Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptions, deliberate

Disruptions at an ongoing mediation[1] by User:B3430715: [2] and [3]. I request a review of this and advice on next step. Several of us are perplexed by the weird disruptions caused by this user. The user has a very short history of disruptive editing. The links will also show my warnings to the editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really responsive, but there's something disturbing about a Wikipedia editor having a huge image saying "Fuck copyright" ([4]) on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that also, Bbb23. My personal wish is that he weren't so (apparently) bad at English. If you notice, his fluency does seem to fluctuate. But he certainly knows what he's doing with his disruptions.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest weirdness may be seen here:[5]. Can't say if this is deliberate or if he really does not comprehend. A brilliant strategy, if that's what it is, though.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He strikes me as a troll. Have you asked the mediator to step in?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this[6] you must see. No, Bbb, the mediator doesn't even seem to reply to MedCab itself regarding vital issues, so ... but I did advise her of this. And I agree imho, I think he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what he's doing when he's not at the mediation cabal. I found this one really weird. He doesn't seem to like the movie as he removed a link to it from another article. Another weird edit related to the movie: [7]. Oh, a heads up to any admins watching this topic, B3 removes warnings from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For all the world it looks as if he's just whipping about with the intent to troll. There's no other explanation. He's keeping off here - I trust you took a gander at his reply to this ANI on his talk page! I'll try to see how far back he goes ... I am under the impression he's very new. Yet his disruptive edits go back a ways on the Columbo artilce.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems recommended, aside from the diffs I have provided so far, is a look at his contribs. If anyone wants it, I'll find all of his disruptive edits as they pertain to my issue. One thing I noticed way back is that he 'does his rounds', and as I said, his disruptions are sometimes weirdly subtle.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with him dates back to around 22 February. All of this from the editor's talk page: personal attack[8]. I warned him about this[9]. Second weird personal attack after deleting my warning[10]. My next warning[11]. His next personal attack[12]. Here he thinks he's deleted the evidence[13]. This was his invitation to sign up to participate in the ongoing MedCab[14]. The following are the diffs from Columbo and from the article's talk page (please note the edit summaries whenever there are any): the first edit to the article, innocent enough[15]. That proves he knows how to edit properly and within rules. But then there's these two edits[16]. Clearly off his rails. Though I am repeating this, I draw to your attention his edit warring here[17] (which also shows a correction I have had to make twice now thanks to him) Note the reversion, for no good reason. I leave you with his blatant edit warring in the removal of the RfC I had there a while back (he removed that tag repeatedly):[18].—Djathinkimacowboy 01:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add: here[19] I apprised my fellow editor who's with me at mediation about this trouble as well.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his entire history, but I don't think his "stupid people" ES is any more of a personal attack than you calling his answers schizophrenic, or telling him "... and learn better grammar while you're at it". I can quite understand that you're irritated by the guy, Djathink, but in terms of the shades-of-grey area between attack and not-attack, I don't see that you're actually that far apart from each other. Try toning it down with him a few (several?) notches, and see if setting a better example to him might make him more inclined to communicate more peacefully. Pesky (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation has failed, and the disruption is not clear-cut enough to warrant any immediate admin action here. Hence, you need to request arbitration, in which case the Arbitration Committee will look at the evidence and likely issue admonishments, topic bans, and even complete site bans, depending on the severity of the situation given. --MuZemike 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit: hardly an improvement, IMHO. Muddying the water. A slight competence issue, perhaps? 114 total edits. Wow. Hey: this is not a personal attack, folks. This is Columbo we're talking about, here. Can old dogs learn new tricks? We'll be monitoring... Doc talk 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to show this[20] as an example of how this editor can edit properly, and knows what he's doing. Of course it is also proof that his English is really much better than he usually pretends. Reply to Pesky: Have you looked at the disruptive editing I showed from the mediation that he's done? And also from his talk page? When I responded angrily to him it was because he was just trolling about and sticking his tongue out - do you see him replying here? He's been responding on his talk page. This was enough trouble. I don't see what arbitration is going to do, except perhaps send me back here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here[21], an extremely recent edit, he is asked why he placed an image of a copyrighted DVD cover in place of an old image. Note his reply in edit summary, and his insistence on using schizophrenic reasoning when he does reply to other editors. So, he adds what is likely a copyvio and says it is because 'People love color photo ... ' This is but a taste of the insanity this editor brings, to disrupt articles. In one or two new edit summaries, he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. This user is a troll. I am beginning to expect him to be treated as one; why is it that we're supposed to try to charm him into behaving?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query: I'd like to know why this issue is being ignored here. The issue as I tried so hard to explain clearly is the following, about the editor in question:

1. After editing normally for a good while at Columbo, he suddenly became a little belligerent.
2. We either worked with him or ignored him until he became a bit offensive.
3. When I approached him politely on his talk, he attacked me.
4. When I warned him about this, he attacked again.
5. Recently in the Columbo mediation, he altered at least one of my posts, and injected disruptive, weird posts in odd places.
6. He was warned about this in about the same way as you see above.
7. He disrupted the mediation again, all the while his English getting 'worse' and 'worse'.
8. He responded to this ANI on his talk page with strange ramblings and began mentioning the ANI in his edit summaries.

I don't understand what more you guys needs to give me a perspective on this. It certainly does not help to say to go to arbitration - so this troll can laugh at us some more?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on a reading of Talk:Columbo#Lead image: WP:COPYVIO problem, there could be a compromise about the DVD cover. The above discussion shows that no admin is prepared to issue a block at this time. If the editor is really trying to cause trouble, he will be back here soon. It would be better if Djathink would wait for someone else to make the next report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - message received loud and clear. What do we do here now? Close and archive this where no one will ever see it, when the editor goes round the bend again? Just wondering.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see[22] and note the post above it, where the editor keeps responding to the ANI there. Yes, let's do drop this for now and let him keep trolling. ANI just makes me so proud at this moment. And of course, no one could at any time have even bothered him, by going to his talk and asking him to respond here. This board is asinine in the extreme. Let's just wait for "the next person" to come and report him.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any trolling, and think you should probably stop using that word. I do see an editor with poor English skills, who is perhaps editing beyond his means, but I don't see any bad faith. I find it completely understandable that a new user might suddenly start editing a mediation page, even though they weren't previously involved, and then not "sign-up" since the mediation was basically already over. You've been fairly threatening, and used some pretty strong language yourself. Trolling is a really strong claim: you're implying he is only here to disrupt Wikipedia, make false edits, antagonize people, etc. And yet I don't think you've come close to showing that through diffs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I did nominate the page he created for deletion per A10 (he essentially took the stuff removed from the List of episodes page and made a new page to keep it under a similar name), but, again, I don't see that as being intentionally disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW! OK, let me begin by addressing Qwyrxian that good faith can be assumed unless proven otherwise and let me assure you that B3430715 is desperately doing so. Its not that the user is bad in english, actually he is competent enough to put a very graphic English term on his userpage. Getting down to the point. Have you gone through the revision history? It shows that some really meaningful comments have been removed expertly from the page giving the appearance that the user is a happy-go-lucky type of user. His talk page will show you that he is an expert in feigning ignorance of the language unless it comes to the art of rudely dismissing a person, or acknowledging a compliment. This is certainly not contributing to a harmonious working environment. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a manic and inappropriate obsession with a subject a kind of trolling? W., I truly thank you for showing that there is a problem with him and it needs to be somehow addressed. That is exactly why I came here asking for advice and direction regarding what steps could be taken. That editor has deliberately disrupted several things and has persisted in doing it. It's a shame nobody sees this pattern, especially Qwyrxian. But as I said to Q, I'm prepared to drop this whole issue for my part. Someone else will come here about him if he persists. Does anyone note how sweetly behaved he's been lately? Still playing the troll ... I apologise if that term offends some people. But I still say he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dja... remember this little piece of advice and your reply? - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, God, I was just waiting for something like that. I went and put my foot in it, didn't I? Now this is all about me, whilst B3430715 gets justified and protected. This is NOT about me, DVdm. I am trying to stop someone much worse than I ever was! He's doing it deliberately, DVdm! Why don't you read the things before coming at me like this? Please, don't come here again to post stuff like that. Post it at my talk page. Please.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is doing it deliberately, that's the whole point. I have read the things, and I'm not coming at you, on the contrary. But if you insist, I will not comment any further. Forget about it. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Those working here are free to review me if they wish. I do not object. As for me, I am withdrawing from this silly thing and will not visit or post here again. In light of the undue attention going toward me, I leave it to the good wisdom of those whom I have seen posting (all too rarely) on this board. After all, the editor in question will get in trouble if he persists in wrongdoing or whatever it is he's doing. I leave you with this warning: keep examining issues in the way you did here, and LOTS of these types will eventually rule WP. I sincerely thank all of you who participated.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

May I say something? Apparently I received tons of disruptions from a same person. This person would like to controls everything. When someone disagrees him, he will argue and argue until you are just tired of it.

For ex, in the mediation case, I simply point out what was wrong with proves. But this person starts to avoid the thing when he knew he is wrong,and begins some pointless arguments. (same with the table issue back in Feb)

Moreover, this same person is being a dictator, he thinks that he represents ever wiki users... look how many time he made his decision even no one agrees him.

I remains silent and chose not to come here but today, to avoid having another fight with this person. However, this person continues his personal disruptions.

I know for sure that the Admins can tell who is right or wrong, and they'll need no instructions from anyone. So for now, I will remain silent again. B3430715 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An observation from an uninvolved non-admin: if this is indicative of User:B3430715's skills regarding the English language, I can see little prospect of him/her making any positive contribution to this encyclopaedia. Regardless of any other issues, I'd suggest that B3430715 would be better employed elsewhere: basic literacy in the language of the relevant encyclopaedia is a necessary precondition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

“ he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. ” — Djathinkimacowboy

Reply,because someone said this, thus I replyed(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - B3430715 please don't use quotation marks unless you are quoting someone else. Please mention whom you are quoting if you do. Please don't use phrase, instead try complete sentences. This is not a poetry competition but a legitimate discussion. If you use random phrases like you did now, I will strikethrough your comment and request a more complete and comprehensible statement. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikishagnik, You are in this discussion since the beginning. I quoted the phrase right from this page. But since you are having confusion, I added the person whom I quoted from.

• Just imagine：

when someone who edits Columbo says that Columbo season 11 has just released, and gives a [French version DVD] as a prove...

when someone wants to change the existing episode order to "1~10 + Specials + 11 + Specials" instead

while on the other hand, the Columbo page said this in 2009:

In the UK, (Region 2) all episodes have now been released as ten seasons, the tenth season covering all the shows from "Columbo Goes to College" (1990) to the finale "Columbo Likes the Nightlife" (2003). However in France, and The Netherlands (also Region 2) the DVDs were released as twelve seasons.

Anyone will say things like hey you, look at the big photos, you are talking about an old things that will not be used in an English wiki article. Because in UK, all episodes have now been released as ten seasons

But if someone tries to avoid the fact, and claims you are being disruptive, being disruptive to a place where nobody is there.

anyone gets nuts--B3430715 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

B3430715 - Good attempt at answering the questions but I suggest you may condense your answers even more and avoid the excess formatting as it confues the reader. Next time you have region specific variations for any TV sereal please mention it clearly in the article and provide suitable references. I am sure no-one will object to that. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Really, sometimes it is impossible to go away and leave something alone! Yes, Wikishagnik, really good. However, none of that is to the point, if you will look at my opening statement. It does not explain his disruptive editing, or his inserting things into my posts (whic he no longer does since he knew it was wrong in the first place). It also does not explain the nonstop broken English when it's convenient, and a much better fluency when he really wants to communicate something. It does not explain this sudden and singular interest in Columbo and the restoration of discarded WP:UNDUE material (which was also not to the original point). Honestly, don't you think this is encouragement of the worst kind?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice this[23] from yesterday? Yes, keep encouraging B3430715. I see he has many of you fooled as to the true nature of his activities here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General comment:My fellow WPs, this is what ought to occur on ANI:

1. The problem is stated.
2. All involved editors come and open with statements.
3. An admin comes in as soon as possible, having reviewed preliminaries and makes a statement.
4. Depending on the issue, commentary should be welcome in general. Especially commentary from other admins and knowledgeable editors.
5. An agreement should be reached as to appropriate action.
6. 'Closing statements' if you want to call them that.
7. A firm final declaration - not binding or otherwise violating ANI - issued by an admin. A bit like the Supreme Court does opinions, so a dissenting declaration should be there also.

Instead, this is what happens on ANI:

1. Problem is stated.
2. WP:CHINESE FIRE DRILL ensues.
3. Everyone who is interested comes to air grievances, from WP:UNDUE disagreements to complaining about the brown spots on giraffes.
4. And all of that only if anyone is interested in responding at all.
5. Lots of yelling can occur. No one listens to anyone.
6. Almost immediately the original problem is high jacked and lost forever. If an editor comes to remind everyone of the original problem, that editor is ignored or shouted down.

Who is ever going to fix this place?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy, it sounds like you're unhappy with the way this particular AN/I report has been handled, and are making the extension to assert that there's a pressing, general problem here. Now I'd be the first to agree that there are times when AN/I resembles a zoo, and it's not known as the dramaaahh board for nothing. But at the moment I think it's generally functioning rather well. Most reports are dealt with quickly and appropriately, but I do agree it's frustrating on those rare occasions (like this one) when they are not. For what it's worth, we had a very long and full discussion of some principles rather like the ones you set out - just look at the most recent talk page archives for this project page. The consensus was that a strict protocol such as you suggest is not needed (and in fact is unworkable) because reports of so many different sorts are made here, and one size does not fit all.

On your specific report, I'm sorry you've not had the resolution you wanted. Reports are left unresolved for a number of reasons, such as:

1. There's clearly an issue, but it doesn't seem major enough to warrant admin action yet
2. There may be an issue, but it's been reported in an unclear way (eg without sufficient diffs)
3. There may be an issue, but it's hard to see one side as exclusively in the right
4. There may be an issue, but process issues (such as conflict, incivility, trolling or digressions) make it hard to see.

In this case, I think the inaction you are seeing is partly because of 1) above - other people don't yet feel as strongly as you about this issue. It's muddied a little further by noticing interactions such as these from you, which reduce your credibility even if you have a good case. Continually reposting here when you don't get an answer can feel like nagging, and puts people off as well. How you present your self and your case is almost as important as how good your case is, in Wikipedia as in life.

Having said all that, I'm going to post a warning on the user talk page of the editor in question because at the very least there are some WP:COMPETENCE issues going on. I don't think anything further than a warning is warranted right now, so would suggest we close this thread as resolved once I have done that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've had a closer look at both main protagonists' posts and I have left a mild warning at B3430715's talk page. However on reviewing all edits more closely I gear there is a boomerang coming back at you, Djathinkimacowboy. Posts such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B3430715&diff=next&oldid=483886948 this, this and this are, in my view, much worse offences. Your very own talk pages asks people to "not bite the newcomers" and yet that is exactly what you have been doing here. I don't see the evidence of trolling that you do, rather I see a newcomer who is fairly unfamiliar with WP protocol and with English being mocked and tied up in bureaucracy. From what I can see, with a helping hand, this user might be an asset. Why not extend one, rather than a sarcastic comment? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you posted some very wise words, and I appreciate the evaluation you have given the ANI process (as a reply to my venting steam). However, I think you are in error when you say that B3 is some sort of innocent newcomer, because he is clearly not a newcomer, only a new account: he knows how to edit quite well when he wants, he expertly removes warnings from his talk page (wonder how long yours will last), and can ratchet up his fluency in English when he likes. Then suddenly he's posting in near-gibberish later, when it suits. Too many helping hands have gone out toward B3 already, only to be nipped-at. If you looked at the other events, his contribs and what some admins have said, you'd know that. I myself am not going to offer a helping hand to someone I see as a troll! Help him how, by letting him feel all the security he wants? I'll say something further, I do not care about appearances: I'm beginning to think B3 is a sock. My evidence is thin, and no one wants that, so I'll shove that where it belongs for now. There, now you have my unadulterated personal feelings as well. And I'm sorry I came off so badly here. I never thought this place was the bastion of diplomacy. What do you want me to do aside from 'buzzing off' and not posting anything further here? A love sonnet to B3?--ain't gonna happen.—Djathinkimacowboy 23:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim--you suggested we close this "as resolved" once you post a warning on B3's talk. That is not satisfactory, unless another admin seconds it. You are moving too quickly, which was never what I wanted from anyone. If "no one gives a damn" is the criterion for closing a thread as "resolved", then by all means!—Djathinkimacowboy 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Had Kim not taken the time to provide helpful feedback, this would have been automatically archived anyway for receiving no action. I agree with her assessment. You have just now escalated from claiming this person is a troll to claiming that they're a sockpuppet (implied by your claim that they're an experienced editor, despite the relative new-ness of the account). I have not yet seen a single piece of convincing evidence that this is intentional disruption of the project. I do believe that, if the user's future edits continue to be argumentative while still being fairly incomprehensible, that WP:COMEPETENCE (regarding English language competence) may come into play, and they may end up blocked. But that point has not yet been reached. It's time for you to back away. Keep editing the Columbo articlees. If you have problems with the user on those articles in the future, you're welcome to bring them to me (or even back here, though, of course, be wary of the boomerang). Don't start watching their contributions, or their talkpage, because several of us really think you're seeing this wrong. Could Kim and I be wrong? Absolutely--speaking for myself, I've been wrong plenty of times before. Did both of us check the contribution history, and disagree with your assessment? Yes, we did. Unless you have new evidence, or some other editor significantly disagrees, I don't see much more value in this thread. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Close it then. I did express an opinion (and I said it had next to no evidence) that B3 is probably a sockpuppet. That opinion notwithstanding, I of course bow to the decisions made here. But I do not have to be pleased about it: and I am quite certain I have expressed gratitude for the "advice" that has been given here.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I bow to the decisions here, let me say this. Yes, in light of this[24], this[25], and this[26], I can see why we ought to leave this editor to his own devices!—Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)??--My apologies for the last post, which I have redacted. I was in error about those edits. Special thanks to Qwyrxian for patience and assistance in this. Is anyone else noticing terrible slowness and other problems editing at WP lately?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan2 Wikihounding, harassment

See also: Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections § Stefan4 Harassment

See also: User talk:Stefan2 § Bad faith hounding

See also: Commons:User talk:Stefan4 § COM:AN/B

See also: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 22

See also: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 23

See also: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 March 24

See also: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 24

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anyanghallaarenainside.jpg

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anyanghallatrophycase.JPG

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oxford om3302.jpg

See also: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Konkukuniversitystationoutside.JPG

See also: File:Mposter.jpg

See also: File:Ultrabotsscreen1.jpg

After I opposed Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a few of his nominations at possibly unfree files, a couple of which seem to be clearly in bad faith, he's gone through to tag several images I've uploaded. Despite my indication on his talk page that he should stop, he continued to post notices on my talk page and tag files, and nominate several for deletion. As he persists in the hounding, I suggest he be blocked until such a time that he indicates he will stop.--Crossmr (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to make any assumptions about copyright status of images. If the copyright status can't be proven, one has to assume that images are unfree. See Commons:COM:PRP, for example. Your comments in the deletion discussions suggested that you don't know image policies, so I checked your images for errors and proposed some obvious ones for deletion. For example, non-free images must be subject to critical commentary, must not be used in galleries and must not be used excessively, as explained at WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, and photos of South Korean buildings can't be hosted on Commons unless the architect died at least 50 years ago, as explained at Commons:COM:FOP#Korea (South). --Stefan2 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to assume that uploaders acted in good faith and properly copied licensing data years ago when images were first uploaded. Which you've failed to do. Not only that you clearly tried to misrepresent an individuals edits in your nominations by indicating they were a serial copyright violator when they were not. When it clearly stated on their talk page they were not. The fact is, you didn't like my opposing you and started going through all my uploads here, and even at commons trying to find a problem. That's clearly wikihounding.-Crossmr (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As clear evidence of his intent to hound me and not actually do image work: This edit to commons [27]. After claiming pictures of south korean buildings aren't permitted on commons, he only nominates a couple of my images, but goes ahead and cleans up similar images by other users. If he truly believed those pictures weren't permitted on commons he would have nominated it for deletion instead of cleaning it up and adding a category. Yes it's a commons edit, but it's just a very clear demonstration of the harassment that started here because I opposed him here. Most specifically I took issue with 4 of his listings on the 23rd where he described an editors uploads as Not own work? Many copyright issues mentioned on the uploader's talk page, but I can't find the image anywhere else. (bolding mine), when you visit the page. You see exactly 2 complaints and in the first complaint another user clearly points out that he talked to the webmaster of the site in question and it was indeed the user. I've no doubt the second complaint was the same thing. I also noted that he appeared to be assuming bad faith of users who uploaded images years ago because source pages had been deleted/hidden/etc and this is when the deluge of tagging, nominating and clear harassment started. He directly targetted my edits here and on commons because I opposed him (and not just him, I also opposed some other people who listed images as well), so there was no intent on my part to focus on him, when he's clearly come after me in retaliation.--Crossmr (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't clean up the image on Commons, I categorised it so that I would more easily be able to nominate a large number of images in the same report. In the end, it failed because I couldn't find any date of construction, but my plan is to try to find a date later, unless anyone else already has proposed the images for deletion by then.

