reverting the same content belongs to him/her as the edit summaries are similar to the one he/she gives. He/she considers it "An anti government rant". I don't think this content should be removed as well as it is well sourced and I believed both the 'good' and 'bad' should be included on Wikipedia to achieve NPOV. Another example is the one she just started on the article Cinema of Nigeria. Note that this user has also broken the WP:3RR.

    Thanks--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This user and his friend (Versace1608|talk) are fishing around to block me (He wrote to someone to have me blocked) They have tagged teamed on me for no reason. Jamie Tubers has made himself the authority on many articles and no one can dare to make an edit with him reverting. He has filled the Cinema of Nigeria with bias claims and invalid sourced from gossip and entertainment mags as his source of reference. He also game on the Ghana page
    and reverted a claim has been disputed since 2013 me and several others have worked very hard on the article to make it neutral If you look at my edits I have not removed anything anti- Ghana like he claim ..claiming international accounts of corruption with no proof and adding references from entertainment sites in an anti government rant is not something that is suppose to be in an wiki article.
    Those sources are not even approved based on wikis standards, this editor and his friend can not bully people for making edits just because they don't like it. He is calling my edits propaganda yet he has done nothing but glorify the pages he edit. I am not from west Africa and many of the other editors that I have worked on the Ghana page with are not either. I have nothing to gain. Yet the articles he has worked on for Nigeria is filled nothing but claims from unverifiable sources their edits need to be looked into. he edit that I reverted in the Cinema of Nigeria has sources from an online African gossip entertainment magazine. He and his friend Versace1608|talk are coming after me because I told them to get true sources Thesunshinesate (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    People should not gang up to stop others from contributing..wikipedia is an open forum I am not going to be bullied and threaten by these two editors and I don't think their propaganda based edits should be allowedThesunshinesate (talk)
    Seconded. Also while I only very quickly skimmed through the discussion, this is not a good place to debate whether something is a RS. Try WP:RSN if discussion on the article talk page fails or use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution as appropriate like an WP:RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple edit warring complaints belong at WP:AN/EW not here and don't need anywhere near the level of discussion you're involved in here. BTW while there may be enough edit warring for a block I didn't see any clear cut 3rr violation. They are at the limit now but their previous revert before now to ths Ghana article was well outside the 24 hour window. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not concerned about his/her edits or want to prove anything concerning their reliability, he/She can discuss that with the other contributors on the articles (If he/she will). I only noticed he/she is busy edit warring and always attacking anybody who warns him/her about it. That's the reason I reported the user. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was Thesunshinesate that raised useless and irrelevant issues claiming someone is out to get him/her or something. Good, you also noticed the edit warring was evidently very much. And what about the personal attacks he/she is always giving anyone who notifies or even tries to advise her on the edits?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay. And the personal attacks and abuses?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor can raise whatever they want, there's no need to respond to them if they are irrelevant to the discussion particularly when your comments are further irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, saying 'the other editor started it' is never a winning argument. And they are indeed irrelevant to this discussion, the reliability of the sources is no excuse for edit warring and should be established somewhere besides ANI (note that my message was directed at all primary participants of this discussion). As for the personal attacks, I had a brief look and their comments do seem problematic but it's not something I can be bothered looking in to. Consider this an example of the problems when you engage in long, irrelevant, argumentation on ANI before anyone gets a look in. Even if there are some legitimate complaints, by the time anyone knows what they are many are not going to bother to look in to them. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jamie Tubers, Nil Einne gives you very good advice about ANI posting, but you did right to take the problem here. I agree with you that Thesunshinesate is confrontational and very sure they're right at all times (for instance here, where they clearly don't know what the policy says). As is illustrated by their talkpage and even by their input in this thread, which shows much assumption of bad faith. (I must say, when people talk about their opponents being a "tag team", it rings a warning bell for me.) Admins and others are watching now, and Thesunshinesate has been warned on their page. I can only see two outcomes of that: either they change their approach to editing and their attitude to other contributors, or they get blocked pretty soon. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC). <Addition: Plus I've just noticed that their comments on User talk:Jamie Tubers have been even worse, with some classic template abuse (a 4th-level "harassment" template, which is ridiculous). Bishonen | talk 12:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC).>[reply]
    • I just went through the contributions of the user and considering the claims of 'many' contributions, I had to conclude the user must have been editing anonymously as well. I went through the Ghana page and I saw that the previous disruptive reversions were made by anonymous IP addresses, then this user comes up to continue the reversions when the page got protected. This is really suspicious and a clear sign of bad faith. I'm very sure the following IP Addresses were used by this user (there may be more): 216.165.95.64, 69.120.255.161, 216.165.95.66, 24.190.23.37 and 69.120.215.121. I came to this conclusion because they have things in common with this User: the IPs made that same revert on the pages this user is involved in, the other contributions on those IPs (mostly disruptive) are similar/same with the topics this user edits and there are lists of warnings on the talk pages of those IPs (especially the first one) regarding the edits. I have reasons to believe this user infact only uses this account for protected pages, but regularly edits anonymously. I may be wrong though, as I'm aware IP addresses may be shared.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You make good points, Jamie, though it's an exaggeration to say that the name account is only used when articles are semiprotected; it has edited several non-protected articles in the last couple of days. However, 216.165.95.64, the one with all the talkpage complaints going back to 2008 without a break, and several blocks, certainly quacks like a duck, especially if we consider the edit summaries. 216.165.95.64 writes "remove npov political attack attacks against current rpresident does not belong in encyclopedic article; and when the article has been semiprotected, Thesunshinesate echoes "revert NPOV anti govment rant with has no place in article". (Note especially the use of "NPOV" when presumably "POV" is meant, a signature for this user.) I was just going to block that IP for three months, when I noticed that Alison, a checkuser blocked the same IP in 2008 as part of a sockfarm. Alison, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now, in relation to Thesunshinesate and the other IPs. Their brother 216.165.95.66 doesn't have any similar bad history, and the other IPs you mention, Jamie, have IMO likely enough also been used by the same individual — they revert similar information, and geolocate to the same area — but they're dynamic, and haven't been used much, nor very recently (they're probably being used by someone else by now). Anyway, I hope we hear from Alison. If she's not editing, I will block the duck in a day or so. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Mass removals of content similar to what is being discussed here have been happening since last December. There have also been multiple registered users that have removed content that portrays the government of Ghana in a negative light, including, in chronological order, Citizen gh (talk · contribs), Exdogbaste (talk · contribs), and Medicineman84 (talk · contribs). However, Medicineman84 registered way back in 2007, and has made many constructive contributions. It is possible that there is both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry taking place. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 18:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your research, Jamie and Sam. I'm feeling a little out of my depth with this possible sockfarm. I've contacted another checkuser as well as Alison, who doesn't seem to be online right now, but if the worst comes to the worst, I suppose one of us will have to file an SPI report (groan). Bishonen | talk 11:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Genre Warrior Andrewbf

    Andrewbf (t·c)
    The user Andrewbf is long-time genre warrior who has been warned repeatedly about WP:GWAR and has ignored all warnings and input from other editors. Never once has explained genre changes or tried to gain consensus. Does not provide sources to support changes. All attempts to communicate with this user have been completely disregarded, and this can't keep going on. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)/04:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @XXSNUGGUMSXX:, you need to provide the differences or links to show the user has been GWARing and that attempts to ask for an explanation have turned to deaf ears. Give the admins something to work on. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are samples: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. User has received notices on talk page from myself [19] [20] [21], @STATicVapor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewbf&oldid=600561062] [22] [23], @Jim1138: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29], @Lightsout: [30] [31] [32], @Etheldavis: [33], @Flat Out: [34], and IP 183.171.179.131 [35] regarding these unexplained/unsourced changes. Every single attempt so far has gotten no response and user has not stopped even a 31-hour block from admin @Elockid:. As a matter of fact, Andrew quickly resumed genre warring after the block expired. Admin @Diannaa: has left a notice [36] on the user's page, though I'm not sure how effective it will be given the user's dismissal of warnings. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I put one more "final warning" on his talk page and will monitor. Editing has stopped for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that, and thank you. It wouldn't surprise me to see Andrew resume GWAR'ing, though..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put this in my calendar and will monitor his edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed you blocked Andrew for one week. This should be more effective than the 31-hour block, which didn't affect his ways at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ihardlythinkso blanking articles in order to make a point

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

    Ihardlythinkso has been blanking and disrupting articles he has contributed to in order to make a point. [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]

    A number of editors have discussed this issue with him, but he hasn't stopped. I brought it up on his talk page, here, and got quite a response back. His posts to other users, such as Quale, have recently been way over the NPA line.

    His response to me was, frankly, even worse.

    I think a block for disruption and personal attacks is, unfortunately, warranted in order to prevent this sort of editing from continuing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Edit summaries like this [45] show he is trying to WP:OWN the article (or at least his contributions), but my guess it is spite more than anything. He can be blunt, but he isn't dumb and he knows he can't just remove his contributions to the articles. The third pillar makes that abundantly clear, as does the CC-BY-SA license he released the contribs under. He and I have bumped heads a few times, so I'm not inclined to get involved with dishing out sanctions myself, but an explanation from him is certainly due. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Blanking articles" is what vandals do, and I am no vandal. I have three (3) orthochess articles to my name, and any blanking was in error and corrected by me already. I did remove content contributions made by me in those three. On Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening, I removed my copyedits. (I have my own reasons, they have nothing to do with "proving a point", or "creating disruption", so you have no basis to assign those as intention as you have -- that's false, and springs from bad-faith. What readers of this ANI don't know and can't empathize with, is the way I've been treated by editors like yourself, User:MaxBrowne, User:ChessplayerLev (but that was a long time ago, but he never apologized for the bogus ANI and falsifications made then and attempt to get me blocked or banned, as you are doing), all supported indirectly by defacto project lead User:Quale, who has only disparaging accuses and false blames for me, and compliments to those who would attack and attempt to smear. (It's not very pleasant. There is only so much unfair treatment and bullying incivilities a person can take. That limit was pushed over me recently.) I won't be editing orthochess articles any more, as a result, I won't be able to return to project articles I've touched, to touch them again after having improved my editing skills. (Articles I've copyedited when I began here freak me out, how embarassingly poor my writing editing skills were then, and I've drawn the conclusion my skills will probably continue to increase over time, to the point where edits I think I'm pround of today will make me cringe in embarrassment again in future when I see them. I don't want those edits hanging around as permanent monuments to my mediocre skill as editor at that time. I can't return to ProjChess due to chronic maltreatment and prejudice by Quale to disparage me, and compliment those who would attack me. All of that is true for anyone doing the research. But ANIs are burning stakes, aren't they. (No time for digging the truth. Hang'em high!) I believe this ANI is nothing but the OP's assertion of continued conflict-dominance clashes with me at article Antichess and article Checkmate, and if true, a means to harass and misuse process. (Why does he care? No reason other than that. Oneupmanship. Need to assert superiority over another editor he's been in dispute with.)

    The issue here is whether an editor has the right or not to remove their own copyedits from an article. If it can be done without disturbing other editors' contributions, then why should it be denied? Edit reverts are the same thing: an editor has changed their mind on leaving her/his edit in the article. So I have changed my mind on Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening. I have my reasons, they have been partially explained -- enough to know accusations of valdalism are wholly untrue and bad-faith by an editor who I've had content clashes with. p.s. In each case of clashes with the OP, I've withdrawn from said Talks to avoid drama with him. He's too aggressive and unstoppable IMO, and objective discussion isn't in the cards with him -- only forcing his way, and "winning". I've avoided him therefore, now he comes to my Talk to unfairly accuse, and open this ANI as further contesting with me for whatever motive. I suspect the motive has nothing to do with the health of the encyclopedia, but rather interpersonal conflict he revels in. I'd like someone to tell him to leave me be. I've loved Wikipedia and contributing to orthodox chess articles. But the hostility, false blames, attempts to smear and defame, have made the "collaborative editing environment" a joke of inhospitable abusiveness in my perspective. (Just symptomatic of the wider rampant incivilities and lies told and smears conducted against editors generally -- a civility problem WP has no answer for, but has become the encrusted cultural fact here long before I signed up as editor. I simply don't want to be a part of it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    p.s. Dennis Brown's speculation of "ownership" is not correct. I wanted to remove my copyedits, and the example where User:MaxBrowne was excused for doing this at Chess.com by another editor, that he had the right to do so, was basis for me to believe or offer, that I have a right to undo my edits if I want. Nothing more. I have no desire to break any rule.
    Myself, I am not the slightest bit convinced of the sincerity of your argument. But putting that aside and responding to your question, there is no rule against reverting your copyedits. However, once you make an edit here, you release your contributions to CC-BY-SA and have no right to deny the restoration of those very same edits. Others clearly feel the content is beneficial to the article. You have no right to remove it without building a consensus for removal. Resolute 01:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My take on this is that Ihardlythinkso is always sincere. I'm not saying that he is always right. Cardamon (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thanks for that answer. To clarify, I didn't assert at any time I had right to deny restoration. (I didn't know.) I asked an editor to not restore, that I preferred no restoration (and explained why). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At least twice you told editors to not revert a revert, with one of them telling the editor to go read policy and the other telling the editor they were in violation of policy. [46] and [47] So you were asserting that readding the material was against policy. GB fan 01:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's misleading. I was telling that editor that his revert of my revert was out-of-order. (The edit-warring template itself says to not revert a second time, "even if you believe you are right".) That discussion issue was over BRD versus BRRD, and whether his or my revert was the "B". So that is entirely a different issue than if I do or don't have right to deny (ultimate) restoration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. When Kkj11210 (talk · contribs), a mature and polite editor, tried to discuss the blanking of the chess articles, IHTS immediately launched into a bullying ad hominem based on KJ's youth. I am also fed up with having my name constantly brought up in the process of attacking other editors over incidents that had nothing to do with me. I honestly have tried to have as little as possible to do with this editor lately, but his recent editing has been extremely disruptive. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Cesspool stuff, MaxBrowne. (As long as you feel free coming to the ANI cesspool to accuse of narcissism and disingenuousness, according to your need to falsely accuse and smear, do I in turn get to tell you that your behavior is that of an unethical cheat? Underhanded sleaziness? Do you want to throw more insults and buy the house some popcorn? This is your element, isn't it? Cesspool. Mud. Happy as a pig in mud you are!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a break. After a day or two think about whether you want to continue editing here, and imagine how much more pleasant it would be if you and other editors could be nice to each other. Jehochman Talk 02:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he's taking a break whether he wanted to or not, as the above came after my having warned him not to continue with personal attacks; accordingly I've blocked Ihardlythinkso for 24 hours. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I don't know about what happened in discussions concerning the Chess articles in the past, but I can only give my views regarding what I've observed in the last few days. From my take on the issue, it looks like user Ihardlythinkso believes that he has been subject to personal attacks in the past and that a number of editors are against his good-faith efforts to improve Chess-related articles. In response, he has been removing his early (and apparently bad-quality) additions while believing that such removals are beneficial to the articles. I didn't accuse him of WP:OWN since I was being WP:CIVIL, but I do believe that he was acting without awareness of WP:OWN. After the expiration of the block, I think that a discussion attempting to put behind past events, as well as a good dose of WP:AGF, will be adequate to resolve the conflict. KJ click here 05:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ihardlythinkso has been editing for far too long and been embroiled in enough disputes to plead ignorance of WP:OWN or do edits like this. --NeilN talk to me 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    His responses on his talk page to my trying to explain why he was blocked are disturbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's conduct I think is "disturbing" is yours, Bushranger. (Turning good-faith Qs of you, instead of according to your responsibilities re WP:ADMINACCT, into some kind of lecturing, shaming, baiting fest.) You obfuscated in every conceivable way and for as long as you could, to dodge answering two simple and clear Qs. (Until I had no choice but to give up.) Now you attempt to take credit for something not due you. I call that dishonest. You really take the cake. But somehow I think you don't care. (Is that because you're admin and see yourself invulnerable? My third Q also went unanswered: What are your recall parameters?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your questions regarding the block were answered immediately; whether you overlooked them accidentally or otherwise is something I cannot help. What you call "lecturing, shaming, baiting" was an attempt to point out how your conduct is unacceptable for a Wikipedia contributor; again, if you refuse to listen I cannot help that. As for recall parameters, they involve something that you have proven incapable of extending: good faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense. (If my Q about the block was answered immediately, then why didn't you say so when I continued to ask the same Q several times, and complain to you that I'd not received any answer from you? Your RfA Opposes pointed out sarcasm and/or a pattern of your giving "silent responses", in the form of a complaint in that RfA about your behavior. I see now you haven't lifted even a little finger to make any corrective changes in that behavior, based just on what you've said above. Not good.) You have no right to lecture me, attempt to shame, condescend me at my Talk, when I was merely trying to get understanding of your POV for the block. You think you have the right to soapbox and lecture me regarding civil behavior? Boo to that. If we had a forum to discuss, and a moderator to keep our discussion reasonable, I can perhaps name at least a half dozen personal attacks and personal slights you made at my Talk. You have no right to do that to a good-faith editor trying to get basic info from you about the block you executed. That's bullying behavior, and abusive as well. I think you are not fit to be an admin.) About IDHT, sorry but my view is a competing one. It's you that consistently displayed IDHT, not me. And about your good-faith criticisms, just like the block you made, how can I appeal or address, when I don't even know what the hell it is you're talking about and your issues of concern have never been presented to me in any comprehensible or digestible way? In any event, though I'd love to discuss that with you, that will be impossible, because I'd require as mentioned a space to do it in, plus a moderator to regulate your manipulative and obfuscating communications. Another reason it won't happen too, is that the topic that caused the ANI was Mann jess's efforts to warn me from reverting my edits from articles, and when I didn't heed his warning, he immediately opened this ANI for purpose to stop said reverts. Now in manipulative fashion you seem to be re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI to some never-defined "bad-faith" issue of your concern. Sorry but I was having no luck even getting a square answer from you about the specific reason you blocked me, let alone all of the abuse you have decided amongst yourself that I must suffer from your mouth. Does not compute. Another reason no discussion of your issues will be conducted, not only because of the lack of feature here to provide a space for said discussion, and a moderator to keep orderly, but I'm finding it personally soiling to have any contact or interfaces with you whatever. That said, I wish you would get the fuck off my back and stop your irrational baits. I've already told you I think you're a disgrace as an admin; you aren't changing my opinion by your further lectures and condescensions. What do you hope to gain here? (Get me riled so I say something off-the-cuff whereby you have another crack at blocking me? For a longer duration?) Pathetic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear: you got a specific answer after you asked what the specific PA you had been blocked for was, where I said "you posted this over an hour after you were warned", with "this" being linked to your specific post that caused the block; and it was made within an hour after you requested an explanation. I find it honestly perplexing that you're accusing me of "re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI" when my comment regarding good faith was in direct answer to your question. I have answered your questions clearly and concisely, only not answering them promptly when the questions were accompanied by (yet another set of) personal attacks against other editors. However, your conduct in response, both on your talk page and here, has been a sea of invective and personal attacks, including but not limited to comparing me to Mexican immigrant traffickers. From your pattern of commentary it's clear that you immediately assumed bad faith on my part, and decided to remain in that position regardless of any attempted explanation, instead deciding that any attempts at speaking plainly and clearly about the issue must be abuse, and progressively escalating invective in response to each attempt to explain the situation - and its consequences for you. Accordingly, I regret to say I can provide no further assistiance in trying to help you to remain a productive member of the Wikipedia community, which is what I have been trying to do all along, and instead will leave you with the same advice I gave another editor below on this page: when you find yourself in a hole, continuing to dig can only have one result. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Bushranger, I put in good-faith effort to learn the specifics of my block with you, and it was impossible to get any answers from you (you wouldn't give them, only lectures, condesensions, insults, attacks). At that point I gave up trying to communicate with you on the normal reasonable basis I give to everyone equally out of respect, until an editor shows me by their behavior and responses that I can on longer do that in good-faith. (In other words, you lost good-faith from me back at my Talk. I'm no longer entertaining anything you write to my attention with the usual good-faith care I give any and all editors. You lost that respect a long time ago, and I told you specifically the same thing on my Talk a long time ago. Now you are parading a paragraph to my attention, as though I care, and as though a communication link of question/response exists between us in good-faith, which it doesn't, and hasn't for some time. I've wasted enough time trying in good-faith with you. You didn't even give me the courtesy to understand the specifics of my block, before appeal time expired. That should have been priority with you, after blocking someone. Now you give excuses that you were busy or something, but that is BS Bushranger -- you are admin, and if you make a block, you should address the blockee if he is asking to understand for what exactly, when she/he asks. So I'm not buying your "I was busy". That is completely inexcusable given the power of block and role as admin at WP:ADMINACCT. The possibility of one-to-one communication with you broke down totally at my Talk as mentioned, and any pretense to others on this board that a conversation is still going on, or can go on between us over specifics of the block, or related Q/A, is just not the case. I've told you numerous times already that I wouldn't entertain any interface with you again, unless there's a moderator to control discussion, and a place to conduct said discussion. And you accuse me of IDHT???? I'm not interested in anything you have to say or accuse, without a moderator and a discussion room, Bushranger. I've found your argument & discussion style to be exceedingly manipulative and obfuscating, and I won't attempt to deal with that again, on my own. Now I've told you that perhaps more than a few times. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Busy or something"? "I was busy"? That proves that either you absolutely did not read my comment or are deliberately ignoring it, as I made no such statements and implied no such thing. At all. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cesspool stuff" was not a personal attack. However calling somebody "an unethical cheat" who is engaging in "underhanded sleaziness" is, and when the person making those statements has previously been warned that any further personal attacks will result in a block, they get blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not directly call MaxBrowne those names. I was being rhetorical. He personally attacked me with "classic narcissist", which is pretty vicious and lewd and no editor should have to endure such an attack as that, and I came back to him with, essentially an argument: is that what he wants to do here? call names? does he want a name-calling fest? like me calling him [those names]? is that what he wants? I was clearly trying to shame him for opening up name-calling, since it isn't logical, it isn't appropriate, it isn't helpful, in descends to the lowest-common denominator. So just like Basalisk did on my Talk, you pick up on that and use it as an excuse to block based on a civility infraction. His attack was clear, mine reply was not a direct attack, it was rhetorical, I could have said "do I get to call you Frankenstein's butt now?" or any other thing, it didn't really matter. I did not want to PA him, he clearly wanted (and did) PA me. (That said, why didn't you warn him? If you had warned him, perhaps I wouldn't have needed to throw out the rhetorical stuff to try an deter him. But you didn't warn him. You warned me. And I did not see your warning, I was unaware of it because I was busy responding to the ANI, and not going to my Talk.) The fact that you excused MaxBrowne from the PA "classic narcissist" by telling me on omy Talk that it wasn't a PA because he was just calling a "spade a spade", is the same as you making the same PA against me, Mr. Administrator, and that is not only unbecoming but I think is de-sysop worthy, since you should and do know better than that. But you likely won't be de-sysop'd for that, since admins seldom lose their tools and you know that. So you take pot shots at me by reinforcing the "classic narcissism" PA, because you can get away with it. That's just plain abuse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on NE Ent, don't employ tunnel vision over this. There are plenty of diffs provided in this discussion of personal attacks from IHTS, from both before and after the warning, and frankly it's not the first time this guy has sailed close to a WP:NPA block [48] Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Basalisk, ever since I criticized the editor who was your nominator at your successful RfA, you have gone out of your way to insert yourself in my wiki-life, and try and trick and trap me into a block. (For example, it is a fact that an admin called me a "mother-fucking asshole" in an Email, and upon knowing that, you went to my Talk and asked for the Email to be revealed at my Talk, knowing full well had I done that, it would have been an outing and an immediate sanction imposed on me.) I can diff several other of your posts where you bogusly threatened me at my Talk, and other editors came to my defense and chased you away. But you're still out to block me, or see me blocked. I call that carrying a long-term grudge, and is unbecoming of admin. You should self-evaluate better, Basalisk. You won't drop your stick. But tell you what, I'm willing to give you something and make you go away. I'm willing to commit [Eric could do this himself if he wanted, he doesn't want, I don't blame him] to never using a curse word at anyone ever again. [E.g. "fucker".] Just like Eric, when I've used curse words, they are by choice, not because I'm a lunatic madman not in control of my mouth. The challenge will be, how to get my meaning across as effectively, when curse words are short and succinct, whereas telling someone the same thing in more tea cerimony style is less impacting and "artful". But if it would make you happy, I'll promise to never use another curse word on the WP. Will that make you happy? [And BTW, I don't know why the WP software doesn't already screen for curse words, and replace them with "****" etc., like dating sites do!?!? Simple!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well to be honest, I don't know anything about dating sites, but I imagine the wiki software doesn't bowdlerise profanities so that they can be included in articles for encyclopaedic purposes. Generally speaking the whole system is designed assuming that the people using it will act like adults. Diff away if it pleases you, though characterising a threat as "bogus" strikes me as a category error. I'm not trying to get you blocked IHTS. That's what you say of everyone who disagrees with you; they're all a bunch of fuckers trying to get you blocked. Just take a break from this and take it on the chin. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I have some software background, and a table of article names could be exempted in the software to accomodate exceptions, that is all design-requirements stuff easily done. Adults swear Basalisk, more than children, so you got that reversed. Providing diffs isn't my entertainment or desire, Basalisk, telling you I can do that is a signal to you that you shouldn't challenge me on what I asserted, because I can back up what I say. (Your threat was entirely bogus and I can prove it.) I do not say about everyone that they are trying to get me blocked, that's a category overgeneralization, in fact I think I've said that of extremely few editors in reality. (But I know throwing BS overgeneralizations around at the ANI is consistent with the cesspool arguments and mud slung that is the cultural norm here, so you're fitting in real good with that. To me I'd be ashamed, but you and many others just love it. It's so tacky.) I don't know what you're advising me to do ("take a break", "take it on the chin"), Basalisk, I really don't. It was not my idea to open this ANI which Mann jess opened to stop reversions of edits at articles I've edited, turns out he's wrong about it, it was permissable to undo copyedits I've made to articles. I have no idea what you mean, and I don't seek your councel either, you just turned down a good-faith offer to get to leave me alone, I don't know how to make you leave me alone, quit calling me a child, I think you are the immature one, Basalisk. What will make you go away? Did you want to discuss Kevin Gorman here? This dialogue and cesspool tangents are abusive shit, and if you revel in it, you revel in shit. And I just can't fucking respect people who do that, you know. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to the issue at hand, Ihardlythinkso as was explained to you above you can not remove content from WP just because you added it, specially claiming things like "I created this article so should have a right to delete it (User:MaxBrowne once deleted Chess.com, and he as granted permission to do so, since he was author of that article", "Undid revision 601789037 by Kkj11210 (talk) a high school student reverts me??", "I am author, I withdraw this article". Incidentally on March 29th you breached WP:3RR on at least three articles (Veniamin Sozin, Fischer–Spassky (1992 match), Paris Defence) and should count yourself lucky you didn't get a long block for that alone. Your lack of civility only adds insult to injury and you should consider stopping while you are ahead. Just drop it, calm down and resume your editing in a few days with a cooler head. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Those initial reverts were mistaken and repaired, and those initial editsums were written hastily in span of only a few minutes during a windown of time that was indeed emotionally depressing to me. I have already explained this. I have a cooler head now, but some things remain the same, and this venue isn't really appropriate to discuss it. It's my understanding going forward that it is resolved that an editor may remove their edits from an article if they want. (Not OWN, and not barring restoration by another editor feeling differently about the value of the edits to the quality of the article. [That said, I'd like to point out that User:Mann jesse's restorations were not based on anything related to article quality, he has no interest or investment in said articles, he as only restored to counter reversion by an editor he feels in completition with based on previous content disputes where he also tried to force his way with edit-warring and IDHT discussions and I objected. So he forced his dominance where he can. This is interpersonal conflict in action, and nothing about article quality. He has no investment or care about said articles, he has only tracked my actions because of a need to prove dominance. Or claim I am a vandal. I am not a vandal, I've reverted my own edits, not other editors'. I explained I have complex reasons for doing so, and none of them are what has been accused.) You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility, and that there are perhaps 1000s of ways to be uncivil than using "bad words", and those forms of incivility are tremendoudly worse in my book than any bad words could be, since they enter unethical areas that bad words simply don't have access to. I don't think this is a forum to discuss individual diffs of incivility and their context with other diffs, and evaluation of what civility really is, and the limits of policy to define and capture it, and the inequitable enforcement by whim from administrators that results. What is the further purpose of this ANI, and Gaba, I respect what you are saying, but what practically do you want from me, or is this ANI just to chastise endlessly over a dead event that lasted only a few mintues? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility" - this frequently repeated claim by IHTS is patently untrue. Here a polite request to discuss an edit is met with "give me a fucking break" and accusations of "wikilawyering" and "edit warring". And of course this edit summary is the very definition of an ad hominem. Not an "accusation", but a completely accurate description. Want more diffs? No, didn't think so. But they're there for anyone who cares to look. There are *many* examples of IHTS initiating incivility in his editing history, most recently against Resolute (talk · contribs) who attempted to offer constructive criticism and was met with a torrent of abuse. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those were an emotional few minutes for me, I felt the editor was edit-warring, and that provoked me to some degree, but you're right overall, the incivilities were mine there, and they weren't justified. But that editor and I were able to discuss just fine, after those emotional minutes of mine. I'm not a perfect robot, and never claimed to be, but it is true that there are extremely few unproviked incivilities from me in my three or so year history. This incident was an extremely complex emotionally challenging time for me, and you found one of extremely few instances. To attempt to take that and generalize or characterize me as misrepresenting myself, is a dirty underhanded trick, MaxBrowne. And you are also the editor how came here and called me "classic narcissist" unprovoked. In our past history you have proven to me that your behavior is one of the most despicabe I've ever experienced from an editor, and you know tha we are enemies because of that history. So you come here as a foe to throw mud and mischaracterize and join a lynch party. Your "torrent of abuse" hyperbole is just that. I tend to think exaggeration and distortion are forms of lies and dishonesty, but apparently you don't. You seem to have gotten away with your "classic narcisst" personal attack without a block, but instead baiting me into a response where an administraor unaccountably decided to block me and not you. Has this emboldened you perhaps, MaxBrowne? And aren't you lucky that readers to this ANI probably have no interest to discover your abusive demeaning bad-faith incivilities chronically made against me in WT:CHESS threads. But I know you'll attempt to throw more mud here, because that's your ilk. But your behaviors seem to be supported there, and here, and that speaks to the abusive environments here, not to anything I've done. You seem to revel in this abusive environment, I don't. As long as the WP is as hostile and uncivil as it is, you'll continue to do well here. And you're happy with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprovoked? For once and for all, Stop dragging my name into it when you are fighting with other editors. Don't want me involved? Then don't talk about me.