One can usually not AGF when it comes to copyrights. Many users don't know how copyrights work or what a derivative work is (cf. your own photos of South Korean buildings) and users often get insufficient permissions, so it is necessary to be very careful when it comes to copyright issues. In the case you mentioned, I see 6 copyright-related notices on the user's talk page before my notices, and 5 of them have since been deleted (I haven't checked if the 6th one has been changed). If you check the deletion log, you can see that the webmaster-related text was deleted with the deletion comment "permission claimed but never supplied". That is, no evidence that Wikipedia was ever allowed to use that material.

If the source is gone, there is no way to verify a licence. People uploading from Flickr often get the licence wrong so images have to be deleted if they can't be proven to be free. That is exactly why there are licence reviews on Commons so that there is some evidence kept that the images have been on Flickr under a free licence at some point. You might also notice that it was not I but a different user who placed the Flickr images on that request page in the first place. Obviously, there are at least two users who agree that the sourcing is insufficient.

There has been no retaliation from my side. However, your posts to the deletion pages suggested that you didn't understand image policies and copyright rules, so I checked your images and proposed some of them for deletion. You might have noticed that many of the images I proposed for deletion actually weren't uploaded by you; they were images uploaded by other people which I happened to find in an article where one of your images appeared. --Stefan2 (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We always assume good faith, which you've failed to do repeatedly. You even went so far as to imply a user could be editing the exif data on a years old image simply to try and get a google image on here. You went further to accuse an editor of being a serial copyright violator in your rationale to taint the discussion when there was zero evidence that that was the case on the talk page. I found a lot of your deletion rationales to be extremely light on evidence or reasoning, and not just yours and posted my opinion as such. You then proceeded to go after every image I've uploaded to two projects as a result. WP:HOUND, WP:AGF give them good long hard reads.--Crossmr (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One has to be very careful with copyright issues. I have seen many uploads from Flickr and other external sites where users have provided wrong licence information (for example by missing an NC or an ND or by thinking that any image found on the Internet is in the public domain).

There are many reasons for EXIF data to change. Some images have no EXIF data (might be caused by editing the images in a program which deletes the data) and I don't find it too unlikely that some programs might alter the EXIF time so that it shows the modification time in an image editor instead of the time when the photo was taken (although programs really are supposed to store such information in a different field). Editing using Exiftool or the like might be less likely.

Note that I'm going to be away during a large part of the weekend, so I might not be able to write any further comments until tomorrow afternoon. I'm bringing a mobile phone, but it isn't very convenient for writing long messages. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One also has to be careful how they treat other users, and constantly doing so with assumptions of bad faith is not the direction to take. Immediately auditing an editors contributions because they oppose you is also not the direction to take. To be honest you've clearly come across as a bully in this process with your bad faith assumptions of uploader's behaviour and your immediate reaction to my opposing some of your listings. You have no evidence that any of those editors made a mistake adding the licensing data to those images. None at all, and you're asking them to prove the impossible because you know the original pages are gone now.Further more you have zero evidence to suggest that uploader was tampering with the exif data. He didn't even know enough on how to properly rotate his image, and you think he's fudging the exif data?--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I recommend this request is considered resolved. I can see no need for admin action while there is ongoing dialogue and Stefan2 appears to be taking care to explain their actions. Unfortunately Crossmr has confused this request for action by including discussion about Commons images. If a pattern of imagestalking on Wikipedia is apparent and persists, then I suggest the complaint is preferably resolved by direct discussion on user pages sticking to the principle of Assume good faith, or taken to Wikiquette assistance if external opinions might help. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's not remotely resolved. I used his actions at commons to demonstrate the lengths he's going to to harass me. Immediately after opposing Stefan, he started going through every single file I've uploaded here, and then when he ran out of files, he went to commons to continue. My evidence at commons was to show that he was specifically harassing me by nominating my files for deletion (both here and at commons) while other similar images from other users were simply being cleaned up. As further evidence, some of his deletion reasoning is extremely weak. As an example he nominated File:Anyangjerseyscompare.png for deletion with the rationale: Excessive use of non-free images of clothes. Not an article on clothes; fails both WP:FTCG#3 and WP:FTCG#8. (whatever that means, I don't see any numbers on the pages he's linking to). Yet the image is directly referenced in and talked about in a section on the article. In addition, the image was present and checked during the Good Article process. He further nominates File:Changchunfight.jpg with the rationale: Not subject to critical commentary, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image not needed; any free image of the same hockey team would work equally well. Which is as far as I can tell an outright lie. Not only does the image contain a full caption detailing it's significance, the event is also referenced in the main prose as a significant event in the team's history. The bench clearing brawl lead to a league leading number of suspensions which is still the record (and likely will be forever, as it's a very high number). So he claims there is no critical commentary, which there is, and then claims an "image of the hockey team would work" but this image isn't being used to illustrate the hockey team it's being used to illustrate a significant event in their history. It seems he simply has no understanding of what it is he's nominating for deletion and the reasons for doing so. His immediate move to start tagging and nominating images with such spurious and honestly nonsensical reasoning clearly appears to be retaliatory hounding and harassment. I should be able to give my opinion on noticeboard discussions without being subjected to that kind of retaliatory behaviour. Yes, he's trying to play nice and justify his actions now, but they don't really stand up to scrutiny when inspected.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that for the longest time there were only the 2 parties talking shows that someone failed to try to have that exact same discussion prior to coming here for admin action. Discussion is first step. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, WP:RFC/U is thataway. If I was Stefan, I would back far away from any specific users ... far, far away. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I posted to his talk page, when he continued to hammer away, I brought it here. He was already hounding me, I wasn't going to hound him to stop. That's the point of this noticeboard to deal with disruptive users which is how he's acting.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So just so I have the facts here, we're saying that:

• Flat out lying in nominations
• linking to non-existent policies as deletion rationales
• re-applying tags that had been long since removed from images
• doing all of the above to every image a user has uploaded immediately after having a debate with them and in a very short time frame, and then following them to another project to continue the action is not harassment and totally fine by our community's standards? I just want to be sure when this comes up again.--Crossmr (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am back again. I have added a lots of links at the top of this discussions. To my knowledge, they link to all pages where both Crossmr and I have been discussing things recently, and the links make finding the discussions easier. In particular, I suggest that you take a look at the link to Commons:COM:AN/B where I have recently written a long reply, addressing concerns stated there.

• I am not aware of any nominations in which I have been lying. If you feel that I have been unclear or if I have made an error in a nominations, feel free to comment in that nomination. If users list a confusing source, it may suggest that the image was taken from somewhere. Ideally, the uploaders would comment on the deletion discussions and explain how the images were obtained.
• I'm not sure which non-existent policies you think I'm linking to. Could you clarify?
• I didn't notice that you had already removed {{non-free reduce}} templates from those images. See my long comment on this at Commons:COM:AN/B.
• I don't think that I tagged all of your images. Also note that many of the images I proposed for deletion at that point weren't uploaded by you – many of them were logos uploaded by other people and used in the article China Dragon. I didn't think that I was harassing you and I wasn't angry or anything. As LX wrote in the Commons discussion, "To go through a user's contributions when there is reason to believe that they may be systematically making some mistake (such as adding unsourced facts to Wikipedia or uploading non-free images to Commons) is pretty standard practice and is not indicative of an assumption of bad faith." The discussion on a Warhammer 40,000 image suggested to me that Crossmr might have an incomplete understanding of derivative works, so I decided to check his contributions and found some images which I thought weren't in compliance with policy, although not always because of derivative work-related issues.

I don't think that I am more strict than other people in determining whether an image is free or not. See, for example, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 29#File:Hibiscus brackenridgei flower.jpg, where a different user is very strict when determining the validity of the licence of an image. My nominations don't seem to be more strict than that one. I will now go to the deletion discussions and clarify my statements for some of my nominations. I also suggest that you read my post at Commons:COM:AN/B where I wrote a much longer reply. The two discussions partially deal with the same matter, and I tried to avoid writing the same thing at two places.

I am sorry if you felt uncomfortable with my nominations of some of your images; that was never my intention. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already linked it twice, [28]. While you can certainly come up with an interesting reason for all of your edits, the fundamental sum of the events tells a different story. WP:HOUND is quite clear and non-ambiguous Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. You not only did it here, you took it to another project as well. If there were images that genuinely needed discussing, that's one thing, but you took this well beyond that by:

• Tagging images that had already been tagged, and not just removed by me. There is no legal standard for the size of FUR images, our bot has a threshold for tagging but that's it
• Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons
• At best we'll say fudging the truth, over the nomination of File:Changchunfight.jpg, claiming there is no critical commentary, but then your nomination also seems to clearly indicate that you have no idea what the image is or how it is being used
• [29] Whatever this is, as indicated you may have meant to link to something else, but that's a pretty strange error to make. Seems to me you may have been in such a hurry to get at my images you weren't really paying attention to what you're doing. Even not withstanding the bad linking, the image was in a GA during the GA process and deemed fine, to nominate it for deletion at that point stinks of sour grapes.
• Continuing to tag and make posts to my talk page, across 2 projects when I clearly indicated that I wanted you to stop and offering no response until I filed an AN/I thread
• Doing all of the above only minutes after we'd engaged in debate over several images.

Yes, you have provided some excuses for a couple of those but I don't really feel they hold up to scrutiny. Had you stopped when I posted to your talk page, I may have viewed it differently. But you were so wrapped up in getting at my uploads, and in the process making several mistakes, that you failed to engage in further discussion. This is why it's clearly a WP:HOUND issue. Was I perfect in my image uploads? Probably not, most people aren't. Nor did I find you perfect in your nominations. I found several incidents of bad faith assumptions on your part that didn't extend simply to the technical question of copyright at best. But what I didn't do after engaging you in debate on those topics was to go out and comb through your contrib history looking for more problems, fill up your talk page with notices and then follow you to other projects to do the same.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to repeat my request to consider this thread resolved. The discussion here appears to duplicate much of Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Stefan4_Harassment and as this discussion is primarily about allegations of imagestalking and replies that are mostly about Commons copyright related policies (and even is inappropriately bringing in quotes from the Commons discussion), this seems to have veered well off-topic for WP:AN/I. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors; I cannot see that a remotely likely outcome here, so by definition this is the wrong noticeboard to raise this discussion. Fæ (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Two different projects. And most of the things in discussion are on en.wiki not commons. Only 3 images at commons, about a dozen here. The question here is clearly abou tWP:HOUND which is an administrator issue. You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding why I linked commons here, it was for one reason: To demonstrate the lengths he was going to to hound me, and to show a clear example of how he was specifically targeting my edits.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And he continues to lie [30]. There have been two sentences in the article discussing that event since I added the image to the article. As well as a full caption explaining its significance as a historic event in the team and league's history. Since it's clear he wants to continue to harass me I must renew my request that he be blocked.--Crossmr (talk)

• I refer you to the latest reply on Commons ([31]) which has been taking account of your claims about Wikipedia, not just Commons. Please stick to one noticeboard rather than forum shopping across both projects in parallel with the same complaints based on the same material. I suggest you keep in mind that repeatedly calling another long term contributor a liar (without giving the benefit of the doubt that they might have made an error) is unlikely to be seen as trying to assume good faith. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Fae, I think it's inappropriate to call this "forum shopping" when there are issues with images at both Commons and here. We can't do anything about the Commons edits, obviously, but it's not forum shopping when the issue has apparently occurred here as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. The incident started here, and Stefan took it to commons to continue it. As I've pointed out a couple of times I've only linked them to demonstrate the depth of what he's done. They're two parts of the same incident but En.wiki can't do anything on commons and commons admins can't do anything on en.wiki. As such I reported it in both places when he refused to engage me in discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec, HandThatFeeds) Thanks, I'm happy to accept that observation. If there is a muliti-project harassment problem then evidence should be raised at meta rather than creating parallel complaints across the projects. As has already been said, I do not believe there is anything here for administrative action and though Stefan has apparently attempted to explain his actions in good faith, they have been sensibly advised to back far, far away rather than encourage more drama. Crossmr has raised much here about Commons edits and similarly raised complaints about Wikipedia edits on Commons; I am certain that most readers would agree this has badly muddied any case presented. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Then please let me attempt to de-muddy what has happened here and make it into something slightly more readable and explainable:

• I found myself on PUF images. After commenting on what I went there for, I decided to give the day's listings a read as I don't usually head into that area.
• I commented on several listings, including some of stefan's
• Some of those turned into back and forth debates
• Immediately following a couple of those debates (one over technical application and one over what I considered to be a bad faith issue on his part) he started going through all my uploads
• After I started to get notices on my talk page, I posted to his talk page indicating I wanted him to stop
• He did not engage me in any further discussion at that point and continued to post notices to my talk page and then I started getting e-mail notices about talk page notices on commons
• I notified him that since he failed to respond and was continuing in what I indicated to him earlier what I considered harassment I was posting here, which I did and also posted at commons since he took the behaviour there.

Here are the key issues as to why I feel this is a WP:HOUND (with quotes from hound) issue:

• Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, - over a few hours he singled me out and basically audited every upload I made across 2 projects
• joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. - While he didn't join multiple discussions, he went after multiple images at once and started debates in multiple areas, and attempted to confront a high number of my uploads in a very short period of time
• is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor this is debatable, we can't read his mind, but I indicated on his talk page that I wasn't looking very favourably on what he was doing and he continued, so he was aware that it was likely to cause me distress or annoyance.
• Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. he didn't follow me from place to place on wikipedia, but he did follow me to another project, hence the relevance of linking the information from commons.
• This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. - Doing this immediately after we'd just engaged in debate over a couple of images, and failing to respond to my talk page message is one of the larger factors in my viewing this as hounding and harassment.

In terms of specific behaviour that also made me feel this was hounding:

• The re-tagging of images which had already had the tags cleared by myself and other users, and in my case with explanation. He claims he didn't notice they'd already been tagged, I can't help but feel that means he wasn't really paying attention then.
• Nominating my images for deletion while editing other user's similar images but not nominating them at commons - sure, he had an excuse ready that he "didn't know the age of the building and that he didn't really have any more time for deletions that day" but the fact remains that he went in and specifically targeted my images while bypassing others. Yes this is at commons, we can't act on it, but it can show behaviour pattern.
• The nomination of an image that passed the GA process with funny rationales (he's fixed that now, but the error he made again makes me feel like he wasn't paying attention)
• The now recent comment he made where claimed the event in the image wasn't on the page, when it clearly has been for over 2 years. We don't want to call it a lie, fine, but he already nominated it with what I consider a nonsensical deletion rationale and then came back to make that statement. He should have been paying much greater attention with his follow-up comment.

For me, these all clearly add up to hounding and harassment. It's some of the over-the-top and extra things which give it away. If he'd truly found a couple of misused images fine, but the tagging, and ignoring other's images, and then following me over to commons, is what pushes this from a simple good faith check to something more.--Crossmr (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To Fæ: The discussion is related to actions on both Wikipedia and Commons which is why more or less the same discussion is held at two places. I agree that it is confusing and that it would be practical to have only one discussion. I see that Rillke closed the Commons discussion with {{not done}}, so unless Crossmr wants to continue discussing the Commons actions somewhere, it might mean that we now only have one discussion left.

I would like to comment that WP:HOUND states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy." I was trying to fix what I interpreted as violations of Wikipedia policies (WP:NFCC) and Commons policies (Commons:COM:FOP). I never saw this as anything wrong. One or more of the discussions suggested that Crossmr might not have a full understanding of derivative works so I thought that it would be appropriate to check his uploads. I opened up a lot of images in different tabs and started reporting images which I thought were inappropriate. Maybe I should have answered faster when he posted a message to my talk page.

Many of the deletion requests posted at that time were not related to his uploads but to images uploaded by other people to an article on a hockey team. I was planning to make a mass deletion report in Commons:Category:Lotte Department Store too, but I couldn't find any dates of construction of the buildings, only dates of opening of the shops. Some shops might have reused pre-existing buildings. See also the related discussion at Commons:User talk:Stefan4#You better get busy.

I think that it may be appropriate to include a quotation from your own user page: "Don't take the deletion of articles personally." Although we aren't talking about articles, the situation is the same. If I find an image which doesn't seem to comply with some image policy, I propose it for deletion, and I never base my decision on whether to propose it for deletion on who the uploader is. I tried to clarify the deletion rationale in the cases where you found them unclear. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I take the hounding personally. I've already unambiguously stated that there may be issues with a couple of specific images. I've noticed throughout this process a few of your excuses have been of the "I didn't see that" nature. Like the fact that the image was covered in the article, or the reduce tags had already been applied and removed from images by myself and another editor. For someone who spent such a long time going through all my uploads, I would expect them to pay much greater attention to what they're doing. However, if I combine that with the nominations we see starting here [32] and this nomination [33] as examples, I'm beginning to get the impression that you may not be editing with due care. As it seems you are often misunderstanding or missing some obvious piece of information. This would explain some of your behaviour but not all of it. However, when I further consider how far backwards you'll bend over to try and assume bad faith of uploaders, like in this case [34] where you claim we need more evidence, though the uploader clearly an unambiguously stating that he made the image, and the fact that it is in a higher image, that does not show evidence of being upsized. Upsized images are generally pretty rough. Much rougher than that one. Or here when you imply that an uploader who doesn't have the apparent technical knowledge to rotate his image [35] may have gone so far to tamper with exif data years ago simply to get a google image on the encyclopedia, despite spending time looking, I couldn't find that image on google images. I'm left with a much different picture. You say there was no intention to hound, yet even though I posted to your talk, you continued, without discussing anything with me. You followed my images to another project and continued there. That shows a very clear focus. You have an excuse for every edit, but Occam's razor is often invoked for a reason. And the behaviour adds up to text book hounding and harassment. You spent a significant amount of time focused on my edits, refused to engage in discussion and followed me to another project. Hound says a lot more than using an editors contribs to fix perceived policy violations is ok. There is also a full explanation on how to go about it, and what kind of behaviour is inappropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Stefan, I think you have explained your point of view well and you are (literally) within policy. However, Five pillars#4 caters for a wide interpretation of respect, and if a fellow contributor in good standing complains that they feel harassed, it seems only civil behaviour that one takes it seriously and back off if necessary. Wikipedia will not fall over and die just because you have not personally dealt with every doubtful image that Crossmr has ever uploaded. We regularly see people feeling "imagestalked" when several images are suddenly marked for deletion on the same day, and it certainly seems unfair to expect the uploader to review and take part in a large number of multiple discussions. A more civil approach might be to select a very small number of examples of problematic uploads, mark these for deletion discussion and engage with the uploader to see if there is a misunderstanding. Such a discussion is likely to have the same outcome but the path to get there would be collaborative rather than adversarial.

I still don't see any need for administrator action here. However, as has been suggested more than once, it would be a good thing for you to leave further challenges of Crossmr's uploads to others, if you continue to pursue his "every upload", particularly across projects, then you will look less like a champion of good copyright and more like an obsessive hunter of other contributors, worth a second look by those of us worried about how our projects can remain a civil and welcoming space. Would you consider making a commitment to follow this non-adversarial approach? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my actions made Crossmr unhappy. When I saw the notice about new messages to my talk page, I guess that it would have been better to go to my talk page immediately and comment on the matter. I'm sorry that it ended up this way.

The rotation issue that Crossmr mentions above is the result of a software change in Mediawiki version 1.18, see Commons:COM:ROTATEFIX. Before version 1.18, the image was shown using a different orientation. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

indefinite protection of userpage over userbox

Hi, I don't know where else to take this so I assumed here would be the best place to allow the community to discuss the matter.

Admin Salvio giuliano recently decided to indefinitely protect my userpage due to a userbox he didn't like. I, and several other users, have attempted to explain that

• A. The userbox was a joke, and is protected by WP:Userbox
• B. It could be a legitimate belief and thus the trolling accusation could fall under WP:NPA

without any response back.

I'm not trying to point fingers, I just feel as though the protection was ridiculous and wanted to know how the community felt about the matter. I will gladly remove the userbox if there is an issue with it, I just want to be able to edit my own userpage again. Thank you :) -badmachine 03:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. I see on Salvio giuliano's that he's open not only to trout slapping, but to recall. He's eligible for being whacked by the biggest goddamn rainbow trout that can be pulled out of the drink for this one, if not some serious review of his admin record and what other user pages he's felt free to censor and lock. I'd be very interested to hear what possible justification he has to proffer for this. Ravenswing 04:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Salvio is a good egg. Never would Salvio try to do anything out of order to anyone. I am an interested editor because Salvio protected my page for me after some horrid attacks were made against me there. Please try and work out the issue with Salvio, and remember Salvio may not always be immediately available to reply ... but I do not dare to presume to speak for Salvio.—Djathinkimacowboy 04:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, well, whether you are a fan or not of Salvio's does not excuse his actions. I would be livid to the point of obscenity were any admin, whatever his putative good-guyness, to unilaterally censor out a viewpoint for which he didn't care from my user page, and then to protect that page to prevent me from any further edits to it. Short of a "I Heart Child Molesters" userbox, I can't possibly imagine a justification for it. Ravenswing 06:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking. Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting community input on whether to keep the giant GNAA banner on your page after the page protection is lifted, my input would be "please don't." I've never understood the appeal of an organization that tosses around a racial slur for the lulz. If Salvio made a habit of going around removing Satanism userboxes from people's user pages, I would be concerned, but here he appeared to remove a number of things (including the Satanism box, the GNAA banner, and a 666-pixel wide image of somebody's cock) from your userpage with the not-that-implausible edit summary of "rm. trolling". Regardless, my recommendation to Salvio would be to unprotect the page, and my recommendation to you would be to not put things on there that a reasonable person could mistake for trolling. 28bytes (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the humor behind GNAA nonsense either...but oh well. The image is blocked by the bad image filter so wouldn't show up for anyone (...unless admins see through filters.) I see absolutely nothing wrong with the userbox, joke or not. I see no attempt at discussion before action was taken...only a message with a heading of 'Satanism' saying that userspace was being misused. Remove and discuss? Prefer discuss first, but oh well. Remove, protect, notify and then stop discussing? Not the way it should be done. --Onorem♠Dil 05:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK...so there was some discussion first that I'd missed. I still don't agree that adding a image that nobody sees, a GNAA image and a satanism userbox are grounds for removal and protection. It may not be useful stuff, but I don't see how it's disruptive. --Onorem♠Dil 05:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio issued this warning[36] to Badmachine on the 19th. Shorty after, Badmachine was blocked for one week by User:Guerillero for "trolling and baiting". Reading machine's talk page, it seems his user page has stirred up a variety of trouble. I am also curious to hear Salvio's explanation, because it's probably a pretty good one.--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 06:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have protected the page myself, but is it a good idea to use a religious figure as a joke? We do have Wikipedians that identify as Satanists , and people would be up in arms if someone made joke Mohammed userboxes. AniMate 06:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with AniMate here. While we allow jokes within reason on userpages, they shouldn't cause needless offence. Adding a religion as a joke could easily cause needless offence to adherents of that religion as religion is often a sensitive matter. (N.B. I'm not commenting on Salvio giuliano's actions.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an in-joke over on Encyclopedia Dramatica, as I said, if you feel it is inappropriate, then it shall not be readded :) -badmachine 07:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll comment here and not on my talk page, since this charlie foxtrot moved a bit too quickly for me to reply swiftly. Wikipedia is lousy when it comes to dealing with low-level trolling and this is one such case. Badmachine was already warned that sexual images are not appropriate on userpages and yet he reinserted one not too long ago, he then added a very large image of the GNAA logo whose caption was "gaynigs4life" and, finally, he placed on his userpage a custom-made userbox according to which he hails Satan everyday. I consider all this trolling – the idea that I did this out of religious discrimination is ludicrous and reflects more on those making that silly accusation than on me, in my opinion – and, since this is most definitely not the first time badmachine does something of the kind, I took action, also protecting his userpage to prevent him from misusing any further – as a side note, when badmachine was brought to ANI the first time for having various images of a penis on his userpage, I warned him that I would protect his userpage if he tried something like that again; he did, but the image was added to the blacklist, so protection was not needed then. Now it was and I'm not going to lift it. Badmachine has been using his userpage to troll and since talking to him did not achieve anything, a different approach had to be taken. "Stop or I'll say stop again" is not the best way to proceed if one wants to be taken seriously... I'll leave it for the community to decide whether I acted inappropriately or not and, if there is consensus that protection was wrong, then I'll accept that. That said, if anyone wants to start a petition for my recall, feel free to do so. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#06_February_2012. At the time it was thought that badmachine was a sock of (or even the sockmaster for) a number of My Little Pony/GNAA trolling socks. User:Alison vouched for badmachine being a real person (which of course does not stop them being disruptive unfortunately), and at the time, well prior to this, I warned the user not to replace the offensive items on their userpage, and they said they would not do so. Normally if it is necessary to lock the userpage, it is a given that it is also necessary to block the user for the same duration, so Salvio has actually been kind here. I'm not sure I'm seeing useful edits from badmachine. Persuade me I'm wrong, but if a user's main purpose is to see how many disruptive things they can add to their userpage, they aren't that great an asset. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Observation From an outsider's point of view, it looks like Salvio used a hammer in a situation where a hammer was called for. This isn't religious discrimination or censorship, it's effective and justified troll-busting, with the troll crying "foul!". Dennis Brown (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Outside comment So a troll (and an obvious one at that) gets called out for being one, and the ADMIN is the party who's causing trouble? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Stipulating that Badmachine is being a troll here - and while questions of being able to read minds were floated at me, I could likewise ask it of others here - what's the issue? You cannot charge him with posting offensive material; if exhortations to Satanism (for instance) are prima facie offensive on Badmachine's page, they must be offensive everywhere else on Wikipedia too, and I doubt anyone's going through the roster of Wikipedian Satanists to grill them on their bonafides. The worst anyone can claim is that he's trying to get the goat of people staring at his talk page ... in which case, what's compelling any of you to give him an audience? "OK, could we take it down a few pegs? ... Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here." Useful advice; possibly some folks here could benefit by it. Ravenswing 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the key thing here is that Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopaedia. While editors have kindly been given userspace by the project in which to express a little more of themselves, this isn't Myspace, Facebook or Deviant Art. There's no reason at all to provide space for user generated content that isn't somehow helping to build the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have more vanity content than I do/did -badmachine 17:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I have stuff I do on the project. You have willies and GNAA banners. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• It isn't what you say, it's how you say it that differentiates "having an opinion" and "being a troll". I would have jumped on Silvio if I had even a tiny suspicion that he was censoring someone's beliefs, this simply isn't the case here. Using your user pages to intentionally cause controversy is rather pointy and isn't an acceptable use. Viewing the previous discussions (Elen links above) further demonstrates his efforts to make a point here. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Having said my little part about Salvio: I'll address something Blade said: 'OK, could we take it down a few pegs? There's nothing he's done that's irreversible, nor are you capable of reading his mind and telling us what he was thinking. Histrionics may look good on the silver screen, but they aren't helpful here.' I agree. (Hopefully, Blade, that wasn't directed at me.) Another editor said we cannot read each others' minds and that is also a good point. But what is important is that if you request or welcome community input, unless it's pretty egregious, don't throw our posts back in our teeth. Reactions are part of the process. OK? —Djathinkimacowboy 19:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Everything is "reverse-able", so that point is moot. If someone blanks 50 pages in one minute, that can be reversed, too. Being reversible isn't the litmus test for taking action, determining the editor's likelihood of continued disruption is. When an editor lacks the ability to say "Yeah, I now understand what I did wrong", then the likelihood is quite high. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My issue is, what did I do wrong? -badmachine 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You do things deliberately because other people find them offensive, and then pretend you don't know what happened. Drop the bullshit. → ROUX ₪ 21:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong in removing [[:File:Human penis and scrotum.JPG|thumb|center|666px]] with an edit summary "rm. trolling". Bulwersator (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General comments and requests

Over the past number of weeks, there has been an increase in the amount of GNAA-related trolling and disruption. It is unclear whether and to what extent the trolling is being perpetrated by the "real" GNAA, or by imposters claiming to be affiliated with the GNAA, nor does it matter very much. What matters is that the diversion of community time and creation of rancor created by disputes like this one is precisely what the people engaging in the intentionally provocative behavior are seeking to create. The corollaries are that:

• good-faith users are asked in the strongest terms to refrain from emulating or enabling the disruptive behavior—and putting a GNAA-related userbox on one's page is about as blatant an example of this as can be imagined; and
• administrators and other editors acting in good faith to respond to such disruption, actual or perceived, are working in the best interests of the project and are entitled to a reasonable degree of discretion, the assumption of good faith, and the avoidance of name-calling as they do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as ANI essentially does nothing to stop trolling - even to the point of treating any word that is 'troll'-related as a 'dirty' word - I can't see what your point is. Either you quash the trolls' activities and pay attention when trolling is reported, or else go read WP:RATSASS when you see trolling: isn't that the usual advice?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad is correct. This case looks exactly like a user experimenting to determine what is the most outrageous thing they can keep on their user page—who cares whether that is trolling or good faith editing? What matters is that it stop now. Also, remove the GNAA logo from the top of User talk:Badmachine. Who cares whether the user just likes the attractive lettering, or whether they are promoting an organization whose sole reason for existence is trolling? An open website dedicated to building an encyclopedia is a sitting duck for trolls who are rewarded when editors tie themselves in knots debating whether GNAA might be useful for building the encyclopedia. Per WP:DENY, just remove the trolling, with escalating responses if repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• This entire thread is an exercise in trolling. Banhammers to the ready... Carrite (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruno Bouchet

Hi, it appears that Bruno Bouchet has been editing his own article. User:Brewhahaha uploaded a photo of himself at File:BrunoBouchet.JPG, also appears to be shamelessly self-promoting himself and 2DayFM's Kyle and Jackie O Show. Thoughts on the issue? - 114.76.227.0 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How can he have taken the photo himself and thus own the copyright? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If he paid someone to take promotional shots of himself, they are his to do with as he likes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.198 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose he could have used a timer lol! More likely, its the common mistake that people think that snaps taken of them belong to them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it seems unlikely he'd be attending an awards event with a tripod and using a timer, so I've PUFed it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The photographer may have assigned the rights to him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't fit with "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is what it says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Doh! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a photo of myself, taken by myself, in one of those photo-booth machines. Y'know, the ones where you can get driving licence and passport photos? Pesky (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It would have to have been a bloody big machine in this case :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! The mind boggles ... having said that, I could also quite easily Photoshop my pic to have a background of almost anywhere that I can snaffle a pic of ... ;P Pesky (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now there's a thought. Maybe in the original he was standing outside the toilet holding a plunger.....Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• At the risk of igniting a wholly different debate... this wort of lawyering over images is really aggravating to me. I mean, you're assuming that someone else took the picture and didn't give him the right to reuse it (if he has a digital copy, I feel fairly confident that the "original" was given to him). Of course, that's open to challenge (and that's partially what OTRS is for), but this sort of... assumption of bad faith (to use Wikipedia parlance) bothers me. That and the hoops that everyone has to jump though to post any images on Wikipedia any longer.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, it's clearly labeled "I Bruno Bouchet created this work entirely by myself", which is quite plainly incompatible with someone else having taken it and having given him the rights to it. And I'm simply saying that the copyright information is inadequate, which may well be an entirely innocent mistake through not understanding copyright - nowhere have I suggested anyone is deliberately doing anything wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  This is obviously not the best venue for an in depth discussion about this, but... my point is basically that we're guided (especially by that convoluted "wizard") to use the template that says "I <whoever> created this work entirely by myself", so to then accuse people of being deceitful after they do use it isn't very cool. Not that you're screaming at him that he's a liar or anything, but consider the situation from his perspective is my only point.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did anyone say he was being deceitful? He could have made a mistake with the template quite easily. But it's pretty certain it's wrong, and only he knows what the answer is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

User:WOLfan112

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

---

WOLfan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I came across this user after noticing a valid article nominated for deletion, and found many more like it, including this, this, this, and this. He also incorrectly added CSD tags to articles such as here. I warned the user about these AfDs/taggings here, and he subsequently reported a good-faith contributor at AIV here. Fine, everyone's new at some point.

However, WOLfan112 then proceeded to misuse Twinkle for dozens of rollback edits, and requested the rollback right nine times (by his count) in a span of two weeks: March 13, March 20, March 21, March 25. Today, I received this warning to assume good faith regarding my initial warning from two weeks ago. His talk page is littered with warnings, and his unintelligible replies are evident throughout, including #Here tell me exactly what I need to do to get rollback and #Years of experience. I am requesting an indefinite block on this user who apparently cannot understand what several users are telling him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

please....don't! I am very sorry and will stop now. 1 more Chance, please. 1 more chance. I want a last chance and a fresh start. --UserWOLfan112 Talk 22:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Last chance saloon - here are the rules

• You don't use Twinkle
• You don't ask for rollback
• You don't nominate articles for deletion
• You find yourself a WP:MENTOR
• You do something useful on the project
• You don't argue with anyone enforcing these rules

Keep that up for three months and you can leave the saloon as a normal editor. What do you say? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The above is entirely reasonable, but I would not be optimistic. Clearly the user needs mentoring, and has added the mentor wanted userbox to their userpage, but I doubt that the user is capable of accepting it. I left a couple of comments on his talkpage, and although one did get a reply it was not what I could call an engagement in dialogue. Generally their behaviour is disturbing and peculiar.TheLongTone (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well, it's probably not a good sign that they have not responded here. Unfortunately, ignoring it will mostly get them blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The user seems to know a lot more about how this place works than he initially lets on, so I suspect sock puppetry of some sort. WP:IDHT behaviour indicates griefing intentions rather than naivity, the intention being to mock the supposedly weak response to antagonistic editing / sock puppetry, this is especially apparent if you read the user's comments at village pump. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Has it crossed your mind he genuinely isn't aware he's doing it wrong? I rarely edit (just typos from IP, normally), but I do read these pages when bored at work, and I've seen others do worse, openly admitted they were antagonising, and got away with it. But they had admin mates. The tone of WOL's critics comes across a bit bullying, IMHO. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

He's been warned he's doing it wrong for weeks. Weeks. And yet, Elen of the Roads proposed a modest set of restrictions that sound reasonable. If this is bullying, I'd hate to see what you think actual abusive behavior looks like. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest this editor to look at WP:TPNO for guidelines on how to collaborate with other editors. For example, don't use exclamation points or other excessive emphasis, because it implies you're shouting or don't make legal threats (even using words like 'defamation' or 'libel') makes it seem like you're going to sue someone. From this editor's talk page, they want to be an administrator, if that's their eventual goal, they should read the advice for RfA candidates and learn from that. For example, "Maturity: There are no age restrictions for being an admin. The criteria are based on the users' common sense, good judgment, and good prose. 'Cool-talk' and 'teen-talk' may win fan club !votes, but may not go down so well with older editors.[4] Wikipedia has several very young successful admins; it also has a lot of older people who behave like children." I suggest this user keep that in mind when posting like "R" and "U" and "1". In addition, this user has requested the desire to have a fresh start, I don't think that will do any good for the community if this user's attitude stays the same. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of NOW!!!.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WOLfan112 (talk • contribs) 05:52, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was melodramatic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This is the cat that nominated Polyester for deletion. See ya!!! Carrite (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Websense / Content-control software

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

---

Could an uninvolved administrator please take a look at this article? It's become a battleground for internet censorship activism, and any attempt to improve the article is being met with cries of foul play & reversion of other people's edits to a highly politicised POV. Contrary to the talk page, I'm not seeing any evidence of a greater COI conspiracy by Websense employees in the edit history.

I have been accused of hounding for suggesting improvements on the talk page, and of being a vandal (a first for me at WP) for trying to make pragmatic and neutral improvements the article itself. I have recently tried unsucessfully to engage with the person who is "protecting" the Websense article, but unfortunately do not see any positive outcome occuring without admin intervention, given her disruptive patterns of interaction and behaviour towards other editors. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Socrates2008 is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, there was a previous discussion where he was also threatening me with "reporting to admin"[37](2012-03-24, 10:44) on Talk:Browser security and then when I avoided the arguing and gave up on trying to edit that article due to his combative nature apparently trying to WP:OWN articles, a couple of days later he suddenly arrives on Websense [38](2012-03-27, 11:18)[39][40][41] apparently trying to start a new argument with me on there instead...