    It's good that you acknowledge that your attack on that particular editor was unjustified, but your claim that it was an isolated incident is untrue. Here you tell a new editor to "grow a brain". Your removal of the material was justified, but your uncivil edit summary was not. Here an IP's admittedly poor edit is reverted with the edit summary "dumbass". Please just drop the self-serving claim that you don't initiate incivilities, because you do, and frequently. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you're right again, that editsum was bad form. (Was it to an IP for an edit that could be construed as valdalism? Possibly. But one should give benefit of the doubt, and I failed in that case.) But no otherwise, if you assess unprovoked incivilities by me as "frequent" -- that's just not true. The incivilities thrown at me by you, have been frequent. The godawful threads on WT:CHESS where you chronically and baselessly attack me without end for bad-faith, and your essentially trying to turn a convention discussion into a personal attack page on me, shows your own level of civility, MaxBrowne. So what exactly is your logic here? That I have incidents of unprovoked incivility, so I should be indef-blocked? Where does that put you then? Will you self-indef block for calling me, unprovoked, "classic narcissist"? Or is it that you don't see yourself as initiating incivilities? If the latter, that is complete self-denial. Your editing history shows that you don't have any real care about civility, insulting respected chess editor User:Toccata quarta, for example. And all the unreasonable and out-of-line defaming attacks you've made against me. At least I try to do the right thing on Wikipedia, I'm not perfect. But you exploit the loose environment here, are heavily more uncivil than I have been re unprovoked attacks, such as the personal attack thread at WT:CHESS and your unprovoked "classic narcissist". Do you think you are applying your civility standards equally to yourself?! You once even challenged me that I was not qualified to tell anyone they were being uncivil, if there was any speck of incivility in my record. (How logical is that?!) But now you are accusing of the same, when your own record has plenty of it, and even in this thread. Am I supposed to find some logic or reasonability in your arguments, MaxBrowne?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Want me to find more examples of unprovoked rudeness on your part? Because I can. "Classic narcissist behaviour" was my interpretation of your actions, based on a number of factors, including but not limited to (1) your hypersensitivity to criticism (2) your extreme hostility and argumentativeness over the most petty disputes (3) your flattery towards those who affirm or defend you (4) your absolute inability to see yourself as others see you. I've come across this sort of behaviour frequently on the net and I can recognise it when I see it. Do you not even see the contradiction in an edit summary like "fuck off uncivil asshole"?? Do you think WP:NPA and WP:CIV somehow applies to everyone except you? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe you levy that PA again, MaxBrowne. And rub it in for good effect. (Do I have to tell any readers here how abusive?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the thing. If someone were to accuse me of having sex with sheep, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, since I know I have no zoophilic tendencies whatsoever. It's so far from the truth that it's laughable. This is the effect that the majority of your insults have on me. On the other hand, if someone were to call me a loser who spends way too much time on the computer, that would carry a lot more sting, because it's much closer to the truth. If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. If I'm totally wrong about this, maybe you could do something to correct that mis-impression? Believe me, I would love to be proved wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there some reason we haven't indefinitely blocked Ihardlythinkso yet? Since 2012, all I've seen him do is jump into one raging dispute after the next and exhibit a level of IDIDNTHEARTHAT which a deaf person would find difficult to replicate. He seems to believe that NPA doesn't apply to him, as demonstrated above, and gets all up in arms if anyone dares to question anything he does. The headaches Ihardlythinkso has caused are way out of proportion to any good contributions he makes, and have wasted a tremendous number of man-hours from people who have to intervene and deal with the abuse he hurls at anyone and everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Northern, I'm having hard time even imagining or conceiving that any paragraph could compete with your above paragraph, for being right-out-of-the-playbook for the infamous mob and pitch-fork generation for the equally infamous lynching that this board is noted for. (I mean, your paragraph is so iconic, it seems like a copy/paste right out of such a playbook. Cookie-cutter parody even.) The thing is, I don't think that occurs to you, because you are so like a pig in mud here, and that is the accepted cultural norm of this venue. (So, you have no embarrassment whatever for participating as you do, since you know your mud flinging, and torch-waving, will be accepted by other editors who over time have somehow come to accept and call normal this cesspool environment that is a magnet for peanut gallery abuse and drive-by incivilities [and digs, and lies, and smears, and BS]. Because anything goes here. And you have no shame for that. [Wow! I don't know what else to say. It seems right out of a comic book to me, but it is the reality, for so-called adults, "some of whom are partially educated" {George Carlin}, at Wikipedia!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That, right there, is probably the best example of someone failing to get the point that you'll ever see. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't done, Mr. Basalisk. And your reference to a "point", is BS. (It's a call for a lynching, plain and clear. With shot-gun unsupported condescensions thrown in to dress it up. Can you summarize the "point" you're seeing to be there, Basalisk? Let's see your summary sentence of said "point". It is criticism and condesension. Mud slinging without a venue to back up what one says. So a free-for all digs and insults and accuses session. Pure cesspool stuff. And I'm supposed to methodically address said editor's concerns? In this venue? When he only wants my head on a pike? You like the tenor here to be one of free-for-all abusiveness, and if I don't receive the abuse like I'm "supposed to", then you have more attacks, re "IDHT". Not buying it, Basalisk. I think your thinking is confused and purpose-driven. You want no reasonable result, or you wound't have rejected the personal offer I made to you earlier. (You're complaining, I thought, about swearing. I offered to stop swearing in any situation on the WP, if you would only leave me alone and stop harassing, ever since you introduced your self when I criticized your RfA nominator. You ignored that proposal. So how is it that you think you don't have unclean hands and unclean intentions here, Basalisk? (BTW, you give me a headache. Are you happy about that? Serve your purpose? Joy joy joy?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For a long time, I've known you to be an enemy toward me Northern, because I pinched your nerve for calling me a "12-year-old" in a bogus ANI that you closed, where I conducted myself as professionally as I could endeavor dealing with all the mud-throwing there. Because I went to your Talk and civilly objected to your comment "12-year-old", your response was to re-open the ANI on that basis, and you encouraged any admin to come in and block me. (That shows complete and emotionally-driven revenge, Northern, and how would that in any way possible be behavior consistent with WP:ADMINACCT or becoming of admin. Instead it shows to me complete abuse of your power as admin, and a disregard for "behavior at a higher standeard" as though that is a joke. You also kidded and joked and ridiculed me then, at your Talk, with your buddy and notoriously abusive admin Toddst1. Total unbecoming of admins. But you feel you have free license to do, because your admin badge is for life, and admins are seldom dysysopped here, and editors are under the abusive thumbs of admins like you, and you revel in that arrangement. I've not the first to claim the environment with admins of your ilk is corrupted and uncorrectabe, because said admins bar change through protecting their statuses, but surely "admin for life" is a corrupt concept to begin with, and fosters the kind of abuse of power you show so unembarrassingly. You're impressive Northern, as a model case of revenge-driven grudge-driven admin, doing what you can to fulfill those grudges, when opportunity arises. And many opportunities can arise, because any editor can open an ANI thread at any time on any basis, and then the doors open to this free-for-all mud throwing and torch-waving to service said grudges. A wonderfully civilized environment. You're part of what makes that environment tick. And you're proud of that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I suspect it might have something to do with the 23,000 / 68% mainspace edits. The goal is to produce an encyclopedia, right?
    I'm the first to admit it would be great if we actually had civility policy rather than a civility meme. Somewhere up there I'm accused of tunnel vision -- to the contrary I'm going to assert I have forest vision, and I just don't understand how someone can legitimately draw a line in the sand here and say that one editor's 8 meter "narcissistic diva" tree is okay but another's 9 meter "cesspool / rhetoric question" tree is block worthy -- even assuming we all agree as to measure the height of the tree. NE Ent 00:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See again the part about continuing personal attacks following being warned that further personal attacks will result in a block. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NE Ent, it's not enough to make an ordered list of words and draw a line between the ones that are just-barely-OK and the ones that are just-barely-unacceptable. The context matters. Two people might use the same phrase, but in one case have a reasonable basis for it and in the other case be lashing out without any real justification. You have to ask yourself: Does this person have a good reason for using this phrase? Do other reasonable users agree? Are they speaking with some specificity or as part of a broad pattern of personalizing disputes? In this case I think the answers to these questions are clear and focusing only on language itself (apart from context) misses most of the picture. --Amble (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes people just don't get along and it's best for them to simply stay away from each other. In case someone decides that's the case here and proposes an interaction ban between IHTS and Quale, MaxBrowne, Bushranger, Basalisk and The Blade of the Northern Lights, I want to make sure that we check various talk pages and add Malleus, Drmies, Eric Corbett, Sjakkalle, Dennis Brown and, of course, me. That covers the people baiting/attacking/wiki-copping/whatever against IHTS according to IHTS on my talk page. I'm certain there are more hiding out there on various user talk pages/article talk pages/ANI/etc. At some point I have to wonder how many people we can reasonably expect to simply steer clear of one individual before we decide a civility block is in order. A glance at IHTS's talk page seems to show that a 24 hour block for personal attacks generated more personal attacks, with only the slightest bits of light peeking through. Personally, it seems to me that the ratio of light to heat in this case has been appallingly low for far too long. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Which is why he should be blocked. If he repeatedly blanked pages, repeatedly Uses Vulgar language, and when he gets blocked, gives more Personal threats, he is obviously WP:NOTHERE. I feel we should just block or ban him, as he goes and tries to attack with WP:THROW. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 01:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not advocating any particular course of action with respect to this editor. It should be obvious that we're not friends, but I still think WP:NOTHERE is unfair. I think WP:NOTNOTHERE applies here, specifically the section which reads: "Difficulty in good faith, with conduct norms - A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. While these can lead to warnings, blocks or even bans in some cases, failure to adapt to a norm is not, by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively." MaxBrowne (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While WP:NOTHERE may not be applicable, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:IDHT are. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that I'm some sworn enemy of Ihardlythinkso is a fantasy which exists only in his head. For the last year and 3 months I've barely been involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia, and on those rare occasions I've deviated from my article work I haven't really encountered him at all (except once when he started flinging mud at me in front of ArbCom, which doesn't especially trouble me). The articles I've worked on have also given me a fresh perspective on a lot of things, not the least of which is the definition of "abuse" (on a personal level I find it upsetting when people bandy it about so freely, for reasons that should be fairly obvious). I have paid some attention to what's happening around here, though, and I completely stand by every word I said above. If the list of people Ihardlythinkso doesn't get along with is the size of the one SummerPhD provides above, and Ihardlythinkso is the common denominator in all of them, it's a sign that the problem may be fairly one-sided; in addition to agreeing with The Bushranger that CIVIL and NPA seem applicable, see WP:All socks for a good summary of Ihardlythinkso's attitude. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So (per WP:All socks) being on the receiving end of a wiki lynch mob is like being denied credit by multiple agencies? Good analogy! Equifax loses 18.6 million lawsuit NE Ent 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you understand my point; if you can't get along with everyone else, there comes a point where you have to consider that you're the problem. I had to do this myself in real life, as indeed the way my brain functions (or doesn't, as the case may be) is the source of a lot of aggravation for people who interact with me. Over the years I've worked extremely hard at adjusting my communication style, and while I'm far from perfect you'd barely recognize my social skills given what they once were. I could have patently refused to accept that I'm ever the problem, but if I did that I would have likely been arrested for breach of peace many years ago (I get rather riled up over certain sporting events, it's been an enormous struggle to get that under control). Same basic issue here; if Ihardlythinkso rejects all responsibility for the problems above, as he has been before, the problems which are documented here are only going to get worse and create a massive timesink. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Block

    • Support blocking, per the discussion above. And I'll third the notion that I don't appreciate my name being dragged up all over WP in disputes I have no part in. I've been referenced something like 15 times by IHTS in the last week, along with insults and accusations of bad faith. I've intentionally stayed away from his page and this thread to let others comment, and yet I'm still getting attacked. My very first involvement with IHTS was met with a stream of personal attacks which have never ended. This was followed by intentional obstruction, edit warring, and all manner of other issues, which completely prevented any hope of collaboration. IHTS is the first editor for whom I ever asked for an interaction ban in years of editing. I'm having trouble finding any editor with whom he's able to work pleasantly; none so far have commented. If he's unable to work with anyone, then he doesn't belong on a collaborative project.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppport, reluctantly. As IHTS has now gone from egreious personal attacks to creating from whole cloth statements that were not made or implied, I have to conclude that either they are not interested in editing collaborately or collegially, or are incapable of doing so. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (enthusiastically). He's already been blocked, didn't seem to help. Maybe we should try something else. NE Ent 11:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NE, I trust you since you are a reasonable man and not a former enemy drawn to this ANI looking for blood. What do you like to see different from me. Please be specific. I guarantee you'll get it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the first thing should probably be to stop expecting Wikipedia to be rational, fair, coherent, consistent, or anything like that. Secondly, if you find contributing to Wikipedia isn't enjoyable, I'd log off until such time (if ever) you find that it might be. Beyond that, it would depend on what specific goals you have moving forward. NE Ent 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - During his block, he continued to make personal attacks (which he will tell you were justified/weren't personal attacks/were just payback/aren't as bad as the attacks he's endured/etc.). What would you suggest? Perhaps an interaction ban with an extensive and growing list of editors? "Something else" is not a suggestion. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I've had no contact in any time recent, or need to contact, and no wish to contact, any of the complaining editors in this ANI. The only contact there's been between me and the complaining editors at this ANI in any time recent, stems from this ANI itself. And 100% of the responses I've given to the complaining editors in this ANI have been turned around and used against me by them, as "fresh" complaint. That is a trick and a trap, since the ANI itself is being used as bait for responses, and no responses were possible, that wouldn't be turned around. That is because all the complaining editors here are former enemies, holding grudges. I wish for no enemies, and no enemy relationships, that is why I have avoided contact with all these editors when the interactions turned sour. But it is a reality that enemies exist, and they are drawn to an ANI to try to find reason to harm, generating it in the ANI itself, since past contacts with them had been dried up and dead. This is a trick and a trap. There is also plenty of WP:STICK present which is the basis of it all. I don't carry any stick, and I don't taunt or bait anyone intentionally, ever. I have just wanted to be left alone by these editors. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you just want to be left alone, why did you drag my name into a dispute that I was not involved in on your talk page? Keep in mind that I'm not the first person you've done this to. Northern Antarctica (₵) 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. How many more second chances is he going to get? He has been reported to ANI for incivility on several occasions. He has a chronic, long term problem complying with the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies, and despite repeated warnings has shown no willingness whatsoever to address this issue. Rather, he has amplified his personal attacks recently, notably on this very thread, because he knows he can do this with no real consequences. What is the point of having a civility policy if people can continuously violate it over several years without so much as a reprimand? My patience with this editor is exhausted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support He is very uncivil. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 14:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undecided/Mild Oppose Good contributor, especially towards WT:CHESS. If he prefers to concentrate on Shogi, Xianqqi and Chess Variants in future then that's fine too. He's given at least a small amount of leeway in admitting that maybe, just maybe, he may not have handled things perfectly. But if nothing else comes out of this rather sordid process, I hope he will at least stop dredging up old conflicts every time he has a disagreement with another editor. It's really not nice to drag someone else's name into a conflict that they had nothing to do with. Please stop it! If nothing else comes out of this process, please at least take this on board! Seriously! As for past incidents between Toccata and me, we've long since moved on. So should you, IHTS. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC) *Edit:Reluctant Support: While the chess WikiProject needs more active participants, IHTS is a net negative for the project due to (1) numerous personal attacks (2) tendency to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation (3) holding on to personal grudges and constantly resurrecting them, even in unrelated discussions (4) utter unwillingness to address any of these issues. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel IHTS is trying to make a last ditch effort to save himself from the tightening trap. To much incivility is to much incivility. Maybe we could only have him be able to edit chess related articles as a "Compromise" Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of keeping the rhetoric at a reasonable level, let's avoid using terms like "noose" here. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK then, does this phrase look better(Noose to trap)? Thanks for the heads up. 00:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Yeah, I've got to say that although I'm highly critical of Ihardlythinkso I'm not really thrilled with some of the inflammatory choice of words on both sides; just as a reminder, this is what a lynching and a noose really look like, a discussion at ANI is neither of these things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I think the block caused Ihardlythinkso to vent, the venting continued after the block ended, and some of the things being used as a reason for a second block are the result of this venting. It's bad form to block for venting. @IHTS, please try to calm down. Cardamon (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - IHTS has a long history of venting, was blocked for venting and vented some more. Yes, it would be a bad idea to block for a venting event. It is, however, very disruptive when there's virtually no end to the venting and the venting consists of a steady stream of personal attacks aimed at anyone who dares to mention the personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:A50000 at Soviet Union

    The only edits that A50000 (talk · contribs) has performed this year have been to repeatedly edit war over the labeling of the subject of Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as either a "socialist state" (the current form) or as a "communist state" (the form he keeps restoring) [49] [50] [51]. After the March 20 (at least in my timezone) edit, I informed him on his talk page that he should raise the issue on the talk page but he seems to have ignored that and made another edit in the past 24 hours to restore his preferred version. These have been his only actions on Wikipedia in what is essentially a year, and he has been blocked for disrupting articles relating to communism and socialism in the past. He only seems to respond in the edit summaries and has apparently paid no heed to the message that I left him on his user talk page. Based on this current disruption and past disruption, I believe that A50000 should be topic banned from topics relating to communism, broadly construed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a single-purpose account, whose purpose I cannot clearly discern (their comments in edit summaries and on talk pages are a bit cryptic, though one gets a clear-enough hint here and here) but whose methods are not acceptable. Sources, if they are ever provided, are terrible, and many of the talk page comments (like this) combine borderline trolling with personal attacks. A topic ban is a possibility, but given the soapboxy, unsourced, disruptive, edit-warriorlike edits made by this user, an indefinte block (not infinite, of course) is the best option. I'd love to hear some more opinions, but that's what I think I'm going to do unless I am swayed otherwise. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I was trying to be generous with my proposal, but an indef block probably would serve the same purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yep. "Problem" is, they stopped editing. Let's keep this in the backs of our minds. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      You spoke too soon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment

    I consider I am the victim of harassment by user AfadsBad. It has been going on for some time but has become more intrusive recently. It seems to be designed to ridicule and discourage me and it is spoiling my enjoyment of editing on Wikipedia.