Again, I don't want to get involved in an argument and was avoiding him, but he is following me onto other articles after the browser security discussion... I am not going to reply here any further due to the problems with drama but I thought I should at least report what actually happened

(Also I reported on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc. before that Websense has been subject to a sustained propaganda campaign by the company spanning years, I provided lots of evidence there even though some of it is too stale for checkuser to be any use, looking at the contributions of the ones in that list there makes it very, very, obvious, with the marketing manager openly coming out of the woodwork at one point...) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My interest at WP is in improving articles, not in following arbitrary people around, as my edit history clearly shows. The Websense article would be looking a whole lot better today (and be less politicised) if every editor trying to improve it was not labelled a vandal or meatpuppet, and their improvements constantly reverted. I'm going to decline to comment further and let the edits (and more importantly, the reversions) speak for themselves. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reversion on another article that may be of interest. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just in relation to one of the points raised above, contrary to Mistress Selina Kyle's claims, no evidence has been presented to show any sort of concerted campaign by Websense in regard to that article. The SPI to which she consistently refers was a fishing expedition - the bulk of the IPs and user accounts haven't made any edits that would lead anyone to suspect improper editing or sockpuppetry, and the checkuser on the non-stale accounts came back as unlikely to be related. There are a very small number of exceptions, but nothing to suggest anything resembling a sustained propaganda campaign over many years. It's time to drop the stick. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've given up trying to improve that article. It didn't stop MSK's venomous accusations of bad faith, being a shill, &c; but maybe that problem will go away if the community keeps on tolerating MSK and and keeps on taking their comments at face value, yes? bobrayner (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This discussion can be closed now, as MSK has been blocked for 6 months for violating conditions of a previous unblock. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Probation breach

Copied from above: Domer48 is in breach of his probation. Here [42] which falls under The Troubles sanctions. Under probation, Domer is only allowed to make 1 edit per page per week but under WP:Adam_Carroll, he/she has made 4 edits in 2 weeks regarding the persons nationality. This is surely in breach of their probation outlined here [43].

This user is very aware of Troubles related pages and should know better. Gravyring (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Provide the diff's which violate any of the remedies of Troubles arbcom? --Domer48_'fenian' 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the link to the article edit history page has already been provided showing 4 edits in 2 weeks. Try reading other users comments first. Obviously in breach of your probation, and not your first probationary period. Something wrong with the wiki system if an innocent user like yourself Domer can found guilty so many times.Hackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think a check on Graveyring & Hackneyhound might be in order. These two seem to work as a tag team, both forget to inform about ANI and both forget to sign their comments from time to time. Bjmullan (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ironic that Bjmullan turns up 5 mins after Domer to accuse other users of "tag teaming". Give me a chuckle.Also as a new user I was not aware that notification was needed especially if the notice was raised against a stalker. I've learned my lessonHackneyhound (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Unless someone thinks it a horrible idea, I'm about to block Gravyring indef for being a trouble-making, POV-pushing SPA in the Troubles subject area, who has now tried to game the system and get an opponent blocked for something they did in October of last year, and who misrepresented the situation too. Also, if he isn't a sock of a previously blocked editor, I'll eat my hat, although I don't know the players in the whole Troubles Drama well enough to identify which blocked editor. Any reason not to indef? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

  Gravyring blocked indef; I don't know enough about Hackneyhound to say whether a check is called for or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I object. No grounds for block, unless requesting an RFC, and trying to find a compromise on a page that is covered in pov and years edit warring. Something not right here.

I would have thought that with one SPA account being blocked for making a frivolous report, that the other SPA would have thought twice before they decided to keep it up but apperently not. First off, this was back in October 2011. Secondly, there was no violation and no supporting diff provided to suggest otherwise. Now having been put on notice already today of possible sanctions against you this is not a very good move on your part and this post is very unwise. I suggest you stop now.--Domer48_'fenian' 10:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

a link was provided to edit history of the page. That is enough evidence and is easier to read than 4 diffs. The page is troubles related as almost all Northern Ireland related articles fall under sanctions. You knew this yet continued to edit on a person's nationality while under probation. Hackneyhound (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Any passing admins: Domer brought this up on my talk page, but I have no time to deal with it. Just a quick note to point out that I blocked Gravyring indef for behavior that looks remarkably similar to what Hackneyhound is doing here (frivolous gamesmanship about a 5 month old issue (plus the 3rd edit was an immediate revert of 2nd edit, so no violation anyway)), and the editing histories of Gravyring and Hackneyhound look remarkably similar on a quick glance. I just don't have time to look at Hackneyhound the way I did with Gravyring, but I think a Checkuser might be in order, or even a final warning or indef block for intentionally causing trouble in a contentious area, sock or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not here to argue Gravy/Hackney's case, but it wouldn't be hard to see how they might feel aggrieved when they get maligned and even punished for doing things that are not much different to that which Domer/BJMullen seem to routinely engage in. It only took me 5 minutes to find out that BJMullen's one and only block is for "deliberately gaming 1RR restriction at Carlingford Lough." as recently as last month. Domer's block log is huge, and includes several similar violations. Working as a team just like Gravy/Hackney, the pairing of Domer/BJMullen appears to me to be just as much a single purpose entity as Gravy/Hackney are being painted as, unless you can find any non-Troubles related edits in their history? I certainly couldn't. And even if Gravy/Hackney are one person, that obviously doesn't warrant harsher treatment than what two people working as a team warrant. The activities of Domer/BJMullen at articles like Carlingford Lough should not be overlooked just because they are more experienced than their opponents at any particular venue. All of them are POV pushing warriors from where I'm standing, they all have multiple reverts on that one article alone, yet the only justification for Gravyring's first and only block being indef is apparently that he hasn't been smart enough to spread his interests around the Troubles area first; instead he just objected to what was going on in relation to one issue, and has seemingly paid for it. Looks to me like a just a 'win' for the Domer/BJMullen camp more than anything preventing the sort of ongoing brush fires that arise out of the continued tolerance of POV editing camps. I was quite disgusted to see an admin calling what has gone on at the Carlingford Lough talk page as an example of Wikipedia type consensus building. It's nowhere near it, as the claim about how the article title dictates what it should be referred to in the article shows - can you imagine the disputes that would be unleashed if this line of reasoning was allowed in subjects like Derry/Londonderry? It's a clearly bogus argument, presented as nothing more than as a way of getting out of the obligation of having to consider the other side's position. Truly neutral content is not arrived at this way. Neetandtidy (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Neetandtidy you have inicated you have edited on wiki before, "But who knows, maybe things have changed since I last editted" under what user name? Just as you know from the articles talkpage, the area is littered with socks, even if you would care to e-mail an admin in private about your previous account, they could say you're cool and that would be fine by everyone. Murry1975 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Having a past account is not the same as having a sock. I'll not be emailing anyone - if someone wants to make unfounded allegations against me, that's fine, I'll just retire this one too and go about my business. Do I need to highlight that your first edits are pretty much the textbook signs of a returning user too? I only re-registered to get the island included in the opening of the loch artice, and then to try to ensure this situation is investigated properly, appearing as it does to me to be pretty one sided and ham-fisted way of going about stopping POV editting disputes. If people are less bothered about that, and more interested in maligning me as well, well, I guess that's just how it will have to be. Neetandtidy (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I know its not the same as having a sock account, but for clarity e-mail an admin. My first edits? I tried to intervine in a dispute and made a b@@@@ of it. I created my account in May last with the idea of learning before being invovled, and not making any mistakes, it didnt work I have to say, but all in good faith and I would be willing to e-mail an admin to prve who I am, even pertaining to my "real life" person. Its odd that you want this to be investigated properly yet are hiding your previous account, and the pattern of misrepresenting what I am bothered in, is familar too, but lets AGF. Your call on e-mailing an admin, but as socking is active in this area it would be for your benefit. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin has sided with Domer48 in this case, a user with a history of blocking offences and as of yesterday had just completed a 6 month probation on The Troubles related articles. Looking at past discussions on Carlingford Lough page, Gravyring was the first user in all the recent years of edit warring to raise a DR and RFC. This can hardly be considered dusruptive? It certainly does not deserve an indefinite block if Domer can continue to edit given his past decressions. From what I fan see Domer and Bjmullan have been tag teaming a lot longer than anyone on NI related issues.Hackneyhound (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that you TR or perhaps MMN? Bjmullan (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

*Any reading admin please note requests for disclosure of User:Neetandtidy to disclose his previous account have been rebuffed and met with threats of blocks and abusive language [[44]]. Murry1975 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Shared account

Reopened

User(s) warned (see my comment below.) Policy changes should be proposed on the talk pages of the concerned policy. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Through the course of my adventures I've come across Inventcreat (talk · contribs), an account belonging to a married couple and used by both. Obviously this is a violation of WP:NOSHARE, however they do appear to be a constructive account and are apparently reluctant to have separate accounts. I would be grateful for some further opinions on this, I'm unsure how to proceed here--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I saw your conversation with them--thanks for taking the time to do that. Yes, NOSHARE is quite clear: they each need to get different accounts and stick to them individually. They could take Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat (I assume it's a mixed-gender couple), or Inventcreat and Inventcreata? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say let common sense let em keep it... many societies see matrimony as the joining together of two persons after all . Of course to do that, we all have to pretend this thread doesn't exist; therefore I would ask some admit to close after me, and for no one else to post anything. Egg Centric 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Right it's been decided that closing it ain't acceptable. Well I stick by what I said. A great many married couples can be considered as more or less the same unit, ready to take responsibility and credit for anything that the one does. I see no reason they can't share the account, except for a pesky policy which we can ignore. Egg Centric 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(Or we can even change the policy - especially now that gay marriage is finally rolling out amongst the civilised world) Egg Centric 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a special case that can be excluded from the rule, however for that to be so there should be an actual consensus here, NOSHARE makes it very clear that it's not allowed except for staff accounts and bots, and even bots need clear consensus--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I rather hope we can come to one now... not sure this is the right place to propose it, but lets have a go: Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

A married, or similar (with "similar" to be interpreted by the community on a case by case basis) couple should be permitted to share an account. Naturally all the users of the account will be held responsible for all of its edits, and thus subject to any sanctions, even if said person did not perform the edit themselves. Additionally, such accounts must make it clear that they are a shared account, especially if running for a community position such as administratior Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about we propse that NOSHARE be modified to allow exceptions when approved? Set up a discussion location for this, similar to usernames, etc. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) *Support as nominator. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• You beat me to it. Support. Calabe1992 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NOSHARE is essential in order to hold users accountable for their edits. I know that you're busy, so schedule enforcement of this policy for this particular situation for January 2015 unless they become an issue in which case it would be expedited. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of actually making it policy, but I'm perfectly willing to follow North8000's approach. Turning a blind eye has a bad reputation, but it's an underutilized tool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Turning a blind eye? To what? What were we talking about? Oh, gotta go: roast in the oven. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Still, you have to wonder, if they get divorced then who gets the account or will they agree to "joint custody"? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal goes against Wikipedia's content license. Each edit must be attributable to an individual.--v/r - TP 03:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as T points out, this has potential licensing issues, as well as problems if a disagreement should occur. We don't accept the "my brother/sister/roommate/dog/etc. did it on my account, it wasn't me!" argument. As sweet as it might be to let this couple edit together, it's going to cause problems in the future if we make this a blanket exception. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, licensing issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Allow an exception if the users in question agree to always edit together, as a unit, and not to use the shared account individually. It is common enough that a book has a shared copyright, so I don't see a licensing issue. What do we gain by disallowing this?  --Lambiam 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. Apart from which, "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog" - how do we know they are married? We don't. Just as we don't know if someone really has a little brother or not. Peridon (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sarek and Peridon. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Married couples are not legally considered to be "one person", so allowing them to use one account messes up our licensing, as it will be uncertain which of the partners holds the rights. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing

I'm going to close this as "user warned". I agree we shouldn't be rules-sticklers if people are otherwise behaving productively, but the problem with turning a blind idea to policy violations is that it gives the editor(s) a false sense of security that they won't be blocked by some other admin who notices the shared account but isn't aware of the decision here to ignore it. When/if that happens, they will be understandably hurt and upset that they were blocked after being told everything is kosher, so I've left them a note on their talk page strongly encouraging them to get separate accounts at their earliest convenience and advising them that they won't be blocked now, but there are no guarantees that another administrator won't independently notice the shared account and block them later. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopening

Sorry, but less then six hours is simply not enough to allow editors to discuss this, and there's no consensus. I disagree with creating an exemption. This would set a bad precedent and one easily gamed. For instance, how do I know who created the copyvio at User:Inventcreat/Author’s Certificate? If at some point we end up blocking this account, do we allow one of them to create a new one or hold them both jointly responsible for whatever lead the account to be blocked? (Is there a better way to indicate I've reopened this?)Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Put the heading in rainbow colours with twinkling stars? Peridon (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant some sort of template, although I did look for one. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the actual licensing issue?

Anyone wanna explain it? Understanding it will help us see if we can find a compromise. Egg Centric 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We use a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which allows the reuse of our content as long as it is attributed to the original author or authors. In this case, it is impossible to attribute it to the author because we are unaware of which person is the author. I suppose a compromise would be if they both released all of their contributions to the public domain. They'd have to specify that on their talk page. But doing this is going to open a can of worms because organizations will also want to buy in on this. I know I am not explaining it too well. However, the license text defines the "Licensor" as "the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License." However, where it says "entities" it is referring to the collection of contributors on the history page. Not a shared account. This isn't a legal opinion, obviously, but that shouldn't be confused to mean accounts can be shared. Contributions must still be attributed.--v/r - TP 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

has the situation you're referring to actually been a problem? If they take joint responsibility it's the same as if each had given the other a power of attorney, and they've agreed to be bound by what the other does. I think this is a place to evoke IAR: the strict application of the rule is discouraging good contributors.I'm not suggesting changing the formal rule, but agreeing to overlook minimal violations. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If the situation is how you describe it I'm not seeing the problem. As DGG says they can be treated as an entity together. Think Lennon-McCartney Egg Centric 23:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Just to note that OrangeMike has blocked the account. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor show. At the very least could have waited for all this discussion to be complete. I am not at all convinced that the licensing actually does require individual users (and if it does, why are/were there wikimedia role accounts permitted?). This ban does nothing to help wikipedia, particularly at this timing, and I think it would be permissible under both policy and ethics for anyone to reverse it. Probably not wiki-politically suitable though, but maybe soemoen will surprise me Egg Centric 23:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor show indeed, but 28bytes called it fairly accurately. With the current wording of the policy, I don't think discussion about an unblock is going to be feasible. It's an order of magnitude easier to choose not to enforce a silly policy than to actively do something to violate a silly policy that's been enforced. I've at least modified the block to remove the autoblock and allow account creation so they can create separate accounts.

In theory, discussion about changing this could continue on WT:UN. In practice, I imagine inertia is going to prevent any official change. in either case, the ANI thread has no further use, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Call me naive but I think we have a useful discussion going and there is some chance at least of changing policy here. Most of those who are supporting the ban are doing so because they believe it's a licensing issue; I think we can show them they're wrong, in which case there's a lot of potential for this thread to improve the encyclopedia. Egg Centric 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I certainly won't close it myself, but I just know someone is going to come along in the next 1 to 12 hours and close it because it "doesn't require admin attention". I don't think I've ever seen a discussion at AN result in a change to a policy... have you? I think the best bet (and it's a long shot) would be to move this to WT:UN. But I certainly wouldn't stop you from commenting here some more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam; much better to propose changes to policy on the policy's talk page (or perhaps a Village Pump discussion) than here, since that's not really what this board is structured for. Since the account is blocked and the ball's in their court, I agree this can be (re-)(re-)closed (third time's a charm, perhaps?) 28bytes (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll come out and say it. This board has a more eclectic and represenative audience of wikipedians than the one I'll find in those more obscure places. And I feel that for a variety of reasons, a general wikipedian will be far more receptive and open minded to this kind of proposal than the ones that will be monitoring those spaces... Even if it has to be moved, can we not just at least keep this thread to direct people to said discussion? It is not as though it will clutter up ANI... Egg Centric 00:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if they create the Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat-accounts, who says that they will actually use these accounts as a single person and not as couple? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Yrc/o2r

At an AfD discussion, Youreallycan has made the following personal attacks on myself:

• [45] - accuses me of "repeated NPOV contributions"; without any evidence to support it
  • [46] - I respond to this baseless accusation
• [47] - reiterates the same accusation, and includes another editor as well. Calls me a disruptive troll.
  • [48] - Greyhood notes that personal attacks are not on.
• [49] - I make a comment to another editor in response to their accusation that I am here to push an agenda.
  • [50] - Youreallycan posts: Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?

He was asked to redact the comments, and he has struck them. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and a redaction is not enough in this instance.

I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks. But most importantly, I have never really edited "queer" subjects, so how exactly am I pushing a "queer agenda" anywhere on this project? The only agenda I have been involved in is speaking out against homophobic attacks on GLBT editors, and urging the community to protect editors.

Numerous editors have in the past expressed serious concerns relating to what has been construed as homophobic comments made by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards other editors. A recent example was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. In previous instances, when this has been brought to the community's attention, he has gotten out of jail by using the BLP card.

Unfortunately for youreallycan/off2riorob, this time there is no BLP to hide behind.

He made outright an outright homophobic attack on another editor, and I am asking that he be given:

1. a lengthy block for his inexcusable attack

# A DIGWUREN warning given the topic area. - as per fluffernutter, this was already done. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The community finally needs to do the right thing by its GLBT editors here. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Queer", in the context he used it, is not a homophobic slur. In this context, he is likely calling your "agenda" out as being questionable or odd. It does not look like the two of you had a good interaction there, but you asked him to redact and he did. Unless you want an administrator to look at the interaction between the both of you, I'm not sure anything further is necessary here. Resolute 02:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the 1940s. I don't think "queer agenda" can be reasonably taken not to have a homophobic connotation here. FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What FormerIP said. I really don't see "queer agenda" meaning anything other than homosexual agenda. LadyofShalott 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, for UK editors of a certain vintage the use of the term Queer for Gay wasn't in use in the early 70's when I was growing up and it was a word that would have meant odd or strange. Wiktionary agrees too. The only person who can explain what YRC meant is YRC and unless they do so anything else us just supposition. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise my comment. It isn't the 1970s. FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the word queer has that meaning, no argument. However, combined with the word agenda, and given the concerns people have already had with certain comments from O2RR/YRC concerning the subject matter of BGLT people, it seems to reduce the liklihood that any meaning other than that of homosexual agenda is viable. LadyofShalott 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, knowing nothing of Youreallycan's history in this regard, I took the positive context (such as it is) by default. It seems that assumption was poor on my part in this case. Resolute 04:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of all the Wikipedia editors I have ever encountered, Youreallycan has impressed me as the most homophobic. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29 I spoke in favor of an LGBT topic ban for the guy. I continue to hold this opinion, now more strongly than ever. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Insulting a person as "most homophobic" since July 2007: That seems to be an extreme, vicious personal attack on a person who used the word "queer" in this reported incident. Just counting all the editors whom you "have ever encountered" since first editing as "User:Binksternet" (since 28 July 2007: contribs), how many editors do you count who were not the "most homophobic" in Wikipedia? -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my words; they exactly reflect the impression I have gathered over four years. I have not met a more homophobic editor. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Though Russavia and I have clashed nastily on several occasions, I agree with him 100% on O2RR. I have watched his disgusting hate speech flare up numerous times on the boards, only for him to slither away from sanctions by masking his revolting remarks with policy. This time, he has nothing to hide behind. He's already been warned under DIGWUREN, but I think that is really a secondary concern here. I firmly support a lengthy block for O2RR. This has gone on far too long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I logged my warning today to YRC (diff above in russavia's original post) as a DIGWUREN (now known as ARBEE) warning, since I informed him that he was operating in that topic area and needed to be wary. It was an informally-phrased warning, however, and I suppose there's no reason that he can't be given a more explicit templated version of the discretionary sanctions warning if someone feels it's necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Fluffernutter, thanks for your intervention there. I really do appreciate it mate. I don't know if you got my message on IRC, but I just stated that after discussing this with some other editors, and because of the history of shocking comments towards other editors, that something more substantial needs to be done in regards to him. Thanks again for your assistance with that. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• [Non-admin observation] I do not in any way endorse the language above (though I'm wondering what prompted Russavia to introduce the big and clever 'F' word to talk about his contributions to en.WP on getting Fucking, Austria onto DYK) but while we're here, can a grown up admin please curtail Russavia's 7-day RM process on Zhirinovsky's ass and get it off centre-stage in DYK queue please? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse. If we were dealing with a persistent racist who started calling another editor the n-word, there would be no hesitation in taking appropriate action here. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, actually I agree, homophobic comments shouldn't be tolerated, ever. FYI I suppose my WP:AGF has been tested a little by the gaming to get Zhirinovsky's ass on DYK, I already noted concern at BLP Noticeboard yesterday. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very little hesitation, anyone who thinks that somehow it's not a slur is dreaming and living in a Mickey Spillane novel. That was then this is now. RxS (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was homophobic? John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was as homophobic as Huckleberry Finn was racist. Got it now, John? Blake Burba (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to stereotypes we have a number of one dimensional characters on stage in this thread. John lilburne (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Russavia himself has pointed out in this thread that he is not known to be gay and has not edited LGBT-related topics to any extent, so there is reason to question whether or not YRC intended the comment to be an attack. The comment itself is ambiguous, but given the previous concerns expressed here, it was an unwise choice of words at best. I think it would be wise to wait for YRC to explain himself before deciding if a block is in order. In any case, an LGBT topic ban is probably overdue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your first sentence: "I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks." This context makes it much more likely that it was intended as an attack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A minor point, but YRC's comments about a 'fucking agenda' need to be looked at in the context of Russavia's previous post: [51]. It seems to me that Russavia set Rob up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That may explain the repeated use of "fucking" but would not justify making a homophobic comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me Andy, but my post was not attentioned towards Rob, nor was it in response to anything that Rob said. It was in response to the editor directly above me who stated that I was pushing an agenda. I simply pointed out an article that I (unbelievably) managed to 5x expand -- the only agenda being because I could. To say that I set Rob up is an inexcusable assessment to make at this point. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't think why any instance of homophobic abuse - let alone a persistent pattern of it - should receive greater indulgence than, say, racist or anti-Semitic abuse. Oh why anyone would try to justify it by blaming the victim. Writegeist (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Abuse is abuse, period, regardless of the target, end of line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It has only been a month or two since the last ANI discussion of YRC and homophobic attacks. Perhaps we should automate the initiation of threads like these -- or keep a permanent discussion going here, since there appears to be a lack of will to do anything about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how someone so concerned with BLP issues can do something like this. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As am I. A topic ban here is the least we can do, but were this any group besides LGBT, I can't help but feel like a long time out would be issued post haste. AniMate 07:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Queer - is not a homophobic descriptor in any way, its a totally acceptable word these days - User:Russavia uses it extremely often. It is his (at least on wiki) preferred word for homosexuality. He use the self descriptor with great regularity. - Using a word that the complaint uses himself regularly can hardly be an attack. Youreallycan 07:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. Spoken like a heterosexual willfully ignorant of the current usage of the word "queer" or someone desperately trying to make himself appear so. The re-appropriation of "queer" as a self-descriptor by the gay community is not license to fling it about in a pejorative manner while simultaneously claiming it is an innocuous or "acceptable" term. Blake Burba (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer eyes for the straight guy, Queer as Folks Queer is not some phrase from the ghetto but in mainstream usage. John lilburne (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blake Burba, context is important here. Many black rappers liberally use the n-word in their lyrics and Dan Savage, a well known gay activist, has a history of addressing his readership using Hey Faggot!. This is not an excuse for any Wikipedian to start addressing other contributors using these highly offensive words without permission or without expecting them to be immediately treated as defamation and a blatant personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Context is the very nub of this discussion. Way back in January 2009 I found a red-link somewhere or other, and started the Crittenden Report article. Lets say I got this response on my talk-page: "Hey girlfriend! Thanks for queering up Wikipedia!" How I would have reacted to the very same message is all in the context.

• If it was the first edit from an IP user, I would have welcomed them and asked them if they were interested in WP:MILHIST
• If it was from a registered user who was active in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a compliment
• If it was from a registered user that had a history of intolerance in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a slur against me and LGBT editors.

Context is what is important here. That disingenuousness about context is very much not to the credit of those editors who would appear to have overlooked it. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As there's pretty much no doubt now what YRC meant, and as he still thinks that there's nothing wrong with it, I've blocked for a week. It's longer than usual due to his history of NPA blocks. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about the use of the word "queer" here is a complete sidetrack, and frankly a non issue. What is abundantly clear is that there was a definite breach of civility in that discussion. I don't think the accusation that Russavia has a pro-homosexuality agenda is in itself anything to be concerned with - it may or not be true but editors are accused of bias all over Wikipedia and the fact that this alleged bias regards homosexuality doesn't make that any worse or any better. What is a concern is the rest of that sentence. That's a clear personal attack and is inexcusable.

But the important thing is that User:Youreallycan did redact the comment when asked to. Since blocks are preventative not punitive it seems clear to me that User:Youreallycan is aware his actions were incorrect and is not about to repeat them, so a block is not appropriate here.

A topic ban, however, is worth considering. I recommend that User:Youreallycan is warned that any similar behaviour in future will result in such a ban. Beyond that I don't think any further action needs to be taken at this stage. waggers (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think he's aware that his actions were incorrect at all. As I said on his talk page, I wouldn't have blocked him, since he redacted the comments when requested. However, in his current unblock request, he seems to think it's fine to make comments of that nature. When/if he acknowledges that it isn't, I'd support an unblock. 28bytes (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being manipulated by the application of false dramah for the lulz. Back in the 70s Queer was a preferred term used by members of the LGBT communnity, this was replaced by Gay from about teh late 70s, but never went away as Queer tended to be used to used as a shortened form of LGBT without resorting to acronyms. John lilburne (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment a reply to me? It's indented as though it is. And yet it has nothing to do with my comment. My point, in case I wasn't clear, was that I'd support an unblock if YRC agrees not to make any more comments like "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" That would not be an OK comment to make even if "queer" were replaced by a synonym. 28bytes (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean 'synonym', is it not the case that you are really complaining about accusations of 'agendas' regardless as to whether they are 'queer', 'fucking', or 'WASPish'. John lilburne (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redacted usernames from insulting thread title: As an uninvolved editor, I have changed the title of this ANI thread to replace usernames "Youreallycan/off2ri..." as "Yrc/o2r" and link-anchored the prior title. Of course everyone realizes that calling someone's actions "homophobic" is an extreme personal attack of the most vicious and hateful sort. It is one thing to claim a remark was a GLBT-slur, but to generalize, universally, as being "homophobic" is just begging the question as if stating "wife-beater attacks". As a formal debate judge for years, I will try to reduce all this rampant use of word "homophobic" as unneeded hate-mongering with ad hominem attacks on accused editors. Please remember, the use of the word "homophobic" is completely, totally, and utterly unacceptable in this manner, especially in the title of a thread. Comment on the actions, not the contributor. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nah. If an editor has a long and ongoing history of making homophobic attacks, describing that person as homophobic is right on target. A person who makes racist comments is a racist person. For the present case, it's becoming clear that it's the person that needs dealing with, not just a distinct set of remarks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• To me this looks like one final round of gaming from Russavia, who is currently looking at a likely 6-month ban at WP:AE for ... gaming. Yes, Youreallycan's statements were uncivil. On the other hand, he redacted them immediately when called upon, and they also reflected exactly what went through this editor's mind. If I had been asked to say what I thought of Russavia, honestly, in light of shenanigans like these, and his involvement in stuff like Zhirinovsky's ass and Polandball here and on German Wikipedia, all of them real embarrassments to this project, I would have said exactly the same. Why are we putting up with Russavia? Lastly, the term "queer agenda" is in mainstream media and scholarly use. That agenda is as unwelcome in Wikipedia as any other type of agenda-based editing. --JN466 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, you have not been asked here to say what you think about Russavia. Having just replied to you at User_talk:Youreallycan#unblock_request, could you tell me exactly how many forums are you intending to use to canvass against Russavia with the same text? When there is an ANI thread about Russavia we can discuss Russavia. This discussion is not an excuse to repeat offensive claims about Russavia or to promote your personal views that there is a "queer agenda" that Wikipedians you think might be gay and don't like must be following. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This attempt to justify YRC's homophobic remarks reflects poorly on those contributing to it. "Queer" is one thing, but the term "queer agenda" is usually used by those seeking to denigrate it, and in fact JN466 is wrong to say it's "in mainstream media ... use" -- in all of Google News archives, there are 68 hits, very few of them "positive" in any sense. In any event it's painfully obvious how YRC intended to use the term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The thing is, the best response to those carping about the "agenda" remark is to demonstrate that Fae actually pursues such an agenda. i.e. those who create and support the retention of articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars. Creating articles wit the specific intent of agenda-promoting needs to be called out. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tarc, your claim about me is a bad faith personal attack attempting to devalue my opinions in a consensus process (other admins here, please take note). As for "List of gay bathhouse regulars" that is way off-topic for this discussion about Youreallycan and a reply to Jayen466's wife sweeping aside this attempt at smearing my character is already on Jimbo's talk page. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is not a personal attacks to point out things you have done under prior user accounts, I'm afraid. There is no good-faith reason to support that article's existence, there fore we're left with the bad-faith reason. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An extraordinarily bad accusation here after the baiting of YRC which has been repeatedly done and is fully as objectionable - and the use of "homophobe" as an "attack word" is getting too dang commonplace on Wikipedia. Time to retire the attacks and get down to actually editing the dang encyclopedia. I also note this was placed at UT:Jimbo to get the maximum effect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's not homophobic but opposes agenda-pushers, of all varieties, who persistently skew Wikipedia content off NPOV. However, sexuality and oppression of minorities are highly emotive and important topics, and there is no room in discussions for flippant use of ambiguous terms like "queer". Obvious personal attacks, like "fuck off", are almost never appropriate. (I can think of a couple of instances where such language was spot on, but this certainly wasn't one of them.) So, I think the block is appropriate for the obvious personal attack, but this was not a homophobic attack, that's a smoke screen frequently thrown up by gaming tendentious editors to undermine YRC's quite often legitimate concerns. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Fae is now forum-shopping...or foundation-member-shopping...this around as he is not getting the answers he wants here or at Talk:Jimbo. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You obviously believe there is such a thing as a "queer agenda", logically that means there is an "anti-queer agenda". Do you think some of the editors expressing rather inflammatory opinions here might subscribe to that second agenda? I thought this ANI thread was about Youreallycan. If you are making it all about me and pointlessly repeating old and tired allegations about me, could you please follow the guidelines and leave a note on my user talk page before having a personal crack at me here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I understand you're not addressing me but, if I may, It's highly likely there are bigots of all flavours on this site. Given his obvious capacity for empathy, demonstrated by his frequently-expressed (and acted-upon) concern for human rights and the feelings of other editors, our subjects and our readers, and the absence of any convincing evidence that he is homophobic, I can't condone lumping YRC into that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking over the evidence of YRC's past behavior under his two accounts, I think we're seeing two issues here. First, blatant incivility yesterday, which he quickly redacted at my request. Tim's block was valid at the time, since there was no commitment from YRC to avoid such personal attacks in the future, but I note that YRC has now apologized for his outburst and stated that "I will keep a tighter lid on my emotions and can accept a heightened level of civility restriction for the rest of the original block length, a one strike and blocked def con level". At this point, I think an unblock should be on the table, as long as YRC understands that civility is required, not something one does for a week as a sort of probation.

  The second issue is that homosexuality is clearly a reactive issue for him. It matters little whether this is because he's homophobic, because he dislikes (what he perceives as) POV pushers, or because a witch once turned him into a newt (he got better!) - no matter what the cause, his presence in LGBT-relates areas of the 'pedia ends up being disruptive because of his reactiveness to the topic. I would support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors in any way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think he's any more reactive in this topic than others. I've seen YRC in action on several different topic areas where he perceives tendentious editing, and he is prone to emotional responses in all of them. I'd like to see a commitment from him to reign in his thymos on all areas of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Numerous such commitments have been offered in the past. Offering them appears to be easy; sticking to them not so much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, what Anthony says is my impression too. I don't think he's more reactive in this topic than others. --JN466 22:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hm. If that's the case, this is a more difficult matter. We can topic-ban someone from an issue that pushes their buttons in the wrong way, but if any and every issue pushes or could push their buttons, little other than a draconian civility parole or an indef block seems likely to remedy the matter if the person can't control themselves. And civility paroles, well, they never seem to work. It's possible we could offer some sort of "official last chance" to YRC, with the warning that the next time he flies off the handle, he'll have exhausted his chances and be indeffed, but...none of these options really feel entirely comfortable to me, and I'm open to other ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've not looked closely (nor will I for a while) but it does look like a good block. Given the relatively long history of similar issues, I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unlike the editor who provoked him into making this outburst, Youreallycan actually contributes something of value to this project on a daily basis, rather than schoolboy humour. --JN466 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to block talk page access for Youreallycan

Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is manipulating discussion of their repeated unblock requests by deleting all negative comments and leaving in anything that appears positive, even where comments were in response to each other. This is in contravention of Refactoring talk pages as it gives a deliberately misleading impression of the opinions of others. This is making it difficult for any independent administrator to assess or discuss a possible unblock. I propose that the block is extended to a user talk page block and Youreallycan can email the blocking admin if they wish to have further unblock requests created on their behalf. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of those messages are nothing but gravedancing and, by the by, I assume any admin worth his salt knows how to use the history tab. And you should really stop agitating against other editors. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Salvio, do you perceive support/consensus in this ANI thread for your proposal to unblock YRC? You don't appear to have support from the blocking admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This ANI thread, honestly, is nothing but a disjointed train wreck. There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself. The few who do emphasise that Youreallycan had struck his attacks as soon as he was asked to and before this thread was started, has apologised, has admitted he acted inappropriately and has promised he'll avoid such behaviour in future. Admins are allowed to use their best judgement, that's why we were made admins by the community. And my best judgement tells me this block doesn't serve any purpose any longer except to punish Youreallycan. And, therefore, should be lifted. And I don't have to have the support of the blocking admin to reverse his block; it's considered courteous to contact a blocking admin before reversing his actions, but that has never been a requirement. Especially when one is evaluating an unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Update. I have just unblocked Youreallycan. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (ec)I might agree, if this weren't part of a pattern. YRC/OTRR has a history of getting emotionally invested in editing disputes and reacting poorly. If it's not personal attacks it's edit warring. He's made promises before, as noted in his block log. They don't seem to stick. A truly bad unblock. AniMate 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Indeed -- a total of 15 blocks, including 3 on the new account, roughly one a month. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. --JN466 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a sad day for our community when a long term disruptive editor makes a blatant homophobic attack and gets unblocked after only a few hours, while wikilawyers quibble over whether demeaning other editors by telling them to fuck off with their "queer agenda" might not be quite blatantly homophobic enough. Poor show, bad unblock. I'm disgusted at how ineffective ANI is as a means to deal with harassment in these cases. --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that YRC has been unblocked doesn't mean this thread can't continue to discuss the issue of if he needs any sort of further topic ban or blocking regarding his behavior in LGBT issues. I would encourage everyone to move ahead with discussing that matter, especially since now YRC is able to participate directly in that conversation on his own behalf. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointingly, the rationale for the unblock seems to be that the comment "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" was in no way homophobic, so apologising for the swearing and refusing to apologise for the homophobia is good enough. Maybe we should preach what we practice and take "homophobic" out of the text of WP:NPA#WHATIS. FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio could you please explain the meaning of your wink and bum related joke immediately after your unblock for Youreallycan?[52] In the context of homophobic allegations it seems to deliberately make light of these serious issues and not what I would expect of an unblocking admin who has taken time to consider the nature of the serious allegations, the disruption this has caused or how LGBT Wikimedians will judge your comment as trivializing such attacks as a joke. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of everything I have read in this debacle; this is the most disturbing and worrying thing. Fæ, when you start to see homophobia in such small detail then it starts to become disruptive. When you shop in multiple fora for a response it begins to get worring. It's bad enough that the word "queer" is now being bandied as a heinous crime, and multiple editors are being accused (even if subtly) of homophobia. I have a growing concern here that there really is some sort of agenda here - exactly what, and from whom, is eluding me at the present moment but something odd is emerging. In the light of day this comment was unfair of me, and rude, sorry Fæ. In mitigation it was 1am :) --Errant ^(chat!) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you realise how offensive and paranoid this question is? I'm employing a commonly used colloquial expression to tell Youreallycan that I hope my actions will not boomerang on me and that I hope he'll not let me down. Have I become an homophobe too, now? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In the recently-closed and aptly-named Civility Enforcement case (which you yourself clerked), arbcom held that in a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. Since you nowhere discussed this unblock with me, care to explain how there is a clear consensus to unblock or that this is an emergency? T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have explained my actions earlier. It is only courteous to discuss with the blocking admin before reversing his actions; it has never been a requirement and that statement by ArbCom does not make it one. In this thread, there is no consensus that Youreallycan should remain blocked and various admins have stated that they would consider an unblock, if Youreallycan promised to refrain from making personal attacks. Since he did and since the block was no longer preventative, I unblocked. I consider my actions fully justified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I am glad you are so comfortable Salvio. Are there any more bum jokes and winks for Youreallycan you would like to add at this point, so all LGBT Wikimedians reading this are completely clear how sensitively these sorts of homophobic attacks will be treated by administrators in the future? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Fae I think you're over reacting to the wink and bum joke, although the real joke might be Salvio saying this is a risk to himself. What's the worst that could happen? Is he going to be desysopped over an unblock some disagree with? Will he be taken before Arbcom? Will he himself be blocked? The answer to all of those is of course no, so the risk to Salvio seems minimal, while the risk of more unpleasantness being dealt with by those he edits with seems much more realistic. Perhaps instead of focusing on the unblock, we should attempt to craft some community sanction to keep YRC from this disruptive behavior. AniMate 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fæ, let's not turn this into something that it isn't. Salvio's meaning with the "bum joke" was perfectly plain and in no way homophobic. This is how to react to a bum joke: by first assuming the person making it meant no offense. Let's not toss AGF out of the window here. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) AniMate, Those are not the only risks I worry about. I have taken a chance and if it turns out I was wrong, that would of course reflect on me too. That's the risk I was referring to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • By all means try and get something a bit more meaningful out of this. At the moment I see only reasons to be disgusted at how homophobic abuse is repeatedly "tolerated" while anyone who might be accused of having a "queer agenda" appears to be a target of malicious harassment and canvassing on and off-wiki. I'm travelling, so it's a good time for me to take a break from looking at the issue of blatant patterns of homophobia on Wikipedia that should have been left behind in the 1970s, and focus on less disheartening matters. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Fae, for what it's worth, I agree with you completely. Salvio, this is a bad time for bad jokes: unblocking a blocked editor is already a delicate matter, and unblocking someone who got blocked for anti-gay remarks with a bum joke: I expected better from you. To the rest of you: what? It's obvious that a joke was being made here, wink and all, and if you don't see how it is a bad joke, then maybe empathy workshop, required by HR, might not be a crazy idea. Fo shizzle. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't want to add on but I disagree very much with what has happened here. Much as I agree this was a user reacting out of anger, how in the world is this [53] not a blockable offense? The comments were in no means relevant to the AfD in question (baited by another user or not) and are offensive to other users (LGBT or not) as evidenced by this thread. I would argue that the block is preventative over its duration in a user with the block history described above. I think an unblock was a very bad idea and sets a poor precedent that vitriol with accusatory overtones is acceptable on this project when an editor is baited or if they promise not to do it again after the fact. It is not, regardless of circumstance. -- Samir 23:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is beyond credibility that you are persisting in this discussion about the term "queer". We all know TODAY, right here and now, what that word means. It's homophobic in this context. Also I take into account the proof given of the editor's horrific incivility in general. Something must be done. You cannot continue to strain to give that editor's ugly words any kind of innocent construction.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The workings of Wikipedia "civility enforcement" seem most mysterious to me. One editor calls some people "control freaks"^[54] or says "u r dumb"^[55] and gets banned for life, another drops the F-bomb in the process of telling a fellow editor to get lost from the project and after a few hours all is forgiven. It all seems very peculiar. I think that it is time for people to seriously consider repealing or at least reducing the scope and penalties for WP:CIVILITY violations, because the policy won't and can't be enforced in any coherent way. Wnt (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Since Salvio thought it most essential to unblock while ignoring an ongoing discussion, what do people think about topic banning YRC from LGBT related material for 3 months? AniMate 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for an indefinite topic ban on all LGBT-related articles and pages, very broadly construed, and a ban on mentioning anything even slightly LGBT-related anywhere in the project, with an non-negotiable indefinite community ban for any violation. Three months is too short, considering his history. He has insurmountable problems in this area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think a topic ban can only help here, even if it doesn't fix everything. As I said up above, I'd support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors or article subjects in any way. I'd prefer an indef duration rather than a three-month one, since time isn't a reliable fixer of, well, much of anything behavioral, but I can support 3 months as a minimum. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would be fine with the unblock, if the community is able to implement an interaction ban on Youreallycan/Off2riorob from interacting with me, anywhere on WP, for any reason. The attack of myself, was absolutely below the pale, and I do not accept (along with the majority of uninvolved, level-headed and open-minded editors) Youreallycan's statement that it was not a personal attack. With an interaction ban on myself, at least I will be protected from such degrading, personal attacks in the future, and particularly because Youreallycan often engages in outright harassment of editors. (He's been warned against harassment of myself some months ago as Off2riorob). I also support an indefinite topic ban as per Dominus Vobisdu. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Context: I have had no recent interactions, and never any prolonged open discord, with Youreallycan/Off2riorob. As I recall, we interacted a few times, usually disagreeing, several years ago. I really hate saying this about a fellow Wikipedian who clearly is capable of contributing constructively, but Off2riorob's repeated incivility when discussing LGBT-related topics and relating to editors he perceives as having an "agenda" has created a toxic atmosphere in various parts of the project. When I encounter his username on a talk page, I generally just close the tab and go elsewhere even if I have something worth adding to the discussion because reading his combative, sometimes blatantly offensive remarks is just too stressful. Adding to that stress is the knowledge that no matter how many times the pattern repeats itself, Off2riorob walks away scot-free—sometimes with a slap on the wrist, not infrequently with heartfelt kudos, but the point is: he walks away, free to do it again. I believe in second chances, sometimes even third or fourth, but not an infinite number. How many times must this behavior come to ANI before it's taken seriously? A topic ban per Dominus Vobisdu's suggestion is entirely warranted. Failing that, a final warning—with teeth in it—is the only other acceptable outcome of this thread. Anything less would make a mockery of WP:CIVIL in general and send a clear message that Wikipedia tolerates a hostile editing environment when it comes to LGBT-related civility specifically. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see claims of homophobic behavior, but the only instance I see reported is the outburst concerning "Was it your queer agenda?". The claims that "queer agenda" is a homophobic attack are nonsense: click the news, books, and scholar links in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I have no idea whether YRC's claim (that someone has an agenda to unduly promote LGBT issues) has any basis, and of course the redacted remark breaches CIVIL. However, it is not evidence that a topic ban is warranted. If evidence exists, please present a summary before making a proposal about a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  Accusing people of having a gay agenda for being supportive of gay people and issues can certainly be homophobic, depending on circumstances and irrespective of the words used to say it. It accuses a person based on assumptions about their group identity. There's a crowd of bigots out there who are convinced that society is falling apart, losing its moral fiber, children are in danger, the suffering majority is afraid, etc., due to the concerted efforts of gays (or Jews, blacks, women, foreigners, whatever) with an agenda to control things. Like I said, it depends on context, but seeing those words used in anger is a red flag. Even if said without anti-gay malice, that kind of talk is at best divisive and unconstructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  While various attempts to reclaim "queer" from the epithet gutter have met with considerable success, the word tossed around casually and carelessly is still deeply offensive to many. (See 1 2 3 4.) In conjunction with the word "agenda", it's not even so much the word itself as the phrase and its connotations (see Homosexual agenda). In any event, this instance was part of a larger pattern. I don't log these kinds of things (in fact, I try to forget about them if at all possible) and I lack the patience to spend hours meticulously combing through thousands of user contribs only to find this thread has been prematurely closed in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  John, I suggest you look at the discussion on my talk page with AGK, where I have chewed his arse out because of the Arbcom doing nothing about acting upon what many editors saw as homophobic harassment of Fae at the RFC/U. Given that these statements were made within a short time after this on my talk page, one can safely assume that my "queer agenda" is protecting other editors from what many deemed to be homophobic harassment. It is disgusting behaviour from Youreallycan, and he needs to be removed from this entire area. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- in part on the basis of clicking on the links offered by Johnuniq, which demonstrate the opposite of that editor's claims (the scholar links are irrelevant in this context as YRC has almost certainly not consulted scholarly sources). The main point is that this sort of kerfuffle with YRC recurs on a regular basis -- there has been ample evidence in this and previous threads that a topic ban is warranted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support a well demonstrated history of disruptive editing and aggressive behaviour to other editors shows that an indefinite topic ban on LGBT related topics is required, this includes an interaction ban for any contributor that Youreallycan / Off2riorob has made "queer agenda" or similar anti-gay and unprovable claims about. Claiming a Wikipedian has a gay agenda is the declaration of a witch-hunt - such a claim can be made about any of us who have ever edited gay related articles and is a malicious act to foster a hostile environment to ensure that LGBT editors leave the project or cease improving these topics for fear of outing and malicious harassment. Sadly, there is an established pattern that such branding of editors is an open invitation for stalkers to canvass against Wikipedians using off-wiki badsites to sadistically out, harass and bully such an editor; Youreallycan is fully aware of the damaging consequences of his actions. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: BLP and policy enforcement ban

Youreallycan has, unfortunately, a long-running behavioral issue. I previously discussed this in some detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan#Behavioral, not topic-based, problem. I recommend that readers of this thread should take a look. As I said on that occasion, I don't think a ban on a particular topic is going to be effective. We have seen this problem arising with a number of topics - this time it's LGBT, previously it's been British Jews, tomorrow it will be something else. Banning him from LGBT topics will do nothing to address the underlying problem.

The constant thread connecting all of these issues is that YRC has set himself up as a policy enforcer. The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan centred on his disruptive editing of a BLP under the aegis of "enforcing" BLP. A later discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob) involved his "enforcement" actions on articles related to Rick Santorum. On this occasion he has got himself into trouble over his comments in relation to an attempt to "enforce" NPOV via an AfD discussion. An LGBT topic ban would miss the point: it is not specifically the topic that is the problem, it's the pattern of behaviour related to his cack-handed attempts to enforce policy.

His contributions show that he focuses primarily on BLP and policy enforcement, areas which are notoriously prone to interpersonal conflict between editors. The bottom line is that his judgement and approach are both too flawed for him to be effective in this self-appointed role. There are many other editors who can and do manage to do this effectively. He is not one of them. For his own good as much as anyone else's, I think it would be appropriate to make him go and do something else - write new articles, contribute to DYK, help to rescue articles, whatever, but not participate in areas that are likely to lead to conflict. He should not participate further in noticeboard discussions concerning policy enforcement (including on AN, AN/I, BLPN, AfD etc) but should focus on building the encyclopedia.

I therefore propose that Youreallycan should be prohibited from (i) editing biographies of living people broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to the enforcement of Wikipedia policies anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. The Arbitration Committee should be authorised to review this prohibition after a year, taking regard of his contributions to article space during this period. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support changing of account name may have given the impression that Youreallycan intended to leave the massive long term disruption he caused to the project behind and turn over a new leaf. Unfortunately not so, anyone concerned about his recent actions which have turned Wikipedia into a battleground, should review the long history of complaints on ANI about his edits as Off2riorob (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not a playpen for Jew baiting and gay bashing; it is a pity that Arbcom and Oversight are so short of time that they seem unable to be of much practical help with these problems and some of their members appear more interested in spending their time writing replies and even creating discussions with banned users on badsites, rather than resolving their personal concerns on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As the other case of harassment against myself occurred on Boris Berezovsky article, in which I was using scholarly sources, Off2riorob took to stalking, accusing me of sockpuppetry, and generally harassing me. For context, there was an editor on the article who declared they had a close relationship with Berezovsky, and they were actively whitewashing the article in the lead up to a major court case in the UK between Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich. Here is the warning to him (in which he noted WP:DIGWUREN) and here is the trolling and harassment on my talk page. He tends to WP:OWN BLP pages, and thinks of himself as judge, jury and executioner on subjects he knows nothing about, thereby stopping knowledgeable editors who are mindful to NPOV and the like from editing articles. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. YRC/O2RR may have done some things wrong related to BLP articles (and he has certainly been too belligerent in support of his own position at times), but he has also done an awful lot of very good BLP work, and a complete BLP ban would be overkill. If there is to be any action or sanction, make it related to civility and NPA, not to the very important BLP work area. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User causing me stress

I need some administrative help. This user Strange Passerby (talk · contribs) is persistently following me around. It looks like he's harassing me and it's certainly causing me stress. Like most editors, I do make mistakes and I'm not a robot, but I'm human. Regardless of any minor mistake i've made, he's rubbing it in every chance to bother me around such as [56], where he is challenging my competency to edit Wikipedia and [57], where he/she challenged my nominations and enthusiasm at WP:ITN. Because of this, I did do the mistake of replying with uncivil comments such as [58], and [59], because I felt that he's simply pestering me and trying to challenge whatever I've done. I appreciate that he is a valuable contributor, but he's been leaving messages on other people's walls about my competency to edit. I've asked him to leave me alone, yet he's choosing not to listen. Can someone please warn him/her to stop stalking my contributions and leave me alone? Thanks, Ab hijay  ☎ 01:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Bit pointy from Abhijay if you ask me, considering he's under an interaction ban with one other editor. I have no further remarks to make, for I don't believe I've done anything wrong. I'd invite Floquenbeam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to mediate if necessary, as he's dealt with Abhijay before, but I see this as mere point-scoring by Abhijay and an attempt to evade scrutiny from others. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't assume things the way you think them to be Strange passerby. Similarly, there's no 'scrutiny' involved - All I ask is that you just leave me alone, and let me carry on with my own business on Wikipedia. I have got to wonder why someone such as yourself is so behind my back. It's stressing me out right now. As much as I appreciate your constructive help, Challenging the competency of others isn't such a great idea. I may have not edited wikipedia for some time after Creating my account in 2007, but as I would like to point out, one of the things we get trouble with is that there are too many policies on Wikipedia and some editors just get too overwhelmed upon knowing that there is a whole big tank of policies that the project operates under. In this case, it was right of you to note my initial follies on WP:ITN/C, but I feel it is wrong into starting a thread on the talk page of WP:ITN/C as talking about someone who makes minor errors (such as nominating things for WP:ITN/C which doesn't follow the guidelines) tends to stress out an editor and he/she may be obliged to drive away. I don't mean to start of again, but please mind your own business. I had the same sticking-your-nose-into-other-people's-business attitude once, but I realize that attitude is just wrong. I would like to start off working with you on WP:ITN/C candidates, but I feel that it is just plain wrong for another editor to find about the follies of another person, and use it against me without me even noticing. The End. Ab hijay  ☎ 11:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've had previous interaction with Abhijay, including blocking him (and his nemesis) in the past, and SP asked me to comment, for what that's worth.

  The boundary between harrassing a user and checking an editor's edits if they have been previously problematic can be a grey one, but I don't see it as out of line here. I've had to revert some of Abhijay's edits myself in the past, and when I have a few free minutes, I do ocasionally check his contributions to make sure nothing needs fixing (for example, placing indef-blocked notices on talk pages of users who aren't, in fact, indef blocked). I would certainly disagree I'm stalking or pestering or harrassing. There's a guideline or essay or something somewhere about this; it's not harrassment to watch the edits of an editor who has had problems in the past to make sure they don't recur.

  While I haven't checked all the interactions between SP and Abhijay, I don't see any diffs presented above of SP doing anything that could be called harrassment. If there's more to it than this, the diffs should be presented. For example, I'm a little puzzled about Abhijay's autoconfirmed status myself. I don't know anything about the ITN discussion, but editors are not immune from people asking if they're causing problems.

  You can't keep finding new people who have to leave you alone. I think if an editor has a relatively large number of problems, they cannot expect their contributions not to be checked. I'd ask Abhijay to consider his own conflict-to-productivity ratio, and consider that the problem is not that other people are keeping an eye on him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I guess I just blew my head off with this. I guess I misunderstood the situation. It turns out that SP was actually helping me do the right thing, not go against you. But still, I would like him to stop accusing me of being too incompetent to edit Wikipedia. Ab hijay  ☎ 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Clarifying Floquenbeam's question regarding autoconfirmed as I added the privilege. Have had no interaction with User:Abhijay in the past. Added the right when reviewing WP:PERM after seeing he had it before. Another user reviewed in the interim that it took me to do that (took me several hours as I was editing at work. I am a gastroenterologist and was editing between emergency procedures at the hospital) and did not approve. I didn't see that until after, added the right in the meantime. SP and Kingpin13 came to clarify, both rightfully so in my opinion given the above. I would not view this event as wikistalking. If a discussion is to be held regarding whether Abhijay should have this right, please feel free to do so. If another admin thinks otherwise, I am happy to have this decision reverted. -- Samir 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment

Could an administrator please review this edit, and this response, and advise as to what can be done here? It started as a personal attack and trolling, which I removed as inappropriate for an article talk page (or anywhere on Wikipedia, for that matter), but now the editor is tendentiously warring to keep his attacks on the article talk page as well. Help would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not harassing you. I do not know you. A user, User:The_Gnome suggested [60] you were doing article ownership and I responded that I agreed, which I do, and have since requested a discussion of the matter on the article's talk page as is appropriate per Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor_ownership. That is not harassment by any stretch. Warmtoast (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per the Wikipedia policy cited by you, "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor" -- you did just the opposite. Also per the policy cited by you, "it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor" -- you have not done this, and have instead said, "So rather than discuss it I await mediation." Mediation doesn't come looking for you, Warmtoast, you must request it. I am removing your highly inappropriate post from the article talk page.

(Administrators can consider this matter closed, unless Warmtoast resumes his repeated posting of harassment on article talk pages.) Xenophrenic (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: He's still edit warring to keep his uncivil comments about editors on an article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) figured in the departure of Blnguyen/YellowMonkey in late 2010. Since then, his persistent attempts to skew Wikipedia's coverage of South Asian history in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories has repeatedly sapped the time and morale of knowledgeable and/or expert contributors. As seen in the latest episode (and again in a previous iteration), YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial. Time and again in YK's career, this problematic editing programme is backed with non-pertinent and non-specialist sources in intense bursts of repeat reverts and talk-page spamming of questionable sources. He backs off for a time before returning, often to the same article and the same issue. This sporadicity has perhaps allowed him to dodge the blocks and other injunctions that befall other disruptively tendentious or revisionist editors not savvy enough to strategically time or space their spurious content challenges.

Nevertheless, the damage is done: again and again, as exemplified most recently at Talk:India#Aryan_Invasion_theory_oops_read_migration, experienced editors must tediously refute each of YK's formulaic challenges: fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic rewrites and removals backed by marginal or non-specialist sources. This would perhaps be OK if the editor in question were newer or less familiar with core content policies, but the episodic recidivism of YK is a different matter: a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite but otherwise of duration not less than six months, renewable upon occurrence of further disruption, would be a solution that would save time and foster more policy-compliant content contribution on both sides. Saravask 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have been watching this latest sequence and did on a couple of occasions try to explain to those who were getting drawn in by YK's fringe theories, but my experience of YK's methodology, which Saravask explains well, goes back for quite some while. Nothing is changing, nothing is being learned and the time-sink aspect is phenomenal. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This gives an idea of just how many times Yogesh Khandke's POV-pushing/undue weight theories etc have been referred to this noticeboard. There are plenty of other instances that did not make it thus far and he was, of course, involved in the politically-oriented protest at the India Wikiconference last year when he tried to obtain a legal resolution to an issue relating to WP's depiction of maps of India. He disappeared when that failed and has only recently returned to editing. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources never say that they are 'fringe' theories by 'cranks'. These are assertions from editors on Wikipedia. I am little puzzled how Sitush is silent on this facet, even if that goes against his vote.

Also Sitush and other editors are well experienced to let know if content disputes can be taken to ANI or not. My understanding says that content dispute has to be dealt with first before concluding that these are 'fringe theories'. Considering your expertise on sources, could you present sources please that state clearly that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories'. Unless it is proven that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories', such assumptions can be made against views presented by YK.