    Here are some examples:

    The harassment is not confined to Wikipedia but also takes place off-wiki at AfadsBad's blog and on general discussion forums such as http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4131 . I do not believe I have ever been anything but polite to AfadsBad and would like to be left alone to edit in peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't be visiting one of the above external links, but I find the wordpress blog entry that names-and-shames a fellow community member to be beyond the pale. Human beings just don't do that to fellow human beings, but alas it's become so easy to trash people on the internet with so little fear of reprisal DP 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the pseudonymous administrator who just used this project's most high-traffic noticeboard to describe, in the very same sentence, one of our community members as not being a human being. I can't tell if that's genuine doublethink or you're just a garden-variety hypocrite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: AfadsBad has had been briefly helpful in two recent questions that I have asked of her, but most of my interaction with her to date has been unduly negative and tediously pedantic. The harassment of Cwmhiraeth is not a singular case, as there has been harassment and negative communications with several other editors, however, AfadsBad seems to have a special obsession with Cwmhiraeth that has verged onto being pathological and inimical to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. It has been going on relentlessly for about 7 or 8 months that I've seen it, and a lot of the argument is the same tune from a broken record. The argument wears a little thin--some editors find that there's little meat on the bone for her ranting and usually tune out, but the relentlessness of it contributes to driving users away, making contributing unpleasant, and that is unacceptable. I'm convinced that AfadsBad is the current name of a user who has been blocked a few times previously for similar harassment issues, although I do not have the tools to confirm it. I've mentioned to AfadsBad on her talk page that she should be more willing to collaborate with others, including Cwmhiraeth, but that advice was quickly dismissed. Likewise advice to correct errors in the collaborative spirit has been similarly dismissed. The fact that this harassment has expanded to include lambasting Cwmhiraeth's work offsite, especially at Wikipediocracy in what has the appearance of canvassing or suborning an endorsement for her continued harassment, is troublesome. As far as I see it, AfadsBad should have a one-way interaction ban from contacting Cwmhiraeth which includes the order to stop dragging her name through the mud elsewhere. If AfadsBad in her time as an underemployed scholar wants to continue bullying Cwmhiraeth, or wants to persist to criticize from the sidelines without collaboration or improving the project, she should find another hobby and be shown the door. Sorry, AfadsBad, but when it comes to several users who have said collaborate and play nice, it's time to "put up or shut up".--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I consider this a tragic situation. When AfadsBad first began editing, she made a real contribution in science-related areas. But the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia means that "expert" edits can be undone by others who might not be as knowledgeable. The fact is that a few editors can determine consensus which might not be factually accurate, it's just an edit that editors have, more or less, agreed with. So, she felt her knowledge was unappreciated and she has been complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of science subjects since Fall 2013. I don't know the particulars of this editor interaction, just thought I'd fill in some of the backstory. Liz Read! Talk! 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I love the little dig about being an "underemployed scholar". Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol, I am not going to read all this. "Underemployed scholar?" Lol.

    Anyway, Cwmhiraeth cannot accurately place information in Wikipedia, and her level of knowledge is frequently too low to communicate what is wrong to her, like why C4 and CAM photosynthesis have different names. Every article of hers has made up information, inaccurate information, random pieces of information that give undue weight to what she has added, and plagiarism. Her main sources are usually too old, and she cannot overcome the problems of the disagreements between 1963 taxomony books and advances in modern biochemistry. She does not repair articles when she can understand what is wrong, and continues adding the same errors.

    Go ahead, check her articles against their sources. "Tropical Southern Ocean," "no cacti have leaves," "CAM and C4 photosynthesis are identical," the sea disaster corrected after it was off the main page.

    Since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, it is surprising that Wikipedia editors and admins would fight to keep 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia with made up science and taxonomies in them and want to continue adding them.

    WikiCup Ahoy! And onward Essjay! Or whatever his name was, he has good company with WikiScholar Cwmhiraeth. Her articles are passed and passed to the main page based on the strength of her having written so many, she doesn't claim expertise, but Wikipedia editorial superiority over the "underemployed scholar." Expertise exhibited. Taxonomy for Dummies, anyone?

    Correcting bad science is harassment? So what is making up 1300+ main page articles for probably millions of hits, replacement of accurate science in Google search results with fantasy taxonomies, and making a mockery of an encyclopedia?

    And Colonel Henry demanding that intrusive liquid metasediments intruding imaginary rocks is a Good Article?

    You don't need experts, just qualified ninth graders.

    --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    AfadsBad, what you just wrote is completely inappropriate as it highly violates WP:NPA. However frustrated you might be with a user, do not under any circumstances patronize him/her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I retract and call her an "unemployed scholar?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    Criticising poor article quality is not a personal attack in my book. Andreas JN466 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) I would just comment that AfadsBad's user page also does appear to break NPA where he has this on it: "But, meanwhile, we have editors, User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know, so, I guess plagiarizing and sourcing to an anonymous science blog is kinda low on the list of offenses." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Pointing out plagiarism and fake science on Wikipedia is a personal attack? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    This is an encyclopedia project, not a vanity exercise. If someone with a science background says there are major problems with the science in those articles, you should first of all look at that, and find out if it's true. Because if it is, then neither Wikipedia nor the public are being served by sweeping it under the rug. There has certainly been precedent of AfadsBad's critiques of DYK science content being very well founded. Mind you, AN/I probably is hardly the right venue for that discussion. (I'd suggest Wikipedia:Editor review or an WP:RfC/U; and, for the avoidance of doubt, not for AfadsBad, but for the editor whose work is being critiqued.) Andreas JN466 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Jayen466 is associated with AfadsBad (enwikibadscience) through their participation at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I think we don't like each other there, but I may be getting him or her mixed up with someone else. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    We shouldn't go for guilt by association. When Andreas speaks it's usually worth listening to him. The point that we should look carefully at what AfadsBad is arguing is valid. The manner in which they do it, well, let's just say, very diplomatically, that I have problems with it.

    They have indicted me too in front of the Wikipediocracy inquisition, pointing to this edit (I think it was intended as ammunition for Eric Barbour's "Indict Drmies" mission), saying that apparently I think that "a guy's website (peakbaggers.com) is a reliable source for naming a mountain". They kind of missed the fact that it's not really "a guy's website", and that Wikipedians apparently deem the website notable enough to have a template citing it (Template:Cite peakbagger). So yeah, some of Afadsbad's comments may well be worth taking to heart, but they also have a tendency to shoot from the hip and miss.

    But Andreas, the problem here is also the manner in which these things are brought up. There are helpful ways and there are shitty ways, and unfortunately that DYK brought things (some of which were not valid, or easily fixed) up in a shitty way. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is just a guy's website, and he has no problems with that. While I use the information for climbing, I am prohibited from using anything on it for rescues because it is considered a hobby website and known to be an unreliable source as to names, locations, and altitudes. "Peakbagger.com is a unprofessional, non-commerical web site that is both a hobby and a place for me to post some of the mountain-related information I have collected over the past 30 years." It's more an ANI comment than an indictment, but, you may consider it what you like.
    As to bringing things up in a shitty way, check out how I started at the GA for Desert and this is the response I got, "Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)" The chunks of text I removed was misinformation; it is not true that all cactic don't have leaves, and no sources said that. I removed the misinformation about C4 plants being just like CAM plants, and Cwmhiraeth reverted the removal and claimed that it was true, again. And, in addition, also claimed that this information was sourced. She does not listen to corrections, and the only reason she is paying attention now is because of her claims, and now yours, about my "shitty way of bringing things up." Does any one on Wikipedia care that the content is wrong? I tried just stating that it was wrong. I was insulted and scolded as if I was an incompetent child interfering with someone's owned article, and the bad information was returned to the article, again claiming it was sourced. Wikipedia editors write essays about how perceived experts are treated on Wikipedia, and it really does represent a problem.
    The article Pedra da Gávea was the worst geology writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia; even a hoax would have been an improvement. It was promoted to Good Article with ridiculous absurdities, liquid flows of rocks that had never melted moving into rocks that would not exist for another 600 million years. When I pointed out, however badly, how ridiculous the article was, ColonelHenry insisted that my rant was not worth paying attention to because he had correctly followed procedures to promote it to Good Article. The important thing was to get this ridiculous joke of an article out of article space. But, the least followed policy and least important policy on Wikipedia appears to be WP:Verifiability. Made up information, if made up by a popular editor, trumps verifiability every time.
    I think putting an article like that in article space is a really shitty way to treat readers of this encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    Get a new schtick, the 8-month old broken record ranting is tiresome, rant rant rant and do nothing but criticize. you could have fixed problems then, but you didn't, you just rant rant rant...it would be comical but stale material repeated endlessly would get you shouted off the stage at a deaf convention in the Catskills. Either put up or shut up...either get in the game and collaborate or stop bitching from the sidelines. Your sanctimonious b.s. gets tedious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfadsBad, my comments were limited to that DYK where, as you saw, I acknowledge that there were issues with the article, but I think that the one I tackled could have been tackled easily by you, in a different tone. If you are indeed exasperated by the quality of this editor's contributions then a more general venue than a DYK nom is appropriate, and an RfC/U is, in the end, the way to go. Torpedoing one DYK (and I think you could have a. been much more specific in your comments and b. been more helpful in the actual editing of the article, beyond just placing a template) doesn't do anything for the quality of the article. I have no opinion on the GA or anything else since I haven't looked at it, and I hope you noted that I did not make any blanket indictment (civil or uncivil) of your editing here--and I don't subscribe to Colonel Henry's opinion, which I just edit-conflicted with.

      I dig that you have problems with the project as a whole, but commenting on that DYK in that manner does not address anything, neither project improvement, editor improvement, or article improvement. I'll get back to that DYK and the article, even though you might consider me an amateur who is probably incapable of avoiding scientific atrocities. And if I'm in over my head I'll call on someone to help me. If you, in turn, wish to indict me elsewhere for being a nincompoop, well, that's fine; I'll just consider (perhaps vainly) that you probably had to look real hard to find some dirt on me. Or, and that's an option I prefer, you can help with the article and the nomination--just one more way of not hiding your candle under a bushel. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Which DYK are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth does not usually understand the very specific comments, so I am not going to spend time on them, though I might for the sake of the RFU. She writes a few articles a week, and I check three sentences and find multiple problems, one of her articles is a full time job--it's often difficult to even connect the cited source to the Wikipedia article. There is no means in place to fight Randy in Boise syndrome. Wikipedia has built up a defense against it. There is an essay on Wikipedia claiming that experts don't have to use reliable sources for their articles so they may not understand Wikipedia. Of course the sentence is unsourced, and it's also untrue--how did someone think this? I remove nonsense, politely, and Cwmhiraeth reverts and scolds me for doing so. I point out the worst Good Article ever on Wikipedia, and I earn an enemy for life (although an amusing one in the level of anger). Why is en.Wikipedia so defensive against correcting bad science? When I corrected the misspelled name of a plant family, that had been on en.Wikipedia for 7 years and generated 50,000 Google hits on the misspelling, and I needed help from a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias for deletion corrections, there was no problem, no reverting of my corrections, no insulting me, no fighting me that the article had been created and should be kept. Editors and administrators deleted the bad articles, made the necessary moves, corrected the spelling elsewhere within the encyclopedia. You want to shut me up? Then just put in place a method whereby when something is wrong and is not in the cited source it can be corrected. By the way, "nincompoop" or not elsewhere, peakbaggers is not, by en.Wikipedia definitions, a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    • For those in the peanut gallery: Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. If you can read the sources at a low level you can probably fix this article; the information that I reviewed that is wrong was not the high level information, but it was also not in the sources. I only looked at a couple of sentences, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    AfadsBad, when mentioning a response of yours violated WP:NPA, it was because you insulted an editor's intelligence and level of knowledge. Completely inappropriate. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Read WP:Competence is required for this quote, "Many editors have ... come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess."
    If you want to support Cwhmiraeth in creating nonsense to put on Wikipedia's main page, you might consider going to that mock Wikipedia site and putting her nonsense there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone is incompetent, the right thing to do is to stop them from contributing fake information to the encyclopedia, not shoot the messengers because you are here to social network rather than write an encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    I believe my work will stand up to scrutiny and am happy to submit to Wikipedia:Editor review. My objective in making this complaint is to stop the relentless flow of criticism from AfadsBad which is interfering with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'd propose you initiate an editor review. This will give AfadsBad an opportunity to present representative diffs and examples of the worst perceived science errors in your work. I would urge AfadsBad to contribute to that review in as patient, matter-of-fact and non-polemical a manner as possible, to ensure that attention remains on content rather than perceived interpersonal issues. With any luck, you'll both get something out of the process. Andreas JN466 09:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how one views Cwmhiraeth's comptence level, it is NOT an excuse to patronize their intelligence or work per WP:NPA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor review is going ahead here. As my competency is being called into question by AfadsBad, I will mention that Atlantic Puffin is Today's Featured Article. It was 11kB "readable prose size" when I started working on it last June and I expanded it to 37kB before bringing it to Featured Article status in September 2013. I knew having it on the front page would make it grist for AfadsBad's mill and sure enough, AfadsBad has already managed to root out an inaccuracy that the FAC reviewers missed. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    AfadsBad is a nasty bully, agreed, there's absolutely no need for it. She can improve wikipedia without being so condescending of its articles and fellow editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am hoping that this complaint will remain open until such time as my editor review is completed. Regardless of the outcome of that, I consider myself the victim of WP:HA, aggravated by off-wiki attacks and will be seeking some action on the part of administrators to prevent the harassment recurring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree and second Cwmhiraeth and Dr. Blofeld's comments. There needs to be some control of AfadsBad's relentless harping and harassment--at a minimum a one-way interaction ban to prevent AfadsBad from her attacks on Cwmhiraeth, broadly construed to include both her wikihounding at the project, and the offsite harassment. Correcting an error or discussing an error is one thing...but AfadsBad's behavior, especially the counterproductive incessantly-repeated ranting and attempts to drive away editors (WP:CTDAPE), is downright bullying and abusive. I would propose some sanction also if AfadsBad keeps rehashing the same argument--it's old, it's tiresome-- she's said over five times and is older than two months (i.e. water under the bridge)--since most of her complaints have been repeated to anyone who would listen and happened last year (rehashing old shit is bad form to begin with...rehashing it as an attack is disruptive and a waste of anyone's time).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I would like an admin who is not involved (i.e. not one of the admins who are wikipediocracy participants, since a lot of them are lurking here...and I know who you are) to investigate my suspicions that AfadsBad has been previously blocked under other accounts where there was similar harassing and abusive behavior. Please contact me privately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated addition of unsourced info about relatives

    Ongoing problems with User:Bcd3174 (previously known as "Charlescorm") who has a history of promotional editing and is repeatedly adding unsourced information to List of Lebanese by net worth. In particular he is repeatedly adding information about his (dead) relatives (i.e. Charles Corm) [52][53][54][55][56], despite it being repeatedly removed by myself and other editors. I stumbled across List of Lebanese by net worth, found the information to be unsourced and very suspect and have attempted to improve it. Bcd3174 seems unwilling to accept that the information there needs to (at least) be verifiable. They have been warned on a number of occasions on their Talk page[57] and the issues have been repeatedly explained on the article's Talk page but their behaviour hasn't subsequently changed at all. It's perplexing! Sionk (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconding Sionk's concerns; the editor is essentially a single purpose account editing articles related to Charles Corm, and despite many requests to read and adhere to WP:V and WP:RS, and advice concerning original research in articles, they don't seem to quite understand that it is not ok to add unsourced information. Maybe more advice and pointers from other editors who have been uninvolved with them before could make them understand what the issue is. --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    --Bcd3174 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)This is BS! I spent ages researching and editing the article of "Richest Lebanese in the world". I have spent ages researching who are really the richest Lebanese in the world. It so happens that my GRANDFATHER was one (if not THE one!) of the richest men in Lebanon. After passing away, his wealth was divided among his 2 sons (my father and uncle). Ask anybody Lebanese about the Corm family and they will tell you that we are billionaires (not that I care that much at all; there are much more important things in life than money; this article just happens to cover THAT topic). So what?! Am I supposed to be ashamed to have a rich family? Am I supposed to apologize to Sionk and Bonadea who know NOTHING about Lebanese wealth (actually integrating in the list the names of people who don't even exist! I.e. Maya Papaya and co...)?! Maybe they just can't reconcile the fact that I am an honest and meticulous editor but also the son of a billionaire?! To show my good faith, I sent them the following message a few days ago: @Bonadea and Sionk. As I messaged you both, can we please bury the hatchet. We are NOT enemies and I harbor no other intention than making this list as ACCURATE as possible (just like you)! That means that I apologize for past coarse language. It was only a reaction to having all my hard work deleted under really lame arguments (with all due respect). And you should appreciate the (educated) work I put into this page. I happen to know Lebanese wealth inside out. It doesn't work according to Forbes lists or other BS lists that are known to be notoriously incomplete (when not downright WRONG). There are AT LEAST 5 Lebanese billionaires living in Africa that are not included in Forbes and co. nor the list I compiled. Why? Because these guys' fortune, well above 1 billion USD, is unknown. It could be 1, it could be 10. Their assets are "undercover". Also, and contrary to you Anglo-Saxon thinking, it is common practice in the Middle East to talk about FAMILIES. Forbes MENA (the regional version of Forbes) recently released its list of "RICHEST" and it was a list of... MENA's RICHEST FAMILIES!!! That's the way it works around here: FAMILY WEALTH! Because nobody, including Forbes (!) and hence I trust you will agree neither of you too, can or will ever be able to breakdown the wealth of individual family members. Again, this is how it works around here and if even FORBES approaches the "issue" that way, I trust that you guys will have the humbleness to respect that approach too. Getting to Corm, he was the exclusive agent of Ford Motor Cars for the entire Middle East. Everybody in Lebanon knows the Corms are worth billions. But they are a discreet family who have no interest in being in Forbes (which in turn has no way of measuring their fortune hence does not list them). Now either you want to make this page ACCURATE AND FAIR, either you want to just propagate s* intelligence and information, creating a snowball effect that just reinforces Forbes and co. s* lists. Also Bonadea and with all due respect, your date of death logic is BS! Either you consider a man dead and hence don't include him or his family in the list either you do (again, please read above my part on FAMILY WEALTH). But I don't think it is your prerogative to decide what length of death is acceptable or not! If you insist in removing Corm, then you MUST remove Safra and Hayek. If you don't, you have no consistency. And consistency is the key to credibility. And credibility is EXACTLY what Wikipedia lacks. So if your plan is to KILL Wikipedia (whose death I am convinced is around the corner as nobody I know trusts a word coming from Wikipedia, they just use it as a quick info "fix" on subjects of little importance to them), continue applying DOUBLE STANDARDS the way you do. I just HATE double standards. They are just about the biggest impediments to OBJECTIVE reporting. Over and out...

    Their reaction to this kind message and invitation to COOPERATE with me was to simply REPORT me on this page! Again, I am NOT going to apologize or retract because I am working on a list where one of the listees happens to be my grandfather! And if you force me to do so, you (I don't even know who I am talking to) would be going AGAINST every single principle Wikipedia stands for! Over and out...'

    It is really very simple. There is a single standard: All information must be sourced. Information that is not sourced can be challenged. When unsourced information is challenged, the burden of proof rests on the person who wants to add the information. Once again: the fact that "everybody in [group x]" knows something is not a source. Nobody is attacking you, nobody is asking for an apology from you. We are only asking for sources.
    In addition, the reason sionk added this report here was not your message (which I would not have described as "kind", and which ascribed incorrect characteristics to me - I am not Anglo-Saxon) but the fact that you have persisted in restoring your ancestor to the page, without waiting for consensus on the talk page, and without reliable sources. You have been cut a lot of slack, and treated with a lot of courtesy despite not always being quite civil yourself [58], [59] (I'm not sure whether your characterisation of me as "nothing but rude, aggressive and conceited towards [you]" refers to this, this, or this). --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    --Bcd3174 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)If I was ever rude, I truly APOLOGIZE. It was never my intention. Please read my comments above. I extend to you all a hand of PEACE so that we collaborate instead of fighting. I have started my hunt for sources for this article. Not ONLY for my grandfather but for ALL the people on that list. Just give me some time and help out IF you want to make this page relevant and by extension Wikipedia a trusted source of information.

    --Bcd3174 10:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)@Bonadea and @Sionk. Let us then seek dispute resolution since you seem on a mission to DELETE whatever I post, whether backed by sources of not. This is OBVIOUSLY personal and personal differences have no room on Wikipedia! You should know that better than me...

    User:IPadPerson tagging articles for problems that do not exist

    A while ago I began to notice IPadPerson (talk · contribs) tagging articles for problems that don't exist. For example: BLP Sources on an article with 113 sources at the time, [60], [61]. I left them a talk page note here, March 10th.

    After that note, it continued: Lead too short on an article with no other information besides the one-line lead, [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74].

    I asked them once again to knock it off (here, March 23) and like many other attempts at contacting them, they ignored the message and continued on: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80].

    IPadPerson has had many incivility problems in the past, surrounded by issues of failing to respond to any user outside of one or two occasions (including when they were blocked for their incivility and requested an immediate unblock, all of a sudden having a ton to say). So it comes as no surprise to me that they've ignored my first two warnings. But this behavior of tagging articles for problems that aren't obvious or don't exist isn't beneficial to the project whatsoever. Gloss • talk 17:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like textbook drive-by tagging, which I agree can be annoying. Connormah (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While IPadPerson seems to have improved on civility, the tags placed don't seem to have been given much thought. Is it just me, or did the block perhaps prompt responses to other users on talk page? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Side comment: Most tagging is drive-by tagging in the sense that it is the height of laziness on the part of the editor leaving a tag. If there is a problem they have noticed, they should take action to FIX or at least IDENTIFY the problem. Most tags do not articulate what the problem is, and the tags are left as a substitute for actual work that can help solve the problem. Note: the worst offenders are some of the highest edit count "leaders" of wikipedia--the ones who make multiple edits per minute and have no time to actually consider what they are doing with their edits. Really, a tag is a one-person complaint about an article, sometimes on articles that have thousands of views (meaning none of their predecessors have seen fit to change anything about the article). Furthermore, the public, header level announcement that there is a problem with this article, cumulatively serves to harm the overall look of credibility of Wikipedia. I equate tagging to vandalism on my talk page.

    Often, after a tag has been left on an article, other editors use it as an excuse to remove legitimate, valuable content, doing greater damage to Wikipedia's archive of knowledge.

    So in regard to this editor, yes their edits are junk, but virtually all taggers leave junk. The entire concept should be scrapped. Trackinfo (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As much as I don't think the tags IPadPerson placed were needed, it doesn't seem appropriate to call someone's edits "junk". Regarding "laziness", I can see how tagging articles can be seen as lazy, but sometimes they are done when the user doesn't in that moment have the time to fix the issue himself/herself. For example, placing a "needs additional citations" tag can help while the editor searches for sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To further show the user's unwillingness to cooperate, or even discuss... they've removed my previous warnings and the ANI notice (see here) Gloss • talk 18:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    While removing a message from one's own talk page is technically a sign indicating the user acknowledges it, in IPadPerson's case it would've been much more beneficial to at least reply first. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The least that IPadPerson can do is recognize that there is a problem with their edits. Epicgenius (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if more of a "I don't understand what my faults are" or a "I don't have any faults- you're just making this up" case..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    More like the latter. I randomly chose (no, just kidding). Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Any more opinions would be helpful. I honestly think this user will not respond with another warning and the only way to get the message across to them is to issue a block. Gloss • talk 16:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. Any admins for a punitive-only block that might or might not help? Honestly, it looks like one of the few options from here. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting User:Lighthouse01

    Lighthouse01 (talk · contribs) is currently involved in an edit war on Serbo-Croatian, and is making POV edits (of the usual kind, in this article). I had a look at their editing history and it seems that they've been making similar edits to other articles, like [81]. This seems like WP:OWN-like behaviour, which is confirmed by these edit, in which they made rather offensive and racist remarks (in the edit summary in the first): [82],[83]. CodeCat (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This also looks like a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. I'm worried that this editor is here with a pretty strong nationalist agenda that is not going to allow them to properly collaborate with other editors. -- Atama頭 20:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, people for thinking that. Actually my country is surrounded by nationalists, and my edits seem nationalistic. But they're not. Lighthouse01 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The user tried to delete this report [84] (note the edit summary), and has put more personal attacks on their talk page [85]. They also contacted me on my talk page, which was civil at least, but rather hypocritical considering the edit summaries they've been leaving. I find their behaviour very contradictory to be sure... they apologise while spewing insults and personal attacks elsewhere. CodeCat (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Three-admin panel requested for closure of Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, when the discussion has run.

    Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Such a move request has been made in the past, and has frequently engendered very spirited discussion. The last time such a discussion went for the full discussion period, it was closed contentiously by a non-admin, leading to an equally contentious move review. In order to head off any shenanigans, I would like to request that a panel of three completely neutral and uninvolved admins (i.e. not having participated in the conduct or closing of any of the previous discussions) convene to monitor this discussion, make sure that it does not veer off-topic, and close it either at the end of seven days (if no extension is sought) or at the end of fourteen days (if an extension is sought). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be willing to close it either by myself or as part of a 3-admin panel. I have no particular interest in the article, other than being a voting-eligible US citizen.--v/r - TP 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks - do you want to see if you can find the other two, or wait for more volunteers? bd2412 T 20:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The RM just opened today so there is no hurry. We can wait to see who volunteers.--v/r - TP 20:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd feel comfortable being a member of the 3-admin closing panel. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. One to go. The discussion seems to be quite civil this time around, and I hope it will stay that way, but it is worth keeping an eye on just in case. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to this suggestion of a panel to close this move request - which I support and thank User: BD2412 for thinking of it - I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one female administrator involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of a "maiden" name vs a surname, which is something that might benefit from a more gender-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose gender I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. Thanks Tvoz/talk 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Female administrator" and "closing a move request" immediately brings User:BrownHairedGirl to mind. We often disagree, but she is fair, well-experienced, and has no lack of spine. bd2412 T 22:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion. Tvoz/talk 02:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to request that an effort be made to have at least one administrator with the last name "Clinton" involved in the closing. Some issues raised have included the meaning of "Clinton", which is something that might benefit from a more "Clinton"-balanced review. Please take this request in the spirit in which it is given, which is not at all meant to be divisive and certainly not to cast aspersions on the brave souls who have volunteered to step up and help sort this out - whose last name I do not know and who I am sure will be fair - it is merely to try to assure that all concerns are considered in the broadest possible manner. CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Who knows, maybe BHG is a Clinton. But really, do people with a name really understand it? And it someone in the family is close enough to this, would they not be biased by their existing beliefs which may not reflect what our policies are? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the foregoing, and today's date, I would like all of the administrators participating in the closing panel to affirm that they are not 1) Hillary Clinton; 2) Bill Clinton; 3) any member of the Clinton family; or 4) any member of the Rodham family. However, George Clinton is okay. bd2412 T 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if they're not Bill Clinton, but rather Bill Clinton? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to User: BD2412's suggestion, I would be happy to volunteer to be one of the 3-admin panel. I will not be available to help until Saturday or Sunday, and hope that would be OK.
    I have no particular interest in the outcome, beyond a general concern for respecting established policies.
    To the best of my knowledge, I am nor related to any members of the Clinton or Rodham family. I am not now, nor have I ever been, called "Hilary" or "Rodham" or "Clinton", or any permutation or combination thereof, either on wiki or in other contexts. This disqualifies me per CombatWombat42's test, so I will leave it to others to decide whether that black ball is fatal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, thanks. The proposal was initiated at 02:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC), so the time for discussion should end at 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC), unless additional time is requested. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, BHG. Tvoz/talk 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not, have not ever been, nor intend to be in the future, a member of either the Clinton or Rodham family.--v/r - TP 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's inconsistent with this evidence. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've caught me. I am a distant cousin of theirs. Coincidentally, I am also a distant cousin of yours as well.--v/r - TP 01:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1

    Despite by blocked for 48 hours for unspecified reasons ([86]) by User:Fayenatic london, User:Skookum1 continues to make personal attacks. The last month and a half has seen an incredible wave of personal attacks, many against myself. Other more experienced editors advised me not to do anything since it would be a waste to time, so I sat back and observed the Skookum1's attacks continue unabated. Finally I started issuing warnings on his talk page (March 20th, March 21st, March 21st, and March 31st, in hopes of grabbing the attention of an administrator, but so far in vain. People have commented that Skookum1 makes valuable contributions; however, the other editors and I also make valuable contributions to Wikipedia for years now and have done so without violating basic Wikipedia Pillars.

    For a sampling of personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" also constitutes a personal attack):

    • Against myself: "she's NOT a good editor, she's behaving in a rogue manner, I'll take it up elsewhere, I guess I was just pointing out to you that somebody's sleeping dog didn't really want to stay lying down...." diff
    • Against myself: "You don't get how half-informed you are about the FOO people problem ... Your logic throughout all of this has been half-informed ... It's ironic to me that you, as someone on an indigenous high horse often enough, as with how you came at me over the Nevada categories, would in this case wind up pandering to the name-changes brought on by colonialist attitudes/chauvnism towards native nomenclatures..... diff
    • Against myself: "Well, if I didn't have to hear the same obstinate, half-informed ideas brought over time and again ... All the things she's bringing forward right now I told her about already, she dismissed them, told me what I thought didn't matter, and that she's entitled to her opinion. What she's really saying is she's determined to underscore her ignorance and has no intentions of learning about the subject matter she's screwing with" diff
    • Against myself: "you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories ... start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this bad choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about." diff
    • Against myself: "pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??" diff
    • Against myself (accusation w/o proof): "... considering her timing of this re other convos in IPNA and elsewhere, and her territorial WP:OWNership of Nevada tribe/reservation categories where she accused me of being a vandal for trying to make sense of that category structure to bring it in line with IPNA standards ... to me it seems like she jumped on top of it as a provocation or a "throw the skookum a bone" time-waster like Kwami likes to do.... Hard to do, to accept good faith, when someone who has accused you in no slight terms in the past in very pointed NPA terms (impugning I'm a white racist or supermacist, calling me a vandal for trying to fix glaring miscategorization problems) is so aggressively WRONG in terms of the suggestions and reasons she brings forward, no matter how often I explain the facts to her, she reiterates her lack of correct information as if it were valid and mine was only "opinion", and wrong in her actions of ignoring the CfD and acting on her own without recourse to proper process." diff

    ...these go on and on, and I can provide more diffs if need, but to move on to more recent attacks:

    • Against User:Maunus and myself: "He was at the time of most if not all, hence the overwrite power he had, which maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour." diff
    • Against User:Kwamikagami and myself: "Your attitude has been hostile and contrarian, and you yourself attacked me subtextually during that little game you played with the Shoshone categories, your position there also being against guidelines for category use and harmonizing names with category titles. Kwami's out of line, and this ain't the first time (his little game with the K'omoks title these last two days was way out of line, and geez I thought you of all people in the cabal, being indigenous yourself, would seed the point of respecting modern name-choices made by those peoples..... but as with Squamish, which you waded into without a clue about the implications, you apparently prefer to stick with teh colonialists' names for peoples you don't even know. EAt apples much? And this little NPA message of yours is horseshit, given your own behaviour towards me....... Kwami defends racist terms and regularly espouses anti-native attitudes, and yet there you were lecturing me about not being indigenously aware...... ACK what a waste of time the lot of you are; ramming through your NCL pet project, applying it helter skelter without any thought of consistency, or the long-standin convention about standalone names being dismissive about native endonyms, and about Canadian English. That you are an admin is a joke." diff and diff
    • Against User:Kwamikagami: "YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again" diff
    • Against JorisvS: "If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the 'support' votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me ... Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds ... Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues ... it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis." diff
    • Against JorisvS: "Please contain your prejudices ... The subtext of bigotry towards native peoples and their names in all such RMs is both tiresome and disturbing ..." diff
    • Against JorisvS: "You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies." diff

    If anyone wants more examples, I can furnish more.

    Skookum1 has frequently accused me of attacking him, but when asked to find concrete proof, could not (User talk:Skookum1#March 2014). The conversation where he incorrectly believes I accused him of racism is located at User talk:Skookum1/Archive 18#Categories on redirects and User talk:Skookum1/Archive 19#December 2013. He accused me of calling his edits to Nevada tribes' categories as "vandalism"; however, I never did. The edit summaries of the edits in question can be found: here and here; they involved removing reservation cats from redirects.

    Skookum1 has many conspiracy theories against me, which, frankly, I find disturbing. In truth, I try to avoid him as much as possible in my editing, this AN/I being a major exception. In real life, I work with numerous Native artists from British Columbia, but don't bother writing about them on Wikipedia in the attempt to avoid Skookum1.

    This recent barrage of personal attacks has created a toxic environment that does not serve any of us well. Ignoring the problem hasn't helped, and issuing warnings on Skookum1's talk page hasn't achieved anything. These personal attacks need to stop. If there *is* a policy that allows a user to attack anyone they want without any recourse, I would like to hear it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

    • Comment I've had many run-ins with Skookum, though I haven't always been polite either. If I disagree with him on a matter of procedure (for example, when Skookum dislikes the names of articles that follow our naming guidelines, I think it's best to discuss changing the guidelines, rather than making scores of move requests and arguing each of them independently as an exception to the guidelines), then he accuses me of racism, perversion, conspiracy, or other acts of bad faith. I've had good experiences with him too, where he's been reasonable and helpful, but only when (a) I agreed with him, or (b) I was seeking his advice and had no opinion of my own. Skookum has made valuable edits, but not IMO valuable enough to overlook his socially inappropriate behaviour. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This ANI and the threats of it I view as part of an ongoing harassment of attack and obstructionism by Usyvdi on partisan and personal grounds and constitutes an abuse of power; Bushranger made me as a person the target of discussion in that CfD, rather than address the issues or even read my statements, despite support from other editors who were in agreement with me on that issue. Usyvdi has partisan motivations here and is abusing her power as an admin on behalf of that agenda, and has issued NPA warnings one-sidedly while ignoring those made against me by herself, Kwami, JorisV, Maunus and others, and also tolerating an obvious campaign of oppositionism in various RMs and other discussions. Her own condescensions and derisions toward me are a matter of record and constitute harassment on behalf a particular agenda and some kind of personal resentment that seem to have begun quite a while ago; this is all highly unCIVIL and AGF and her own NPAs against me put her assault on me in a highly hypocritical context. Others respect me, and actually are capable of reading my posts instead of complaining that don't have time or ability to read so-called "walls of text"; many patronizing comments by her and her colleagues at NCL are staple fare in various RMs, and her refusal to discuss her inconsistency on various matters pertaining to guidelines and other matters. This is a nuisance an ANI and I believe it is her conduct, not mine, that should be on the table and her adminship reviewed - and revoked.

    She denies saying things to me which I know she said and must be hidden in page histories somewhere, which I will take the time to dig out because of this ANI; she has also deleted my attempt to broach an important issue where she is in conflict with her own actions, and added the extremely NPA edit comment "Get a life!". she has refused discussion and met important questions with silence. The one-sided nature of her conflated NPA accounts completely belies the ongoing derision and opposition and insults of herself and others who are defenders of the extremely flawed guideline WP:NCL.

    This is all a waste of time and just more harassment, and I believe part of a joint campaign to drive me by that particular faction to drive me from Wikipedia or have me blocked so as to muzzle my critiques of their actions and faulty guidelines and questionable behaviour. It is completely one-sided and highly partisan in nature and highly immature overall; playing wiki-cop when she herself is no one to talk is, quite frankly, a bore. I have been doing useful work while putting up with harassment, evasion, derision and more; this ANI is just more procedural obstructionism and hostility towards my editing activities and is highly questionable in the extreme. This ANI should be about her, and her erstwhile allies against me, not about me. I have work to do and that life to lead that she told me to go get; Wikipedia is becoming more and more about procedure and protocol that honest work on articles and seems increasingly smaller and smaller pool full of narrower and narrower minds invested with more and more power....and pompous behaviour. Yes, I am voluble but I am articulate and respected by many editors despite all the derision and denunciation.

    This ANI is a nuisance ANI and partisan harassment and IMO nothing more; conflations of critiques of actions and guidelines are being misportrayed as NPA when much more explicit and vicious personality attacks and sundry derisions go unaddresszed, and are a tiresome bore at countless RMs and also that CfD that Bushranger interloped on by attacking me for my writing style without addressing content and support votes; that CfD and its predecessor and t he RMs preceding it all need revisiting, perhaps mediation or Arbcom or wherever, and NCL needs an RfC to address its many inadequacies. The use of adminship on behalf of a partisan alliance hostile towards me is highly questionable and should be being reviewed by all the adminship, not just the claque of those who recite TLDR as it it were a guideline and not an excuse to not listen or address important issues and incorrect claims which cannot be put in terse form.

    The presumptuous behaviour and comments towards me by her and other admins who presume to speak for "the community" or as "we", as JorisV has done and others allied to Uysvdi is also a matter of record, as are incantations of guidelines without reference to the wider context of the rest of guidelines; the use of "fanatic" is an apt discussion of the WP:DUCK behaviour of those concerned, and was conflated into NPA by hypersensitivity and an obvious laager mentality by those who maintain that NCL has primacy over all other guidelines. Yet despite even more virulent NPAs against me, I am the one being attacked and now officially harassed....I will post a link or two later to longer replies and comments about the decay in commonsense and civility at Wikipedia in recent times, including a reply to her on her pre-ANI warning to me last night, which I withheld for review until today.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not an administrator. I ignored your personal attacks for weeks; however, they did not abate, so I gave giving you warnings for your personal attacks (which I would have no cause to do, if you would simply stop creating personal attacks). An AN/i is not a personal attack; having a different opinion is not a personal attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
      • how bizarre but also typical of you, in all your conflations of my points about issues and guidelines and ongoing conduct and often rank dishonesty into alleged NPA status. "having a different opinion is not a personal attack" is completely contrary to how you have been treating my "different opinions" (which are 90% of the time or more directly about citable facts, other precedents and various guidelines other than the one being tub-thumped repetitively and out of context; I present facts, you claim they are only opinion while continuing to defend ORIGINALRESEARCH in NCL and also in NCET, and you deride my presentation of this with open derision and uncivil commentary on a regular basis, though not as harshly as the many AGFs and NPAs from your NCL colleagues which you also turn a blind eye to.

    I am glad you are not an admin; I have seen your overwrite redirects and other things which led me to believe that; your pompousness and back-handed attitude towards my attempts to discuss guidelines and such matters as the "FOO people" problem and category redirects has been noxious and insulting. Your ANI is as hypocritical as much of your other conduct and words; this is a waste of time and is just more obstructionism and and a way to keep from answering to issues and RMs and to seek official muzzling of me to keep me from critiquing the NCL agenda and your own inconsistent positions on many matters. I will find that lengthy derision you launched at me re the category redirects which you deny making, as it was competely an NPA, being insulting and also somewhat racist towards me as a non-indigenous person.Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't a single monolithic group of editors. Over years now, I've dealt with the exact same situation, have been equally frustrated, but read and am familiar with the current iteration of both conventions, discuss the issues on the talk pages of those conventions, and don't resort to personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
    Given there's established consensus to violate WP:NOR in the name of WP:MOS when it comes to article titles in certain other parts of the encyclopedia, that ship sailed long ago. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Me, too

    In this diff today, Skookum1 attributes all kinds of unspecified bad intent to me and others. This is uncalled for. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Geez, yet more conflation and distortion claiming to be NPA when really it is evasion of the gist of your opposition, which is obstructionist and not about guidelines or real-world usage, but only a defence of your claim that the title in question is ambiguous, which it is NOT and you ignore both guidelines and cites/stats produced by entrenching the belief that it IS ambiguous, despite being no different from Coquitlam, Nanaimo and other town items that share a name with now-archaic usages;WP:CSG#Places is very clear about such issues but you muddy the waters despite proof that the District of Saanich is the primary usage in the course of justifying ignoring guidelines that I am acting under the mandate of, and with consensus from other WPCANADA editors.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Skookum1, forgive me for being extremely blunt here, but there's a saying that's relevant to your situation here. Extremely relevant, even. "When you're in a hole, stop digging." - The Bushranger One ping only 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your repeated attacks on my writing style buried the very relevant points I raised and the support votes coming from informed and conscientious editors who understand what I'm talking about and don't hassle me for my writing style as if it were a crime; BHG's closure in making me the target of the negative and off-guideline closure are of the same kind as your own targeting of me in your Fayenatic's close of last year of the previous CfD. and rather than heed him, you ignored the Mightyquill's comments about focusing on what I have to say not on me, which is totally contrary to the way any discussion is supposed to be decided on; on guidelines and facts, not targeting the proponent as a reason to deny the very needed CfD to correct the very bad and vague resulting stasis at a very questionable title. Others see my points and agree; the closure of the Squamish town RM was similarly skewed by procedural bafflegab and the endless TLDR mantra by those who cannot manage to read extended argument or even the guidelines, and by a host of opposition votes from people voting against the proposal in well-established and persistent patterns of knee-jerk opposition to anything I do or say.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I mentioned there, I came into that discussion neutral; my opinon of your editing style and discussion style was fully shaped by nobody other than yourself. Perhaps you need to consider, just for a moment, that if people are "opposed to anything I do or say", then perhaps maybe, just maybe, the problem is not them, but you. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow I'm not sure if Skookum1 could have proved the OP's point any better. Might have been better to plead the Fifth, however, based on the above alone, I forsee a break in Skookum1's editing patterns in the near future ES&L 10:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the huge amount of valuable work I've been putting in despite endless harassment from a certain faction who want to see me gone because I'm in their way? Summary censure of a valuable contributor and very encyclopedically-conscious editor because of the insecurities towards my lengthy writingz and detailed commentary and wide-ranging interests and knowledge, or silencing my ability to respond to putdowns and insults accordingly? Is Wiki-bureacracy putting itself ahead of content so readily that someone who's created a huge mass of articles is so easily shut out by someone's attacks against me reaching such fever pitch and endless hypocritical accusations against me by those stonewalling and degrading me on a regular basis? Really? Is that what Wikipedia is about? The iron hand of so-called wikiquette and blatant hypocrisy about same, rather than honestly and fully addressing issues of content and TITLE??Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:No personal attacks provides the definition of "personal attacks," which includes, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
    Oh, so Kwami calling my bringing up guidelines that he doesn't like "ridiculous" and "idiotic" and more is fine and dandy huh? And there were claims about NPA about me that had to do with nothing more than showing how he (and others) were in violation of guidelines or had ignored consensus (just as you had done in re-creating Category:Squamish). I'm busy in real life; your own groundless accusations and many putdowns of me are many, I'll get to them yet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You have also successfully showcased why there is WP:DIVA (Specifically the part stating "... long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, long of course being subjective). Seriously just in the ANI responding to your behavior you have tossed out at least half a dozen dispersions. The requirements to edit also include being able to work in a colaborative environment; content isn't created in a vacuum. Creating a hostile editing environment is not the way to go. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you should use that term "Diva" it applies very much to Uysvdi as links here later will show; but here's a good one where she reverts a needed change to NCET saying "no consensus", meaning that she and Kwami don't want it, even though it's come up over and over and over again in the RMs that the "NCL Pack" (I was reading WP:List of cabals last night have been so bitterly and repetitively opposing on spurious grounds; claiming that the NCL-advocated "FOO people" is "preferred" has been clearly shown to be in violation of TITLE, as is also the claim that it is "unambiguous".....those have to come out, along with the ORIGINALRESEARCH claim that such in a "language-people pair" both are primary topics so both' must be disambiguated; the consensus has taken place, just not in the little backyard where she and Kwami are stonewalling/ignoring the discussion of NCET that will never be a consensus, given her silence at questions she doesn 't want to answer, and Kwami's rank insults and negative commentary. "Subjective" is hardly what others familiar with my work would call it; guidelines, sources, informed local knowledge and more, are being met by everything from ad hominem attacks and snipes, irrelevant red herrings, mis-citations of guidelines or just not answering to the major guidelines; I'll compile links to these later; I'm busy in real life today, but between "DIVA" and "subjective" you have nailed on the head not me, but the activities thrown up and thrown at me in opposition by those railing against my attempts to put right what they have put wrong, including that little reversion of Uysvdi's at NCET, which she does not WP:OWN. Many others have pointed out those flaws in NCET, the consensus is there, and the flaws are so many in NCL that IMO it should be trashed and started over from scratch from objective reality, not the agenda of a club of linguists.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    When it comes to AN/I, Skookum1, the little that I've learned is that, regardless of your contributions thus far, editors that are seen as disrupting the project are sanctioned. I've seen editors who were productive for years and years, then some straw breaks the camel's back, they go off, making accusations and can't be talked down off the ledge and they end up being blocked. Editors here are asking you to come down from the ledge. Enough of the conspiracy theories, claims of being ganged up are rarely met with empathy because these are never one-sided disputes.

    Also, no one, I mean, no one, wants to read a wall of text. If you want people to read your argument, please be concise, direct and on topic.Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The editors who are disrupting the project are those who are persistently blocking changes mandated to titles by major guidelines; and Kwami's attempt to shut down RMs because he claims he wants a centralized discussion; one that he did not hold when he went across thousands of articles without discussion, applying a guideline that he wrote himself; among the casualties were important indigenous titles in my own part of the world, which it took five bitterly fought RMs and no end of personal abuse and baiting from, to correct. "Disruptive" like "subjective" and "diva" are way more apt for his behaviour and that of the other NCLers who persist in trying to block name changes with subjective arguments, specious commentary, and re-incantations of NCL with no discussion of anything else - except attackign Canadian English. Uysvdi has mostly stayed out of these RMs; the whole campaign of oppositionism has been noted and criticized by others.... I'm used to the ironies of being accused of what others are doing, but calling ME "disruptive" when all this is going on...well, that's what Kwami said about my launching of individual RMs on the titles he wantonly changed to suit himself after the bulk RMs I launched to address only 120 of them were closed. I have to get busy with my day; the track record of this campaign to bully and oppose me is very long, and I'm not the only one who has observed that there's one hell of a lot of knee-jerk opposition and relentless nitpicking going on to delay the needed reversions; I was going to file a multiple ANI on this group of editors (whicvh is not a conspiracy because it's public and also demonstrable fact) but Uysvdi beat me to it. I'm not the one being disruptive, I'm the one being victimized by those who are being disruptive.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Skookum, you're doing yourself no favours here. Walls of text + inflammatory language in response to concerns raised at AN/I are extremely unlikely to result in a situation that continues with your unimpeded ability to edit. Walk away from the computer, have a cup of tea or whatever you prefer, and practice some mindfulness before you continue to engage here. I urge you to do this for your own good, and for your ability to keep editing without problems. — Daniel 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Skookum1 exhibits some classic diva behavior, and his inevitable return from the last "throw my arms up in the air" wikibreak that lead me to this conclusion is reinforced - and problems continue. I do not understand the persecution complex, and I probably don't need to. Skookum1 needs to toe the line like we all have to. Doc talk 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The tacit message I've received from Wikipedia in the last month and a half is that Skookum1 gets to shower me with personal attacks, including accusations with no proof of my attacking him, and he will face absolutely no recourse—despite personal attacks bringing a major breach of the pillars of the institution. I've been plugging along since July 29, 2007, editing and creating new articles. But despite a solid track record of six and a half years of editing, apparently I just have to lump it and endure attacks such as the following?

    • "IMO you are a coward and a hypocrite... like a blind bull in a china shop. ... So go ahead, feel powerful, delete me from your little self-contained world; and throw me another taunt; you attacked and degraded me over your precious nevada categories, then waded into a BC category as if by deliberate malice. Knowingly provocative. I think you're happy with the mess you've created. Since I've pointed out that you're a hypocrite and acting from cowardice too, I might as well add that your behaviour is clearly passive-aggressive ... I also think you're a racist." diff
    • "impugning me as a racist and a white-guy-who-should-butt-out-of-native-topic areas, as Uysvidi has done" ... "Childish behaviour masked as righteous snottiness; I'm not the self-righteous one here, you are, and Uysvidi." diff.

    There's all this discussion about how to attract and retain new editors, female editors, native editors, etc. Why would *anyone* want to work anonymously and for free just to endure treatment like this??? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

    Destructive editing by TheRedPenOfDoom

    Heat, light, discussion that should be undertaken elsewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Uh, ANI isn't DR and I can't see this ending with a positive outcome for anyone. RFC/U is a better venue. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs)

    Yet again, Red Pen washes up on the shores of ANI.

    This, for those unfamiliar, is the most deletionist of deletionists. Half an article wiped as one, always with the letter of policy (usually WP:BURDEN) to support them. Yet this is a profoundly negative contributor (and I'm far from alone in holding this view). Look at the contribs history - a sea of red (big reds too, taking 5k off an article in one bite is commonplace) and remarkably lacking in any sort of positive contribution. 50k+ edits and 8 article creations. This is an editor solely interested in serious admin bizniz, and with zero thought for contributing to an encyclopedia.

    Mostly they limit themselves to trivial crap, fortunately. They rarely approach a serious article and have yet to demonstrate any subject knowledge in any particular field. Although they do have a nasty little sideline in going after articles whose contributors disagree with them, see Mr Whoppit. I post this today because today's deletion targets started to get close to robotics articles, a subject where they might get to leave lasting harm behind. We see whegs tagged as a dicdef, a favourite tactic for working up to deletion. Then LAURON, a German walking robot, gets half its volume and most of its six generations deleted, but not all of them – making the article a rather pointless travesty, yet not having the balls to take it to AfD with an audience. Rhex is another similar robot, probably the best known robot using whegs, and again its demolished without rhyme or reason. The external links are removed because Boston Dynamics who built it have 404'ed a page in a reorg (Google has it as top link for "Boston Dynamics Rhex", which is hardly robot science to rediscover). Then the content is removed as unsourced. Most importantly, hexapod (as the broad topic-level article) gets cut in half and all sources removed as "they are not reliable sources they are commercial promotional sites". That's sites like Carnegie Mellon, Berkeley and JPL.

    I reverted these deletions. Of course I was edit-warred to delete them again in moments. BRD is just something for the little people.

    What is going on, what is going on with this project and what is going on with TheRedPenOfDoom? I do not believe (and certainly hope not) that Red Pen's repeated actions have the support of the community as a whole. We have always had articles that are less than perfect, we have WP:IMPERFECT and we have guidance in place for how those concerned, interested or simply so inclined can progress articles forwards to improve them. These are better guidelines than Red Pen's simple "scorched earth" policy on everything he touches. This is particularly so when he either doesn't know who JPL or Boston Dynamics are, or lies to misrepresent the content hes deleting (and just read his past history for plenty of examples of such). This project, and the state it has reached, was not achieved by editors who acted as Red Pen is doing. Is this the behaviour we want for the future? For if so, it's time to start abandoning a lot of past policies and kicking out a lot of old editors, myself included, who are simply incompatible with this brave new world of "authoring by deletion" and dogmatic simplicity over knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to disagree with this. TRPOD is a valuable contributer, I don't think he's perfect but I've had dealings with him on a few issues related to Bollywood stuff and my impression is that he does a lot of work that is difficult and often ignored precisely because people just give up because of promotionalism and such. There needs to be a balance between inclusionist and deletionists, sometimes quality is improved much like with trees by pruning what doesn't work. Sometimes though an abundance of information is desired too. I think it's more of a philosophical differences in approaches. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD isn't philosophy. Red Pen is perhaps the editor most convinced of his own perfection and least open to discourse about article content. I don't know anything about Bollywood and I can't comment on that (and we surely do see a lot of spam) – but when he pops up in a field I do understand, like the major RS-worthy players in the field of robotics, or even whether the Daily Telegraph is an unreliable tabloid or not, then I recognise when he's talking crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not 100% what's happening here so no comment on the validity, it may well be, I'm just vouching for my dealings with him. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    TRPoD is a valuable contributor. If Andy Dingley were to leave due to TRPoD's editing, I would have a hard time not considering that another valuable contribution. Removing material that is not derived from reliable sources and eradicating original research from articles is a good thing. Objecting to the removal of unsourced material is a bad thing. It really is that simple, Andy, and if you have objections to it, I would suggest that you do something else for a hobby.—Kww(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have to agree the editor's sole reason for existence seems to be negation, the name, probably a sock, if my five decades on earth mean anything experiencewise, speaks for itself, even if one doesn't pat attention to the behavior. The complainant should bring up some diffs, they will justify action. Just complaining doesn't, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • <ec x2>*Deleting material which isn't controversial but is unsourced would drop the total text of the encyclopedia by 90%. And thankfully, doing so isn't required or even strongly suggested by policy. If TRPOD believes that material is false or has a basis for suspecting that the material is wrong, that's one thing. But looking at the removal at LAURON, it's a terrible call and he is edit warring rather than discussion. Sure, be bold, but when reverted discuss. That's what WP:BRD is about. I'm not a fan of this editor in any case, but crap like that is just indefensible. (In particular calling 20 years of academic research a product list implies a huge lack of understanding of the topic. So huge I think WP:COMPETENCE applies.) Hobit (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobit, you've been here long enough to understand WP:BURDEN. Once the material was challenged due to being unsourced, it is the responsibility of the person restoring the material to provide the citations. There are no exceptions to that policy. None whatsoever. Your opinion of the removal or the quality of the challenge is irrelevant: once removed for lack of sourcing, it can only be returned with inline citations.—Kww(talk) 04:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the rest of WP:BURDEN please--there is a balancing act here. "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[3] If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If TRPoD stated that they couldn't source the material, fine. But they didn't. Also notice that sourced material was removed with a justification that implies a massive lack of understanding of the topic (as if they didn't read it in fact). I know well enough that you and I won't come to agreement on this topic. But the fact is the vast majority of Wikipedia is unsourced and the vast majority of that material is correct. Deleting useful things because no one has gotten around to sourcing it when you've no reason to believe the material is wrong is a horrible idea. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobit, you cannot just add unsourced material per WP:OR. Whether the "vast majority" of Wikipedia is unsourced is a something else (I also seriously doubt that much of it is unsourced), correct material or not. Kww hit the nail right on the head about unsourced material being challenged. I would listen to him, he knows exactly what he's talking about. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All of that is true, Hobit, and serves as a reason to caution TRPoD. Your restoration of the material is prohibited, however: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". TRPoD has challenged the material: his challenge is unambiguous. WP:V is policy, WP:BRD is an essay: it cannot override policy. If the material is so clearly and obviously correct and so clearly and obviously valuable, then it should be trivially easy for you or another editor to provide the inline citations that are mandated by policy.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really want to have this discussion in two places. But could you please read WP:BURDEN again and acknowledge that the person removing the material has obligations also? In addition, could you justify removing the sourced material (and cite)? Hobit (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, I'll restrict my comments to here from now on: the sole inline citation removed was to a YouTube video, not normally considered a reliable source. The obligations on the person removing the material are suggestions only, while the obligations on the person restoring the material are an absolute and unequivocal mandate.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an example of very constructive editing on the part of TheRedPenOfDoom: Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique - promotional content replaced with encyclopedic content, and citations placed appropriately. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't really see the point of the edits on LAURON. "Not a product catalogue" doesn't apply here as this robot is not a product for sale in a catalog. Unsourced material should be deleted if it is contested--but let it be contested validly. If it is spammy, not neutrally written, contentious, likely untruthful, sure-- but was that the case here? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobit, there are obligations for both the remover and the adder. As the adder, you need to support additions with reliable sources. As a remover, one would have to do so if the material is not supported by a reliable source. Not every source is reliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the encyclopedia only valued contributions with a positive byte size then this place would be a swarm of trivia and bad anecdotal narratives. Thank God, or TRPoD or whatever, that we have editors who run the encyclopedia through some kind of filter so we can churn out quality over quantity.--v/r - TP 05:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OP's complaints should be dealt with as individual incidents through normal channels if they have merit. RPoD does excellent work deleting large swathes of absolutely unacceptable material in many places. See e.g. the history of James Rosemond. I haven't looked at the specific complaints of OP, but really, there's no *general* case to be made that there's something wrong with RPoD's editing. And who knew that I'd end my editing today agreeing completely with TParis, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many baseless and inaccurate accusations can be made against an editor before WP:BOOMERANG comes into play? Reyk YO! 06:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed this in passing having been invited to look at a different section on ANI. I am not clear why this has been collapsed? My experience with User:TheRedPenOfDoom is related to one incident only here, but the following edit behavior and lack of communication which accompanied it indicates to me a double problem. Is there a reason why apparently continued problematic editing and (lack of) communication should not be addressed? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Could we at least have some response from User:TheRedPenOfDoom before closing this? Such as for example an undertaking not to blank and redirect articles that clearly meet WP:GNG without using AFD as the rest of the editing community do. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you can't compel a person to post on ANI. If TRPOD feels that a discussion closed as unactionable does not require his input, then that's fair enough. Reyk YO! 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am most certainly NOT going to agree that taking an article that clearly meets WP:GNG to AfD is appropriate, because if it clearly meets GNG it probably shouldn't be taken to AfD. I am not going to agree that redirecting a bad or unsourced subject to a more valid topic is inappropriate and AfD is better because Wikipedia:ATD#Alternatives_to_deletion says otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, alternatively how would you feel about a simple ban on deleting and redirecting articles? There are visible cases, such as the one I linked, where you did delete and redirect an article which met WP:GNG, so how should the community treat with an editor who is unwilling to recognize that in cited cases they made a mistake on WP:GNG. It's okay to make mistakes, if that was the 1 in 100 you got wrong then hopefully that can be demonstrated. Could you perhaps estimate, roughly, how many articles you blank and redirect in a given 30 days. For example. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    So, when was the contest held that awarded the "most deletionist of deletionists" tiara, and why was I not invited? Tarc (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted the invitation as promotional spam. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oof, Nancy Kerrigan'ed right out of competition. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All is fair in love and deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't confuse enforcement of policy with edit-warring, Andy. Whatever you may think of TRPoD, he has challenged the material, and, per WP:RS and WP:BURDEN, inline citations are now mandatory to support the material that he removed. Not little notes about how citations would be nice, but actual inline citations. Note that while Torchiest initially failed to comply with policy, he has now complied with policy, rendering this discussion moot. That doesn't make your participation in this less disruptive: do not intentionally violate WP:RS in the future, as it will probably lead to you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a second. "WP:RS in the future, as it will probably lead to you being blocked" - User:Kww, I hope you will not be blocking anyone. I only now recognise your name as being the editor who was working together with RedPenofDoom to delete Bible translations into the languages of China which you blanked and redirected as "redundant topic". Since you have made no contributions to that article, it may well be pure coincidence, but might appear that you are taking a special interest in the deletions of RedPenofDoom. May I ask have there been other incidents where RedPenofDooms blanks and redirects and articles, is challenged and you follow up by blanking and redirecting the article again? Perhaps you could indicate if you are or are not a wholly uninvolved party to RedPenofDoom's editing? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Kww, you are a disgrace as an admin.
    Your editing is almost entirely unconstructive. It oscillates between tag-team edit-warring with you and Red Pen to delete swathes of articles when improvement is called for, not rapid blanking, and then as here (and again, all too frequently as Red Pen's pet admin) using threats of imminent blocks against other editors. As I recall, the first time you threatened me like this it was for adding RS to a topic you had already decided needed to go.
    As to your clear attack above, "If Andy Dingley were to leave due to TRPoD's editing, I would have a hard time not considering that another valuable contribution. " and giving your view that driving me off the project would be a valuable contribution, then if you'd said that of any other editor I'd have dragged you off to ANI for that alone.
    Your actions here have been those of wikilawyering and disruption contrary to the goals of the encyclopedia and harmful to it. When an editor, Torchiest, has the time and inclination to do what is needed here and to start improving the very issues you complain of, your reaction was to edit-war against them and to start threatening.
    Kww, you are a disgrace as an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't attempt to take the focus of your own WP:BOOMERANG problem by lashing out at others. You have shown a constant disregard for the need for sourcing, and this case, where you brought an issue to ANI after having violated WP:RS, is simply an example. As for Torchiest's edits, I retained those that were policy compliant and removed those that were not. Hardly disruptive: it's exactly what you would expect an admin to do with respect to an article where administrative assistance had been requested and clearcut, unambiguous violations of policy were occurring.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't say that TRPOD and Kww are disruptive editors -I think they act in good faith. Still it is also true that they team up often (my experience is mostly in List of unusual deaths) and that especially TRPOD can have a stubborn attitude that makes collaboration very difficult. They tend to engage in a "I am right and you are all morons" attitude. A softer and more open to compromise approach by both editors would be welcome.--cyclopiaspeak! 17:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


      • Just wanted to say that I somewhat take issue with the suggestion that I failed to comply with policy. I was in the process of complying with policy, and indicated I would be adding more sources. I assumed I would be allowed time to source the remaining parts, since it seemed clear that such sources existed and could be found based on the progress I'd already made. —Torchiest talkedits 15:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know what issue you could take, Torchiest: the challenge was clear in the history, and the policy clearly calls for citations, not tags as placeholders. I didn't accuse you of being disruptive or ill-intentioned, just pointed out that your initial edits were not in compliance with policy. In the long run, you did exactly what is expected: instead of screaming that since sources should be easy to find and running to noticeboards, you found those sources and included them in the article, complete with policy-compliant citations. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I`d say that his edits are a sea of red, but they are justifiable (He is removing spam and vandalism, etc. ) Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 17:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Happy Attack Dog, on a review of RedPenofDoom's edits over the past week there is certainly some spam and vandalism being removed, that should be recognised, perhaps 1/2, perhaps up to 2/3 of RedPenofDoom's edits, but the question is (1) what exactly of this content on the German robot consitutes "spam and vandalism"?, (2) when an edit is challenged/reverted do we encourage edit warring as the way to proceed? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:TekkenJinKazama

    Editor was blocked indefinitely for repeated image copyright violations. -- Atama頭 22:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For the past 24 hours, this user has been harassing me about an article I'm not even involved with. He wants me to do something about the Ra.One article, wherein he insists that the film is in English. I have told him time and time again that I have never seen the film, so I have no say on what languages were used on it. My only issue with him was his constant vandalism of Shaolin Soccer, claiming that the English dub of the U.S. version is the official language. - Areaseven (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Naghmehetaati

    Could someone, perhaps someone who speaks Persian, have a word with Naghmehetaati to see whether it's possible to get them to stop posting walls of text in Persian on Talk:Hassan Rouhani. I removed several of their posts and left a message at User talk:Naghmehetaati but without success. Some of the comments appear to have been directed at Hassan Rouhani himself and others seem to treat the page as a forum. They probably mean well but they don't seem to understand the purpose of the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I used Google Translate to put a note on their talk page. The text is almost certainly distorted in some way, but perhaps it might be enough to get the idea across. BMK (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the editor is unable to communicate in English, then that falls under WP:COMPETENCY. There is a reason why there is a different project for each language. If I went to the Persian Wikipedia and started leaving messages in English everywhere (and only English) I'd expect to be blocked too. If the editor is able and willing to communicate in English then there won't be a need for a block, so I suggest giving them a chance first. -- Atama頭 22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, WP:SPEAKENGLISH applies... Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not Arabic. It uses Pe (Persian letter). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    India Against Corruption disruption yet again

    We've got more incoming disruption at India Against Corruption from the same meatpuppets/SPAs/role accounts that have previously and tendentiously been pushing a POV and issuing legal threats. I'm really rather fed up of this place at the moment and can't be bothered digging out diffs but if someone is around who knows the history then please could you do the necessary. Plenty in the archives here, and stuff at mediation, with OTRS etc. I have reported it to RFPP but that can take hours and this is election season in India.

    You'll see some recent back-and-forth on my talk page history and at that of TheWikiIndian (who is blocked for 2 weeks right now but only the tip of the iceberg). - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I protected the page when I noticed the edit warring a few minutes ago - hadn't seen this or RPP. This is the second time in a few weeks that this page has been protected. The elections are 12 May 2014 and I expect a number of attempts to use Wikipedia to promote candidates and parties. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the problems will continue after the elections because this is a massive misunderstanding of how we operate. They've been invited on numerous occasions to create India Against Corruption (organisation) or similar if they think they can satisfy WP:GNG but they never bother. Which is because up to now it hasn't satisfied GNG and they know it. Anyway, I'm gone & it is no longer my problem. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a gross distortion of the facts. IAC is an apolitical organisation. We care a fig for elections. FYI, yhe elections are on 9.April.2014 onwards. It is Sitush who is promoting political candidates Arvind Kejriwal (who was a part of IAC but is now a politician) and Anna Hazare (who was never a part of IAC, but is endorsing candidates for a fee). On 27.March 2014 the leading Indian newspaper "The Hindu" published this [87]. Sitush now stands exposed and refuses to discuss this news report . Accordingly IAC demands that all references in the article titled "India Against Corruption" to Anna HAzare / "Team Anna" are deleted within 36 hours. Mr. Sarbajit Roy and Mr. Veeresh Malik are the trademark and copyright holders for all aspects connected to the brandname "India Against Corruption". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has been fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above looks like a "chilling effect threat" to me. Probably the IP should get a time out for that. BMK (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read the news report first and the retraction by the newspaper. Does Wikipedia still justify IMPERSONATION of our body? Can any Admin explain WHY Sitush dropped out of MEDIATION when he couldn't justify his impersonating edits ? 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • What happens after 36 hours when we don't comply with your demands? (Incidentally holding trademarks doesn't prevent the organization from being discussed without its permission, and, at least in US law, one cannot copyright a name.) BMK (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have many options open to us. This is NOT a legal threat. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Discuss us freely, but don't allow IMPERSONATIUON of us on your website. Impersonation is a contravention of WMF's "Terms of Use". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Impersonation of who? You're not a named account, you're an IP. We have no way of knowing who you are, so there's no way to prevent "impersonation". Make an account, show OTRS some proof that you represent an organization, and if it's verified, then if someone claiming to be from the organization turns out to be an impersonator, something can be done. Until then... Beside, who are claiming is impersonating the IAC? Sitush? Simply because he's written an article based on facts from reliable sources that you don't like? You don't and can't (and won't) control what's written about you here, so if that's what you're after, it's not gonna happen. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just to assist you folks. On 27.March.2014 the venerable Indian Newspaper "The Hindu" deleted a news story that Mr Hazare was with IAC and fully published our rejoinder that Mr. Anna Hazare was never a part of IAC, and after confirming this from Mr. Hazare. The link is above. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My earlier comment here was removed by someone. As for discussing freelym, we've done that for nine months and you "lost", for want of a better word. It is things like this that have put me off Wikipedia, ie: clueless contributors & the fact that the WP systems mean one has to put up with them for such a prolonged time. Ending the ability to edit anonymously would be a start. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, regarding IP editing. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, howe many more times must you idiots be told that the article does not say Hazare was a part of the IAC organisation that you represented. He was a part of the IAC movement and a member of a committee that was popularly identified with that movement and the term (not the organisation) IAC. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for evasion - I think it's pretty clear that, whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this is a continuation of the usual IAC disruption. Since there's clearly no reasoning with this person/these people, blocking on sight seems to be the only strategy that will work. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ Sitush: it wasn't the IP who removed your earlier post — I think that must have been an accident. The sock you mentioned in the removed post has been indeffed, along with another one who just removed the header to this section from the ANI TOC[88]. Possibly more interestingly, the more established editor TheWikiIndian has made legal threats and called you a paid editor who published inaccurate information in Arvind Kejriwal as a paid edit to solicit votes for Mr. Kejrijwal's party and to confuse the public. I think you recognize that, Sitush — do you have the link to that blog again? — and Dougweller is in it too, he and the paid editor Sitush jointly vandalised Mr.Roy's Wikipedia bio-entry. Well, it is April 1. These abuses by Sitush and admins have been reported to Michelle Paulson and Philippe Beaudette, TheWikiIndian states. I only blocked him for two weeks for egregious personal attacks, which he repeated on his page after the block, so I removed talkpage access. But if anybody wants to indef him pending retraction of the legal threats, I won't stand in the way. There may be multiple reasons — a checkuser of TheWikiIndian vs the IP posting in this thread would be nice — but anyway, I started with two weeks. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • TheWikiIndian's claims are just bizarre. For example, I've supported deletion of Gopal Rai, Santosh Koli, Naveen Jaihind and Hemant kumar PY - those all relate to the Aam Aadmi Party that I'm suposedly being paid to support here and they're just the examples showing in my 7-day watchlist (others went before then). There is a lot of abuse of Wikipedia going on at the moment in the name of the Indian general election but I have absolutely nothing to gain from favouring one group or another: I'm not Indian, I'm not resident in that country, I've never voted in any government or local government election in any country, I'm not a member of any political association anywhere, etc. My only connection to India is a great-great-grandparent who was born in Bangalore to English parents who may have been very minor officials in the Raj or clerks to traders. She was back in England by the time she married, aged 21. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Community Ban Proposal for User:HRA1924

    It's pretty obvious from the last several ANI threads about IAC that HRA1924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated sock/meatpuppets are NOTHERE (or are here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS). I'm not generally a fan of community bans, but given the persistent sockpuppetry, legal threats, and refusal to understand how Wikipedia works, I think the ability to block and revert on sight would be a significant net positive for the encyclopedia.