I don't think that much of what User:Saravask states such as "in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories" etc holds unless any content disputes, if any, are resolved.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Saravask describes it well. I've seen editors spending huge amounts of time trying to explain to Yogesh Khandke how we use reliable sources, how we evaluate sources, how we can't add improperly sourced fringe ideas, can't add nationalist POV, etc, but it's just not getting through and a lot of time is being wasted repeatedly going over the same kinds of things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that there are no sources presented by the involved admin himself that state the sources presented by YK are exclusively fringe theories. Per me, this is in contradiction to his statement above about his own idea of reliable sources and loses much weight especially in absence of any discussion as such on 'fringe throries' which could not be discussed on this noticeboard.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the original content disputes and this discussion of YK's behaviour. Saravask has provided links showing evidence of YK's behaviour, and the sources/fringe/POV issues are covered at those links. In order to evaluate YK's behaviour and Saravask's recommendation, I do not need to restart the content arguments here and now or provide any content sources of my own (as the sources used were presented and discussed at the time), I simply need to evaluate the evidence of YK's behaviour in those content discussions. (And by the way, I really don't think your badgering everyone who supports this recommendation is doing you any favours, you know). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - My understanding here is that the views per YogeshKhandke are not 'Hindu nationalist theories' or 'fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic' etc. I can say this by words present in the discussion itself such as 'contemporary scholarly debates', 'some Indian scholars', 'Some historians and Indian nationalists', 'The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists', etc. Words like scholarly debates, Indian scholars, Some historians, archaeologists etc. can hardly be described as 'fringe' groups etc - I think all the participants here in this debate need to understand this well. In any case, this is about history long ago which no one can directly prove much at all directly with certainty; much less if there is indeed a debate on such topic ongoing - more so hotly debated topics such as this. Also, western sources per my understanding do not represent exhaustive views, and quoting someone of higher repute is considered sufficient for substance, without actually going into details of all sides. For me therefore this does not merit such action, especially when sources can have diverse views and are not bound to present all views (- this needs to be better discussed per me). As far as other edits are concerned, undoing an edit is no big deal especially compared to edits put in especially with sources mentioned. I would also suggest people here, learned and experienced too, to avoid name calling on personal perceptions. An example would be 'crank' which is per individual editor's (here Fowler) choice of words to describe what he calls nationalist historians/archeologists. While being experienced and reputed on Wikipedia, this wouldn't affect the seniormost editors but it would definitely affect any not-so-senior ones in case views from one side is made to look worthless, leading to bans etc. If senior editors do it, others will learn to repeat the same behavior. I am reminded of one instance when I was involved in an ugly exchange with some senior editor who suggested something like I have sympathy for 'saffron terror' or 'saffron terrorism' or whatever, while reopening a closed vote in my absence; and got away without even a warning and that lead to a ban on me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Where were you banned or even blocked? I don't see anything in your block log. Would you mind supplying a diff? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• JanetteDoe, Thisthat2011 was topic banned per this. It has expired now. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I didn't see that. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about this topic ban [| link], the one mentioned by Sitush is incorrect. It is where I was accused one the lines of saffron terror as a reason reopening a vote which I think is not a correct way to reopen a closed vote. No one corrected either the editor not the reopening of voting.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban link to which you refer appears to be the same ban to which I referred. Am I mistaken? The fact that you more or less sat out that ban and then returned to similar topic areas and, in a fairly short space of time, end up here ... well, it does not look great. I would not have raised the issue if you had not volunteered it. My suggestion would be that in future you do not refer back to that topic ban: it had consensus and it is over and done with. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check again, these are two messages with same header for some reason! Also, my ban is over. Per instructions of the person who banned me, I am discussing this on talk pages, I have not indulged in any edit war which you may imply. I have presented my views on talk:India page too. If you have anything against it, please reply there because I have neither edited anything on that page currently, nor edited even if sources requested by me are not presented, even here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I dont see anything wrong being done by Yogesh, first you may argue that he had edited the article before discussing but that action alone would not merit a ban. He did not push aside the sources presented by other editors all he displayed was that there are other theories so the sentence needs to be changed. Editors like fowler are considering few historians a cranck case and thus not considering those historians work, now this is something that can be debated. Coming to the point of Yoges pushing few Indian nationalist theory; Yogesh did provide few other sources and none of them were Indians, if he is wrong you can discard the sources but not initiate a discussion to ban him.--sarvajna (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Its high time he is topic banned. His POV pushing is wasting everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what can be added here and what cannot. This is not the first time he is doing it. He knows well that the POV he pushes cannot get consensus through discussions, so his method is to first add unilaterally, then edit war without breaking 3RR. When thwarted he will try to argue it in the talk page. He usually doesnt get his way and comes back a few months later repeating the same point or similar points. He is a colossal drain on the community's time and resources.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Yogesh Khandke replies:(1)Some of those voting here Soda, Sitush, and admin Zebeedee, a long history of conflict with me regarding content, Sitush has been hounding me for many months but I have ignored him, not to create conflict. (2)ANI isn't the forum to bring content disputes so I will not justify my edits unless asked to do so. (3)Regarding gaming the system: I don't have computer access at work, so my editing is subject to the time I have leisure, that cannot be held against me. (3)Since it is year-end, (financial year), I have limited time, so that should be considered, I mean I will not be able to watch this page, I could know about this discussion only because I received an email alert because of the message left on my talk page. (4)This ANI is used as a tool in content disputes, which is unfair. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holocaust denial: Saravask writes: "YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial.", which is nothing but a lie, all I wanted in the article was the mention that the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is disputed for which I have presented evidence, I repeat my position which is that the India article which mentions the Aryan Migration theory should also mention that the theory is disputed by academics - historians, archaeologists, experts on genetics, cultural and language scholars, I am not disputing the mention of Aryan Migration in the article, my position is that this theory is diputed by numerous NON-FRINGE, RELIABLE SOURCES, for which I have presented evidence which I have collected on a sandbox and so the India article should take cognizance of the dispute as it is NOTABLE. (sorry about bringing up the content dispute but the fatuous reference to Holocaust denial needed to be scotched.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Fowler I should add his name in the list of content disputers and one who has been frequently abusive and uncivil, however since I don't believe in formal action against fellow editors I dropped the issue after he tendered an unconditional apology - twice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The language that Fowler uses: "Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars" ", "Indian cranks" in the latest discussion.[61], when administrator Regentspark was requested to reign in the abusive Fowler (for an abuse a short while before the edit presented by the diff), admin Regentspark excused himself as an involved editor,[62] here he has no qualms in rushing to support a topic ban, he was an opposite party made by me in the historic YellowMonkey case and was admonished for batting for YellowMonkey. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Khandke is cornered he has suddenly turned saintly and is accusing me of being abusive. He conveniently forgets his own transgressions. Long before I entered this latest fray, when user:AshLin asked for my input on the current state of knowledge on the Indo-Aryan migration theory, Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested. Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Perhaps someone else who knows Marathi could translate it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Marathi, but found the proverb here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure what to make of it, but YK has a history of using vernacular expressions (which I don't understand) in exchanges with me. See, for example, user:Sodabottle's post at the bottom of this ANI thread titled Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Fowler even before you entered the discussion YK had suggested that you would ardently oppose the inclusion of the other theory(that is what the proverb mean but indirectly) which proved to be right. Yes there are incidents were your language can be very objectionable for example [[63]] where you say that it is the last time that you would consider ppl bringing other sources, I guess if I had pursued it may be there would have a been a discussion about banning me as well, calling historians whom you don't consider worthy as crank case is also objectionable anyhow the discussion here is not about Fowler's language but about YK. I feel that this whole discussion is biased against YK--sarvajna (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is more likely to be the case that the comments here reflect an emerging consensus, but time will tell. However, even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully. For example, compare this new article by him with its current state. I am still trying to fix the gross slant that he put on the thing, using for now just the sources that he has identified. It is the usual subtle "all the fault of the Brits" stuff in which he seems to specialise. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that everyone is being vindictive of YK and everything that was edited by him is being dug out, this discussion was started after he had given some evidences of sources on the India talk page. Few admins/editors have declared that nothing would change as long as they are the administrators and I feel the point of banning YK has come up because he annoys few admins POV(This is what I think after seeing the talk page of India and few other AN/I involving YK, I also know that this would not matter a lot) --sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From Sitush "even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully", does this mean that opinion of User:Sitush is more likely that the editor YK is not indulging fringe theorists in this case? just for clarity. In that case, the entire discussion may be seen in another light - perhaps a content dispute, and not what this looks like.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You ask for clarity. If I could understand the rest of your message then perhaps I could provide it. Can anyone assist? Perhaps I am a bit more than my usual dumb self today. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that YK has failed to observe WP:SPEAKENGLISH with me more than has any other editor I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. His command of English is not that poor that the vernacular (Marathi) is his only option, that he can't provide a translation, when he knows perfectly well that I do not understand a word of the language. How come he is not using Marathi (with offhanded remarks about translation) in the frenetic edits he is making on the Charles Dickens page? How come there are no "frog in the well," or "wrestling with a pig" expressions there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban for one of the most bizarrely tendentious editors I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. user:Saravask has eloquently and precisely summarized what many of us have felt about YK's edits (most of which are on talk pages) ever since he first arrived on Wikipedia. People have cut him more slack than any definition of slack allows. It is time to end this; otherwise, productive editors will feel disheartened and be rendered unproductive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Fowler&fowler needs to rethink his stance on various issues he considers as fringe. His views are consistent that many theories are projected by 'by Indian jingoists', 'cranks', etc. Examples: [| 1], [| 2]. He is not ready to consider that there are debates on it ongoing even though sources mention so. About this comment from "The minority is too small and, in many cases, unrecognized as scholarly, to gain mention in the summary history section of a Wikipedia FA. None of the people you have quoted including Edwin Bryant or Laurie Patton are historians. As scholars of India none are even remotely in the same league as Colin P. Masica, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Burton Stein], Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Patrick Olivelle or Stanley Wolpert, all of whom have lent their support to the notion Aryan migration." I am not sure if this is the place to reply to this comment as discussion is also going on talk:India page in parallel. The sources themselves mention 'scholarly debates' etc.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Tendentious doesn't begin to describe this user, from the looks of things. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is hardly any discussion to support the assertion that the views presented by editor YK are 'fringe theories', etc. The discussion is still going on on talk:India page. If the user regentspark finds sources that say the theories are from 'cranks' & 'Hindu nationalists', please mention sources here or on talk:India. Such assertions from experienced users without sources, without going to reliable sources noticeboard, without concluding discussion on talk:India are hardly considered appropriate on a vote according to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as per all the reasoning above. Given Yogesh's lack of concern and non-constructive edits to the respective articles, he deserves a Topic ban. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about this user just adding one-sided comment here without being involved at all. Examples of his talk page are: [| 1], [| 2]. I would therefore have comments from this user ignored.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed the whole discussion is being conducted like "my way or the highway " as mentioned above by me few editors are hell bent to ban YK --sarvajna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, attack the editors taking part in the discussion - that's sure to get people on your side ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this right, people who haven't been involved with the dispute can't add their opinions; while those who have been involved with their dispute but are in support of a topic ban are "hell bent" on getting their way. Riiiight. If anything I think its the defence that is going overboard... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1st Boing! said Zebedee if you think you are being funny you are not 2nd. I did not say that people who are not involved should not add their opinion all I meant was "they should not form an opinion just on the basis of what it is being discussed here but rather check out the matter properly" (apologies if I was not clear) --sarvajna (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This part, started from the user User:Abhijay nowhere involved in this and apparently not too well versed with Wikipedia, is going nowhere. Look just two topics above this topic [| here on the same page], which perhaps has led to the other user User:Strange Passerby here. As an admin User:Boing! said Zebedee who is on one side of discussion here could have avoided passing comments on someone on the other side like this, when it is clear which side which editor belongs to.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment here had nothing to do with Abhijay so you'd do well not to assume. I've watched this from afar for a long time, having previously had pleasant interactions with Sitush and Boing. Wait, I suppose in your eyes that makes me involved. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about User:Abhijay, see where this is going? Editors on one side writing about editors on the other side and then more!!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. You're not making coherent sense. You suggested that I was "led here" because Abhijay posted about me to the board. I'm saying my taking part in this discussion has nothing to do with that. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected then. I suggested that perhaps you were checking on his edits and then saw this discussion and then added your opinion. In any case, it does not affect your view. Though still I am not sure how much weight is carried by the opinion of User:Abhijay. Perhaps your could clarify about it, even if his comment does not support your view.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys c'mon. Abhijay is a good faith, but new, editor. He has obviously not long found this board and has tried to comment and contribute. Any competent closing administrator will be able to see that train of events and weight his contribution accordingly. Piling on each other, based on his comment, is not going ot help either him - or you. In fact it's probably pretty off putting all round. Lets chalk this up and move on. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as I have seen the POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period—it will never end voluntarily. However, I am concerned that a topic ban from South Asian history would leave YK more free time to cherry pick negative commentary to inflate stuff like Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism—the central problem is not so much South Asian history as a misunderstanding of what is DUE. When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place, and an article highlighting alleged racism and anti-Semitism of Dickens completely misses the point, and should not be tolerated at a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The editor himself says that "When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place", but does mention the topic here, without commenting on whether the editor disputes any sources and how the sources 'inflate' stuff etc.. The topic in that era, 'inflate stuff', etc. do not matter in any case; and so would be the editor's perception of POV based on Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The central problem is that for any major topic like India or Charles Dickens there will be literally thousands of sources that could be argued to satisfy WP:RS (and similar sources might be adequate for unsurprising text in other topics). However, when a thousand sources have written about Dickens, it is inevitable that some of them will have chosen to interpret Dickens' writings as racist or whatever. It is not satisfactory for an editor to find such sources and create articles based on them (that is undue cherry picking, aka WP:SYNTH). For major topics like these, there are hundreds of high-quality scholarly sources written by acknowledged subject experts, and it those sources that should be used for a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that YK has stopped anyone from editing the page. If you think it is biased, then use the talk page of that article. Have you added any content or made any efforts at it to dispute sources etc. before claiming that he is cherry picking, even without any discussion.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is this discussion heading to? Some dispute that needs to be settled on the talk page is being brought up here in support of a topic ban --sarvajna (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to "POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period" and explaining that it is easy to cherry pick POV commentary from sources for major topics—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Really? You imply here that 36,031 bytes page size with 39 references used in it is a baised point of view? Forget the page size. I can stretch articles to huge lengths (just like Dicken's writings). But 39 valid independant references does not seem like something that can be ignored and not included in an article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Two points i want to say....
  1. As i see, most of the comments by editors here are complaints based on content dispute on various articles. I have observed a few threads here at ANI which keep on saying that content dispute should be addressed on a seperate forum assigned just for resolving those and ANI shall not be used to deal with it. So... if all the complaints are based on content dispute, this is a wrong place! Furthermore, I do not understand why the editors against YK's edits are actually against YK. Most of his edits which are called as "Undue" here actually are well referenced. 50:1 ratio will be called as undue. But i dont see such a huge ratio here. He clearly cites more than one references about various points he includes. I dont call it undue. All editors here should understand that Wikipedian editors should be neutral about the subject, but at the same time keep in mind that Wikipedia's aim is to be information bank which can be used for research. If contradictory views of reliable sources present on the topic are not mentioned in the article, i will call that as undue. Also, wikipedia articles are never complete. One must hence always assume good faith in other editors and not disregard the chance that something more of same sort might exist in other places which is yet not covered and brough to wikipedia. Building of articles might take long time and as wikipedians are not bound to do anything for wikipedia, it is unfair to assume that facts mentioned are Undue.
  Come on! Isnt it really good to have all views about a topic mentioned?
  2. As few ediotrs have pointed out above, other few editors who have not been involved in these topics should not vote here as Support or Oppose. I request them to change their views from Support or Oppose to "Comments". Although i do trust that admins who go through this would "read" carefully, i also trust in errors that humans can do. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 1) No, this is not itself a content dispute, it is about YK's chronic tendentious *behaviour* in content disputes and his repeated attempts to push his own POV against policy and against consensus. As a behavioural issue, this is a perfectly valid venue for it.
• 2) Anyone is allowed to support or oppose the suggestion as they please, even if they have not been involved in these topics. In fact, previously uninvolved people examining the presented evidence with fresh eyes can be of great benefit - if YK is innocent of the charges, surely that's what they'll decide when they review the evidence, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We live in an age when even the craziest assertions can be traced to someone who has already made them in a public forum. It doesn't make the assertion sourced, especially not to a reliable source. I have written most of the history section of the long-standing FA India. It is sourced to impeccable sources. I have tried to use textbooks on the history of India that are used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the best universities around the world and published by well-known academic publishers. The reason for this is that such textbooks have been vetted for balance. Many editors try to insert one-sided points of view into the India article, sourced to poor unreliable sources. They are usually dealt with on the article talk page. However, when an editor does this relentlessly, dozens, indeed scores of dozens, of times, it becomes a behavioral problem. When an editor does this with full knowledge of what he is doing, it becomes a behavioral problem. I don't appear at ANI that often. Perhaps one or twice a year. Let me state very definitively: Yogesh Khandke is likely the worst (and certainly one of the worst) of the tendentious editors I have had the sad privilege of encountering in my six years on Wikipedia. If editors here seem against him, he has only himself to blame. He has wasted an enormous amount of time of law-abiding, content creating, editors. It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

RevDel help

Can someone fix my deletion of this diff so that the text doesn't show up in the following revisions? My first use of RevDel and it appears I'm doing it wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you'll need to rev-del all the revisions between the time the text was added and the time you removed it. There's not a way to modify the intermediate revisions so that they don't include that text. 28bytes (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You'd need to remove the intervening diffs as well as they are independent versions of the page. (Although I'm not sure if that falls under RevDel, which we're supposed to use frugally, unless I am missing a connotation) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Argh. That's a pity (and somewhat odd: I'd always assumed pages were stored as diffs rather than as full-text, and so reconstructing a revision minus an offensive diff would elide it from the intervening ones). Seeing as there's productive history afterwards I've just deleted it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive user AuthorityTam, who thrives on dispute and antagonism

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [64], [65] and [66] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[67] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [68], [69], [70] and [71].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [72].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[73] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [74]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[75] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [76]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[77], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[78] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[79], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[80], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[81], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[82], and falsely attributing comments to me[83]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[84][85], after indicating something was only his opinion[86][87], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[88][89], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[90].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor abuse right to rollback