    • Comment The problem is, we're not sure whether it is the same person or various meatpuppets. There are allegedly 29,000 people on the IAC mailing list hosted via riseup.net. Since it is an activist group and communicates in large part using electronic methods, I'd guess that there'll be quite a few different people acting in a co-ordinated manner here. We know that they've used open proxies here before, so things are really messy. I think admins just need to be aware that, for example, as soon as someone mentions paid editing/impersonation/libel/Indian legal system etc in connection with IAC then they're probably of the same tendentious origin and should be blocked at that point.
    I've had some people in good standing from India contacting me about this: they would like something to be done that stops the torrent of clueless stuff coming here from the organisation. But they dare not get involved because they are in the country & so there are issues re: reprisals as well as the legal system. It should be borne in mind that practically anyone can open a case in India by filing a First Information Report - although that doesn't constitute a formal charge (as far as I am aware, but I'm no lawyer), it is a matter of public record & so can affect employment etc.
    Ha! I've just noticed my very own AN is showing in the edit header for this page. As Bowie would say, we can be "heroes", just for one day ... - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On my talk page another IAC sock claims " 1,03,000+ edits 832+ still working accounts" while calling editors chutiyas.[89]. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is he - 1 limb of the HRA1924 network. Can we discuss this sensibly without being banned and blocked ? FYI, I've been on Wikipedia for 9+ years, 1,03,000+ edits, and 833+ working user accounts. The HRA1924 "team" had 47+ years at Wikipedia and 6,00,000+ edits between us. And also FYI, we hardly ever edit India-centric articles. I only called Sitush thatTrangDocVan (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not while y'all are still making legal threats (saying "this is not a legal threat" doesn't make it not a legal threat), baseless accusations, and personal attacks, no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sitush: Now there's an insteresting concept. We could deal with this coordination/canvasing via the authorized mechanisms laid out in WP:EEML or one of the related ArbCom cases. Yes I know this makes me the poster child for an attack by members of IAC (which ironically is trying to corrupt the wikipedia decision process) and for being an an ArbCom groupie, but as I recall this is the 4th or 5th time I've seen the topic come up so I consider it time to start taking hard actions against the instigators of wikidrama. Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it, we are being told that there is a very large network of editors - 833+ (more than a few hours ago) not including blocked editors, working together to edit Wikipedia. This sounds not good. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm currently looking into this matter. I've blocked additional accounts and will continue to investigate affected pages. FYI, here's a similar description at User:Turnitinpro. Elockid (Talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, crumbs. Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus. Support. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as one of many people who has got nowhere trying to politely explain to these editors how Wikipedia works and why legal threats and personal attacks are not appropriate. Hasteur also correctly observes that many of the principles at WP:EEML seem applicable to this issue. From observation and experience, every conversation with IAC editors has been identical - walls of text filled with threats and red herrings, followed by claims the legal threats aren't really threats, followed by a repeat of the legal threats and dramatic pronouncements of refusal to abide by Wikipedia's rules or terms of service. It is disruptive to a number of Indian articles, has a chilling effect on editing and is no doubt wearying for the editors who are the subject of attacks. Like many political advocates ahead of an election, the IAC editors seem less in building an encyclopedia and more interested in promoting causes and condemning their foes. Good luck to them, but an online encyclopedia is not the place for electioneering. Euryalus (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    77.97.151.145 and Talk:Sega Genesis

    Blocked for 2 weeks, terrible edit summaries deleted. Editors felt his talk page messages were "trolling", which was part of the reason for the foul language apparently. I didn't remove the actual talk page messages, but I don't oppose it either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone have a word with 77.97.151.145 (talk · contribs) and their contributions to this talk page, which consist entirely of intermittent abusive messages about renaming Sega Genesis to Mega Drive, ([90], [91], [92]) a discussion that has been done to death so much it has a prominent entry in WP:LAME. Cheers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    On a related note, can an administrator remove these edit summaries the user posted as highly offensive: here and here ? Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Robomod

    Robomod has been adding external links to fashionmodeldirectory.com since its first edit, now also crosswiki. I'm doubtful about good or bad faith. The template itself is questionable and imho that's clearly spam which should be checked by local sysops. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Dear Sysops. Dear Vituzzu. I'm not a spammer, spambot or anything that wants to harm Wiki at all. The reason why I have been adding a few links to FMD is simple. They have revamped their website and their new designer profiles (all profiles actually) are more than just useful for Wikipedia. The interconnectivity brings you from a designer profile to the brand of the designer , up to all the editorials , advertisements and works that have been done by the designer. From there you have the featured models, booked agencies. Generally speaking, I believe and many on Wiki do, that FMD offers the user a lot of informative material. And that's what external links are about.
    I've not "only" done links to FMD, I actually write clearly on my user-profile what I am into on Wikipeda. I've contributed a lot of editorial work and also other external sources such as imdb. I love fashion and I love models, designers and brands. I also admit that I love FMD and that I spend hours hours on that website. If you consider the links I've added to you the designers being non-informative and spam, please highlight them and I will personally remove them and apologize for decreasing the quality on that parts. I don't think there are any. I'm also fine with being supervised in the future to show and prove that I am only acting in good faith.
    I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is, is above the average wiki-editor and I’d love to point the perfect example and I kindly ask you all to consider the following under a neutral point-of-view:
    I have linked to FMD from Driess van Noten with the following link:
    http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/ . The link provided contains an image of Dries (he is an awesome designer btw!) , describes with new content the designer himself and his look (wiki doesn’t do that).
    From there the user is able to click on the associated brands: http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/brands/ , which is only one in this case, but others like Versace have dozens of brands.
    From there again, you have the brand profile , which to be honest should also be listed in the external links .
    The brand profile (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/) offers even more about Dries as a brand, and includes contact details but the most important is: it shows me his last fashion shows http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/shows/ and 560 (!) fully credited editorials : http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/editorials/ .
    I assume that Vituzzu didn’t notice this immense set of information when he/she accused me of being a spam, but I totally understand the concerns as mentioned above.
    Generally speaking, I kindly ask you to not take any measures against me and my work on Wiki. I love Wikipedia and I love FMD, and with regards to all the information used here on Wikipedia which comes from FMD since the very beginning of Wikipedia (thousands of references?), I also think that Wikipedia owes this to FMD.
    As for the crosswiki accusation: I'm multilingual , I'm fluent in Italian (sono anche cittadino italiano :)), German, mostly with French, even Croatian, Russian and a few more. I study languages. I also invite you to consider the fact that the remark in bold at the top of the page, saying "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." was not followed, I would have been happy to have this discussed earlier. Kind regards ► robomod 11:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't use imdb as a good example - it's not a reliable source. From a quick check, FMD is as bad as imdb and should never be used on Wikipedia of any language - using it would violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. ES&L 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably don't have the necessary background to know whether FMD is a good reliable source or not. I'm into fashion and I actually worked for a fashion label with both FMD and models.com, we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns. If you consider FMD and IMDB to be so bad, then I believe 99% of the links should be removed and most fashion articles would have to be removed from Wikipedia as they rely on information of these websites. Furthermore, only accusing isn't the way here, tell me how and why you consider FMD not being reliable? They are a kind of authority in fashion business and I think you didn't check the facts with your "Quick check" (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/info/about/). I also couldn't find any violations, you are welcome to point them out here. ► robomod 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns" ... taadaaaa! And that's the reason it's not acceptable as an RS. Muchos gracias :-) ES&L 13:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At that time, the brands sent the original images of the fashion shows and I am sure they still do. Otherwise how could they have 1Mio credited fashion images? It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users". Wouldn't you agree? ► robomod 13:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    >that wants to harm Wiki at all
    Sigh.
    >adding a few links to FMD is simple
    A few? Try a few hundred.
    >They have revamped their website
    When exactly was this? You've been adding links to this website since your third edit, which was nearly six years ago. Also, are you trying to promote this website? That paragraph reads suspiciously like a sales pitch to me. We have a guideline on external links and your fluff does not address this.
    >many on Wiki do
    [citation needed]
    >I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is
    The lack of referenced content you have added in contrast to the number of links speaks otherwise.
    > I also think that Wikipedia owes this to FMD.
    Huh?
    >we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns... It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users"
    I was wondering why the site's profiles sounded like vapid promotionalism. What about the things the brands don't tell you?
    Now for the million dollar question: why are the overwhelming majority of your edits and link additions to this website? You should have broader editing interests, having been here for six years and made over 1300 edits. MER-C 13:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice it was that much. I agree that I was kinda crazy for fashion a few years ago. I am not related to Ford Models nor FMD. As for FMD, I've been helping in the past with submissions but stopped after they started to rarely accept user submissions. I do have two editors in my FB-profile but don't know them personally. That's all. When I wrote "owe" I meant that many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information. It was not meant in any bad way. I just feel that we need an administrator here who is also into fashion and understands the work of a designer. I must admit, it's horrible to get dashed by a couple friendly(?) administrators. Addendum: The revamp motivated me to add links, like it was back in 2010 at their last revamp. You see the parallels? I agree with your comment that I should have more interests than fashion alone. I'll change that in my behaviour. ► robomod 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good to see this here at last, though I'd have thought Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam would be a more appropriate venue. This is major, wide-ranging, long-term spamming. {{Fashiondesigner}} was nominated for deletion by SilkTork in 2012, but the spam aspect did not come up in the discussion, such as it was. That template has 353 transclusions, {{Fashionmodel}} has 613, {{Fashionlabel}} 29. We seem to have 1857 external links to www.fashionmodeldirectory.com. A large proportion of those appear to have been added by just one user. I suggest that their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia, and that they should be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia" . Please have a look at the model profiles my dear, how many information come from FMD? What benefit should they have from a link to a designer that has probably no visits per day? Viceversa you have for example 600 galleries to the brand or designer or model related? However, I leave the decision to the sysops and belive and hope they don't see it one-sided as you all do . I apologized but I am even more sorry for FMD that due to my behaviour I have probably ruined their reputation on Wikipedia. ► robomod 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you edited Wikipedia under any other names since you started editing as Robomod in 2008? NebY (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have probably edited many articles, especially not-fashion-realted ones, more spontaneous without logging in. I should have logged in more often to prove that I am not a stupid spammer, as what I am exposed now. I did the triple of edits in the content and without log in, when I read an article and noticed mistakes (I suffer from perfectionism). Shouldn't be an excuse at all. I'm sad that my username may be deleted now. ► robomod 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but that's not quite what I was asking. Have you edited while logged in with another name? (BTW, I don't believe anyone's saying they'll delete your username.) NebY (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry. No, actually I have only this account. Is that somehow relevant? ► robomod 15:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is. You mentioned above that "many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information" so I looked for references to fashionmodeldirectory.com on Wikipedia and who had added them. On checking contribution histories, I saw the familiar signs of one person editing first with one account, then with another. One of those accounts was Robomod. I thought I should give you the opportunity to save some of your reputation here by owning up to those edits and revealing account names. I invite you to do so now. NebY (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reputation? I have no other accounts. "familiar signs"? Maybe someone copied the annotation, as I did in the past and others did as well. I think the SysOps can look that up anyway. This is turning into stoning like with the Talibans. Did anyone of you fabulous guys answer to my questions? I argumented everything and you are just trying to put dirt over me , over and over. Now I know what kind of people are managing Wikipedia. Do whatever you all must do as this is so ridiculous and you have fun in torturing people who try to argue seriously. ► robomod 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I'm not someone who manages Wikipedia - not by a long shot. I've written up what I've found at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod; there's space for you and others to comment there. NebY (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be a bad person to try to widen this witch-hunt. I hope you were very happy for at least a few hours but note that they decided that I am not one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod/Archive
    • Just as a last note before I leave the place: It is said that nobody of those who bashed me now have answered the questions I asked. I apologized and I also defended myself with argument whcih were left apart. I hope the sysops don't judge my wrong contributing, but moreover look at what is found at the end of the links. It's not spam, it gives you much more information about all the profiles I have linked and I thought that this is the understanding of adding an external link. Please consider the above example of how much of further information a Wikipedia-user is able to find by following it. Thanks for reading me. ► robomod 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally find the information provided in the FMD website quite useful. I have requested for a few modifications to be done in a number of profiles in the past and they require members to provide reliable sources beforehand, regarding the new information being submitted, if not it gets rejected. That speaks a lot of how professional and accurate they strive to be. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the fashion-related articles in Wikipedia are based on information from FMD. Just take a look at the Chanel article, for example, and how many notes use FMD as their reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel#References). If links to FMD are removed, I'm pretty sure it would hurt Wikipedia more than FMD, but then the same should be done with links to Models.com, IMDB or other similar informative databases. -- Lancini87 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that we have here administrators who are not able to evaluate this. They see my account with many links to them and for them it's spam now. Noone of the above have visited the website from my example above. Where the link to Dries van Noten turns into an information flood that Wiki can't provide. And I agree, they should remove all articles that contain information from FMD. After all FMD is just like a fashion-Wikipedia, with the difference that you can't just edit and add funny information. ► robomod 16:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Regardless of whether the editors here can properly evaluate a modeling website, posting links to your website shows a clear conflict of interest WP:COI ...Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote a product, service or website and adding links to your website in external links on multiple articles is a kind of self-promotion. As far as reliable sources, Wikipedia prefers independent, secondary source that have some kind of editorial process (peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers who have managing editors, books that are not self-published, etc.). What is not prized is a blog or website that reflects a particular individual's point of view, unless the article is about that individual and his POV. Liz Read! Talk! 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Liz. Please note that this is not my website, but I wish it was. Your comment is practically in line with what FMD is. They are seen as a neutral authority within the fashion industry, just like models.com, but with the difference that they don't accept any advertisings and promotions from any listed entities (see their about-page posted earlier : It says "FMD is not a place to buy promotion"). And they have independent managing editors [[93]] just like Wikipedia has, some of them are accredited journalists (two of them I have on Facebook as mentioned earlier). I think I shall invite the editors from FMD to this discussion, since we are now talking about a punishment of their property although the mistake of "spamminG was mine. ► robomod 18:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    i personally don't think that this is such a big issue at all. why make an issue over legitimate and reliable content information from a source that is most comprehensive when it comes to fashion data. if you look closely you will see that 90 percent of models info comes from the fashion model directory. for that matter if we are speaking about the legitimacy and reliability of data then for that matter why not question models.com, supermodels.nl or any other such service? imho i honestly feel that this is a totally biased and unjust situation that is being directed in effort towards User:Robomod. for that matter there are thousands and thousands of companies that have users on wikipedia editing and posting content on their behalf. why is the legitimacy not in question for them? if your intent is to bash user:Robomod i think the message has been sent across loud and clear. Clintong (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! I did a mistake, I apologized for linking to many times (although my userpage states that I'm linking to other databases since ever!) and now they are trying to punish a fashion database that was source of thousands of fashion articles. ► robomod 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Honorable Wikipedia-Community.

    We have taken note of the various statements found within this topic. First of all, we clearly distance ourselves from any activity on Wikipedia and we are not in any way related to the users who contributed about and for The Fashion Model Directory on Wikimedia projects. We also don't pay for such legal services. We run an old but updated Wikipedia license , Wikipedia License from 2001, that defines what underlines the exchange of data and content. This agreement survived thirteen years and was set up with the young Wikipedia team, and is still subject to simplify the usage of our material and the partnership with Wikipedia. Thus, we are not seeing this issue as a legit call to deprecate information from Wikipedia that has come from our fashion database. For any further bad reputation that is caused herein, we will need to clarify this with the Wikipedia management directly, and take the responsible persons to account. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me or our editors board by sending your concerns to wikipedia(AT)fashionmodeldirectory.com . Yours sincerely - Anne Roth (FMD Executive Board) --Fmdwiki (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    and take the responsible persons into account Potential legal threat? KonveyorBelt 01:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Not at all. How I read it, they are essentially saying "Hey guys, we weren't involved in the crap that happened. We have always supported Wikipedia, we continue to license all of our content to your needs, and hope to continue a good relationship with Wikipedia. We hope that you don't stop using our content after 13 years of a good relationship. Please feel free to have the WMF talk to our folks anytime if you have any concerns related to us. If anyone from our staff is involved, tell us and we will hold them accountable." That's my translation.--v/r - TP 01:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, they shouldn't have even started this thread in the first place if the issue was so petty. The best thing to do in cases like this, is for them (or anyone else) to not even bring up the topic at all.
    And is this a sub-thread to the section above, or a new section? I can't tell, but it looks like it is unrelated to the section above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    i dont think this is a new thread, it is related to the section above. i think someone should merge it into the robomod discussion thread. WRT to what theyre trying to say i kinda agree with User:TParis, i went thru their wikipedia license note and it seems they are delivering 8000 vector logos and have no problem in having their content here on wiki as long as it is in tune with our policies. WRT to User:Konveyor Belt point on a threat: the way i read the situation is theyre basically trying to say "look guys we did not have anything to do with the spamming,but should the wiki community feel there is a abuse of usage feel free to let us know and we will take necessary action against that user/persons".... to User:Epicgenius, i do not think it was they who brought up the topic, but an administrator whose talk page wud seem to reflect a bias with the intent of damaging their templates and content herein just bcuz some user was spamming and not following our guidelines... at some point everyone seems to have lost focus of what the intent of this whole discussion was, it started with an admin bashing a user for spamming content here, but not only that the discussion went on to even talk about penalizing the source (FMD) as well. Admins should be thorough in their opinions without bias and have a neutral point not just in the content but also in their insinuations without the abuse of power... if this issue is not such a big thing i think we can all agree that it should be closed and let the topic lie to rest instead of dragging it on and on and inviting unnecessary attention from external parties Clintong (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate public slur by WilyD on another editor's character at RfD

    At this RfD discussion, WilyD (talk · contribs) has publicly and completely unfairly accused another editor, Gorobay (talk · contribs), of "making racist slurs". The accusation is unfair because the other editor nominated a redirect in Macedonian to the article Work ethic with the rationale "not especially Macedonian" amongst a batch of similar nominations for cross-lingual redirects, with similar rationales in each case.

    I removed the comment and replaced it with {{redacted}} (which I now notice is meant to be subst'ed — my mistake), as I consider making public accusations of that nature about an innocent editor as being grossly inappropriate. However, I noted at the time that I was willing to assume good faith as to the comment's origin: namely that WilyD misunderstood the nomination (as Gorobay was clearly stating that our article "Work ethic" is not tied to a Macedonian title, not talking about the Macedonian people). Which I must also say is stretching AGF to its limit, because WilyD has also replied to several of those other nominations without making the same error. However, WilyD subsequently restored the accusation. I removed it again, only for WilyD to restore it again (and in the process delete my additional comment noting the re-removal).

    I think that my action in removing this grotesque and uncalled-for public slur on the character of another editor was entirely justified under WP:TPO, and that WilyD is acting entirely inappropriately in trying to force its inclusion in the page. I would appreciate hearing some opinions about whether I'm right or wrong. — Scott • talk 11:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems to me he's taking the piss. Anyway, where did you attempt to discuss it with him? — lfdder 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be where I replied to his comment on the page, and he replied to it with an edit summary, and I replied with a comment on the page again, which he deleted while replying with an edit summary. That's discussion enough for me. — Scott • talk 11:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't particularly think it's Gorobay's intention to write something that comes across as racist, rather, merely sloppiness, it's also pretty unambiguous that writing "Work ethic is not especially Macedonian" carries a lot of racist baggage, and isn't appropriate. I haven't made the same statement on other nominations don't carry quite the same problem (though I think you could make a legitimate case that trying to make en.wiki less usable, rather than more useable, for readers with moderate English skills is ethnically insensitive, which is relevant to the background here). Intent is not really taken as critical, rather, when one accidentally makes a racist statement, they should retract or modify it, rather than complain about being called out. I would be willing to redact that comment if Gorobay changed his nomination statement to something not carrying this kind of racist baggage. WilyD 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is obviously not a racist statement, you're intentionally misinterpreting it, and misquoting him to make it sound more like racism is shameful. If you are going to double down and claim it is, then let's handle it this way: if you falsely accuse someone of making racist statements again, you'll be blocked from editing, the same as any non-admin would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Oh puh-leeeze. What Gorobay wrote was entirely obvious and clear, and reading that ethnic slur into it takes a really, really twisted approach. Seriously, WilyD, you are seeing phantoms here. And if you were aware that Gorobay (evidently) didn't intend to mean what you think could be understood from it, the right thing for you to say would still not have been "stay away from making racist slurs", but something like "by the way, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but your statement could be misread as an ethnic slur; could you please re-word it?". I very strongly recommend you go there now and reword it along those lines, because the way you phrased it, you are in fact imputing racist intent to him, and that is a personal attack, on your part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WilyD, I initially read this expecting to agree with you but I think we can chalk this up to a misunderstanding. Scott should have talked it over with you instead of directly redacting your comment and Gorobay could have picked a different phrasing, but I don't think this was anything more than an unintended double entendre. I agree with Future Perfect here (and also do think that Gorobay should revise his comment). NW (Talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TPO doesn't require you to talk over anything for a comment as inappropriate as the one that I removed (which is still visible, by the way), and reading the rest of Gorobay's nominations in context makes it quite clear that his comment is in no need of revision. — Scott • talk 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Fut.Perf. and NW here. If Wily had concerns about the phrasing of a statement which they understood but felt could be misintepreted, they should have carefully approached Gorobay about it rather than making an accusation of racism when it's clear none was intended. If Scott had concerns about Wily's accusation, they should have approached Wily about it, at least before coming to ANI.
    If Scott or Wily are going to claim they should not have had to do this because of whatever policy, guideline, let's consider the outcomes here. If Wily is genuinely concerned that the statement would be misread and people may consider to be intentionally racist, then the far better outcome is for this statement to be quickly reworded without a fuss. What isn't a desirable outcome is for a big controversy and illwill all around, for more people to read it and for the person who made the statement to possibly be reluctant to change it because of their anger about an unfair accusation. Having a quite polite discussion with someone is far more likely to achieve the first outcome, and doing what Wily did is far more likely to achieve the second outcome which is where we are now. (Although to be clear, I'm not saying Gorobay is relucant to change it because of this. I have no idea if they feel that way or are even aware of this controversy. I'm just saying it's possible that would happen and I understand why they would feel that way).
    We can say more or less the same thing to Scott. The fact of the matter is whatever may or may not have been required, the comment is still visible and has been exposed to even more people via ANI, so it's unclear how this helps Gorobay in any way. While obviously I can't guarantee, Wily would have behaved better if approached via their talk page, the way things happened here isn't surprising considering the way Scott approached things. This includes the fact that people here at ANI, while generally disagreeing with Wily, are also confused why Scott didn't talk to Wily first (which someone with the experience of Scott must know is often the first question at ANI when applicable).
    Incidentally, I actually partially agree with Wily that it would be far better if the comment is reworded. While it's not intriscly a racist statement and it's clear Gorobay didn't mean anything by it and I don't think it was sloppy for Gorobay to word it so, there is a risk it will be misread. People may read the statement without reading the other nominations on the page and so not see the statement in context. In fact, for people unfamiliar with en.wikipedia redirect guidelines and norms, if they only read that statement and not the followups, they may not understand the deletion proposal at all which may further add to that risk.
    Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    which is often the first question at ANI - pfft. Please. Like I make a habit of dragging people to this noxious drama hole.
    It doesn't matter that WilyD's loathsome accusation has been quoted here, because anyone with two brain cells to knock together can see that it makes as much sense as a chocolate teapot. And regarding it being still visible at its original location - unless someone here gives me a damn good reason not to, I'm going to remove it again really soon. Once again, as WP:TPO permits. If WilyD puts it back, then it appears that Floquenbeam is prepared to hand out a block, and that's fine with me.
    And as for this: People may read the statement without reading the other nominations on the page - no. No they won't. — Scott • talk 09:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, someone better put a lid on this now there's still time. — lfdder 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you look at all of Gorobay's nom's for AFD? Across the board (just about ) he's used "Not especially (insert race ) " or "not (insert race) enough ". Had it happened just once, ok, I wouldn't call it racist, but as a pattern ? I'd say it does look racist, and WillyD was right to say something about it, because that's just what it looks like. As racism has no place in wikipedia, he would then be right to keep that out of the AFD nomination, so no, I'd hope he wouldn't be blocked over that.
    Should he have spoken to Gorobay? Absolutely! But should he blocked for removing what really looks like a racist message out of AFD ? No way.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    April Fools was yesterday. — lfdder 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1241edit

    I think we have some issues with 1241edit, and to put it simply :

    From what I can see, he or she has had multiple warnings here, but also on Wikicommons. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What a user does on another wiki is outside the remit of the English wiki, so a banned user on the French Wiki will not be banned on the English wiki unless they have violated the policies here. Each wiki is self contained with its own independent policies. You would have to go to Metawiki to have their account globally locked but that would be a whole new level of policy violation. Blackmane (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, do you need a new RCU to prove that 1241edit = Ss1241 or not ? As far as I know, if you have multiple accounts, you have to declare them, not use one of them to insult an other contributor when you want to. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you believe they're violating WP:SOCK#LEGIT on the English Wikipedia, you can open an WP:SPI DP 19:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that using a sockpuppet to issue fake "Warnning for Vandalism" could fall under the scope of Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT ? I don't need to prove that those accounts belong to the same person, Template:Frit has been proven already, so I'm not going to waste check users' time.
    Just take one minute to read all the warnings that he/she has received already. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not whether it's the same person, it's whether they are using two accounts legitimately. Follow the link you were provided with. Panda, an SPI won't be necessary here, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that you should also keep an eye on this new account, Azadsp : contributing on the same article here, and uploading the same kind of non-free images on Commons. All those images have been used on FA, and those accounts bave been contributing to the same article there. --XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I responded to a request, and now the requestor tells me I have "no consensus"

    User:Timeshift9 asked me (on my talk page) to make edits to Full results of the South Australian state election, 2010 and Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014. So, in good faith, I made them.
    User:Timeshift9 then said I had no consensus to make such edits, and now seems to want to engage in an edit war.
    You are probably not surprised to learn that I'm unimpressed by his response. And you are also probably not surprised that as I went to considerable effort (note: considerable) to make the changes he requested, I am quite pissed off. PARTICULARLY as I could have just ignored the request, or even politely responded: "No thanks."
    But I didn't. I took him at face value, assumed good faith, and made the requested edits.
    So, please advise where I should go from here. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like the other editor asked you to change article A to follow the example of article B, and you changed the layout of both article A and article B. Apparently the changes you made were different from the ones he had in mind. There's nothing wrong with that: having asked you to do something doesn't preclude him from having further opinions. I suggest getting opinions on the layout from additional editors interested in Australian elections. --Amble (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. However, you haven't explained why this gives the requestor licence to claim "no consensus", and that seems to be the basis of the requestors' (un justified) justification. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That just means he doesn't agree with the changes you made. There are two of you who are interested so far, and you don't agree on what formatting is best. If the two of you discuss and come to some agreement, that will be consensus. If you bring in other editors interested in Australian elections and they generally support one format or another, that could also constitute a consensus. As long as there are two of you and you don't agree, it seems fair to say that there's no consensus. --Amble (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential abuse of power

    And we're done. Hardly an abuse of power, though the discussion clearly indicates that the end of the world is near. Any valid points raised should be discussed on ANI. (Not.) Drmies (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is mass deleting the joke AFD nominations that happen every year, simply because they don't like them. Almost every red link on this page is due to them. Editors have tried to talk to them about it, but they continue to claim that the nonsense is "disruption". However, doesn't WP:FOOLS say that jokes only need to be kept where casual readers won't see them? Not only is AFD a place where casual readers don't go, every page I've seen has been tagged as "humorous" so they are clearly identifiable as jokes. The page also says "As long as you follow these rules, feel free to have some fun on April Fools' Day. There is consensus against a complete ban of jokes on April Fools'." So it seems that these joke AFD nominations are not considered disruptive, and do not break any rules. It would seem that Spartaz is simply abusing his power to delete stuff they don't like. To conclude, it is perfectly all right to have some fun here on April 1, and one admin disliking it doesn't change that. NealCruco (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if he's not, I am not either.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. Spartaz is being a bit heavy-handed here. In fact, one could argue that deleting TenPoundHammer's user page is actually disruptive, unlike the joke AfDs Spartaz is determined to censor. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    where the joke doesn't mess up what the poor innocent reader of articles sees, anyway. That way lies things like this NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I am not joking. I am being completely serious. There is consensus that April Fools' Day jokes are OK on Wikipedia, as long as they are kept out of the mainspace and properly tagged. The pages I've seen that Spartaz hasn't yet deleted satisfy both of these conditions. He, therefore, has no right to delete them. Doing so is an abuse of power. You can't just delete stuff you don't like. NealCruco (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:DrmiesMeh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that Wikipedia:April_1_guidelines and Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools give 100% opposite and contradictory advice from each other. Likely leading to some of this confusion (Perhaps one of them is itself a meta joke?) In any case, I would suggest one of them be deleted so we at least have a consistent set of guidelines/policy for how these jokes should work.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am almost positive that Wikipedia:April_1_guidelines is a joke and I have removed the {{policy}} template and added a {{humor}} template. GB fan 20:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing disruptive there then? :rolleyes: Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a policy to stop admins deleting joke XfDs, but one that might allow it. They can be speedily kept though. Dark Sun (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (EC) Just as a point of order [94] I deleted 'one AFD - which was for Stephen Colbert as it was clearly disruptive and borderline blpvio (seriously, if anyone can't see why this particular AFD was a bad idea they shouldn't be editing here). Beyond that I only deleted 8 MFDs - including one particularly amusing one that was designed to induce users to accidentally log out so that presumably everyone can have a big chuckle when the victims then edit with their ip address exposed. I restored one of the pages I deleted as it was a link page for the jokes. I also deleted TPHs user page since they had asked for it to be deleted at MFD. Before anyone argues that this was POINTy, I would suggest that it was no more disruptive then putting it up for MFD in the first place and I did restore it the moment TPH asked. So yeah, BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL I'm a big meanie party-pooper who should be desysoppsed for my terrible crimes. Alternatively we can all piss off and do something useful instead of wasting time with this nonsense. I might take this more seriously if the original complainant had more then 94 edits in two years and had actually bothered to engage me on the subject on my talk page. Maybe that bit of courtesy and rules following only applies to admins? Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really like this line, taken from a discussion on Spartaz's talk page: "If you don't like the cap don't behave like a child." Tons of kids edit Wikipedia, myself included, and it isn't fair to discriminate based on age. I think it's ok to have one day a year when we can joke around and have some fun. While I understand that some may not participate, it's not as if Wikipedia is going to implode from a few jokes. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
    • Actually I deleted them because it was disruptive not because I didn't like them. But then, since you haven't engaged with me to discuss my reasoning I guess its easier to use your super mindreading skill to make judgements about my motivations. I accept I could have used a better edit summary when I removed two MFD tags from live pages because they were also disruptive I'm still astonished that so much heat and light is being generated here over pretty much nothing. Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you unilaterally delete something because you deem it disruptive, you should expect to be held accountable for your actions. I don't mind that you removed MfD tags from live pages and that isn't the issue being here. The issue is that you may have overstepped the boundaries of your authority, especially in deleting TPH's user page (which is downright POINTy and probably more disruptive than the MfDs you deleted). Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I have and maybe I haven't, but don't assume you know what my motivations are without first talking to me and this nice little Kangeroo court isn't the place to have that discussion is it? Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At least as necessary as this discussion is. Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Where there's condensation, the grass gets wit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good. NAEG. I LOLed. Spartaz Humbug! 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I support Spartaz's deletions, as well as the condescension. For subsequent April Fools days, I'd support a policy whereby you get blocked for the remainder of the day if you create a joke XFD that is not funny, as determined by a neutral administrator. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 21:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "that is not funny" like there's any other kind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scottywong, I support the proposal to let admins decide joke XFD's, provided the admin is really, really, truly neutral. For determination whether joke XFDs are in fact funny, the admin must be so neutral that they neither have nor lack a sense of humor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about a rule that April Fools' jokes are OK as long as they're (a) funny (b) imaginative (c) not disruptive and (d) no-one's done them before? That should pretty much ensure that 99.9% don't happen. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • They would certainly be a lot funnier if (a) any of them were funny and/or hadn't been done dozens of times before, and (b) some of them weren't rank fucking stupidity like AfDing BLPs or inducing editors to log out and reveal their IPs. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For each unfunny joke that has never been told, there are a hundred other jokes that were hilarious when they were never told. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Steeletrap reverts to Austrian Economics Sanctions article – Request for editing restrictions

    Background: This is regarding an edit made by User:Steeletrap in which a (contentious) edit was made while a discussion has been ongoing.

    Edits:

    1. At [95] Steeletrap adds material about Walter Block.
    2. At [96] User:Carolmooredc reverts the edit.
    3. At [97] I open a BRD on the particular edit, noting the sanctions and inviting discussion.
    4. At [98] User:SPECIFICO restores the material. (No participation in the BRD was undertaken by Specifico.)
    5. At [99] I revert the edit and point out the specific talk page location for the BRD.
    6. Steeletrap engages in the discussion, see: Talk:Walter_Block#Writeup_in_NYT_opinion_piece. Specifico also contributes.
    7. At [100] Steeletrap restores the material.

    I submit: The discussion has been on-going, but not all issues (particularly WP:BLPFIGHT) have not been resolved. One of the interested editors (Carolmooredc) has not participated in the discussion (perhaps as per her voluntary IBAN/TBAN). There has been no RFC submitted on the edits. There has been no request for closure submitted. But, most importantly, there is no consensus for this BLP related edit. Accordingly, I submit that Steeletrap's restoration of the material violates the General Sanctions which pertain to this article and sanctions editing restrictions should be applied. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Without regard to the merits or non merits of these edits I will note a very recent ANI discussion which pointed out WP:NOCONSENSUS says " However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." which would make the default action remove, until there is a positive consensus for inclusion. This is echoed in Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." although that second policy bit appears to be written assuming the entire article was deleted, and not just a particular bit of content. Beyond that, with the sanctions on the page, it seems that this is an area where some level of enforcement may be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If three editors agree to an IBAN and violate it then the ANI should be about the resumption of disruptive editing, not a transplanted inappropriate content dispute at ANI. Take it to RSN or BLPN if you have genuine policy based concerns. Last I looked, Srich was changing his reasoning every time he posted, and the primary behavioral issue is not Steeletrap's content edit, which does not violate policy, but rather the Carolmoore's and Srich's violations of their IBAN given the sequence of events, I'm not sure but I think it is possible that Steeletrap also violated the IBAN. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    AFAICT, the primary issues (positing that the material is about a living person, thus automatically falling under WP:BLP) are whether the material in the added material is intrinsically "contentious", whether the material is a "contentious claim" asserted in Wikipedia's voice, whether the material is "opinion clearly cited as opinion", and whether the material has a clear consensus for inclusion if it passes the other bars.

    The first source (NYT article on Rand Paul) is neither primarily about Block, nor does it go into any factual specifics about his views other than in a clearly "sound bite" format, which Block clearly pointed out. Thus it is not actually a fact-checked reliable source about Block, although it clearly would pass usage at Rand Paul for its statements specifically about Paul. It is clearly an "opinion piece" with regard to its en passant mentions of Block. The NYT article clearly is not a "strong reliable source" about Block, especially where the issue of "out of context" has been clearly raised by Block. Thus that source, independently of any other considerations fails to meet WP:BLP as a source, much less a source for a contentious statement.

    The second source provided in the edit at issue is from lewrockwell.com and is written by Block substantially as a retort to the NYT article which is not usable in itself, so I would rule out the response to material which fails WP:RS without debating whether the source otherwise would be usable.

    Lastly we have the "insidehighered" source. The article is clearly an opinion piece, and by Wikipedia dicta is only usable for its opinions ascribed to Scott Jaschik as his opinion and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Any facts therein ought to be sourced to a separate non opinion secondary reliable source if we wish to use them.

    We thus end up with one actual usable reliable source, albeit one which is substantially an opinion piece and not a dispassionate piece of reportage.

    To the extent that the section is trying to specifically deal with NYT editorial opinions, it pretty much fails the primary Wikipedia tests of "Is it of encyclopedic value to readers seeking information on the topic?" and "Is it a contentious claim?" It also fails on the implicit claim which is clearly "contentious" that Block would approve in some way of racism and slavery, as material in opinion pieces frequently is taken "out of context" as apparently Block argues.

    I suggest therefore that the material as presented does not have strong reliable sources, although some of the claims in the insidehighered piece would be usable if sourced to clear reliable fact sources, that the material is contentious, that it would require both acceptable reliable secondary sources not based as editorial pieces and also a consensus of editors on the article. Cheers (long answer, I know - but wish to cover this in a logical manner) Collect (talk) Collect (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Collect, are you and Srich opening up a new version of Wikipedia? I ask because you seem to be parroting his imaginary policies. For instance, you claim that the NYT article cannot be used because Block is not the main point of the article. There is no policy suggesting that. You also repeat his statement that the piece, which was written by reporters for the Times news section, is an 'opinion piece.' Seriously, do you boys read newspapers? Read a Paul Krugman, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, or Maureen Dowd piece and tell me if it remotely resembles the report on Rand Paul's ideological influences. Moreover, the claim in question -- that Block thinks slavery was "not so bad" apart from its being involuntary -- is not a claim of opinion but a claim of fact: it's either true or false that Block believes this. The burden of proof is on you to show that the Times and its writers were misrepresenting an opinion piece as a news piece (the assumption on WP is that NYT is RS).
    17 of Block's academic colleagues and the President of his university disagree with your view that it is unreliable. They were sufficiently satisfied by the accuracy of the quotation to publicly criticize Block for it. To my knowledge, no reliable sources agree with Block's claims of misrepresentation, despite the substantial coverage this story has generated. If you are concerned that the quote about slavery is too brief, you are welcome to expand it. (Block provides the full context of the quotation in his response article; anyone is free to quote his entire remark.) However, purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy.
    Finally, is a BLP/RS issue rather than a behavioral issue. The question is whether the New York Times and Inside Higher Education pieces are reliable sources, not whether Miss Steele is an incorrigible trouble maker. It should be moved to the appropriate forum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy. " Somehow I've missed you making that argument in the Gun control debate... Perhaps you meant to say notable controversies you agree with? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC
    I thank User:Gaijin42 for the no-consensus link. It applies to a certain extent, but is pre-mature. That is, the Walter Block discussion is on-going, not all possibly interested parties have participated (such as CarolMooreDC), and only some of the issues have been resolved (e.g., use of "however".) The problem is that Steeletrap seeks to re-introduce the BLP material while the discussion is going on. Also, Steeletrap describes my reversion of the BLP material as "cleansing" and "purging" and "OR" and now Collect is "parroting" my "imaginary" policies. It comes down to this – Steeletrap has a personal distain for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and people associated with it. Steeletrap is importing a BLP fight into Wikipedia. Steeletrap is TE by re-introducing the material before consensus is reached (or not reached). Steeletrap's behavior in this is unacceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD is a principle, not a policy. I tried to work with you in fairly representing Block's response, and to make the content more neutral. But you insisted on purging everything, from the 17 academic colleagues, to the university president, to the New York Times. Given the highly notable and imminently reliable nature of this material, your conduct is unacceptable. I cannot sit by idly while you 'cleanse' well-sourced content from an article based on no cogent argument. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    BRD is a principle that reflects the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS of Wikipedia's editors - and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is a dynamic process. Editing (not just discussion) is part of building a consensus. Rich should have reverted whatever part of my edit he found objectionable, rather than purging everything and taking me to a noticeboard. I am not edit warring; my last edit to the article before un-doing Rich's reversion today was several weeks ago. Steeletrap (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How on earth Steeletrap can say a re-re-revert to the particular material – while the discussion is going on – is "building a consensus" is beyond me. Steeletrap wants Steeletrap's particular version. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe you missed my point. You can't discard WP:BRD as "just a principle", because it reflects the consensus of Wikipedia's editors on the subject - people can and have been blocked for ignoring the "D" in "BRD". And even with "several weeks" gap between reverts an edit-war is still an edit-war. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know that performing one revert (ever) constitutes an edit war. Is the meaning of that term whatever admin says it is? Steeletrap (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    These issues continue to simmer and occasionally boil. It might be easier for some passing admin just to topic ban all of the participants name in the ArbCom case under the terms of the existing sanctions, pending an ArbCom decision. ArbCom are dealing with a couple of messy cases at the moment and it is no wonder that it is taking a while: trying to hit a moving target doesn't make things easier for them.- Sitush (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This sounds like WP:IDontLIkeit. Apparently the merit of my edit, which no one has addressed but OP, has no bearing on whether i should be banned. Also: It's frankly naive to think that the reason Arbcom has taken months (particularly on a case as clear-cut and accessible (confined to one page) as gun control) solely because it's being so meticulous. Steeletrap (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Steeletrap, it's about time that you learned to AGF a bit. Since the voluntary IBAN etc did not work, a formal topic ban pending the ArbCom decision is eminently reasonable. No-one named in the ArbCom case has denied that there has been disruption etc: the issue has always fundamentally been about who is to blame, and the situation has not been helped by the tendentious wikilawyering and general pedantry of those who have been involved. Perhaps you can all get along on other subjects but you sure as hell are not doing when it comes to Austrian Economics, Ludwig van Mises etc.
    There is nothing pretty or useful about a group of narrow-focussed, pedantic and often clearly-biassed contributors battering each other over a prolonged period and continuing to do so even when in the glare of the ArbCom spotlight. While I've got my own opinions about how ArbCom should decide, right now the greater good is clearly that the lot of you stay away from the topic area and from each other. And if you don't like how ArbCom do things then just walk away from Wikipedia entirely until the end of the year. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't break the IBAN. Rich did by reverting my edits, to non-Austrian pages incidentally (and in Carol's case, responding to posst of mine). It's absurd for me to submit to an IBAN when others insist on interacting with me. Steeletrap (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for confirming what I've been saying. I've not apportioned blame in this thread and I'm not getting involved in arguments along the lines of "he started it ...", like kids in a playground. It is equitable to topic ban the lot of you until such time as ArbCom make a decision. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can ridicule me all you want. But provocation is a legitimate defense in plenty of contexts outside the playground. If anything, that 'he started it' is ridiculed on the playground shows that schoolmarms lack moral nuance. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop deflecting and grow up. You've been using the tactic for months now. I didn't ridicule you but, even if I had, it wouldn't alter the point. None of you are or have in recent months been a net benefit to Wikipedia when contributing to articles about this subject area. Since you can't control your own urges, the sanctions should be enforced as an interim measure. Don't like that? Go edit someplace else. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic and interaction bans for core Austrian Economics arbitration parties

    I propose the following temporary sanctions restrictions be placed on Srich32977, Carolmooredc, Steeletrap, and SPECIFICO to avoid further disruption in the topic area:

    • The editors shall not edit articles or talk pages in the topic areas of Austrian economics or libertarianism, broadly construed.
    • The editors shall not interact with or mention each other except at the Austrian Economics arbitration pages. (To avoid doubt, "interaction" includes edits to the same article or discussion after any of the other sanctioned similarly restricted editors have recently participated there; and "recently" is subject to discretion of the enforcing admin.)
    • These sanctions restrictions shall terminate automatically when the Austrian Economics case is officially closed.

    These sanctions restrictions are not intended to apportion blame among the named editors, but to halt the dispute until the Arbitration Committee resolves it.

    Struck "sanctions" and replaced with "restrictions" to better convey non-punitive intent. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. alanyst 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, very good interim measure. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • Oppose Excuse me, I sincerely object to this. I have not participated in the recent incivility and I don't expect to be grouped with those who declared and then willfully violated their own topic and interaction bans. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support One would have thunk the ArbCom proceedings would have furnished a clue here, but for now this is a decent interim solution. Collect (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This expresses much better the suggestion that I was banging on about in the thread. Specifico, it is equitable and, frankly, everyone has been claiming innocence and has been accused by others at various times. To exempt you would provide you with an open goal, especially since you basically chose not to accept the earlier attempt of a voluntary ban - you knew of the thread but kept schtum. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So, @Sitush: Are you stating that because I stated that I rejected the ban and instead declared that I would behave within policy and accept the consequences of any misbehavior, that I should now be sanctioned even though I did not misbehave? Let's ban you as well. Who knows when you might act improperly? And let's not forget Binksternet, Ellenct, Alanyst, and all Adjwilley. Let's ban the anyone in the room! SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per SPECIFICO. We dont ban people for something they might do, without good evidence they will do it. Remove SPECIFICO and I will switch to support. Even though frankly I agree with Steeletrap, but if it keeps carol and srich out of action, its probably a hit the encyclopedia can cope with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, umpteen weeks of nothing and then you throw this into the mix? And you express a preference for keeping one "side" of the debate out of action? I wonder if you are up to date with events? And if you are approaching this neutrally? SPECIFICO was and still is a major part of the back-and-forth and yet they have fairly consistently supported the position of Steeletrap and of the now-gone MilesMoney. I've no real idea whether SPECIFICO's position is more in line with Wikipedia policies than anyone else's but what is clear is that they've remained involved over a prolonged period, they're named in the ArbCom case, they basically ignored the suggestion of a voluntary TBAN/IBAN that was mooted on the talk page of that case ... and we really should not be presenting someone who has been so involved with an open goal. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – I proposed something similar as to Specifico & CarolMooreDC back in February when the ArbCom started up. And I joined the voluntary bans when Alanyst & Adjwilley were attempting to stem the continuing dispute. (And I later edited the Mises.org page when an IP posted some unacceptable material.) The only way to keep peace is to apply a ban/bans across the board. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Modifications – 1. Allow for article talk page edit requests to correct errors/suggest improvements. 2. Explicitly allow for vandalism reverts. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not support these suggested modifications. Given that the restrictions are proposed to be temporary, I think the potential for harm to the articles is outweighed by the potential for a re-ignition of the dispute if any kind of editing by the core parties in the topic area is permitted during that time. Edit requests on small errors and improvements can wait; vandalism can be handled by someone who is not restricted (just send them an email if it seems nobody has noticed it). alanyst 04:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alanyst: While I'm supporting the bans, I don't think "sanctions" is the best term to use. The only evidence/diffs presented are those related to the Walter Block article. "Sanctions" sounds so punitive. (Perhaps I should be more careful of what I ask for!) – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As the proposal is not intended to be punitive, I have struck "sanctions" and replaced it with "restrictions". I apologize for the imprecision in the original wording. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm cordial with SPECIFICO and I hope he won't take this personally, but he's as much a center of the disputes as the rest. Or at least, he's always shortly at hand whenever the dispute escalates. However, I would rather see this as an Arbcom injunction, formalizing it as related to the Arbcom case and making it more impersonal, than an ANI consensus.--v/r - TP 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TP, my friend, this is exactly what is wrong with this process. I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration. The current problem, the one which is the topic of this ANI, is about Srich, Carol, and Steeletrap. Are you sure you meant to say that? One thing that causes a lot of corrosive back-and-forth on these noticeboards is editors' tendency to make factual assertions based on subjective impressions, faulty memory, or casual calculations. You were honorable enough to correct a similar misstatement about me in a prior ANI. I'm very disappointed to see you make the statement above. Others will now come here, see your baseless assertion, and falsely judge me and support sanction against me. That is not the way an open community should function. I am very disappointed. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help the perception you've developed, whether intentionally or not. I'm sorry, this is my impression and I haven't seen much effort by you to suppress it. Not that you haven't, but I can't recall a time I've seen you not explicitly in agreement with Steeletrap and explicitly oppose to Carolmooredc. Can't help what I see from outside the mess that is Austrian economics.--v/r - TP 23:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    [insert]TP, that question will be decided by Arbcom. What I am saying is that I did not misbehave in the matter which prompted Srich to launch this ANI. It's pretty simple and if you didn't see anything to justify your characterization of my behavior in the current dispute, then I do feel it's not appropriate for you to make such statements about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    SPECIFICO, you say above: "I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration." The case began in late January of this year. Judging from the occurrences of your signature and the tenor of your remarks at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Talk:Murray Rothbard, Talk:Robert P. Murphy, and User talk:Steeletrap since that time (not an exhaustive list), I think it's safe to say you have not remained aloof from the dispute during the arbitration. Even if you are talking only about the instant dispute at Talk:Walter Block then you still seem to be embroiled there, having chided Srich there twice just a day or two ago. alanyst 04:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alanyst: Excuse me, I thought it was clear that the context for the current ANI and the behavioral issue is the discussion which began when you returned to the Arbcom talk page recently to report that there was bad behavior continuing. At that time I pointed out to you that Binksternet and I had not misbehaved or squabbled in the timeframe you identified. I didn't say above (and given your familiarity with the context, I'm surprised you did not understand) since the beginning of the Arbitration. However, it's now clear that I should have said "since the close of the Arbitration evidence and workshop pages" or something to that effect. As to my comments to Srich, you can call it "chide" if you like, but frankly that is not a helpful description of my clear, on-topic, substantive statement in response to his edit summary and subsequent elaborations on it. I addressed you on your talk page a short while ago so that we would not need to clutter this ANI with comments such as this. I know you are sincere and well-intentioned but I reiterate my opinion that you are not exercising due care in your statements about other editors at this sensitive time. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Our opinions seem to be irreconcilable at this point, so let us amicably disengage and let others opine as to the suitability of my proposal. alanyst 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What's amicable about you misrepresenting my behavior in the context of the current "voluntary IBAN"s and "voluntary topic bans" and the factors which Srich cited as the topic of this ANI? Misrepresenting other editors is a form of personal attack. If you have forgotten the sequence of events or are not familiar with the details of everyone's behavior since posting ended at Arbcom, it's all still there for the record. It's not a difference of opinion, and I feel it's disrespectful and counterproductive for you to insinuate yourself so deeply in these matters if you are not inclined to be thorough, clear and accurate in your statements about other editors. Incidentally I don't see that anyone has even notified Binksternet of this ANI. SPECIFICO talk 04:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epicgenius: That would probably be where the current Arbcom case comes in. (Hopefully they'll be able to find a good solution where so many others have failed.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grudgingly Support I don't believe I should be banned, but if that's what it takes to get CMDC and Rich to stop their tendentious editing, I support it.Steeletrap (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on Austrian economics and libertarianism biographies Almost all the articles that have been in dispute are WP:Biographies of living persons-related, yet somehow innumerable complaints by several editors about BLP issues on several noticeboards have not been dealt with properly by Admins, leading to arbitration. In any case...
    I'd like to note that, I did ask here at the beginning of Arbitration for an injunction on editing of Austrian economics articles. Also, I have not edited any Austrian economics-related biographies or articles, etc. since the voluntary edit restriction went into effect.
    I also recommended as a remedy in Arbitration that Steeletrap and SPECIFICO be banned from all libertarian articles because of concerns about their BLP-related edits in libertarianism articles.
    However, this proposal is overly broad since it bans me from the many articles on libertarianism I have edited over seven years only because two editors choose to make controversial edits on a few libertarian biographies. That is manifestly unfair and just invites trolls (and sockpuppets) to find ways to ban editors they don’t like from all articles in a subject area by causing ridiculous controversies in a few articles and harassing the editor about them. That is not a very wise precedent, is it??
    If Admins choose to make such an overly-wide ban, they might consider including @The Four Deuces: since he also spars with SPECIFICO/Steeletrap frequently, has taken them to noticeboards, engaged in the Arbitration, and edits quite a bit in libertarianism articles.
    Also I’ve asked as an Arbitration remedy that SPECIFICO be interaction banned from me because of his history of following me to articles on completely different topics and reverting my edits or criticizing my talk page comments. Feel free to impose such a site-wide interaction ban now, and include Steeletrap who also has followed me, if less frequently. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your tendentious and ill-informed edits to barely notable and non-notable libertarian pages are problems. Thus edits to all libertarian pages should fall under the topic ban. Steeletrap (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the community can impose editing restrictions similar to Arbcom restrictions. See WP:0RR. So lock the page already and allow only admin edits that have been agreed on the talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That won't stop spraying of the dispute across umpteen other noticeboards, nor are the disputes necessarily confined to one article - there has been more than one involved since the ArbCom case started. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Until the voluntary editing restrictions started a couple weeks ago, in 2014 I pretty stopped significant editing except on articles already under contention since SPECIFICO (and to a less extent Steeletrap) would not stop following me to articles they had not edited before. I did not want to bring the conflicts to the articles. In fact, this arbitration was started by someone after I complained here in January to an Admin that SPECIFICO was continuing to Wikihound me. An uninvolved editor there announced he was requesting Arbitration (see last sentence). (More details here.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I reading this right? You'd pretty much stopped until the voluntary restrictions? Meaning that you started again after them? Also, define "significant", explain why you were still involved in ones already under contention, etc. I really don't see the point of your response here except as yet another attempt to sling mud at those with whom you've had disagreements (ie: to finagle a mention of wikihounding that is seemingly not related to the Austrian issues). That is something which you do a lot. Since the proposal includes a temporary IBAN, the alleged hounding would go away. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wording is too broad For example, CarolMooreDC for years been a solid researcher and contributor on libertarian articles unrelated to the current disputes. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot find a single person who agrees with your endorsement of CMDC's "research" and is not on the same side of the ideological spectrum. Find me a pro-Israel liberal who thinks she contributes "solid research" to the community; you won't be able to do so. Good research is respected by both sides of the political spectrum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Primus1x

    Primus1x has engaged in an edit war on Gundam Build Fighters by copying and pasting plot summary information from Gundam.info. He even admitted to plagiarism on this quote on my Talk page:

    This is a false-accusation. I have made no claim whatsoever that I wrote the synopses myself, it is the work of whoever writes GundamInfo's descriptions for each episode. And if you have a problem with the way that they write, you take it up with them not me. Even if you believe you can write better, it would be unofficial and fan-made regardless. These are the official synopses do not remove them in favour of fan-written and inaccurate synopses for which the only source is watching the primary source; the entire series, and thus conform less to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources. --Primus1x (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

    He's also hinted at a personal attack based on the tone of his writing. - Areaseven (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've put an explanation of copyright law on his talk page along with a warning not to do this any more. Thank you for reporting this problem, Areaseven. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what to make of this...

    I have made no claim whatsoever that I have written the synopses myself, I instead applaud whoever wrote them.--Primus1x (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

    Not only is he admitting to plagiarism, he's being very big-headed about it. - Areaseven (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Just bluntly tell him that he is not allowed to copy and paste anything. And just post links to his edits to your user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you even read his Talk page? I already warned him twice about plagiarism, yet he still doesn't get it. - Areaseven (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reminds me of user:Primetime who had a major issue with understanding copy paste. Blackmane (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits have stopped for now. Any further copyright violations will result in an immediate indef block. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    OMG hot girl style vandalism--range block requested

    Range blocks range blocks range blocks! - The Bushranger One ping only 20:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Range blockers, please see what you can do about 198.228.220.192 and 198.228.220.75, and when you're done, feel free to unprotect ANI, which I semi-locked for the while. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is kind of a big range, /16, but I blocked a smaller subset, 198.228.220.1/24 for 31 hours and unprotected. We will see if that helps. If not, maybe have to jump to a /20 or so. I've never done a /16, which is the largest that they will trust to admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Political censorship

    Please review [101] and [102] which I believe are blatant attempts to squelch discussion of accurate article improvements because of political implications. EllenCT (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No business eh? I suggest you read WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM thoroughly and tell me what part of her post mentioned improvements to the article and that it isn't an attempt at general "forum" discussion. That is justification for removing the post altogether. That is all I have to comment on this non-issue. She has done this on the Talk page before ([as well as bringing a dispute here before, in which she was swiftly rebuked) and shown her total lack of understanding of many Wiki policies. It won't be tolerated as we desire a Talk page with continuous discussion on improving the article itself as per the guidelines, and not a place for her petty political discussion/debate. It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor who has not removed most of her posts and only done this twice when it was clearly a violation. Any and all qualified Wikipedia administrators will back me up on this. You do not appear to be an admin. Cadiomals (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the edit. Blanking sections per WP:FORUM can be appropriate for, say, new users who have stumbled into WP:FRINGE articles and want to share their views on creationism (and even there, a gentle nudge is often more helpful and less pointy). Blanking a discussion between experienced editors on what appears to be a topic relevant to the article.... probably a bad idea. Edit warring over it is definitely a bad idea. And at this point, I'll let the admins take over. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the same as my reply to you on my Talk page but I will copy-paste it here for others to see. @Lesser Cartographies: I'm sorry but you are wrong in this situation. The links in that post are not found within the article at all, they are simply links Ellen used to facilitate more of her POV pushing, and she has a history of wasting people's time with off-topic/casual political discussion or simply whining about other editors on an article Talk page (not necessarily me). Please read my post on the board also. I have only done this twice so far when I saw it as a blatant violation and have respected/tolerated her the rest of the time. As a third party who just randomly arrived at this not only do you not have all the info but it seems you didn't even glance more than once at her post and tried to see if it was directly pertaining to article improvement. Based on WP:NOTFORUM I feel I am justified in my actions in trying to keep the Talk page a productive environment. The last time she tried doing this she was rebuked by several people. I would also like to add that your interpretation of WP:NOTFORUM may not be everyone's interpretation, as the guideline is not just used against new editors and can/has been used to discourage unproductive or off-topic discussion or argument on contentious articles. I will leave your revert until an admin resolves this non-issue but if you had actual context you would know it was a mistake. Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Except her post didn't mention the article or contain a proposal for improvements, her links were to a political talking point that has nothing to do with the article, and her section title didn't even accurately describe it. That's on top of her well documented history of disruptive editing on multiple articles and talk pages (including that one). Context matters. VictorD7 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it depends on the context of her other editing that is disruptive/forum-like (I don't know whether it is or not, you'd have to produce diffs). On the face of it her post is ambiguous as to whether WP:FORUM applies. It literally doesn't suggest a change to the article, but normally, AGF, one would assume it's implicit what the impact for the article would be. I don't know enough about the topic/talk page background whether that's so here. So, I think those that want the reverts to stand need to post diffs of the context. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say a good rule of thumb is: don't. It pisses people off. It does nothing to reduce conflict. It increases edit warring. We are not trying to build some idealized society. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, and an off topic comment or two is much more sustainable with that than conflict over said comments' removal.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt is correct. Trying to enforce FORUM on a user's talk page is almost always a bad idea. To enforce it strictly here would mean we have to enforce it strictly on everyone's page, which is a nightmare. We give tremendous latitude on how a user uses their talk page. I've been known to talk about what I did this weekend, or my opinion of something else that I"m not directly editing. A degree of socialization is tolerated and can actually be helpful. If you think something needs deleting on a user talk page because it is "borderline" (not vandalism or a personal attack, which is obvious, but FORUM or similar), ask an admin or uninvolved experienced editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This happened at Talk:United States, not somebody's user talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I misread the one comment then. Still, FORUM is not a policy that is strictly policed for good cause. Doing so causes more drama than tolerating a little side discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diffs shown do not show an appropriate enforcement of WP:FORUM. Regardless of Dennis's very good point that we DO in fact give people latitude as regards posts, these comments were not in any way forum posts. DeCausa points out the level of literal thinking (and in my view rules lawyering) needed to consider these posts in that way.
      As regards enforcing WP:FORUM a warning within the thread should be given FIRST to note that it is straying off topic. If after that warning the forum posting continues then it could be appropriate to "hat" or "collapse" a discussion. But at this point in wikipedia culture, deletion is rarely acceptable for good faith posts anywhere (except on one's own talk page and even then it can be considered rude). Only clearly and unambiguously disruptive posts should be deleted and there again only when they have not been replied to (except in the most extreme cases).
      It might be an idea to template:trout Cadiomals but unless there is clear evidence of a pattern here the allegation of political censorship is just about as unhelpful as Cadiomals's deletion of the comments. I'd suggest both users should take a step back and try to extend an olive branch to the other party--Cailil talk 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cailil: In hindsight I could have just ignored her and let her posts blow over as they always do, since I'm not worried about her pushing her POV into the actual article anymore. But she has a history of sidetracking people's attention with political debate that doesn't directly pertain to making changes to the article, and I wanted to prevent it before it started. To me her most recent post with the links was another attempt at this since I doubt she actually expected it to be added to the article (and never mentions doing so). Funny thing is, if she had only mentioned adding it to the article, I would never have removed it since it would have complied with WP:TALK. But it was just the links, so I interpreted that as attempting forum discussion. In the past she made a more obvious violation by whining about other editors (not just me) on an article Talk page. I removed her post, she complained here and the admins backed me up, so that probably encouraged me to do it a second time. For the future I will just have to tolerate her little side discussions as long as it won't affect the actual article's content. Cadiomals (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Better approach to something like Talk:United_States#Health_by_political_preference is to simply and succinctly ask "What changes to the article are you suggesting?" NE Ent 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reagardless United States is not a good place to be discussing the advantages or disadvantages of each political party and I'd suggest that anyone doing so is indeed pushing a POV worth ANI's investigation.--v/r - TP 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Anti-Russian partisan behaviour in Russians in Estonia

    This is clearly a content dispute, there is nothing requiring administrative action. There is currently an RfC at the talk page of the article, which is where this should be decided. -- Atama頭 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Users Sander Säde and Nug have been jealously guarding the article Russians in Estonia whitewashing any claims of discrimination by NGOs. Conflict started when I removed what I found WP:label and added claims of discrimination, both my edits were reverted and both users even refuse to add a POV tag to the contested section.--Kathovo talk 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The users just restored the verified fact you had removed and deleted the biased claim you inserted. The details are available in Talk:Russians in Estonia. Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Who deemed Amnesty International biased? Obviously I'm contesting the neutrality of that section, so what is your reason for removing the POV tag?--Kathovo talk
    WP:DETAG Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.
    — WP:TAGGING#Disputes over tags

    --Kathovo talk 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm? My "jealous guarding" seems to be when I reverted your weird unexplained editorializing, [103]. Prior to that, my last edit to that article was in the summer of 2009... Also, it seems you missed a huge banner saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" when starting this topic. --Sander Säde 12:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    85.69.198.194 and disruptive editing on Tao Lin

    After recently removing a section from the Tao Lin article that was only sourced by a personal blog and a 4chan archive, I was reverted by 85.69.198.194. Assuming good faith, I once more reverted the edit, making it clear the sources were non-notable. The IP then once more reverted the edit with the summary "Lin's internet presence is not to be neglected, even by BDSM lovers" (which I believe is in reference to my userpage). Their most recent edit appears to be an insertion of a 4chan in-joke with the summary "Link of a Tao Lin reading". I would assume it's safe to say this person is not here to build an encyclopedia, though I suppose that is up to administrative decision. felt_friend 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Banning of this IP Address

    No action required unless vandalism resumes. Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So this IP address that I am using is at my school. I'm requesting that the IP be banned either permanantly or for a long time so that the students at the school (other than myself) are not distracted by vandalizing random pages, as they seem to have already done at least once.

    216.56.8.68 (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address has made one previous edit, which was reverted as vandalism and a warning issued. Odd that the OP's first edit is to AN/I, which isn't something most new users come to that fast. In any case, vandalism reports are best made at WP:AIV - if there is further vandalism from this IP address it should be reported there. Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Regardless of one's opinion on the WMF's lolnoing calls for SITE, allowing IP editing is not "encouraging vandalism". Period. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Just as an explanation to the original poster... Wikipedia actually encourages trivial vandalism from school addresses, in the hope that after realising their supposedly "amusing" vandalism will not stay, a small proportion of more thoughtful students might edit Wikipedia in more useful ways. So, a few vandalism edits over a year or two - or even a month or two - is no problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you point to a policy which says that we encourage trivial vandalism from school addresses? I'd like to send all the trivial school vandalism I handle to the author of that policy for their ajudication. BMK (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demiurge1000: April 1st was yesterday, and even then it's not appropriate to give this advice to an IP. Vandalism is discouraged, period. -- Atama頭 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the IP in question is here to read anything I might write. There's a reason we don't semi-protect most articles. We do also discourage vandalism - on average - yes. Perhaps there's a misunderstanding of what I said. Carry on. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demiurge1000: I think you mean don't bite the newbies. Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in WP:DONTBITE "encourages trivial vandalism from school addresses" which is the claim made by Demiurge1000, no misunderstanding about it, I'm afraid. I take it by their reply here without a pointer to any policy that there is, in fact, no policy whatsoever that encourages school vandalism, so I suggest to D1000 not to misrepresent Wikipedia policy, especially to easily-influenced newbies. Your comment here was unhelpful. BMK (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, it wasn't destructive. WP:SAND is the right way to point them if they've only made one edit that looks like it's a test (not vandalism). Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncivility by 24.44.93.50

    Warning delivered. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User 24.44.93.50 made an edit to pawnless chess endgames that to me seemed like his own original research (in fact two attempts). I reverted it and gave a level 1 warning on his talk page, explaining it. He left a nasty message on my talk page. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a little premature to bring this here. Warn the user with that {{subst:uw-npa}} (and/or {{subst:uw-unsor1}}) templates, and report if either behaviors persist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    General approach would be to simply remove the rant from your (Bubba73's) talk page rather than request assistance here at ANI ... an editor whose fifth edit ever is that aggressive is unlikely to be converted into a collaborative editor. Best to revert and ignore and only worry about requesting a block if the editor persists. NE Ent 22:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Thank you for giving him the NPA warning. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fort hood

    Protection applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Admin / editor eyes on 2014 Fort Hood shooting would be appreciated. NE Ent 00:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Ent; Tassedthe beat me to the semi-protection. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikibreak.

    Noted. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am feeling a bit burned out. I'll be back in a week or so. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Does that require the intervention of administrators? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Block him for a week to make sure he gets back well rested. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page Ban Proposal For User "Earl King Jr."

    WP:BOOMERANG, sock blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I signed up after seeing the "talk" on The Zeitgeist Movement page, absolutely shocked at what I was reading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zeitgeist_Movement

    "Zeitgeist really is a fringe group cult and that is why the usual media does not bring it up much, its just not taken seriously except by the zealots that believe in it. As you may know it has been called the worlds first large based internet cult. Mostly that is about the only serious internet commentary on it that is easy to find. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement

    This does not sound like someone interested in maintaining NPOV and I do not think they should be allowed to edit a page they hold such vehement emotions towards. I also recommend experienced editors review the page for NPOV. I apologize if something is wrong with my post, as I said, I'm very new to Wikipedia editing and just wanted to bring this to the community's attention. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andytark (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you have any examples of the editor making POV edits to the article, as opposed to expressing their personal opinion on the article's talk page? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. BMK (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting... Flowersforparis has been blocked for editing in this subject, and for sockpuppetry, and you, in your very first two edits find your way to AN/I and manage to post a pointer to it on Earl King Jr.'s talk page. An amazing coincidence. BMK (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that is FlowersForParis in another incarnation. His prose style of writing is nearly identical and he has a history of mixing it up negatively on related articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like it is time to file an SPI with diffs to substantiate up your assumption. Liz Read! Talk! 15:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting that shortly after being blocked, FlowersForParis posted as an IP on Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement to make a very similar complaint to the one made by the 'new' contributor here. [104] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked as an obvious sock. It's striking how this "very new" user knows about things like page bans, about this noticeboard, even down to the culturally correct ANI phrasing ("recommend experienced editors review the page", "bring this to the community's attention"), and even about alphabet soup like NPOV. It's a sock. I'm not familiar enough with Flowersforparis's prose style to say that Andytark is with 100% certainty their sock, though the amazing coincidences, as BMK puts it, suggest it, as does AndyTheGrump's link. Liz, note the SPI instructions for administrators here: "In many cases, sock puppetry can be determined just by behavioral evidence and without the need for technical evidence. Many admins normally apply what is colloquially called the duck test – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck." It's a duck. Bishonen | talk 15:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    I understand WP:DUCK, Bishonen, it just seems like it is applied differently depending on who the admin is. Sometimes evidence is required while other admins will act on an accusation alone. I'm not singling anyone out, it just seems like sometimes the bar is set extremely low for identifying socks based on a few edits that appear to be suspicious. I think some editors think "probably is=is" when that's not always the case. I don't know whether or not Andytark is a sock (he might have previously edited as an IP, for example), I just have issues with how this policy is applied. But this is just a response to your comment, I realize that this case is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 17:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes it's simply blatantly obvious when you know how a certain editor behaves, but it's wiser not to explain how. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Why are open proxies able to edit Wikipedia?

    According to User talk:137.132.250.12, this is an open proxy. However, this IP can still edit. Per WP:PROXY, use of open proxies is banned with no room for negotiation, and users who rely on open proxies to access the internet from behind restrictive governments are required to create an account and apply for ip-block-exempt. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Because a proxy can be created or destroyed at any time and there is no way to know other than to constantly test every IPv4 and IPv6 address one at a time to discover them and it's a process that is slow even for bots?--v/r - TP 07:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The link says it is a "confirmed proxy" ie "the public IP address of a proxy server" but not a open proxy, that "can be used by anyone". Maybe they got their act together since 2009. IT departments are slow, but 5 years should be enaugh to patch blatant security holes. Agathoclea (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Where in WP:PROXY is "the use of open proxies banned with no room for negotiation?" Yes, that is the usual result, but it is because of abuse. If somehow magically an open proxy only contributed good edits, I see no policy that would require blocking it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Some constructive Wikipedia editors are forced by circumstance to use open proxies. Such proxies may be "blocked on sight" but only if there is abuse. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    151.66.113.53

    151.66.113.53 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly deleting sourced material without explanation from the article, Rolf Furuli.

    There is another edit by 151.66.40.171 (talk · contribs) which is evidently the same individual.

    He has been warned repeatedly at his User Talk page by me[112], User:Flyer22[113] and User:Donner60[114].

    Since it is evident that the user is on a dynamic IP, it may be necessary to temporarily range block 151.66.x.x.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    it looks to me there is method in the madness. While 151 seems not to understand the finer points of wikipolicy, it looks like he tries to fix what he thinks is a deliberate and undue attempt to discredit Rolf Furuli. That brings it into the realms of BLP. Agathoclea (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a violation of BLP policies for an article to report that the subject of the article is a proponent of a fringe view. In any case, the editor has made no case to discuss the article content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He has deleted material from the article a further two times after this complaint was lodged, still with no explanation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Banc De Binary

    There appears to be a sudden, orchestrated whitewashing of Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There are five newly autoconfirmed editors with about ten edits made before they began editing Banc De Binary. Requests have been made to discuss in talk:Banc De Binary, but seems to have been met with demands and no real discussion. One of these editors was blocked per NLT. In one case an edit summary was "removed whitewashing" when in fact appeared to be performing whitewashing. Not sure what to do about this. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There's enough to say a very high likelihood of meatpuppetry going on if not outright sockpuppetry. Time for an SPI methinks. Blackmane (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Followup comment. I've left notifications on all the editors' talk pages based, hopefully I haven't missed any. Also, @Pinkbeast: has raised an SPI for all the accounts Blackmane (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted to the consensus version (I can't see anything that is contentious and unsourced in that version - let me know if I am wrong) and fully protected for a week. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Odds are likely this is meat puppetry and maybe some sock puppetry. Style comparisons tell me you have two or more people involved. A CU might or might not be useful for some of these as they may be in different cities. I'm guessing much of the blocking will have to be done the old fashioned way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Banc De Binary was fully protected because of this sockfarm. Maybe someone can lift the protection now?--Atlan (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Good point. I've restored the previous semiprotection. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    WT:Article titles uninvolved admin assistance needed

    There's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Tweak to recognizability criterion about whether a recent discussion established consensus to change the policy. Since this topic is under discretionary sanctions, it would be good if an uninvolved admin could chime in and settle this. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Commented there. Dpmuk (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Glpuk (talk · contribs): self-promotion, shared account, advertising

    This user is operating a shared account (representing a company); their user page contains self-promoting material for said business; and their latest edit (for which I talked to them, before realising the greater rule violation) inserted advertising material into a good article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Katieh5584

    WP:BOOMERANG. Doctornickel will be blocked if he makes another frivolous deletion request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've had a problem with User:Katieh5584. This user posted a comment on my talk page saying that i "vandalized" the article Henrik Norby when all I did was put a request for proposed deletion on it. The reason for the proposed deletion request was that the person was un-notable. Doctornickel (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You also put a deletion template on Dolly Parton, claiming she wasn't notable.Katieh5584 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    She's right. He did[115]. I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head!  :) — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Doctornickel is clearly making disruptive edits, which a quick glance of their contributions and talkpage will confirm. I hope that boomerang doesn't smack you in your face. Shame. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    On the reported issue, Katieh5584 has apologized for the errant warning, so no administrative action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't often I say this, but Doctornickel simply needs to be indef blocked, now. I don't have time to block and follow up as I'm walking out the door, but his edits need a complete nuking. Look at the contribs. Call it CIR or trolling, I don't care which, but my money is on trolling. Tons of PRODs for reasons that are obviously invalid, etc. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Help help

    I just noticed that the "Help" link under "interaction" in the left sidebar, which used to take readers to Help:Contents, has suddenly begun taking them to this MediaWiki page. I'm sure someone made this change intentionally, but it seems to me a disimprovement (no links to the Help desk or the Teahouse there, for one thing). Since changing the sidebar must require (at least) admin privileges, I figured this would be an appropriate place to bring the matter up. Does this appear to be a useful change? Deor (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Sidebar_.22Help.22_link_broken. Bovlb (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nicolescherzingerfan removing/changing material without explanations

    Blocked. WP:AIV is a better bet for obviously disruptive editing like this. Black Kite (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Nicolescherzingerfan is constantly removing material from articles without explanations in edit summaries. I have warned him/her three times in a row to not remove content from Wikipedia without explaining why ([116], [117], [118]), but the user ignores them. The user changed an infobox picture without discussion on the article's talk page, changed perfectly summarized text without edit summary, removed album information without edit summary, removed a section picture without edit summary, changed an infobox picture again without discussion on that article's talk page, and even changed an infobox without any consensus. If these warnings do not continue to work, maybe a block will.--IPadPerson (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=602656491"