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

---

[91] This person removed my edit without explanation and no good reason. My edit was perfectly legitimate, because Burger King Whoppers redirects not to the burger which is widely known under the name whopper, but to a foreign basketball team. I asked him politely to explain his reversal (less than one minute after his removal!), but instead he rudely ignored me for more than 15 minutes. I checked his edits, and I see several times his use of the fast undo rollback tool is not in line with the policy of rollback at Wikipedia:Rollback feature. I ask that his access to the function be removed because of abuse, incompetence, and rudeness not to answer the legitimate questions. 70.53.152.51 (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not vandalism, which is what the tool is meant for. Having had a look at the contributions I agree that the user needs to be (at the very least) strongly reminded not to misuse rollback. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit that the edit is legit and I mistakenly used the rollback tool on this case due to the high volume of vandalism on PBA-related articles. As you can see on my edit history, an anon vandal edited the Philippine Basketball Association article and added hoax teams on them (1), at the same time that the edit on the Barako Bull Energy article was made (2). In this case, I admit my mistake here but the anon IP that reported this case here should look on ALL of my edits and rollbacks first before being escalated here. And for the claim that I "rudely" didn't reply to his question is out of order. I cannot be online in Wikipedia for all of the time. -WayKurat (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The anon has made a mountain out of a mole hill here. Mistakes when using rollback happen all the time. The first thing to have done is to go to the rollbacker's talk page and discuss the rollback, which I acknowledge they did do. The next thing to do is to be patient in awaiting a reply. Running to ANI after 15min is patently ridiculous. WayKurat has admitted their mistake and should keep in mind to be careful of their use of rollback in future and this report closed. Blackmane (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Amen, with a trout slap going to the reporting anon IP, who plainly needs to be told that Wikipedia is not like texting your friends, and that it's quite common for editors not to hang around their keyboards 24-7, poised to respond to you the moment you want them to do so. Ravenswing 15:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Request to Block 8.225.198.150

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

---

I've never done a block request before, so I apologize if I'm using the wrong format or forum. In any case, I just rolled back User:8.225.198.150 vandalism edits on the Muammar Gaddafi page, and I noticed this IP address (which is from a school) has a laundry list of notices for vandalism dating back to November 2010. The address was temporarily blocked twice in 2011. Can we permanently block it? Probably just kids screwing around (get off my lawn!), but if they legitimately want to edit, force them to log in. Thoughts?JoelWhy (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Already done According to me IP is already blocked by User:Zzuuzz uptil a period of August 2012. Dipankan says.. ^{("Be bold and edit!")} 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? How can you tell? I see it says that the IP address has been repeatedly blocked, and that anonymous editing may be blocked. But, I don't see where it says it's blocked until August.JoelWhy (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/8.225.198.150 (the "User Contributions" link from the user talk page) tells you, and has a link to the block log. But to answer your original question, IP addresses don't get permanent blocks. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks!JoelWhy (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Joel, look here; you'll see the blocks increase in length. Zzuuzz blocked until August; that's pretty long. A next block might be a year, but you'll rarely see IPs blocked for longer than that, and you'll usually only see such lengths if the IPs are static and if they belong to schools. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Next time, also report vandalism here: WP:AIV. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Backlog at AIV

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

---

Mrlittleirish 16:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but 2 IPs and 3 users, that's not much of a backlog. Anyway, Daniel Case took care of most of it already. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Wiki user:Fasttimes68 is vandalizing pages referencing celebrity model Stephanie Adams

This has been an ongoing issue with this user since 2006 and apparently Wikipedia removed her page per her representative's request and redirected it to the Playboy Centerfold list with her bio. Now this user has recently started trying to remove any information about her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fasttimes68) and seems to be overly obsessed with her. Regardless, the vandalism, obstruction of information and pure silliness should stop here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at old notes from past edits he made and saw that he was told by Wikipedia editors to STOP making edits about her, due to his personal conflict of interest, even though he doesn't know her. MikeHasIssues (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you closely related to the subject in question? It appears that Fasttimes68 has made many edits on similar topics to this particular bio, indicating more an interest in that particular field rather than vandalism/obsession. I'm not sure though, but since your account has been registered today and you already know your way around here, I think perhaps you know more than you purport to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you've been here since 20 minutes ago, and not 2006, could you perhaps link this account to your prior accounts so that we can know what your history is in this matter? This doesn't make Fasttimes68 right or wrong, but when you display precocious knowledge of Wikipedia with a brand-spanking new account, it raises eyebrows. Wikipedia allows multiple accounts, but it doesn't generally allow one to mask one's identity in doing so.--Jayron32 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've watched this one user as a non-user for 6 years and am not linked to any other name on here. Rambling Man also sounds familiar and there seems to be some sort of animosity towards this one particular Playboy model. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I "sound familiar"? Perhaps. I've been here with a single account (apart from my travel account) since May 2005. How about you? You waited 6 years to make this complaint? Really? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You've been on here since May 2005, but seem to edit on here often. You probably see clearly that this matter is an ongoing issue with user Fasttimes68 religiously editing this subject with ill intent. The subject of the article has a web site listed here and her web site has a (somewhat hidden) contact page. I wonder if she looks at Wikipedia. By the way, I noticed he once had a blog that was blanked on a page that called this subject a "c`^t". Just look up the pages where he was editing/arguing with other Wikipedia editors. Definitely conflict of interest here. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I edit often, mea culpa. So, are you prepared to admit that you are editing under a number of different accounts? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You sound like a lawyer, but then aqgain you'd probably be in court now. This is my only account. I edited a few times before creating an account, but this is my only one. Now, back to the issue. Your thoughts about this user? MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you certain that what you call vandalism is not more accurately described as "edits to a subject which you don't agree with"? Have you discussed it with the user in question? Or on the talk page? If so, what was the outcome? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

And can I suggest in the mean time that someone speedy closes/voids Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fasttimes68 as an inappropriate overreaction/forum shop. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Going for the Grand Slam of forum shopping. ANI, LTA, AIV, and now AE. Favonian (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gah... deleted the LTA page and reverted the AE request. One location (here) is enough, I think. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you commented prior to reading this user's edit history on the subject matter since 2006. I might sign off here soon and go to visit the subject's web sites. MikeHasIssues (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFISHING, I've opened an SPI on this. There has to be a master out there somewhere. Calabe1992 19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"MikeHasIssues", it would be easiest if you declared any kind of conflict of interest right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've watched this one user as a non-user for 6 years - sounds like WP:WIKISTALKING, doesn't it? And I smell a WP:BOOMERANG inbound. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have checked a sample of 40 edits by Fasttimes68, ranging from his/her first edit to his/her latest edit. The user's edits relating to Stephanie Adams are a small proportion of his/her total of 567 edits. On the other hand, it seems that 100% of edits by MikeHasIssues are about Stephanie Adams. So who is it who is "overly obsessed with her"? (Quoted from MikeHasIssues in his opening statment of this discussion.) Fasttimes68 has removed mentions of a subject which, by consensus in a community discussion, was decided to be non-notable. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. MikeHasIssues disagrees with the removal, and, instead of seeking to discuss the issue with Fasttimes68, has launched directly into a string of attempts to get Fasttimes68 prevented from doing so, including calling the edits he disagrees with "vandalism", and a substantial amount of forumshopping. There is a clear consensus in the above discussion that the problem here lies with MikeHasIssues. I will warn MikeHasIssues that further disruptive editing is likely to lead to a block. That seems to be all that needs to be done, unless the trouble continues, or unless the SPI produces a positive result. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Part two: the abusive editing

There are clearly two related, but separate, issues here. On the one hand we have a sockpuppeteer who appears to have some direct involvement with Stephanie Adams. That issue appears to be being dealt with at SPI. On the other hand, we have an editor (user:Fasttimes68) who has been on a multi-year campaign against Adams, on and off Wikipedia. It is discussed in more detail than anyone cares about here, and here and quite likely here. Several editors (including admins) warned the user to stay away from editing related to Adams, but they appear to have continued. Now that the sockpuppetry is out of the way, can we deal with the other issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I closed this discussion on the basis of a careful study of those questions which had been raised here. Delicious carbuncle is quite right to point out that there are other relevant issues, and other relevant discussions, so I am reverting my closure. It seems that MikeHasIssues may have legitimate concerns. If so, it is unfortunate that, instead of expressing those concerns in a constructive way, has been obstructive and combative, which led to attention focussing on his behaviour, rather than on the problems he was trying to call attention to. It looks to me as though there are, in fact, problems with both editors. Also, I realise that I used unsuitable wording above when I referred to removing mentions of a subject which, a community discussion had decided was non-notable was "a perfectly reasonable thing to do". The discussion had decided that the subject was not notable enough to have an entire article about it, not that it should not be mentioned at all. Removing mentions of someone of low notability is not entirely unreasonable, but "perfectly reasonable" was overstating the point, for which I apologise. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 and accusing others of being socks

I'm a self admitted reitiree. Having seen above the drama about Carlingford Lough, I re-registered to request an edit to here and then got carried away and decided to start this move request based on the silliness that was going on at the talk page. In that request, BJMullen said '"Not another bloody sock!" in reference to me apparently. I am not a sock, and resented this casual labelling of me as one as if it was a perfectly normal thing to do (who knows, perhaps the Troubles area has become such a cesspit this is perfectly normal). When I last editted though, calling others socks without doing anything else about it, was classed as an attempt to smear another editor without justification. Accordingly I struck it out and warned him about making such allegations, and advised him of the right way to do it if he wanted to pursue it, and to be fair BJMullen hasn't editted since, so I don't know if that was the end of it. What's pissing me off though is that Murry1975 decided to take up the cause and has been accusing me of being a sock ever since. I've informed him that he's wrong in policy and told him to file a report or stfu, and he's totally and utterly ignored me and just kept going and going, like a total asshole frankly (before anyone objects to this sort of language, just go and see how many final warnings I gave him, he has well and truly wound me up to be sure). Despite making it very very clear that I considered what he was doing was now entering the realm of deliberate aggravation, and having advised him to go and get an admin and back him up if he still disagreed with the striking (he had been removing it), he has just persisted in poking me, finally with this edit antagonise me. Now he's giving me more shit trying to pretend nobody is allowed to strike comments on talk pages, which is obviously false - I consider being called a sock without evidence and without any apparent willingess to file a report, as the sort of trolling and personal attack that WP:TPO allows to be removed (not that I even removed it, I struck it). I sincerely hope that admins agree at least on that score, otherwise I think we've probably found the answer to why nobody sticks around beyond their 10th edit anymore. The guy obviously knows nothing about the relevant policies, about what is and isn't a sock, or what is and is not the right way to deal with one, but that's not the issue per AGF etc, the issue is he persists even after he's been told of such things, to the point of deliberate aggravation. Neetandtidy (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where have I accused Neetandtidy of being a sock? I have said Neetandtidy should connect your accounts so that we know thier contribution history. Neetandtidy has used foul and abusive langauge, I have kept calm and requested they show their previous account, even suggesting to an admin not to the community, Neetandtidy has rejected these claiming bad faith, yet accused me of calling them a sock. I have stated that I have never called them a sock and asked to show me where I have, they have not done so, bad faith indeed.

Neetandtidy has striken part of a comment by BJmullan, I have unstriken it with the proposition that Neetandtidy ask Bjmullan to strike it. AS Neetandtidy struck it again using WP:TPO in the summary I qoute it to him.

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request "

They have not answered in good faith about thier previous account and have used abusive language and tried to intimidate me with threats. The account is new, admits to have a retired account yet refuses to be transparent. I understand if it is a privacy issue he would be protective of it and have no problems with the editor disclosing the relevant information to prove what the previous account was and the reasons for leaving it behind and the admin declaring it clean. Their actions and words do not seem to me of an editor who is transparent and acting in the best interests of the project. Murry1975 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Neetandtidy: You certainly share some Spotfixer characteristics, creating your userpage with a single sentence and jumping onto this noticeboard so quickly. Calabe1992 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If spotfixer means 'suspicious user', then for what must be the fifth time of saying it, I am not a new user, and never claimed to be. I even said it in the first sentence of this report. What I am not, is a sock. And whether Murry1975 realises it or not, this is what he is not so subtly accusing me of. And whether he likes it or not, TPO allows the removal of trolling or attacks, which is what I take unsubstantiated accusations of socking as. He's had all day to file a report on me, but as I pointed out to him, it would be rejected, as he hasn't got any grounds at all apart from ABF. Anyway, I'm beginning not to care at all, it seems this whole area is screwed up - the admins getting involved either don't know or don't care what's going on and just take snap decisions. Floquenbeam basically admitted it. And take a look at EdJohnston's page, you can hardly tell who is the admin and who is the guy under probation - he's actually just asked him if it's still in effect!?!? Was that not what was being argued about above or what? Who's in control here? Domer and BJMullen appear to have this area all sewn up, the admins seem to be dancing to their tune, and editors like Hackney who are to all intents and purposes no better or worse than them as far as being disruptive SPAs goes, are just given the finger as they're automatically tagged (like me now) as automatically presumed disruptors/socks/SPAs, whatever they say and whatever they do. I haven't even editted a fucking article yet. Hackney/Gravy started an Rfc on the talk page as is directed by policy in the face of edit warriors like Domer and BJMullen, and it's then filled with total bollocks and fillibustering, which of course has but one effect - to restart the POV edit warring again, meaning my request for a simple uncontentious edit to the Loch article has gone unanswered for 10 hours now due to a protection. 10 hours! All I've done since then is deal with this accusatory shit from Murry1975. No admin gives the tiniest of fucks about the actual content or long term problem users in this area. Not one. It's been totally abandoned to the mercy of whatever the likes of EdJonston or Floquenbeam can be bothered to pull out their asses when they feel like it and have a spare 1 minute to look at one diff maybe. When you see what Ed seems to thinks represents good faith collaborative consensus building on that talk page, your eyes bleed at the incomptence. It's a joke, there is no hope of any quality content, not in this topic area. Neetandtidy (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend not to file reports (only 1 done so far), believing that discussion should be placed first as a means of resolving any dispute. The fact that this began here would be another reason to just continue it in the original section rather than clogging up the boards. I am still waiting for the diif of me calling Neetandtidy a sock. All I read is foul langauge and blatant battlefield mentality. Murry1975 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime

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

---

We've got a blatantly POV title for this article and a bunch of self-appointed activists blocking all attempts at compromising on a neutral name. Most of them cite WP:COMMONNAME though common name specifically prohibits POV names even if they are common names. Discussion fails because they've got a POV to push and they're having none of it. I'd be happy to take unilateral action on the basis that the title is a high-profile article (this subject is currently in the news) with a blatant POV violation, but since there's a whole group disrupting the process, it's going to end up here anyway. My recommendation would be to redirect this article to the relevant manufacturing process - which has been on Wikipedia a lot longer than this article - and make a note of the controversy invented by ABC News. Rklawton (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that this was brought here after a discussion has been going for 5 hours on AN/I and on the article talk page also. I ask that this be closed for being an obvious case of using multiple venues. I'm really surprised an excellent admin. like Rklawton would be doing this, no matter how outraged he is at the title. Myself, I'm troubled, though not quite as outraged, but the place where I thought best to join the discussion is the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely canvassing. SÆdon^talk 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've explained here why the talk page isn't working - this requires admin attention - so I've posted here and WP:AN. This does not meet the definition of WP:CANVASSING. Closing this thread, however, was premature and highly inappropriate. Rklawton (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. See WP:FORUMSHOP. Let's leave this be now. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing...not sure what to do

There is a user, Arzel, who has a pattern of deleting sourced content over and over with weak arguments. Most of the deletes appear WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He has contributed very little content (maybe a comment or two), and that content poorly sourced (didn't bother to include a full reference description). A few editors have confronted him about the deletions, and discussed it at length, including myself, but without much result. He has been most disruptive on the hydraulic fracturing pages, but recently followed me to another page I was working on. Discussions of behavior can be found on Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing and Talk:Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States. The page he followed me to was Philadelphia Water Department. I had warned him a while back and just let him know that I was reporting him for disruptive editing, though I didn't use a tag. I thought he had calmed down last week, but he's back, and wasting everyone's time.Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor Smm201'0 seems to think that it is his/Her duty to destroy the Hydraulic Fracking industry by inserting every negative story or complaint about the industry into related articles. He/She then added unrelated fracking information into the Philadelphis Water Department article here. Is it sourced? Sure, does it have anything to do with the Philadelphis Water Departtment? No. The previous edit follows a clear WP:COAT model. The article is about the PWD, and there have been some water quality issues, he/she then adds in a bunch of information unrelated to the PWD talking about Hydraulic Fracking because of concerns regarding Fracking and ground water. Use of Wikipedia for environmental activism should not be tollerated. Arzel (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor also put most (maybe the whole thing) of this article into the Hydraulic fracking article and has yet to adress why the all of the anti-fracking information needs to be so many places. Arzel (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

MickMacNee is back

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

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

A new user registered yesterday, Neetandtidy (talk · contribs) and immediately has become involved in heated discussions at articles which has seen another editor (Gravyring (talk · contribs)) blocked. The user has already confirmed that they have previously edited here using a different account. On seeing that this new user was spelling my username incorrectly some alarm bells starting ringing and after a quick search I came across this edit of one of the very few people who has gotten my username wrong. I then had a look at this new users contribution today for other signs of MMN MO (policy and swearing) and it wasn't hard to come up with...

Mention of policy: TPO OSE

Swearing: [92] [93]

Of course I may be wrong but I would request that admin action is taken immediately to investigate this user. Question for all; do we really need a editor who is not only abusive to other users but has displayed a battlefield mentality from day one? Bjmullan (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. I suggest that you take it to WP:SPI so that a checkuser can have a look at it; there may be other sockpuppets lurking on that IP address. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now opened the case at SPI as requested. Bjmullan (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133

User:Suitcivil133 is becoming a problem, this user is a supposed fan of FC Barcelona and reverts anything that seems to shame that team. This user needs to lash out at other users to prove she is correct. She recently reverted 3 of the same pictures on 3 different articles because it was FC Barcelonas rivial, Real Madrids victory. MadridistaFG7 (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As per the big orange box, you're required to notify any user you report here. I have done so on your behalf (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all you are probably a former banned user because you are deleting the EXACT same correct information the former banned editors did (deleting sourced information even) and constantly trying to give a bad picture of FCB. You claim I cannot write any negative words about FCB which is far from the truth. It's less than 3 days ago that I deleted information that put RM in a bad light.

I am pretty convince that this MadridistaFG7 is either RealCowboys or Seaboy123 both banned from editing on Wikipedia. Could possibly be even the same editor behind the two users (the later was proven as a sock puppet)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RealCowboys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seaboy123

They deleted the exact same information as this current user who funnily enough also is a RM fan.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 10:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• MadridistaFG7 (talk · contribs) and RealCowboys (talk · contribs) are a  Confirmed match. I have just indeffed the former as a block-evading sock. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ANKMALI

The user is apparently a huge fan of Alka Yagnik, and that is why he keeps turning her page into a fansite of sorts. I had made a short cleanup on the page, and since then the user has been reverting the page to the same version - which goes in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:CITE (with some bombastic claims, really, which must be sourced). Their argument is that the info is true, and they keep doing that in spite of having been warned and despite seeing other users reverting them as well.

Another instance is the Screen Award for Best Female Playback article, where they change the winner of the 2002 award to, as expected, Alka Yagnik. I cited a reliable source (The Tribune) to prove them wrong, but they keep changing it to their own version, citing some very poor sources (clearly unreliable). I started a talk page discussion where the user, instead of trying to discuss the matter, just removed my message from the section (!).

I request that something be done as soon as possible - this is becoming insufferable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This User:Shshshsh is trying to repeatedly delete my hardwork done on page of Alka Yagnik. All info added by me was verifiable ! Further Screen Award for Best Female Playback was won by Alka Yagnik thrice whereas this user insisting on Asha Bhosle winning the award although 2 of the 3 available sources sight Alka Yagnik as winner of the award in 2002. Further the user is repeatedly threatening to block me though I've committed no offence !! It is user Shshshsh who should be blocked !!! ANKMALI (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC).