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

Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

The move review discussion for 30 seconds to mars,was recently closed by User:Jreferee as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - TP 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jreferee did respond;[1] PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee just replied with the following:

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.

What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, Jreferee, was upset with PantherLeapord because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--Earthh (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds..."[2], but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.[3]. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds".[4] MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds".[5] The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars".[6] Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it.[7] If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Wikipedia is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read WP:COMMONNAME).--Earthh (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the Prince (musician) issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Wikipedia is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". 30 Seconds to Mars has been the official name since 1998, only in 2013 Thirty Seconds to Mars became the official name. 30 Seconds to Mars should remain the title of the article since it has been the official name for almost the entire band's career and we should write that more recently the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars.--Earthh (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

I failed to follow-up after posting this in the move review:

• Pending explanation - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. --B2C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the closer, BDD (talk · contribs) did provide a full explanation:

• Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have.

I disagree with BDD's finding; I think absent a policy based argument favoring the move, it was at best "no consensus". Finding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favor for the move by finding a marginal majority of such a small self-selected sample through counting !votes is not a reasonable explanation. If I had followed up, I would not have endorsed (I wish someone would have notified me to follow up before closing the move review...). Overturn.

What's relevant here is that my input should not have been viewed as an endorse in the closing of the move review. --B2C 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous. There's a 2.5-to-1 majority against endorsing the original closure, and this smacks as the SECOND !supervote in this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You think closing "it" as no consensus is ridiculous? By "it" do you mean the original RM, or the RM review?

    You think "this" smacks as the SECOND !supervote in "this case"? What is the first "this" referring to? Does "this case" refer to the original RM, the RM review, or this ANI review of the RM review? --B2C 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake, if you're going to make this pointless/stupid of a comment, then don't bother commenting at all. As a ten year old could tell, the move review closure is what was closed as no consensus (the RM wasn't closed as no consensus), both closures have been !supervote's, and you're wasting people's time when you attempt to distract from people's comments like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In my comment I wrote that the original RM (BDD's finding) was "at best 'no consensus'". You replied to that saying you "think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous". There was no way to know you were referring to the no consensus result that actually occurred at the RM review, and not to the "at best" comment I made about the original RM. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. We agree the no consensus finding in the RM review is incorrect. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that during the requested move, the nominator had been canvassing, leaving a message on User:Noyes388 talk page to notify him of the requested move, which he supported (read this).--Earthh (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

• The information page Wikipedia:Closing discussions provides process regarding Requested moves and reviewing requested moves. Consensus was decided at the Requested Move proposal and that close was reviewed at Move Review. Some of the same editors in the move request or move review discussions wanting to continue their move positions or move request positions in this AN thread. However, the discussion close and review of that close process provides for closure so that the community can move on. In regards to the request of this AN thread - "Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus" - I was happy to provided it. In further details of that, I do appreciate the above feedback, but my reasoning reposted 04:40, 10 September 2013 above from here is still valid. I close the Move Review based on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I considered, but gave less weight, to arguments that merely posted a conclusory statement or did not focus on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly on arguments. B2C posted, "This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn." BDD provided that explanation on 28 August 2013, B2C did not reply, and the discussion was closed 9 September 2013, so I think reasonable to have seen B2C's position as fully endorse and give it the weight I did (more than SmokeyJoe, less than Cúchullain and BDD), within the confines of that discussion. B2C's position in the move review does not make or break the close any more than any one position does. In looking at the discussion as a whole, the collective move review endorse and overturn arguments - which both fell in the spectrum of weak to strong arguments - resulted in both sides providing strong arguments in their reasoning of whether BDD's interpreted the requested move proposal consensus incorrectly. There was no general sense of agreement one way or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And the community has disagreed with that reading. Please do the right thing and undo your closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote my comment at the RM review saying I endorsed pending a reasonable explanation from BDD, I fully expected BDD to provide a reasonable explanation. I was so sure about that, I neglected to come back and check until I was notified about this ANI discussion on my user talk page. My bad. Surprisingly, the explanation provided by BDD on 28 August 2013 was, frankly, borderline pathetic. Certainly not reasonable:

Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"No real policy-based arguments to weigh". And, yet, BDD found consensus? That's reasonable?

"So I went with a headcount...I went with a majority decision". That's reasonable?

Finding consensus in such a vacuum is exactly the kind of RM decision that needs to be reversed, and your RM review failing to see that is exactly the kind of RM Review decision that needs to be reversed. For the record, I have no position on the original RM question. I have no personal preference (never heard of the topic before), and don't know which meets COMMONNAME better. --B2C 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously considering taking this to arbcom unless the closure is reversed even if it is only so the community's will can be enacted. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

On a re-reading of the above discussions I see: RM1 was clear. RM2 was a stretch to close this way, and definitely so if RM1 is considered. MR is a cautious "no consensus" that another admin may have read a rough consensus for Overturn or Relist.

• Is Jreferee at fault?

1. Could another another admin agree with the close? Yes Jreferee's close is defensible, and well defensible in isolation.
2. Did the closer have a COI or was he otherwise INVOLVED? No
3. Is there now so great a problem that it can't be worked on? No

No, Jreferee is not at fault. This discussion does not really belong at ANI. But where? So, ways forward?

(1) Jreferee could unclose the MR so that it might receive further attention.

(2) A fresh RM could be intiated to reverse the close on the basis that there was never a consensus to move (undermining the standing of the MR process and returning to the old endless "If you don't like the RM result, start a new one").

(3) Do nothing (offensive to an ordinary editor who believes that both BDD and Jreferee erred).

(4) Initiate #2 as an RfC.

(5) Go to Arb Com (my view: in the absence of even an allegation of poor conduct by any user, they should see no role for arb com in this question).

I recommend #1, failing that then #4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I suggested (1) on Jreferee's talk page[8]. I suggest others encourage him as well. If he refuses to comply with our requests, I agree #4 is the best course of action. --B2C 23:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Jreferee (talk · contribs)... we're waiting for your response to my question on your talk page[9]. Thanks. --B2C 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is no comment within 48 hours of this comment then I may take action to overturn the closure and allow another admin to review it. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Well as long as they do not revert the reversal of the closure then things should be fine. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Their official website is http://www.thirtysecondstomars.com/ where they call themselves Thirty Seconds to Mars. FreeRangeFrog stated "As disclosure, I have been in contact with two of the band's reps via OTRS who requested essentially the same thing". If the band says that's their name by confirmed representatives emailing Wikipedia, as well as on their official site, then that's the name that should be used. Seeing what is written on their album covers, they once used the name "30" on their debut album, and then spelled it out as "thirty" on all future albums. Dream Focus 09:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have proof of the ORTS interaction? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to contact the person making that claim and ask them. They should be able to easily link to it. Dream Focus 17:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot gone wild

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bot is back to edit warring.[10] Can we please shut it down pending discussion? I'm not sure the question is whether it's functioning as approved, but whether it's operating without consensus. Bot approval is not the same as consensus, and this one seems to be doing a lot of high-speed damage. Plus, AFAIK bots are not allowed to edit war or create policy. Let's organize a wider discussion on what if anything this bot should be doing to tag articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see this high speed damage? I understand that the bot didn't make any incorrect taggings?

The bot is not creating new rules, it's just warning about infractions of current rules. If the blacklist and the whitelist are broken, that is a different problem that needs to be addressed elsewhere.

Mind you, the bot needs a few fixes: don't re-add the tags, and tag at much slower pace. I don't care if it's the initial round, it's still too fast. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's back. This bot is blatant spam and should not be allowed to tag article pages. It should place the tag on the talk page. The existence of a possible blacklisted link is not worth ruining the appearance of a page over. Please can this bot be shut down until it is modified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If we have that many blacklisted links appearing on pages that the bot that's tagging for them is referred to as "spamming", that's a very troubling problem with the fact that there's so many blacklisted links that have snuck into the project, not a problem with the bot. We should be thankful that the bot is bringing this to blatantly obvious attention, not calling for it to be changed so we can stick our heads in the sand over the problem. (Also {{blacklisted-links}} works the same way as {{update}} or {{copypaste}}. Have fun moving those to the talk page.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that links that were previously thought of as OK are now being thrown up as spam links. This is compounded by the agressive nature of the bot, which doesn't allow the template to be removed for more than about 12 hours, when it takes weeks for a link to be white listed. I have no real problem with the bot, but a huge problem with the way it operates, we all volenteer here, and loosing good links because of a mistake in the blacklist is not a good thing; this is happening. It is for these reasons that I shut down the bot, and would request it not be started again for a week or so, to allow time for the whitelist/blacklist issues to be sorted. Liamdavies (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one has problems with having a maintenance tag on an article for 1 year, why is it an issue to have this template there for a couple of weeks? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with the template than the bot... A smaller tag on the link itself and a notification on the talkpage would seem more appropriate than a banner across the top of the page. MChesterMC (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am going to comment here regarding the tagging on the talkpage vs. page itself. Maintenance tags are generally added to the page, and this is a maintenance tag. Although I see that there is no hurry (like with copyvio tags), the problem at hand is worse than not having incoming wikilinks, or having problems with references: I recently ran into a case where I had to whitelist a link, revert a page to a non-vandalised version that mutilated the link in question, de-whitelist, and then ask for whitelisting (I did not want to make the call on whether the link should be whitelisted) - there are cases where a simple rollback (which is ignored by the blacklist) does not work anymore. That is a serious nuisance, and that is what this bot could avoid. I would ask to consider to make the template left by the bot in line with banners that are produced by the other maintenance tags. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninformed amateur, maybe not worth an answer, an opinion: This thing is clearly out of control. I tried to talk to Cyberpower678, and feel I was blown off. First I was told that it’s not his problem, then I was directed to a page that I don’t understand, and the same link keeps getting tagged, despite Liam. Now Cyberpower678 just posted that he’s gone for a while. This simply cannot be right, can it?Sammy D III (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that links are either (1) used inappropriately on an article, or (2) inappropriately in the spam blacklist. Complaining about the bot is just shooting the messenger. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn: (1)No (2)sounds good. Can’t this be turned off, or be made to skip this one link? I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head. Either way, thank you for your reply. Sammy D III (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes; you need to either have the link removed from the blacklist or added to the whitelist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is running fine and is highlighting a problem not creating it any way and maintenance tags aren't spam. The bot isn't at fault for links being on the blacklist and i think The Bushranger summed it up correctly it highlights a major issue of how these links got added to the project in the first place.Blethering Scot 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot. Personally, I'd prefer to see the tags on the talkpage, but opinions will differ on that, and I'm not personally keen on maintenance tags in the "customers'" faces in general. That's a separate discussion that should be had elsewhere.

If the bot is exposing a long term problem, that may be painful. If the bot is too keen on edit warring, or needs throttling, then let's address that somewhere. Maybe we should address it before the bot is active again.

But the main reason for my post is the first thing I said - I think Cyber is being responsive, and if the bot task has exposed a large number of incorrect pre-existing links it's going to be hard for one editor to deal with the huge amount of "bounceback" that is bound to cause. I write code, and I am often in the position Cyber is now. He's trying (very hard) to do the right thing, so let's cut him a little slack, even if in doing so we need to get him to hold off on the bot tagging for a short while so we can discuss. I'm personally grateful he's taken the time he has (and the flack he has) to look at this issue for us. Begoon ^talk 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am clearly missing something here. “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot.”

I started with “Comment by uninformed amateur”, in fact I am impaired. But I try. I don’t know how to do diffs, so I am leaving page urls. I first tried this as “why is cable car guyblacklisted?”:[11]. No answer, not a problem, nobody goes to my stuff, anyway. So I tried this: [12]. Helpful? Who but a code person could get this? [13]. Then I came here. Lots more help. And despite this: “I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head.” Not one of you in any way tried to help me check this, or did it yourself. At 11:37 and 11:53 he defended the action of his program, then he posted this: [14]. At no time has he offered any real help, turn his program off, or in any way address the problem it was causing. Then he left with “Since I likely won't be able to think straight for a while”. As someone who deals with neurologists regularly, this doesn’t sound credible to me. But I am not a Doctor, I admit this. Now I read this (I’m repeating it, I know): “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot”. This sounds crazy to me, and believe me, I know crazy. Personal attack? Feel free to block me, I certainly don’t belong in the ivory tower.Sammy D III (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower has no responsibility for links being on the blacklist he never put them on there so 100% he has no issue to answer in that respect. He is also not resposible for adding or removing a link from said blacklist and cyber has pointed several users in the correct direction of what should be done. Now its time to stop putting the boot in on a perfectly functioning bot which has done exactly the task it is supposed to and a user who has no responsibility for the blacklist whatsoever. What has happened here is that a long list of users are unhappy that the links they want in the articles are on the mediawiki blacklist and these links should never have been put in wiki space in the first place and need removed or proven to be suitable for removal from said list. Blethering Scot 22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Cyberpower has no responsibility whatsoever for what's on or not on the blacklist; asking him why link X is blacklisted is like asking a gas station attendant how a refinery works. And if you are "someone who deals with neurologists regularly" you should know very well that when someone gets frustrated/annoyed it becomes difficult to have rational discussions ("thinking straight") so that commentary is frankly rather disingenuous. Now let's get back to removing these bad links - and if there are some that are, in fact, valid links wrongly on the blacklist, Wikipedia will not get sucked into a black hole and implode if the link has to be commented out until it's whitelisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower indeed has no responsibility for flaws in the blacklist, and Cyberpower correspondingly has no reason to complain if the community shuts this task down for being unwise and a harm on the encyclopedia. In the past few days about 10% of +/- 1200 the articles on my watchlist have received a tag that impugns the integrity of the article and that a casual reader who arrives on this project from google would have no meaningful way of understanding or dealing with. Clearly, degrading articles is not conducive to the apparent purpose of the bot tag, an automated function for trying to deal with spam. The vast majority of the tagged articles on my watchlist are not spam, they are commercial sites of uncertain reliability (and many, clearly appropriate for the purpose cited). When I've removed the tags as inapt, the bot just re-tagged them. I could remove 100 tags per day from my watchlist, the bot would retag them... am I supposed to submit a WP:3R report to see who gets blocked first? The problem with bots is that they do not watch or listen to any consensus process, and there is no consensus for this. The template encourages me to go through a ridiculous guilty-until-proven-innocent process (full of warnings that reports would likely be denied) just to assert that no, the link in the article is either something we can deal with, or is a reliable source and not spam for the purpose provided. This whole thing reeks of betabot if you ask me, and I hope we all learned a lesson there. No, we long-term editors (who may have day jobs, who are working on creating new content, etc) will not line up 24/7 behind a scrubbing machine to limit its damage. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry what? Do you know how bots work? Stick {{nobots}} on the page, and it won't war with you again. Legoktm (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt, the only reason I can see for wanting the tags off the pages posthaste is a worry that it will stop people from clicking on the links in question, and I'll leave the implications of that to the reader. What I will say is that if the links are on the blacklist, they are likely inappropriate. I currently have 7,378 pages watched, and since this process started running all of two have been tagged. If the links are appropriate and you want the bot not to keep squawking, <!--comment them out--> until they are whitelisted, the encyclopedia won't be destroyed by this. And if they're declined for whitelisting, then maybe, just maybe, it's because they really are inappropriate links. The bot is not malfunctioning and it is not damaging the encyclopedia; the damage came from people who, in good faith or otherwise, and knowingly or otherwise, exploited a loophole in the blacklisting process that allowed the links onto the pages. The solution isn't to shut down the bot, stick our heads in the sand and declare 'no bad links here, nope', the solution is to thank the bot and remove the links. The scope of the problem is our fault, not the bot's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a load of nonsense. As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot. Your "maybe" rhetorical comment is unintentionally apt: maybe yes indeed there is a bad link, but in fact, no. And the decision must be in the hands of human editors editing real judgment over articles, not a bot unleashed on the project to make policy by sheer persistence and in the process making a huge mess for us more thoughtful editors to clean up. That was exactly the betabot problem. Should my time here on Wikipedia mean I have to go to war with poorly conceived bots over their auto-tagging? If there's no deadline, then shut down the bot instead of making us human editors invest untold hours cleaning up messes, perhaps we could just stop dumb bots from causing damage. No, I'm not going to nowiki a bunch of links in my article, I'll just undo the harm by removing the inapt tag. I'm hoping we can all decide that good faith editorial discretion trumps hasty script experiments people unleash on the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Have you even looked at the time I've committed to writing this script. It's BRFA was open since May. You had a chance to comment all this time, and chose not. This BRFA was advertised and no one gave significant. You have the audacity to call my script a betabot and poorly conceived, after it's been reviewed by other BAGgers? So I basically just conjured this script from my ass. Ok I get. I just months of work for nothing, all because YOU didn't comment while I was actually still developing this bot. Gee since I'm such I'm such a disruptive user, why don't I just leave. You'll be rid of burden.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Back away from the edge Cyberpower! So, fix the code so that it doesn't edit-war ... maybe it should only visit an article a maximum of once a month. The bot's doing something unwanted - the best response is to find out exactly what is unwanted, and fix it ... that's what botops and bot designers do. So yes, everyone's bot is STILL in beta mode because they'll never, ever be perfect ES&L 11:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Like everyone else is writing on here, there is no issue for the tags to remain while the link is blacklisted. It's a maintenance tag just like an orphan, notability, and other tags. When a page is at AfD, do we remove the tag. No. What happens if it gets removed, a bot adds it back. It's no different with this tag. And your concept of what beta is wrong. A betabot is a bot still being tested. This bot is out of it's testing stage, running under scrutiny until the code was complete and bug free. Now it's approved and the code is final, out of its testing stage, hence no longer beta. Oh, and have a look at my talk page. It'll explain my attitude at the moment. Sorry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No. It's always Beta because you always need to be responsive to the community (just ask Bill Gates - all Windows versions are beta :-) ). You cannot compare an AfD tag to a linkrot/blacklisted tag - one is specifically noted by policy to remain (and that's the AfD one). Your bot needs to follow the same WP:BRD processes as any other editor ES&L 12:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Windows sucks. I'd say it's always in it's alpha stage. And since when does Microsoft respond to user demands? Windows 8 tends to go against that. Ok the AfD tag is a bad example, but allows one maintenance tag to stay and another, which is much more severe to simply be shrugged off?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Visiting once a month is not the answer at all maybe less frequently but certainly not that infrequently given these links shouldn't even be on the site at all. The main issue here is several editors being unhappy that a link they want is on the media wiki blacklist and reverting the bot which has done the correct thing. Editors should either be removing these links or applying for it to be taken off the blacklist. As a community we should be trying to remove these links and taking seriously the issue of editors edit warring or insisting that blacklisted pages stay on the site. The bot is an essential part of that and should be thanked for highlighting a very worrying issue, punishing the bot rather than the editors initiating it would be highly inappropriate but a compromise should be made by reducing its frequency potentially once a week but equally editors edit warring with it without valid reason or applying for said link to be removed should equally be warned by the community as we cannot continue allowing blacklisted pages to live on the site.Blethering Scot 21:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Per Blethering Scott, removing the tag and waiting a month for the bot to re-tag is just going to do that, month after month after month. Editors are not going to solve the problem. Get those links whitelisted (and get more admins engaged in the process). Get two individual vandals where the first removes the link, and you are stuck with a broken page where you will HAVE to wait until someone whitelists the link for you. Been there, done that. Get the whitelisting process started, and ask for temp excemtion by the bot. I really wonder how many people who just removed the tag went on to ask for whitelisting or actually considered that the reference could be improved and the old site should actually be removed. Some of these links should really not be used - do realise that the less suitable sites do have more reason to spam and get more incoming traffic than the really good stuff, and guess which end up being blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly my problem Beetstra, the bot tagged a series of pages, people have removed the links before I had a chance to remove the tag, and I can't undo it. The links that were removed are not intended to be on the blacklist, and hence I feel justified in removing the tag. I have subsequently taken the link to whitelist request, but as that process takes an age I turned the bot off so I needn't fight it every 12 hours (or more frequently). I do not intend or request that the bot be turned off in perpetuity, but simply for long enough to get the whitelist requests sorted, whilst not having decent links removed from articles for no good reason. I would hope that others are doing the same thing, and by the looks of the whitelist requests they are, this will only slow down the process even more. The bot has already done at least one pass, so all links are now identified and users can now either request whitelisting, or remove them; there seems very little need to keep it going every 12 hours at this point. Once the first issues are dealt with there should be no problem with the bot doing a pass every day or two, it is only at the moment (initially) that I request it be deactivated, as it has shown obvious problems with the blacklist. Liamdavies (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it indeed shows the problem, the bot is tagging way more than the number of whitelist requests, which until now are just a few more than normal. So most people did not go through the problem of sorting it out, just ignore the bot, revert the tag, or at worst, blindly remove the link.

I agree that it should not edit war, but once a month is absurd. Once a day or every other day would be fine.

And the solution to solve the long waiting time on the whitelist is simple - send or select some competent admins that want to help out there. We do seem to have a system for that.  ;-). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

there is a way, i'm sure, to limit edits to each page, to , say once every-other day. but, as far as it saysin "hey, there are some links here that need taking care of", I see no problem with that. cyberpower has spent ALOT of time (months most likely) slaving away at the script, and getting it through BAG. i'm sure that any serious issues would have been raised during the process. if the whitelist process is slow, that's another issue entirely. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Late reply to User:Wikidemon: As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot - No, it doesn't, because if you look at an article and say "no, no bad links here, nope", when there are links that are on the blacklist in the article, your judgement is in error, regardless of whether you're a "vested editor" or not. If links are in an article that are on the blacklist, inserted via a method that circumvents the blacklist knowingly or not (the method should be obvious but I won't state it outright per WP:BEANS), then the links must be removed until/unless they are whitelisted, full stop, as they shouldn't be in the article in the first place - they should have been flagged as blacklisted and the edit that attempted to add them stopped as happens when blacklisted links are inserted not using that method. WP:BLACKLIST is a Wikipedia guideline - just as WP:GNG is. I'd love to see the arguments against the enforcement of the blacklist that have been made here used against the enforcement of notability; just let me get my popcorn first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, you can't honestly tell me that it is no accident that cable-tram-guy.com is blacklisted, along with all links ending in guy.com. Can you? I feel fully justified in removing the tag and saying no bad links here, it is an obvious mistake. There are surely other cases like this, and until they are whitelisted I feel that it is appropriate to ask for a reprieve from continually having to remove the tags in a race against other editors, whom like you, believe that the blacklist is faultless and any link that shows up MUST be removed. Beetstra, given the gauntlet that RfA has turned into I'm surprised anyone voluntarily subjects themselves to it, and know that I have zero chance of achieving adminship due to my relatively low level of activity. Liamdavies (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies, my remark regarding RfA was a bit tongue-in-cheek - I know that RfA's are decided on other merits, it is not always a nice environment, and people are not probed on their ability/willingness to work on the anti-spam/whitelist/blacklist front.

Bushranger - some of the links are just plainly wrong catches of a, apparently, too wide net. Others were not removed as 'were there, but not added by the spammers' or just forgotten to be removed. I don't expect much bad faith circumventions of the blacklist (I've run in good faith attempts at that .. but well). Also, a lot of the links that are still there are in the grey area - some respectable organisations are relentless in spamming (or their SEOs are), still their info is good reliable info. If the ratio of spam additions over regular additions is really going over the top, sometimes the blacklist is, unfortunately, the only way forward.

Anyway, most of these should be whitelisted (or indeed plainly removed), and some might be even suitable for de-blacklisting (we're discussing such a case on meta at the moment). Those requests should preferably be made by regulars on the pages which are having those links on them (as they would know the validity of the links, and can give the best advice regarding replace-ability or appropriateness). Those requests often go uncontested (though may get some return questions). Problem is, as always, the manpower to actually whitelist the material (and also, to blacklist and clean out the rubbish). And when the whitelisting / de-blacklisting requests are there, the bot can be set to ignore that specific case, the bot will remove the template, and there will be no edit warring, page-defacing and whatever. I also suggest that the bot does not add the template more than once every 1-3 days, but some insistence would be good until the links are whitelisted/de-blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is accepted as a mistake, correct? Then a practical thought. I knew about this at 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC), but didn’t know what to do. If there was a “false positive, report it” link which worked, I would have filled out a short form, it may have been fixed by now. I don’t know the backlog, but we would have been closer. Instead, later I got “don’t modify if you don’t know” something on a page of code. I can’t even find it now, not really a simple process. And I am. Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There it is in plain sight. Sorry to bother youSammy D III (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not easy, either. Should it be difficult for an amateur to ask if something is wrong? I KNEW that link was good, I still don't know how to do a simple report. Not real fast, but I hang out around there.Sammy D III (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed this discussion for the first time, after having posted elsewhere about the situation several days ago. I seems that this bot's script has tagged many domains that were once blacklisted a long time ago, possibly inappropriately, but were not previously tagged. My concern about the blacklisting of the newspaper Education Update was resolved through discussion at Meta, but I see that other users who are encountering these templates are frustrated and bewildered. For example, another post at Meta expressed concern about the mass removal of links to reverbnation.com, which is an important music website that is (or was) widely linked in music-related articles. Another user posted at Meta about the template on Gerard Majella, only to discover that jesus-passion.com is not globally blacklisted; in that case, it appears that the bot is tagging all occurrences of "passion.com", which is blacklisted here at EN. It appears that the bot unearthed some sort of problem with the blacklists. That problem needs to be resolved before the bot tags any more articles -- and, as suggested in one of those discussions at meta, the bot should be enlisted to work on undoing the damage that was done to articles where valid reference citations and ELs were mistakenly removed as spam. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  The bot simply tags pages with a maintenance tag. It doesn't remove any links, and the bot automatically removes the tag if it's no longer valid. The bot has already tagged every page that it wanted to tag. Starting up the bot now, is not going to have it tag new pages.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Given that, I'm in favor of turning it back on. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't accomplishing anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  If the bot isn't planning to tag any more pages for having links that were blacklisted a long time ago (and have been here for years without bothering anybody), I suppose that it could be turned back on to start removing the templates about links that (like educationupdate.com) have been removed from the blacklist since the recent tagging. However, don't allow it to re-tag articles (like the ones that Sammy D III is concerned about) that it recently tagged until a more comprehensive effort has been made to resolve the large number of inappropriate blacklistings that it uncovered. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  The fact that it will tag pages that have blacklisted links where the tag has been removed is exactly why it should be turned back on. The blacklist entries need fixed, and turning off the bot isn't getting them fixed any faster. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• From what I'm reading, more people are for the bot while a few express concerns about it's constant retagging. It seems the main concern lies with the fact that the whitelisting process takes so long, that the link may get removed accidentally by a new user as a result of the tag, the longer the bot keeps retagging it. So I have amended the instructions. Since I respond promptly to the bot ignore requests, if you file a request for whitelisting, you may proceed to the exceptions request page, link your whitelist request, as well as the page and link itself, and it will go onto the ignore list. The tag can be removed afterwards. I think that sounds like a fair compromise to the situation.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering. I ran into a case a couple of months back (April) where a page was vandalised by one editor, and another did an independent follow up edit, and the first of the editors removed a blacklisted link. I could not revert, and had to emergency whitelist, revert, de-whitelist and request. I wonder, how many cases have there been that editors who ran into the same situation, and chose to just disable/remove the 'offending' link and save the page .. I, for one, do not recall people coming to the whitelist requesting such emergency whitelistings to facilitate a revert (but I may have missed that). Seen that there are so many pages with (rightfully or wrongfully) blacklisted links, I expect that others must have ran into such situations as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Beetstra, I'm in that situation, I'm waiting for the white list so I can reinsert these two links here and here. These are the two that I've managed to keep track of, I'm sure there are others that I have failed to keep track of just from cable-tram-guy.com, I don't want to have to keep track of all links and then revert the removals after the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Coming to this thread very late in the game but here's my impression:

Editors screaming for an emergency stop: This has been a problem for a long time, the bot is simply drawing attention to articles which do have the bad link in the wikitext. Just because we haven't enforced it in the past doesn't mean we should continue to ignore the problem. You had plenty of time to review the bot task (and assuming good faith) had multiple opportunities to discuss the changes. At this point you need to sit down and figure out how to resolve the tag. Willfully removing a tag without resolving the underlying issue is more disruptive than tagging the article. There might be a case for holding off the bot's re-checks/re-adding of the tag but that can be calmly discussed without using pejorative language like "Bot gone wild". Bot operators have to be experts in balancing the good of the project (that they will accomplish by doing the bot task) with the wishes and consensus of the project. Cyberpower has made several offers for how to make the bot's exclusion better, but I would argue that it would be better to not exclude if the page still has a problem. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, please see my comments above, if there are actual problems with links that can be dealt with. Just let the whitelists happen first, a few weeks wait won't kill the project, we have survived this long without this bot and there is no deadline.

Cyber, would it be possible to embed a script function into the template, where a user can apply for a whitelist and have the template exempt for a certain time period all in the same action? This would greatly help the lay user in applying for a whitelist and removing/hiding the template temporarily while the request is processed. Liamdavies (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I can but, it will be in the template documentation. I can write a little tool that you fill out information with and it then it submits a request for whitelisting. Then places an exception on to the exception's list. But that may take some time, given the current conditions. I have also noticed that the number of pages requiring tags have dropped by 400. I'm tempted to let the bot run again, given the direction this discussion is taking.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online

I think that would be a good and appreciated addition, if possible and you are willing to give time to it. I for one would prefer you not run the bot again, as it involves me editing 46 45 pages to remove the tags in a race against other editors. Liamdavies (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things. Number one, I have amended the wording in the template to include a bold and italicized statement to be careful when handling the blacklisted links. Number 2, if you give me a list of pages and links on those pages, I can temporarily add them to the exceptions list. Provided you also filed a whitelist request. Does that sound okay?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I just gave you the link in my last comment, but as your obviously aren't keeping up here it is again (THIS IS THE LINK TO ALL THE PAGES WITH CABLE-CAR-GUY.COM LINKS). Yes, a whitelist has been filed, two actually, the first was closed as a miss catch, and you commented on the second (THIS IS THE LINK TO THE WHITELIST REQUEST, THE ONE YOU COMMENTED ON). I would suggest that before you start the bot, you take the time to go through the whitelist request page and exempt all the pages that currently have open requests, or simply leave the bot off until this gets sorted out (check meta too). This is getting increasingly frustrating. Liamdavies (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I remind you that my mind is not all there, that I am still recovering from a blow to my head from a roof gutter that decided to fall at the wrong moment. So forgive. I will happily add those to the list for the duration of the whitelist request.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are still a bit groggy and unwell, maybe it is best to wait until your better to resume the bots operation. This will all keep going the more the bot tags, I'm sure there are people who have (wrongly) removed the tag and think that it is dealt with. When they get proven wrong and the tag starts reappearing the complaints will start again. Get well first. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are driving down the right road in the right lane at the right speed and see school kids in the road, you don’t drive through them, saying that your engine is running smooth. You stop and think is there a bus? are they running from a fire? can I go around them? Should I turn around? This is just common sense, but was not done very well here. This was running right at its speed limit (already too fast for humans, different issue) right through the kids. Whoa, give us a chance.

Many talk about the blacklist sites being evil, ok, a real problem. But not always. The links blacklisted were already up, no one has shown that any one had caused any problems. Some must have, but no one had any example to show, just theory.

This link is clearly a mistake. This is a nice place, and it’s only being used as an External link. There are not groups of vandals, editors agenda, or whatever, this is clearly an “oops”. But it could have been lost.

If one looks at the programmers talk page, then the names here, well, in some places that may be considered a conflict of interest. I don’t recall seeing any disclaimers.

When Orlady came with other examples, the first answer was another programmer excuse. The next answer assumed that the programmer’s single post was enough to resolve the situation, when it hadn’t been before. A real matter can become a matter of theory with the drop of a colon, while the real problem becomes background.

The bottom line matters. How much time has been spent on the program does not matter. The amount of memory used does not matter. The theory of damage from black lists does not matter. What matters is that the program is causing real problems right now, and must be stopped. It was turned off by force by someone other than the programmer. The programmer was aware that there were problems, and refused to act. Now he is, probably effectively, but look what it took.

There are more than one person here who owe Liamdavies an apology.Sammy D III (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III You offering first? The problem with your example in the first case is when you're driving, you're also watching for pedestrians in the road. And conversely the pedestrians are supposed to watch for cars coming. The real bottom line is that your posting here provides an extraordinary amount of heat but zero light and ratchets up the drama of the situation further. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be honored to be the first.

Liamdavies, if I have in any way interfered with your efforts to edit a site, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if my posting here has in any way embarrassed you, if you think I am counterproductive to your efforts, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if you feel that I have not represented your problem accurately, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if you feel that my outside POV has been inappropriate, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if you feel that in any way it would not be in your best interests to associate with me, please do not, I am sorry if I put you in an awkward position.

Haster, I stand by my example, the programmer was not driving, he was making excuses to the parents of the victims.

I think I will now go to a mirror, and look at someone who stood up for a human who he KNEW was right, over a program which appears to be a problem. Sammy D III (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

??? I'm confused.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: Tagging (and even removing) blacklisted links is completely different from a car deliberately running over children. I don't even think it's appropriate to make that analogy. Also, the bot wasn't causing any "real problems" and wasn't turned off "by force." Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I think we have talked before. You are being entirely polite with me, I’ll do my best.

I think that “a car deliberately running over children” is part misunderstanding. I absolutely not think this is “deliberately”, I don’t think anyone here does. I absolutely think this is an unexpected side effect. My meaning is that nothing was done to prevent it, even after it was known.

I believe that Liamdavies’ reverting, apparently struggling to maintain links was "real problems". Maybe not big in your world, but it was happening. And Orlady had other examples. “making 20+ controversial main article tags per minute and it seems bot-edit-warring against editors who try to revert it” was posted above in this thread.

I believe I saw that Liamdavies, a victim, turn off the program, not the programmer, who knew of the problem. There is no physical force here, I apologize for implying that there was, I thought it was a run of mill term.

Someone else posted “And conversely the pedestrians are supposed to watch for cars coming” which I find horrible. School children: “is there a bus? are they running from a fire?” how much do you expect from a first-grader?Sammy D III (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III: "The links blacklisted were already up, no one has shown that any one had caused any problems. Some must have, but no one had any example to show, just theory."/"The theory of damage from black lists does not matter." (my bolding) .. No, it is not just theory, it does matter, it causes damage. I said that I ran into that situation where I had to emergency whitelist, revert and de-whitelist because of a blacklisted link (spam-diff damaging the original, blacklisted link, unrelated follow up edit making it impossible to repair the link that was there (it is blacklisted), temp whitelisting, repair, de-whitelisting, remarking on whitelist (some other edits missing to remove more of the affiliate spamming that broke the bet-at-home-page - I felt uncomfortable to whitelist/de-blacklist myself there, feeling somewhat involved and wanted other independent admins to do the real call). Those situations must have occured more, and I am very, very afraid that most editors (especially non-admins) will just have removed the blacklisted link (maybe not even knowing about the possibility of whitelisting) and revert to that version and ignore the problem (as happens now after the tagging, unfortunately, as Hasteur says). Thát is real damage, not theory. The bot, however, is not causing any damage, its tagging may result in damage (for example a human editor is just removing the link), but that is not the bot, that is the human editor who comes afterwards (who does not do what the bot suggests, but just wants to get rid of the, in itself not causing more damage than a {{cleanup}}, tag).

Your analogy with running into school kids crossing is not correct, the objections against the tagging that I see are not of a kind that they think it breaks Wikipedia (or the schoolkids). This is more like running down the road putting warning signs on places where the schoolbus is stopping so that people know that there may, in the future, be schoolkids crossing there, and having objections for the guy doing it, even while he is within the speed-limit. It is one thing that I don't understand here on Wikipedia - if someone (or a bot) is repairing or tagging 50 pages which are on the watchlist of an observer, it is always the messenger that gets shot - what is it: darn, I had 50 pages with mistakes on my watchlist and now I have to check whether they have been repaired properly, or even, I have 50 pages on my watchlist that are tagged as having a (serious) mistake .. I don't have time to fix those 50, lets shoot the messenger and remove the tags so I forget that there is a (serious) mistake?

Hasteur, I know it is happening now with the tagging, I was asking for more examples from the past before the tagging (like the one from April, above), showing that having a (inadvertently) blacklisted link on a page has resulted in damage regarding not being able to revert and, probably, loss of data. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Dick, I am so sorry for wasting your time, you presented a thoughtful post to what I had turned into a shouting match. I will answer out of politeness. It is hard for me to understand you, I will try.

I don’t mean to belittle the blacklist (even though the idea has historically been misused). I don’t get the reasoning for the urgency, I’m guessing porn somehow. Numbers here are way too large for me to grasp.

The “does not matter” was meant right here, right now, to immediate matters. The list does matter, but not right now to someone who is trying to keep their work intact against a very fast opponent.

The school bus stuff was meant for taking immediate action, instead of debating the theory while the actual stuff continues. The sign is more accurate, but for the effect, I would have had to say injuring kids by pounding the sign through them, nonsense. It was intentionally exaggerated and inflammatory.

The stuff wouldn’t be targeted to you personally, there have been several of you who have taken a reasoned, balanced, thoughtful approach, I thought you were one by at least yesterday.

I believe that many here get a tunnel vision, looking at the big picture but missing the immediate area. Liamdavies is one of you, with a real, immediate problem. I feel he got thrown to the wolves, and that some who dismissed him should apologize. (There are also social issues, which I have tried to skip.)

I don’t really know Liam, I’ve seen him around, and had one really short conversation about this link on his talk page. But I knew that link was good, black and white, absolutely a mistake, and I felt that he wasn’t being listened to. But to be clear, he hasn’t had anything to do with me, and is probably thinking W.T.F?

Thank you for your (wasted) time. Sammy D III (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Sammy D, I don't really need an apology, we're all adults here and I continue to assume good faith. My problem is that although the bot itself isn't causing harm, the templates it is placing is causing harm through the removal of good links. If nothing else the few runs that the bot did showed enormous flaws in the blacklist. I think the net has been far too wide, and there are many many links that should be removed from the blacklist. Given that I first made my (second) request almost a week ago (the first was dismissed as a false positive with no action taken), and the link has still not had any admin attention I am starting to be quite disheartened with the whitelist process and don't think a bot should be operating if the underlying issues aren't being dealt with - which they aren't.

Over at meta they seem to (due to the diligent work of a steward whom I have ample respect for) have the issue under control, the same cannot be said for here. Simply put, we need admins to start clearing the blacklog and trying their hardest to not have a link pending for more than a few days. If there isn't the infrastructure in place to remove links/sites/pages from the blacklist/place them on the whitelist, then the bot is simply going to - by proxy - cause the destruction of many good links in part of a process of clearing out the bad. The links that shouldn't be on pages should be removed, there is no argument here, and if they were the only links the bot was highlighting there would be no issue, but it is the other links that are being lost that is the issue.

We are here to build an encyclopedia, the process has been going for over ten years without this bot, there is no time limit and when the blacklist issues get sorted the bot should resume full-time operation, but with a clearly broken blacklist the bot will simply (though no fault of its own, or of its owner/operator) cause disruption to the project. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The process for the tagging has been resolved for a good chunk of links. I have added every link you gave me to the ignore list and am currently adding links requesting whitelisting to the list as well. That way, as the request is being processed, for however long it needs to be, the bot will simply ignore that link on the page and not tag. As a matter of fact it will remove it. Have a look. I think the bot can resume it's operation if this kind of process is maintained, and since I'm really active, addition requests to the ignore list should be answered with 24 hours.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeated NFCC violations (Result: 48 hours)

Judgeking (talk · contribs) needs blocked for repeated violations of WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) After looking at the page edit history, this looks like it belongs more on WP:AN/3, no? Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Already filed, but the user repeatedly violoates NFCC and will not discuss it. There has been a discussion about this already, but the user is owning the page. Werieth (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. This isn't a simple matter of editwarring, since unfair use of nonfree works is copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not question anyone's judgment here, but I would like to discuss this a little. Werieth is doing a great job of protecting Wikipedia here, I'm just finding myself asking if perhaps he's being a little overzealous at times here. It appears at this time that is current method for dealing with these has been driving away editors (at least it appears that Special:Contributions/Rachael89 has been driven away). I've noticed that his communication/language skills make him difficult to understand at times, and I believe that if some of our more sensitive and English attuned editors could make some cookie cutter responses for him to use in edit summaries or whatnot (I could make a userscript for him that would make it easier for him to get rid of such images and use these edit summaries at very least) that it "might" help our editor retention at least a little. Technical 13 (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Use the standard {{uw-nonfree}} when warning users. You will find that some users just dont like our restrictive policies on non-free media. Unless we make a drastic shift in our stance about copyrighted material (which wont happen) it will make users unhappy. Werieth (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No way this should end in applause for the OP, this went through twenty-three (23) reverts and un-reverts by my count. I don't care who's on the side of the angels, this sort of edit warring crap should not be happening on Wikipedia. 3RR is 3RR. If you get to two, seek outside help. Trout smack. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR#Exceptions #5 Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy Thus this isnt 3RR. Werieth (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hence my overzealous comment Carrite. I'll start development of an NFCC assisting script tomorrow, it should be fairly easy based on Anomie's User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js and some other image related stuff I started this morning for Monty845. I'll just need those edit summary ideas to add to it. Thanks if you can help with that. Werieth, I don't agree that they all necessarily violate #1 and #3, although #8 is a maybe in my eye and I'd rather stay on the line of they should have been removed for that. The question becomes, would you be willing to use a script to help you remove those with better edit summaries that are clear, concise, and less offensive to the editor whom you are removing the images of? Technical 13 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever we use nonfree content in a way that doesn't qualify as fair use, we're infringing copyright. Page histories for the article and for WP:AN3 show that Werieth reported soon after they got past 3RR, so he followed the "seek outside help" long before it reached the extreme proportions where it ended up. I came close to blocking Werieth, but only because I got confused who was doing what; as soon as I saw the situation, I planned to block the user who was adding the content and to leave unblocked the user who was removing it. No comment on Wereith's interactions with other users, since I've not seen such interactions. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not an unambiguous, slam-dunk violation of NFCC. THIS is the file they were warring over, which is only flagged for deletion if no presentation of a valid fair use rationale by Sept. 27. This is a content battle at root. There should have been 3RR repercussions for both parties well before the war got to 23 reverts... Carrite (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, I think you need to review WP:NFCC. It was more than just one image. Files have a fairly high bar to meet, something that was quickly skimmed over in the background (was on screen less than 30 seconds) and is not critical to the article fails NFCC#8. There where a total of 5 files that I removed due to NFCC issues (The article had a total of 6), most film articles only have 1. Take the image of Jennifer Connelly as another example, it is a picture of a living person, no significant makeup, no major alterations to her normal visual appearance. We have 4 free images of her on her article. Completely replaceable non-free content, (non-free media of living people is fairly well defined as prohibited). I could break this down image by image and explain every violated point but I would recommend you review NFC. Werieth (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Good block. I count 23RR on that edit war. That should have been stopped way before that by some other admin. (I mean I know we've briefly discussed about 3RR this past summer, but still there is some ridiculousness to all this stuff.) --MuZemike 05:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So Werieth is back after he made a similar report here where he made eight reversions in a 13-hour timespan recently. Now we have an instance of 22 reversions in a half hour. Even if these reversions are considered exempt for the purposes of WP:3RR, which they may not be unquestionable violations, this in my opinion should still be considered edit warring. Werieth should have stopped after making the report at the edit warring noticeboard but he made 17 reversions after that. Werieth also should have stopped after making this section but he made 12 reversions after that.

I agree with Techincal 13 that Werieth's editing and communication style is lacking. It leads towards other editors getting pissed off, edit warring, threats of blocks and bans and editors leaving Wikipedia. Better communication could really help relieve a lot of what has been happening. At the very least can we get Werieth to step back from reverting after he has submitted for admin help with an edit war? If there is a clear 3RR/edit warring violation then the other party will get blocked or the article will be protected and there is no immediate need for the image to be removed that could not wait until an admin could help out. Aspects (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The catch is that that last bit could easily be read as "there is no immediate need to remove copyright violations". It takes two to tango; the fact that there are editors who are willing to 23RR to defend NFCC violations is troubling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Erb? I think the point is that it would be good if communication here were improved. I don't see anyone defending the user who was blocked as much as wondering if better communication wouldn't have resulted in less conflict and perhaps an outcome other than a block. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Aspects, once you're past 3RR, it doesn't matter how many more reverts happen: either your reverts are exceptions from 3RR, in which case you shouldn't be blocked no matter how many you make, or they're not exceptions, so you're liable to be blocked, even if you don't make any more. Carrite, I'm not very sympathetic to objections such as "oh, it's missing a point from the rationale, so we have to get rid of it!" I agree that a slightly flawed rationale is nowhere near a good reason for revert-warring. I checked the images in question, but only fast enough to see that (1) they were marked as nonfree and (2) too complicated for PD-simple; with that checked, I blocked because the user was adding way way too many nonfree images, because no rationale could possibly justify so many of them. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a violation of NFCC is not necessarily a copyvio, because NFCC is more restrictive than copyright law and American common practice as determined by the courts. I personally think that's a mistake on our part, that NFCC should follow legal precedent, but it does not, therefore it's not a slam dunk that an NFCC violation can be actively pursued that way an obvious copyvio can be. This means that a violation of NFCC (an internal policy) should not be treated the same as a violation of copyright law, and editors who wish to use "copyvio" as reason to exceed 3RR need to make the case that the NFCC-violation is an actual copyright violation in order to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• While that's a fairly technical argument, I've got to say I agree with it. People should be aware of the difference. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Arguably even most of these images could be used under claim of US fair use law (you're not required to attribute or the like); just that removing non-compliant NFCC does help us stay far below any legal threshold that may trigger a suit. I do, however, point that the Foundation wishes us to remove non-frees used inappropriate in a timely manner. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • None-the-less, calling it a "copyvio" is factually wrong and as such, doing so should be avoided. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's my point: one should use "copyvio" only for those instances where an actual violation of copyright law has taken place -- and should be removed as immediately as possible -- and otherwise refer to NFCC violations as just that. The imperative to move NFCC violations is not as strong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agree on that point. There's copyvios (like uploading a full ripped movie) and then there's images that probably fall within fair use but fail NFC. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The point is that we've gone beyond fair use when we're using numerous images in this manner: we're really not using them transformatively. I say "fair use" and not "NFCC" intentionally, because my point is that we're exceeding the fair use criteria, not just Wikipedia's NFCC. Aside from confusion/misunderstanding/etc, there's no way I'd call a page a copyvio when it was full of unnecessary cc-by-nc images, for example: it's plainly at variance with NFCC, but not a copyright infringement because we're a noncommercial entity. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Truthfully, no. The state of the Labyrinth article before the image removals was 5 images - cover, 2 screencaps, a production photo and a piece of concept art. They were "transformed" by the fact the article writes around those pieces, and compared to the volume of the work for the movie, the size used was very small and respected commercial opportunities. I would be hard pressed to find a legal court in the US that would find that page in that state a violation of fair use. It would take a lot more copyrighted media on that page to push it into a state where legal challenges may occur. But from an NFCC perspective, yes, there were images that did not comply with our policy (for example, we don't need a screencap of books that appeared in the movie that were thematically similar to point out that fact), and the number was somewhat large for what we typically allow for film articles. A problem with meeting the free mission goal, but certainly not an issue with copyright violations within the bounds of US Fair Use law. There can be copyvios as relating to images that are above and beyond NFCC: claiming ownership of a copyrighted image, using significant portions of copyrighted works at high resolution, etc. that WP:COPYVIO basically handles, but most of the work done at NFCC effectively helps to keep a large buffer between WP and fair use law. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Again referring to the legal "fair use" standard versus NFCC, I believe Masem is correct here. The more copyrighted material is used in an article, the more the article is a violation of NFCC, but, on the other hand, under the legal standard all the copyrighted material must owned by the same entity. In other words, having an article with a dozen non-free images is clearly an NFCC problem needing resolution, but if all the images are owned by different entities, the article is still compliant with the legal standard of fair-use, because each instances is separate from every other in the article.

                This just serves as another reason to keep "copyvio" and "NFCC-violation" strictly separate unless it's appropriate to do otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Judgeking definitely should be blocked for refusing to engage at all, and while in general Werieth was in the right to remove repeating without the issue, I am going to caution Werieth again that his choice to what to remove is a bit questionable, particularly in the case in this specific example for Labyrinth, as at least one of the files (the concept painting) has a reasonable chance to be used. (He did a similar wipe over here that took out a screenshot used to describe the gameplay of a video game, a typically standard allowance). If there are many multiple non-free, that is a problem, but if each image has a rationale for use on that page, a license, and otherwise don't fail NFCC#1 (freely replaceable) or #2 (commercial opportunity - aka press images), then this issue is how subjectively the rationales meet #8 and whether there is more minimal use per #3, which is not something the the 3RR exemption for NFCC allows for edit warring over. Yes, bolding removing excessive images once is a problem, but if it the a judgement call as to what are proper images the next step is NFCR or the talk page or the like. Werieth needs to be aware (I've tried to tell him this even though I back his NFCC work) that these actions are not always the right approach. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth's actions should be censured. His insistence that his revert warring is protected by policy leads to articles such as Elizabeth David bibliography being locked, and then all the previously non-free reviewed media being deleted by default.

At Hey Ya!, a good article on a pop song, he removed the audio sample, which was then deleted by default. When a user disagreed with Werieth's actions and opened up a discussion on the talk page, Werieth described it as disruptive. Werieth's extreme interpretation of WP:NFCC is not standard practice. He should not receive a get-out-of-jail card by dressing up disruptive action as policy enforcement. - hahnchen 17:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You where told that the usage of non-free media on Elizabeth David bibliography wasnt acceptable. After discussion, one possible two images where deemed justified. Not the multiple that where removed.

On Hey Ya!, the article needs more critical commentary to justify the usage (which it lacked when I removed the file). When I remove media its because the article does not currently have justification for the included media. That is not to say that justification cannot be created, just as the article is it cannot support the use of the media that was removed. The sound clip lacks any critical commentary which is required for usage.

In this case I had a discussion with a different user, and attempted to discuss it with Judgeking, and was ignored. There is only one image that has a change of being re-added, however the article needs more critical commentary to support it before that can happen. Werieth (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• He should be censored for absolutely correctly removing a NFCC-violating gallery of non-free images from Elizabeth David bibliography? Er, I think not. Werieth can be a little over-enthusiastic (I have told him before to flag up the issue with an admin or at WT:NFC when faced with a group of editors who haven't read the policy, like that example), but we don't censure editors for upholding policy. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Trout to Werieth, there is a reasonable limit to how far the edit warring exemption for copyright violations goes. I personally would have gone up to 10 reverts before soliciting advice from another editor who is familiar with the policy/procedure regarding the rules. One against one is difficult to determine who is in the right. Two or three editors all upholding the same viewpoint against a single editor is much more favorable when admins come in to hand out sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur Given the facts that the user was re-inserting, refusing to discuss and blanking attempts at their talk page, and I filed a 3RR and after getting no response I came here, I did just about as much as I could have done. To this day the user has refused to explain why they think the files meet NFC. Werieth (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth You should have gotten a 2nd editor who is familiar with NFC policy to review the reversions as it would reduce some of the concern of you riding the exemption so far. I'm not chastising you, just suggesting that in the future when you get to 5RR claiming one of the EW exemptions, it's better to have annother editor review and see if the policy call you're making is correct. Hasteur (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To Hahnchen: A nonfree audio clip is not a "freebie", and is not appropriate for or allowed in every song article. It would only be appropriate in cases like Bohemian Rhapsody, where the audio qualities of the song are the subject of significant critical commentary and the nonfree clip will greatly enhance understanding by allowing a reader to hear what the article is talking about. Nonfree media is not allowed to be "ear candy" any more than "eye candy", and the use in Hey Ya! failed NFCC #8. At Elizabeth David bibliography, similarly, the book covers were not needed. We generally allow one nonfree cover in an article about the book for identification purposes, but in something like a bibliography, discography, or episode list, we generally do not, unless the covers themselves are the subject of significant commentary and are correspondingly discussed there. Otherwise, they are decorative, and again fail NFCC #8. I wish nonfree patrol weren't necessary, but unfortunately, with stuff like this, it is. Wereith was absolutely right in both these cases.

Werieth: That being said, would you please consider using venues like nonfree content review rather than a 23-round edit war, even though technically you can? In the end, that might do more long-term good. We would have very likely come to the same conclusions you did in the cases I've seen here, would have gotten a better chance to explain to the editors using too much NFC where they're in error, and it would have been done in a calmer venue. That makes it much more likely that they'll gain understanding, and that gives all of us less work to do and less friction. You are generally right, so you've nothing to fear from putting it up for discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Holdek and sources templates again

I am sorry to bother the community with this user for the third time, but I am afraid this goes over the top. I am afraid they need at least a topic ban for this article, given the previous history of editing. Would someone please inform the user of this thread, since last time they told me I am not welcome to post at their talk page. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Done for you. Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And as a note, Holdek has removed the notification from their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was willing to give Holdek WP:ROPE that they are merely enforcing WP:V, but his latest actions look increasingly disruptive and not in the spirit of collaboration. Looking at his past 200 edits or so, he seems to be only gaming the system. Another example is this. I support an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there's nothing "gaming the system" about asking for sourcing of content. Rather, reliable sourcing is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Per WP: Verify: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (Bold mine.) Pretty basic and easy to understand.

Oh also you are confusing WP:ROPE with WP: Assume Good Faith. Holdek (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "The photographs in this article need to have citations." and nothing about captions. And here you didn't tag any caption. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The White Ribbon "For Russia Without Putin"

That's because Template: Citation needed did not show up when I tried to put it on all the unsourced captions on Russian opposition. (It did work for one of them, though.) So I put it on the talk page. As for the caption for the map of Moscow, I'll reinsert "Moscow" as the caption. Holdek (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And even if they did tag the caption, I am not sure how I can best source that the map shows Moscow. Source it to the recent edition of the atlas of Moscow?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That would work. Holdek (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is simply trolling. I'd venture a guess that 99.99% of the maps used as images on Wikipedia don't have inline citations in articles. Indicating the source on the image page rather than the article is what commonly done. If you're serious about inserting such inline references in the numerous articles that use that map, you can do it yourself by copying them from Moscow#Administrative divisions. The same style of spamming tags, deletion of content, "accompanied" by zero positive work towards satisfying those frivolous citation requests got Curb Chain topic banned. However, in your case, Holdek, it's hard to think of a single topic area that would suffice. The experience with that other editor showed little improvement after such a topic ban, and plenty of wikilawyering for admins to put up with, so I think indef block works best for such cases from now on. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, are seriously asking for a citation for the caption of the photo to the right? Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Holdek (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Could this user please be topic-banned from all Russia-related articles? The answer shows they have no clue and just try to prove the point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you are definitely note here to build an encyclopedia, Holdek. You strongly remind me of Curb Chain who persisted on a similarly disruptive campaign of spamming citation tags and removing content while doing zero positive work in referencing material himself. The caption is simply a translation of the clearly visible Russian text in from the ribbon itself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, based on your accusation, I'm finished talking with you. Holdek (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, they still seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and add source requests to the lede on a regular basis. This one is truly ridiculous, and I do not see how this potentially can improve encyclopedic content.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to keep assuming good faith with Holdek when the issue is well referenced (even with sources in English) at Federal cities of Russia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding clearly demonstrated battleground mentality [15].--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from all topics related to Russia

I think Holdek's wikilawyering and battleground attitude are just a prevalent elsewhere, but he has been recently spamming articles on Russian topics with frivolous "citation needed" tags for what is common knowledge while doing zero work himself toward referencing any such material even when such references are easily found in the main Wikipedia articles on the topics, e.g. the map of Moscow, its status in the Russian constitution etc. I think we'll be back at ANI for other topics, but for the sake of doing something about stemming the disruption (as in Curb Chain|a similar case), I formally propose a six-months topic ban on all topics related to Russia for Holdek. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously support, based on the above argumentation.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Support, but with alternative scope. Based on the examples given above, and the demands to cite photograph captions (which, a quick glance across Wikipedia will show, is something we do not do) like this particulary egrerious example and its followup, I belive this to be appropriate. I'll also point out that, with the exception of controversial statements in BLPs, edits like this and this are inappropriate; WP:V only requires that verifable reliable sources exist, not that they be in the article at all; the proper thing to do in a non-egreriously-and-blatantly-wrong case like that one is {{cn}} if a cite is needed, not outright removal. Holdek's comments above showing no sign of listening to the concerns about these edits and how they reflect on his editing style convince me that a topic ban here is necessary, although I might query ifbelieve it should be Removing or tagging of content as unsourced, excluding BLPs and unambiguous vandalism should be the scope of the topic ban instead of "Russia". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. WP: Verify: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. And "Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

Furthermore, I always add a citation needed template to non BLP material and give time for it to be sourced or source it myself before removing it. --Holdek (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Everybody can check that your statement is incorrect: [16]--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_mayoral_election,_2013&diff=564936031&oldid=564933179 Holdek (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that you have to challenge the material first - via the {{cn}} tag. And the funny thing about saying "always" is that you have to be right every time for it to be true - but only wrong once for it not to be, and there are multiple cases there where you have not tagged and given time - when a cn tag is removed because, as in the diff you provide there, it was added in a particularly egregious example of WP:TAGBOMBING, you need to start from scratch. Your statement above has only strengthened the case that you need to be topic-banned, not from Russian topics but from WP:V related activities, not weakened it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Then provide your evidence that I don't challenge the material first with a cn tag (please reread WP:TAGBOMBING to see what it explicitly does not apply to). Otherwise, you don't have anything here to go on and

• someone should close this ANI; this is the second spurious ANI that Ymblater has started about me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#User:Holdek). Holdek (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I can close it if you like, but on the basis of the links above I would close it with a block for disruptive editing. Even core policies like WP:V need to be used in good faith and in a reasonable way. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC) .

SaltyBoatr, Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

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

---

Obviously a very controversial topic, but SaltyBoatr is being highly disruptive. He has created FIVE talk page sections today [17] , all making essentially the same complaint. He is repeatedly failing to WP:AGF and making personal attacks accusing all the editors of extreme bias. Several editors are attempting to engage him, and address his concerns, but he continually making accusations and highly sarcastic comments. A few choice comments from today (basically every comment he has posted today).

• Regardless of lip service to the contrary, this has all the appearances of biased 'mediator' serving the purpose of defending one POV at the expense of another.
• This is proof that constructive conversation on this talk page is difficult to the point of being hopeless. S
• and these responses from Gaijin42 have the appearance of bad faith debate diversion tactic.
• I find your sarcastic question to be extremely offensive. Further, I am astonished that measuring undue weight quantitatively by counting biased words is not "evidence". That assertion appears to be harassing and a stonewall. I consider your use of the talk page in that way to be highly disruptive
• [...] the apparent intent of suppressing the non-pro-gun point of view. Evidence of a NPOV balance problem here.
• The word appears fifteen times in the article! Maybe that is a little bit on the "undue weight" side of a POV push? Get real.
• Only six times. (laugh) One time would be sufficient
• GregJackP, provides even more evidence that this article suffers from ownership by a brigade of long term 'pro-gun' editors

I'm tempted to ask for a topic ban, but at a minimum a trouting to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and let one conversation go through, rather than starting up 5 sections all saying the same thing would be appreciated. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of a topic ban, I note that Salty's block log is decently extensive, and all related to gun topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 your porcine misspelling of my username 'Saltyboar' is insulting and harassing and over-the-top offensive conduct. Do you really mean to describe me as swine and piggish? Wow. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, This was completely unintentional. Your sig uses an unusual font, and I misread. However your over the top reaction to an innocent mistake is certainly part of the larger trend of why we are here at ANI. WP:AGF please. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your apology, without even bothering to correct your insulting porcine misspell of my username (seventh word, opening sentence), falls short. Assuming good faith comes into play when there is a chance of a good faith explanation. In this case, your deeply insulting mistake which you claim to be innocent remains uncorrected in the opening sentence. What assumption should I take from the reality of this persistence of your insult? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Reinstated SaltyBoatr's comment, which seems to have gotten lost in an edit conflict. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)]

That's ridiculous. You want him to back and correct a tiny typo you have already blasted him for, and that he apologized for? Mountain, molehill. No, smaller than a molehill. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Salty, It's an easy to make mistake with that font. I made the same mistake once, and I'm guessing that other people have too. And "Saltyboar" sounds like a cool name, not all of that stuff you describe, and it's clear that none of that was intended. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right--now I see it. "Salty" pertaining to the sea, and "Boatr" a slightly more economic version of "Boater". I didn't get it until I saw the "get wet" bit (it is an unusual and tiny font; it was difficult on my old eyes). "Get wet" is obviously a playful reference, a virtual invitation to jump into the lively brine that is the editor's world. They're not really asking us to take a bath, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming what I've seen Salty do before. Extremely aggressive fighting. Most painfully, using large amounts of general accusations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for feeling frustration, but perhaps my feelings are understandable considering the hostility, edit warring and stonewalling aimed at me for my good faith efforts. The crime I have committed, at least according to my understanding of the barrage of attacks recently aimed at me, is having the audacity to attempt to edit in an article that has a POV ownership problem by a group of like minded editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am a relatively new WP editor, but I get the impression that Salty and some of the editors he's engaged with on the page in question have a past on gun topics. As for editors currently active on the page, I have observed not-AGF and not-NPOV behavior from several in recent days. Although I have only been an active WP editor for less than two months, my experience in that time leads me to suspect that this article might suffer from some sort of pro-gun or anti-ban editor ownership problems. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ya think? ;-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• SaltyBoatr is obfuscating the hell out of everything there. The claims of gangs of POV ownershipper is ridiculous. Their demands are overblown, and they are clogging up the talk page with their whining about things that should be obvious. I mean, someone who points at Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast, and the LA Times and claims they're of the pro-gun lobby, such a person has no business editing an article where common sense and a basic knowledge of facts are required. I say block 'em next time they make any of these ridiculous claims on the talk page or elsewhere, or ban 'em from that article altogether, and anywhere else where they're preventing editors from getting some work done.

  Also, I'm with the anti-gun gang (we don't have a lobby, just a room in the basement). Every conceivable kind of gun should be banned, and your bullets too. If you want to hunt elk or whatever, learn how to thrown stones, you pussies. <--This is my disclaimer, lest SaltyBoatR (hope I spelled that name correctly--they're so sensitive) thinks that I'm part of the pro-gun lobby as well. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Salty didn't claim that Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast or the LA Times were pro-gun. The authors of the cited sources weren't the publishers or their editors. The articles weren't corporate editorials. Lightbreather (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh, please give me an alternate interpretation of "Does the 'cosmetic' sentence really need six footnotes? And all from 'pro-gun leaning sources?" Those are the sources that include the ones I mentioned, and these are SaltyBoatr's words--are they not? The rest of your sentences I don't understand: yes, the sun looks yellow and typically rises in the East, from where I'm sitting. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure you have a clear understanding on how wikipedia judges reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, with their 22:41 post above, Salty is illustrating one key aspect of the problem. Rather than discuss the particular item at hand, their approach is that they just hurled 5 accusations and attacks in that one post. This has been the nature of their approach / "discussion" there. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, considering saltyboatr's history, that a topic ban would be very appropriate. The article was very stable, and has become a mess. Saltyboatr has accused me of making POV edits, ridiculous accusation since I actually supported the ban. When on Wikipedia, we should be Wikipedians first, and advocates second. I've had a very long trouble free history on Wikipedia working in this way. No, prior to these disruptions, the article was very "whitebread", and uninteresting, and STABLE, qualities which I feel made the article very NEUTRAL. All it needed was perhaps a few tweaks, not a wall of undiscussed edits that amounted to complete rewrites of the article. A topic ban is in order here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sue. If I understand positions correctly, Sue, LB, and Drmies are more on the anti-gun rights (er, gun control, ;p) side, while I'm on the pro-choice, support gun rights side. I really don't have a clue who else is where, nor does it matter. We've been discussing things in a rational way and able to come to agreement. Not everyone got what they wanted, but everyone saw consensus. Unfortunately, Salty would not discuss matters. Based on his history, I don't anticipate that changing. Support topic ban, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 05:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one case where I would agree with a topic ban. There was a massive amount of discussion, rarely pretty, in the two months since Lightbreather began editing the article in earnest; It never crossed my mind to suggest, consider, propose, or participate in a topic ban, even with behavior that was unbecoming at times (but ostensibly 'forgiveable' by a newcomer). However, what happened on friday was outrageous; saltyboatr burst through the saloon doors and began knocking over tables and and trying to instigate fights, relentlessly. When other editors either demurred or tried to engage, we were met with - sorry, it has to be said - this editor's standard refrain that everybody else was acting in bad faith, that we're all horribly biased - practically a conspiracy - and that we were all attacking him. Completely unacceptable editor behavior. I tried in numerous responses to tease some semblance of actual engagement or rational discourse; none was forthcoming, only the repeated refrain above. It was one of the most disruptive displays I think I've seen on wikipedia in a very long while. Things have been silent this weekend; if it remains so, then of course there's no need for a topic ban. If it resumes on monday - enough. Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• In light of their recent comment on the talk page, where I find nothing but a reiteration of hollow-sounding claims, and in light of the rather ridiculous attack leveled at Gaijin42, I fully support a topic ban from all gun rights articles, broadly construed. If they want to work on stuff like .22 CHeetah (not my finest work, I admit), that's fine--but no articles discussing guns and rights, legislation, politics, or other controversy. Basically, per Anastrophe. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(involved) Based on the continued issues today, I withdraw my suggestion for trouting, and support the topic ban Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Each time I've crossed paths with Salty, they have been at firearm-related articles, their approach seems to be to aggressively make large amounts of accusations, to me it seems as a way to further their goals. The exchange in this very thread regarding the easily-made user name error also seems an example, as does the other exchange in this thread where they put 5 more accusations into on short post instead of discussing the question at hand. 6 blocks on firearm-related articles seems to reinforce the above impression. Support topic ban per Anastrophe and Drmies. I think that the only other viable alternative (or a route out of the topic ban) is some type of mentoring or close oversight on these and such seldom seems to happen. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again this morning editor saltyboatr has taken the time to share an unremitting string of directly personalized attacks on his peers - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFederal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=575299122&oldid=575273753 . Is there any remedy for this disruption? Anastrophe (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Closure

Can we get an admin to look at this and close it per WP:SNOW? Every editor that has commented is in support of the topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

A lot is being undone here

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

---

Right now SporkBot (talk · contribs) is busy ripping out templates from every IP tagged as a sock based on the TfD discussion. I don't think four people should decide such a drastic thing in such a short amount of time. Is this enough of a consensus for this? Should this have been better advertised when the consequences are so large? Doc talk 00:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is enough of a consensus for it, following several discussions on tagging IPs as socks outside of WP:HSOCK policy. The discussions were held at VPP, at ANI, and at HSOCK, just to name a few of the places. First off, unless the IP has been previously blocked, policy prohibits the IP from being tagged as a sock. Going through the list manually shows that a vast majority of the IPs are tagged in violation of policy and, in some instances, being subjected to harassment without cause. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The consensus at the TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock is overwhelmingly AGAINST deletion. The bot needs to be stopped, just like people who are emptying categories before the category deletion discussion is finished. They are destroying evidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Real evidence or super-secret, can't tell you evidence? GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless an IP has been previously blocked it cannot be tagged? Ridiculous, really. What this is doing is taking a tool for tracking disruptive editors away. Sure, some people get abused when the tag is abused. I can't believe it's come to this. Doc talk 02:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think tagging suspicious IPs is a useful endeavor, and should be supported. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the editors here share the same views about this and have edited the same page here. I guess I have a lot of sockpuppet tagging to do on these editor's pages. Now remember, you are not allowed to take them off without further reprisal, possibly blocked without further warning, they don't time out ever, and there is no apology template to retract them if I am proven wrong at a real SPI. That would appear to be OK from the sockpuppets I have identified with my methods I use. I can use the WP:DUCK assumption to back me up because I know when I see one, proving it, because that is the way it has been done for so long. It's a really useful tool for me to keep track of all those voicing the same view in the same time frame. DUCK's your uncle. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you tag the page of any editor participating in this discussion with a sock tag, you will not like what happens. DUCK is not some sort of a free pass to provide zero evidence for tagging an account. Quite the contrary. I agree with the IP at the bottom of this thread that this should be closed. No editor misconduct has occurred and the issue has moved to the TfD page. Doc talk 03:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the IP like it? Tagging an account is not, in your view, a personal attack, and he states that he has evidence and will take it to an SPI. It seems like it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, under the guidelines that you are proposing we follow. GregJackP Boomer! 03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with his to his being an IP. Anyone that uses these tags without very good evidence, especially to prove a point, is ill-advised to do so. Doc talk 03:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I still see no answer to Greg's question there but rather just a repeat of your same point. I do see your claim that implies only editors with a named account and a personal reason may use sockpuppet tags. Doesn't this constitute the reason so many want this template usage stopped? Now you have never answered a question I have put forth to your snipes of my comments before but perhaps you could actually discuss your opinion on this one and not sweep in under the rug without discussion. Again, why is it OK for some editors to place sockpuppet tags based on their own single personal opinion buy not for others to place them based on their own single personal opinion? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand the notion of DUCK. So, if you want to, throw sock tags around using just your intuition. As an IP or a named account. Try the IpSock template on a named account, for laughs. I'm done explaining it to you now. Doc talk 10:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have searched the whole page and yours is the only mention of "intuition". I will only base the sockpuppet tag, I place on your page, on WP:DUCK. As I stated in my hypothetical scenario, I see you arguing this same fringe theory as Brangifer and in the same forum venue! That's WP:DUCK and that doesn't need anybody else's input to place such an invaluable tool for tracking of your disruptions here. But don't worry. It isn't harassment or a negative thing so why act so concerned and defensive about it? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tag me up. Then please: be quiet. DUCK describes what good sock hunters go through when determining something: and it is always reviewable by the community. All of it. The vast majority of those who use the tag know this, and if they don't they get reprimanded. Doc talk 11:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Can you give us some examples of those who were reprimanded? GregJackP Boomer! 13:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of confirmed blocked IP socks using this template. Has any consideration been given to the 'confirmed' parameter? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there was not. The basis for this that I'm seeing is roughly "It gets abused sometimes, so it's bad." I, for one, do not buy that as a rationale for removing it. Doc talk 03:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone should probably mention the TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see the empirical evidence that going through them manually shows that a vast majority were tagged in violation of policy. For example these three

• HarveyCarter (talk · contribs)
• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs)
• Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs)

people are long term vandals (and all three still pop up) who used 100s if not 1000s of IPs and not all of their IPs were blocked. But, the tagging of them helps in tracking their hopping. At times simply placing the tag stopped them from using the IP. It also help to show admins who are unfamiliar with, or new to, the problem editors just how pernicious they are. The discussions linked to are disparate and, in no way, can be construed as indicating approval to remove the tags. We should work to reduce the abuse to our articles and the harassment of editors who work to stop this abuse rather than increase it by acting like there isn't a problem. MarnetteD | Talk 04:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! The people who do this kind of work appreciate the tags. Another PITA is Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs) who continues a Hong Kong-based IP evasion of his ban as we speak.[18] Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So what do you recommend doing with the editors who tag IPs as suspected socks because the IP is dynamic, and who tells IP editors that having a dynamic IP is automatically a violation of the socking policy? Or the users who tag anyone who disagrees with them as a sock? The policy was changed because at one time, 1 in 5 of the suspected socks of Scibaby were false positives. 20% of the blocks were innocent users. Say, oops, sorry? Or enforce the current policy? If you have proof, provide it, get them blocked and add them to the list. Otherwise it is just another personal attack without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who tags (or says) that using a dynamic IP is in violation of policy will be corrected by those who know policy better. It is certainly not in violation of SOCK for any editor to use a dynamic IP address. When people abuse that right to edit anonymously from an IP, we get problems. Which is why the template exists. Doc talk 05:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet. I can show one editor that has been told repeatedly that using a dynamic IP is not a violation, including by WMF staff, yet has tagged at least 50 and probably many times that as socks and told many more that having a dynamic IP was automatically a violation of the socking policy. No one stepped up until an IP editor started raising the issue at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But you can't show one editor who has done it recently after this debacle, so going back in history is not fair. Even by your strict interpretation of an illogically worded policy, tagging IPs being used for block evasion is proper. When a registered user or IP is blocked, and they continue to edit and comment with other IPs, we have ALWAYS used Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. You're not just reinterpreting history, you don't even KNOW the history of how this template and category have been used! @MarnetteD:, @Doc9871:, and @Binksternet: (below) are right. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Gee. I guess the fact that I don't have a problem with it being used properly, in accordance with policy, means that I shouldn't be concerned about the past violations? Have you ever apologized to any of the dynamic IPs you falsely accused of violating the socking policy? GregJackP Boomer! 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One or two false positives are not enough to stop using the system. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not one or two false positives. At the point WP:HSOCK was changed, it was 1 in 5 false positives. All you have to do is provide your evidence. If it supports a block, then tag it. If it does not support a block, do not make a personal attack by labeling it as a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a realistic view of the situation. You are saying there must be more red tape in order to tag any IP because sometimes people abuse a tag. SPI is backlogged enough. Anyone who has had extensive experience dealing with socks knows that to require they be blocked first is unworkable. Stretching a sock tag into a "personal attack" (thus in violation of policy) is remarkably creative. And frightening. Doc talk 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So I take it you would not have a problem with a sock tag being placed on your user page? I mean since it is not a personal attack, does it really matter? I've been accused of being a sock (and cleared through CU) - I can guarantee you that it is a personal attack. It was also frightening, that some editors could get away with accusing others of being socks based on "secret tells" which of course they could not share with anyone. It was sort of like what I imagine the Salem witch trials to be like. Especially when the "sock" is blocked and can't defend themselves at SPI. "She turned me into a newt!" GregJackP Boomer! 06:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to accuse an account of being a sock. It just isn't. Doc talk 07:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee, then why is it listed as a form of harassment? Or noted as an "inherently personal attack" over 8 years ago in a template discussion? Or that only sock hunters think that it is not a personal attack? The history in the project shows very clearly that accusing an editor, whether an IP or registered, of being a sock is a personal attack unless you can provide evidence to substantiate that the editor is in fact a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be very annoyed if Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg is depopulated. Only about 3 other editors even care about his ban evasion, so hindering me from dealing with his constant stream of sockpuppets is going to be counterproductive. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A spotcheck of that cat showed that all of the IPs had been blocked or sent to an SPI or both. None appeared to be in the category outside of policy, unlike several others that I've checked. GregJackP Boomer! 05:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned with edits like this. There exists an agenda to stop tagging IPs, yet there is no real community consensus aside from policy "changes" like this to rely on. It's an ongoing issue. RfC time? Doc talk 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Greg. The vandalism is a far bigger problem than a handful of IPs not being able to edit for a short time. Some of the vandalism that Pé performed sat in the article for more than a year. We say "oops sorry" all the time around here (because none of us are perfect.) I would rather say it to an IP whose short block had expired than have the articles vandalized and/or the editors harassed or trolled who deal with these problems. MarnetteD | Talk 05:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that simple. First, the "oops, sorry" rarely happens. There is a discussion right now on unblocking a user who was mistakenly blocked and just wanted an apology. Many editors will not apologize, feeling that being blocked is minor and easy to get over - it's not minor and it's not easy to get over.

I would rather have proof before we lock someone out or label them as a wikicriminal. GregJackP Boomer! 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is that simple and I can't speak for other editors ability to apologize. As to proof perhaps you are unaware how things work at SPI. Socking can go on rapidly but response to reports about it do not. I filed a report on Pe [19] including proof that he admitted to being a sock that saw ten days go by for any action to be taken on it. So you are saying that I should not have been allowed to tag any of the IPs he was editing from before or during those ten days? I am sorry (see!) but that is taking a simplistic and absurd view of how thing work around here. IPs who have received an improper block happen (and some of those are for reasons other that socking) if you feel that is wrong then that is your prerogative. Articles that get vandalized by socks and editors who get trolled by those socks occurs much more often and my concern over removing the tools to deal with that is mine. I am logging off now so this takes care of stating my opinion on the subject. MarnetteD | Talk 06:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of how things work at a lynching. Someone makes an accusation, and then someone gets hung. Sometimes the hangee is guilty, sometimes not. As long as you're part of the mob, everything's fine, but it sort of sucks to be the one that is falsely accused and standing under the tree branch. GregJackP Boomer! 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice piece of OTT sophistry. Adding a suspected IP tag isn't even a block so what hardship are they facing. In the case of an IP that is blocked having to sit out a few hours or days is in no way comparable to a lynching. On top of that they have options wherein they can continue editing. They can post an unblock request. Though not required they can even register. It is always odd that an editor thinks they are more anonymous by staying an IP. It only takes a few clicks to find out where they are editing from where a registered user can create a user name that has nothing to do with who they are or where they are and, thus, be much more anonymous. Once again your concern for the occasional IP is fine. Our larger concerns for the damage done to articles and editors who get trolled are hardly going to be changed by this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric. MarnetteD | Talk 05:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Request close

1. The TfD was closed, innocuously, as delete (3-0-1) by @Plastikspork: at 23:33 28 Sept 2013 [20]. It looks like they just went through TfD and closed a whole batch -- SOP for regular admins.
2. This ANI was opened at 00:51 29 Sept 2013. I don't see where Plasticspork was notified??
3. Discussion was initiated at User talk:Plastikspork#IPSock Template at 01:37 29 Sept 2013.
4. Plasticspork asked if Doc9871 wanted it relisted, and then did relist it at 02:30 29 Sept 2013 [21].
5. The balance has now shifted to not delete.

• So why is this here? It was resolved peacefully with the admin on their talkpage. Every single comment above should be at the TfD. Please close. Rgrds. --64.85.215.69 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the large number of IPs in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rovers Forever - the tagging of IPs is an invaluable tool in range blocks for blocked and banned editors. As far as I am aware nobody else edits from these ranges. GiantSnowman 11:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Long running case of casting aspersions

Could someone please ask User:Jclemens to kindly drop his stick and quit casting aspersions all over en wikipedia and make accusations only in the proper forum. The most recent incident of bringing up actions from over three years ago is User_talk:Jclemens#Apology but they have been ongoing for over a year [22] If he really thinks there is an issue, he needs to take his evidence to SPI. If he lacks the evidence, he needs to drop the stick and quit WP:BAITing the user. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. I haven't cast any aspersions; referring to established events is not casting aspersions, and a review of my contributions will not yield any inappropriate attributions. If you have specific, actionable diffs where you believe I have recently accused of anyone of anything without evidence, please... present them. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens only "accusation" was a reference to inappropriate behavior that was documented in two sockpuppetry investigations. While it is indeed a personal attack to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, that does not appear to have occurred here. While it may not have been necessary for the history to be brought up in that conversation, there is no rule against doing so. This doesn't seem like a situation that needs admin intervention. It seems more like a case of a few editors who just don't like each other very much. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While a single reference to a really old event may "not be necessary", repeating the "not necessary" event over and over again for over a year becomes problematic as laid out: Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. (emph added) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffs, please? You realize that making accusation without providing evidence, which you are doing in this thread, is exactly the same thing as you're accusing me of: casting aspersions. Only I haven't accused anyone of sockpuppetry, merely made reference to the established judgements of other admins, on en.wiki and it.wiki, to which the named party and yourself have taken offense. Please provide one single diff within, say, the past year where I've accused anyone of current sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is one big difference, I have done it in the proper forum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

in addition specific examples that I initially posted, see the ones listed below by FdF. and its not like we havent been here before "Jclemens is reminded not to use the term sock casually. Investigate possible socking, but don't throw the term about otherwise. All editors are reminded of the value of dropping the stick. LadyofShalott 14:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's review the evidence so far: You have posted none--nothing new from the past year. Folken de Fanel has posted things he doesn't like, but nothing so far that supports what you've accused me of, which is currently casting aspersions about editors. The reason you haven't is actually pretty simple: I've never engaged in any such behavior, and for the third time I invite you or anyone to post any evidence that I've accused anyone of active, current sockpuppetry in the past year. The fact that you are in the right forum for founded complaints does nothing to protect you from the fact that your accusations are unfounded. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted diffs of you casting aspersions on me from last month, and others from the past year to show your smearing campaign against me has never stopped. You haven't accused me of "active, current sockpuppetry", but of past sockpuppettry on en.wiki, which is unfounded, thus a personal attack.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how describing past misbehavior, absent any accusation that the behavior is still ongoing, constitutes a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Note further that you are explicitly disclaiming the basis of this complaint as brought by TRPoD. So, to summarize: 1) You admit I didn't do what TRPoD said I did, and 2) what you accuse me of, bringing up your past record, isn't even covered by WP:ASPERSIONS, the principle that you reference. Oh, and 3) Misuse of IP addresses is covered under WP:ILLEGIT and there is no separate category for abuse of IP addresses rather than registered accounts, so yes, you were sanctioned for sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't discussed any past misbehavior that I can see, you just made up false accusations of sockpuppetry that never happened on the English WP, and pursued me with the claims to an AfD page, which certainly isn't an appropriate forum to bring up (imaginary, in this case) user conduct, per WP:AVOIDYOU. 1) This specific thread was opened because you are harassing me with false claims of past sockpupettry, but TRPOD is right to bring up your history of using groundless SP accusations against your editorial opponents, thus highlighting a general trend of bad faith, uncivility and misuse of the term "sockpuppetry", to which the current issue pertains. 2) the issue is two-fold: first you brought up false past record, second you brought it in a forum (AfD) which isn't made to discuss user behavior, which is thus a personal attack per WP:AVOIDYOU. 3) There is no "misuse" of IP that I can see and no I was never sanctionned for sockpuppetry on En WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) You are the one who is linking to that wiki jargon shortcut, and attempting to pigeon hole any of your behavior outside of what may be specifically outlined there. However, I was using the word in the general language usage of the intent of the Pillars WP:CIV that people [who are Wikipedians follow, things like It is as unacceptable to attack a user ... even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. People make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia and It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as ... (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent;" and Other uncivil behaviours (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. You have not provided any rationale for why you seem to feel the need to bring up LONG PAST behavior except that it will continue to cast a cloud over the user and likely bait them into actions he would not have taken if you had not repeatedly kept poking and poking and poking for no other reason than to poke and provoke - that is uncivil.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record I don't see those so-called "sockpuppetry investigations". One only shows that my login cookies expired during a discussion and I forgot to log back in (I hadn't edited for two weeks before coming back to the discussion) . The admin called it "obvious", and I indeed would really be stupid if I hoped to sock while continuing the same discussion and still referring to my account "Folken de Fanel" as "I". Sure, I was blocked for the coments I wrote back then, but not for sockpuppettry. The other one is from the Italian wikipedia, which, for all intents and purposes, is outside of the English WP jurisdiction.

Given that I have never been blocked for sockpuppettry on en.wiki, Jclemens's choice to manipulate an earlier report so as to portray me as a sockpuppet, or to unconditionally call me a sockpuppeteer on en.wiki while using extra-en.wiki, years-old and out of context evidence, is a personal attack, as an experienced admin, he should know the difference. The fact that Jclemens likes to pursue me with sockpuppetry accusations in inappropriate forums also shows a behavior that is borderline wikihounding. Jclemens has a history of personal attacks and unfounded accusations against me which is unbecoming any administrator, and the "sockpuppet" approach is only the newest angle of his smearing campain against me. At one point, that behavior needs to stop. Jclemens may not like me, as Mark Arsten puts it, and I guess it is bound to happen on WP, but I don't see why I'd have to put up with so much abuse that's been going on for more than a year. That it comes from a user supposed to fight this kind of behavior and not to relish in it is is even more concerning.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

it may be that Jclemens feels his construction of not a wikipedian only applies to certain people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's ironic that someone like TRPOD, who in my experience has little regard for following WP:CIV in discussions towards users with whom he disagrees, is now complaining about other another user with whom he has had a highly antagonistic relationship for over a year. I found this thread on his talk page particularly compelling, for example, to get an idea of how many users seem to have a reason to complain about his approach. You can find quite a bit of antagonism from TRPOD and FDF towards Jclemens documented at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel as well. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Correction: Antagonism from BOZ and Jclemens towards FdF. I'm not the one who is calling opposing users "clueless", "disengaged from reality" and "experiencing mental illness", or speculating that any user in disagreement must be a sockpuppet. Jclemens is. So the most ironic comment of all is yours, BOZ, when you seek every little fault in others in an attempt to divert attention from your buddy Jclemens who, as an admin, should be above this kind of behavior more than any of us mere contributors. When users like Jclemens, supposed to uphold the CIVIL policy, are the ones abusing, how are regular users supposed to feel ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, at one point over the past year Jclemens decided to make me the target of his vendetta, and I thought that since he was an admin he could be reasoned with or understand when to stop...unfortunately he never stopped pursuing me with groundless accusations of misbehavior or past history whenever we happened to interact and disagree on the same subject. And I'm not the only user to whom he does that, as seen very recently at AfD. In short, he has a tendency of accusing those disagreeing with him of all kind misbehavior or bringing up past conduct anywhere (usually at AfD) but on the specific forums made to discuss user conduct such as WP:ANI which, in effect, allows him to launch smear campaigns in attempt to discredit his editorial opponents (instead of bringing valid counter argumentation) while avoiding the consequence of potentially abusive user conduct reports, a specific type of personal attack depicted at WP:AVOIDYOU and for which he has already been admonished at ANI. Jclemens is certainly a competent admin overall, but such bullying and hounding tactics whenever the notability of fiction is in question are unacceptable and need to stop.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- FdF made two logged-out edits with no attempt to conceal his identity, and the block wasn't even for sockpuppetry. It doesn't seem reasonable to be bringing it up at every opportunity, on completely unrelated discussions, three years afterward. I think FdF and Red Pen are right to object. Reyk _YO! 09:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Harassment from User:Binksternet

I have warned a user three times to stay off my talk page (1) (2) (3). Following each of my warnings, he continued to post inflammatory templates falsely accusing me of edit warring and threatening to block me (4) (5) (6). The claims of edit warring are specious, making the harassment motive all the more clear. For instance, he twice accused me of edit warring on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a page which (on both occasions) I had done one total revert on over the course of several days.

This is WP:harassment, plain and simple, and I'd like to see a temporary ban imposed to teach Binksternet that harassment is unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bink is on a roll: he's simultaneously edit-warring, removing other user's talk page comments and trying to get me blocked for pointing out that he's edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted an edit warring note on Steeletrap's user page because it is required to do so before filing a report at WP:3RRN. Steeletrap uses hyperbole in the above note, saying the standard templates are "inflammatory" and that I am "threatening to ban" Steeletrap. In fact, I have only used Twinkle's standard edit warring templates, so no discussion of banning is possible.

Steeletrap appears to be unaware that an editor may be reported for edit warring, and blocked, for long-term edit warring, or for tendentious editing. Steeletrap has engaged in all of the above at various articles I'm aware of including most recently Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the latter a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a lie. You're the one edit-warring, along with SRich. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet will get another WP:* for defending the Wiki against WP:TE editors once this nonsense is over. Baseless. WP:GAMING. Bullshit. That's about it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

boomerang, the response to generic warning #1 was to question Bink's competence then adding revert over the course of several weeks does not constitute an edit war, which actually is warring. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[reply} Dark, What on earth are you talking about? He posted a template threatening to block me for "editing warring" (on a page I had 1 total revert on over several weeks) and I questioned his competence for his 1) Erroneous accusations 2) failing to respond to my previous request to stay off my talk page Steeletrap (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

you questioned Bink's competence in the same breath you proved your incompetence. 1. a single revert is edit warring when discussion is ongoing. 2. asking someone to stay off your talk page does not exempt you from your disruptive behavior. 3. if you were smart, now would be a good time to find the exit and move on to a new topic. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet has been harassing and hounding Steeletrap for months

User Bink has been attacking, misrepresenting, and hounding user Steeletrap for months now. It's a long complicated history and has driven away many editors who might otherwisew be here to affirm Steeletrap's complaint. I recommend that any Admin who chooses to step into this mess review the long-term pattern of hit-and-run attack and harassment. It seems to have begun when user Binksernet began following various articles relating to libertarianism and the Mises Institute. Shortly thereafter Binkser went on a campaign of personal attack against Steeletrap, and a few other editors, driving them away from these topics -- (see Ad-hom, here) -- but Steeletrap continued to work on content and articles which aroused Binkser's ire. I would say that Steeletrap is within her rights to request relief in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So which of the "many" editors did I drive away? Please name names. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

To name just one, uninvolved, well-respected user:Stalwart111 ended his good-faith efforts to improve Mises Institute-related pages, in part because of your misattributing quotes to, and making false allegations/personal attacks against, him (1). Steeletrap (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry to see Stalwart111 go, but to me it looked like he became initially frustrated with Carolmooredc's work to stem the bias introduced by Steeletrap and Specifico, a bias he had not recognized himself. When I joined the effort to stop the bias Stalwart111 found the topic's complexity and the talk page debates to be too much. So Stalwart111 left the topic; that makes for exactly one editor out of the "many" I have supposedly chased from the article, according to Specifico. As long as we are talking about editors leaving out of frustration, we can add Carolmooredc to that group. She left because of constant attacks against her made by Steeletrap and Specifico. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What fabulous historical revisionism! I left because the discussions were too complex? Get real. I left (and said so several times) because Carol's completely unsubstantiated personal attacks, deliberate misquoting and disruptive editing made involvement in the topic area futile and unpleasant. Having been completely discredited (withdrawing many of her attacks when she couldn't back them up) you picked up where she left off and repeated her ad-hom rubbish verbatim. When I challenged you to provide a single shred of evidence you couldn't. And for the record, Carol's work to "stem the bias" involved "protecting" sometimes completely unsourced BLPs from the inclusion of sourced content she didn't like. When I pointed that out neither you nor she could provide an answer. Contributions histories are there for all to see. Stalwart111 14:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet crossed a line with me with this edit. It seems innocuous. But there is a problem. I think the word "misconstrue" describes it. You can't make an argument that fails to correctly acknowledge the points of contention. A WP:TALK page is useless if it is not used properly. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, the diff you show is completely unrelated to Specifico, and does not shine any light on the matter at hand. Perhaps you can explain your point more clearly. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet—Editing Wikipedia and interacting with other editors is not identical to Gamesmanship. If we are disagreeing over a point, there is an obligation to stick to the point of disagreement. You can't just pretend that some unrelated argument is taking place. You can't argue against points that are not even in play. To make up your own point of contention and then to argue against a position which is not even maintained by another editor is to present a straw man argument. Doing so creates an atmosphere of distrust. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, I had no idea back then that you were feeling this way about my statement at the Whaam! FAC2 page. You made no indication at the time—nothing. I thought I was stating my position clearly enough, that I had supported the FAC the first time, and that I would continue to support it the second time if the improvement points I had earlier indicated remained addressed satisfactorily. I continue to think that the Whaam! article requires some perspective from the cartoonist angle, which it now has. I did not take part in the FAC so that I could argue finer points with people there; instead I took part in the FAC in the manner of a voter who has only one vote. I gave my (very few) thoughts and then I checked back from time to time to see if they were implemented. I was not there to engage Tony and the other FAC reviewers in debate. I'm sorry that I did not meet your expectation of being a dedicated debater. I'm sorry I angered you with my simple position statement. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to hear that was your experience with Binkser, because that is exactly what he did here in this thread -- launching into entirely irrelevant accusations against user MilesMoney. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When tightly coordinating meatpuppets like Steeletrap and Specifico constantly engage in biased editing (including adding negative poorly sourced material while removing neutral better sourced material that might make a BLP look good), ignore neutral editors comments (brought from various noticeboards), and when appeals to various noticeboards to sanction these editors go no where, any editor might lose their temper. I was losing mine and had to stop editing articles with these editors, unwatched them (and now notifications that mention me in them), and am doing my best to avoid them (despite occasional lapses). (Also have unwatched half of my articles in frustration with Wikipedia.) If some neutral editor who does not edit these articles but has seen (or chooses to review) the pattern of disruptive editing by editors Specifico and Steeletrap especially would bring a topic ban on their editing Austrian economics and libertarians/libertarianism to WP:ANI, and it succeeded, it would be a great boon to the project. User:Carolmooredc 16:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Belittling personal attacks on Binksternet and Srich32977

User:MilesMoney has engaged in personal attacks against me and User:Srich32977 in the last four hours, apparently for the purpose of belittling the contributions of me and Rich, to WP:HOUND us off the articles we are interested in; all in violation of WP:No personal attacks. Here is what MilesMoney has posted recently:

• "The SRich and Bink Show: Welcome to the show of shows, where our pair of entertainers will dazzle you by tag-teaming to edit-war!" This is a belittling comment completely inappropriate for an article talk page.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• "The show goes on. Binksternet is embarrassed by this description of his tag-team edit-warring, so he keeps violating the rules by deleting it. Too bad nothing ever really gets deleted on Wikipedia. But what's really too bad is that the show goes on. Bink tagged Rich and now the latter is edit-warring to keep those photos out. It's hilarious to watch the lengths these two will go to violate Wikipedia policy. Let's see if Bink tries to delete this, too. It would be fun to watch him incriminate himself by doing so."
• "... the Rich & Bink Show." A belittling comment.
• "Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet." A belittling comment.

I reverted the first MilesMoney post with an edit summary referencing his violation of WP:NPA. I reverted the second MilesMoney post using Twinkle to place an "only warning" on his talk page saying that he should stop engaging in personal attack. After two more posts I reported MilesMoney to WP:AIV where DanielCase said I should be reporting here.

MilesMoney is usually more balanced and objective than this. In the past few hours he is not his normal self. I think he needs to wait out this tendentious period of time. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The comments cited above are remarkably mild/do not constitute personal attacks and by your own admission, are out of character for Miles. This tedious ANI should be closed immediately. Steeletrap (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of tag-teaming are rarely a good thing unless the point can be proven. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The guideline WP:NPA speaks against those who would "comment on the contributor" rather than the content. MilesMoney's article talk page post was wholly focused on belittling two contributors; it was devoid of article content. I was within my rights to immediately remove each of these comments as NPA directs "derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." MilesMoney was in the wrong by repeatedly replacing his belittling personal attacks, no matter how "mild" they might seem. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content, which is that you and Rich are tag-teaming on Murray Rothbard. Each of you goes up to the red line on 3RR, then then next takes over. You keep reverting regardless of what reasonable compromises other editors propose and you absolutely do not have any sort of consensus. These aren't attacks on you, they're a commentary on your poor behavior, which comes down to various forms of tendentious editing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing personal about these remarks. MilesMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously upset about something. We need to ascertain whether he has good reason to be upset. If so, we should solve the underlying problem, not punish the person complaining about it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  It looks like Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a fairly long block log for past edit warring and a prior 6 month 1RR restriction, though they've not been blocked since 2011. I don't think edit warring is the way to solve a problem. Participating in an edit war and then complaining about opponents, well, I take a dim view of that. Could you all please agree to use dispute resolution to settle your disagreements? Reverting doesn't solve anything. There's no urgent BLP issue. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've already taken a step back to avoid getting further embroiled in their edit war. Instead of being part of it, I commented critically about it on the article talk page, which I believe is the appropriate place. I would be glad to use dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly if Rich and Bink stopped edit-warring and joined us in discussion. If not, then the rest of us can come up with a consensus even without them, although I suspect they might edit-war against that consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, user:Binksternet has a history of repeated, unsubstantiated personal attacks on various editors including User:Stalwart111, User:Steeletrap, myself, and others. He is, shall we say, "selective" in his concern for NPA and other WP policies. At any rate, I hope that editors will return to discussion of the initial topic of this thread, namely, the harassment of Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Stale

 –
No new points being made, and I (one of the "victims" of the belittling remarks) do not consider the remarks worthwhile of this extended discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

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

---

In light of the statements of a cross-section of editors here, I propose a topic ban for user Bink on articles related to libertarianism, broadly construed, subject to standard rights of appeal. The only statement in support of Bink appears to be from user Srich, whose own tendentious behavior on these articles has been noted recently, and his comment is "bullshit" -- not a convincing counterargument, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for Bink, per above. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I believe this is the only way to avoid long, long blocks for the both of them. Either one can be reasonable, but when they act together, they run roughshod over libertarianism-related articles. Removing the worst of the two gives the other a chance to reform. MilesMoney (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Inappropriate proposal – This discussion started with a thread about the warnings that Binksternet had posted on Steeletrap's talk page. Diffs were presented for inspection. But no resolution of that editor behavior issue has been made. Moreover, it switched gears into accusations about Binksternet's alledged harrassment of other editors. Then we have Binksternet's complaint about MilesMoney (which I agree did little to resolve Steeletap's initial complaint). But that subtread spun out of control with comments about EW on other articles. As Specifico said, the discussion of the initial topic of the thread should be the focus of this discussion. With that in mind, a topic ban is not appropriate. If Binksternet was pushing POV, then that issue should be raised on the WP:NPOVN because that board addresses concerns about how editors contribute topic-wise. If Binksternet is harassing Steeletrap, then administrative action should be taken to address that particular behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're talking about Steeletrap when the subject is Bink. If I didn't WP:AGF, I'd almost think you were trying to distract us with something completely irrelevant. Is this the famed Chewbacca defense? MilesMoney (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As Specifico said above: "At any rate, I hope that editors will return to discussion of the initial topic of this thread, namely, the harassment of Steeletrap." – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The harassment is what the topic ban will fix. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• *Strongly oppose. A cross-section of editors, is it? What nonsense. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

Could you please be more clear about your reasons? I'm not sure I understand them. MilesMoney (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – The "bullshit" here is characterizing a cadre of folks with a bone–to–pick with Binksternet as a "cross-section of editors". Mojoworker (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that sure is hostile and counterproductive. Do you have anything to say on the issues? MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I encountered several of those involved here at Hans-Hermann Hoppe which I saw on a noticeboard. It turns out that Hoppe has stated some strong views—views which are easily misinterpreted by quoting phrases out of context. Wikipedia has no defense against groups of editors who want to expose the evils of the world, no defense other than individuals like Binksternet. Johnuniq (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are factually false but also irrelevant to Bink's outrageous behavior on libertarian articles. The falsehood is that Hoppe himself wrote about how these views were focused on by his colleagues and used against him, which means that nobody can claim Steeletrap or any other editor is doing original research or "quoting phrases out of context". Anyhow, even if you weren't dead wrong about this, it wouldn't excuse Bink. MilesMoney (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A word of advice, MilesMoney, commenting after virtually every oppose vote is not going to do your argument any favours. It tends to give people the impression that you are harrassing. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for not being familiar with the protocol here, but I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to be mislead by such a false impression. MilesMoney (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (multiple ec) I cannot see that Binksternet has done anything that is disproportionate. This report and proposal does have the appearances of ganging-up and I do agree with the sentiments of the other opposers above, especially Johnuniq. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• *Qualified Support An apology and admission of wrongdoing and hounding by Bink might moderate my thinking in these respects. With all the off-topic banter, I encourage readers to read my original post clearly documenting hounding by Bink. Off-topic Though Bink's behavior has been egregious on libertarian-rleated forums, these particular charges are off-topic for purposes of this thread (and would need to be meticulously substantiated to justify a topic ban). I urge editors to please refer to my original complaint -- that bink is harassing/hounding me -, and the evidence (diffs) I use to document it, in my original post. Please do not get side tracked with these side issues. Steeletrap (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Another example of one of the worst editing antipatterns infesting Wikipedia -- a cascade of reverts, followed by the amplification of grievances, and then one group of editors coming to AN/I to get the other group banned. Talking about the issues (not the editors!) is the first step of dispute resolution, followed by third opinions and possible topical RFCs. Try it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, it's a recognition of the fact that Bink's behavior is routinely beyond the ken when it comes to these articles. Please address the issue at hand. MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as Binksternet has behaved this way in many different topic areas in the past. Hopefully this will cause him to watch his behavior elsewhere. Instaurare (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I echo Stalwart111 below. A topic ban won't fix the root problem. Instaurare (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. You haven't even begun to make a case for action this drastic. At best, Binksternet should be asked to stay off Steeletrap's user talk page and leave the templating to others. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me out: What, in your eyes, would it take to justify this topic ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs)

The presentation of evidence of multiple, long-term violations of core content policies like NPOV and RS on multiple articles within the scope of the topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Though there may be merit to these charges against Bink, I would really like everyone to focus on my original complaint, since this is my thread (two of these sub-sections, one of which relates to Bink's allegations against Miles, are completely off-topic). The specific complaint is that he keeps hounding me on my talk page, with false accusations of edit warring and threats of blocks, despite being repeatedly warned to stay off. This is an obvious violation of policy re: WP:Hounding and WP:harassment, which I have documented in diffs. It should be swiftly dealt with by an admin such as you, Gamaliel. Steeletrap (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's all one thing. Together, Rich and Bink exhibit these behaviors in a variety of contexts, most of which seem to be focused on their ownership of all things libertarian. Rather than blocking them both for a long period, I think it would be more effective to take the worse offender and banish him from the articles on the subject that drives him to such extremes. This would give Rich a chance to sink or swim on his own merits, not his membership in a gang-of-two. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, having interacted with Bink for a long time now, I completely agree with your concerns and am sympathetic to your proposed solution. But this thread is devoted to my (much more modest) charges against him. Your "meta" allegations deserve their own thread, and will need to be meticulously documented. Steeletrap (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, despite having been the subject of some of Bink's most vitriolic and unsubstantiated "bullshit". Topic bans won't fix generally problematic editor conduct. I think the topic here could be cheese or sky diving or physics and it wouldn't matter - the problem here is Binksternet's willingness to resort to ad-hom and personal attacks first and collegial discussion a distant second. This 8000 byte rant (repeating, almost verbatim, the unsubstantiated claims of another editor) was his "introduction" to this topic area. When the other editor subsequently withdrew most of her personal attacks and deliberate misquoting, Binksternet doubled down, dug in and simply repeated his claims over and over again (still without providing evidence). Topic bans are designed to prevent disruption - all a topic ban would do here is push Binksternet into another area of the project (with which he is not familiar) where the attitude would likely remain the same. His historical revisionism above is laughable, as is the suggestion he is "defending" BLPs - a claim that was comprehensively put to bed when it was revealed Bink & Co. were "protecting" entirely unsourced BLPs from being sourced. No, his attitude is a problem bigger than can be solved with a topic ban. Stalwart111 00:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank your for linking to that post. I composed it myself, taking quite a bit of time to do so. I didn't copy "verbatim" any editor at all. I thought the argument would be quite convincing after listing 57 of the notable people who were in the "walled garden" (the observation that the Mises Institute people were not neutral with regard to each other), this phrase being one that you first brought to the discussion back then. It's kind of a far-ranging walled garden, don't you think? More like an estate or park? Yeah, I'm proud of that post and I wish it had achieved more of its purpose. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• What rubbish - you listed 57 people and then claimed those were people I had referred to when I'd not even read most of those articles, let alone referred to them and had specifically listed (multiple times) those articles I was referring to. It was a blatant misrepresentation of my previous comments (the same blatant misrepresentation Carol had tried and was forced to strike) and when I challenged you to provide evidence (any evidence at all), you couldn't. It was a strawman argument designed to play the man rather than the ball and I'm genuinely surprised you're not completely ashamed of it. You should be. Stalwart111 05:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not only have the complainants not made their case, but they're guilty of the same behavior of which they accuse Binksternet. MIlesMoney in particular seems to have a battlefield mentality, engaging in edit warring and invective that is completely inappropriate for this project. Funnily, his battlefield behavior is almost identical to now indefed editor StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). A coincidence, I'm sure.

A look at MilesMoney's talk page and several article talk pages suggests that there is campaign on the part of SPECIFICO, Steeltrap and MilesMoney to control certain articles and portray those that disagree with their edits as incompetent and tendentious. This is not a productive way to settle content disputes, nor is ganging up on respected editors at ANI. - MrX 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Bullshit" is probably the kindest description of this clumsy power play by remaining, unbanned members of a political clique. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've severely cut down my editing of Wikipedia because visits to a number of noticeboards showed an inability of Wikipedia to deal with the incredibly biased, vitriolic edits against certain Austrian economists and/or libertarians by Users:Steeletrap and Specifico (User:MilesMoney later joined them). (I can provide multiple links to archives if people want to see them.) I'm amazed User:Binksternet and User:SRich have had the energy and stomach to continue to put up with their destructive and disruptive editing behavior. I think they both should be topic banned from all articles on Austrian economics and libertarians/libertarianism. User:Carolmooredc 02:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Um... no. You "severely cut down [your] editing of Wikipedia" because you attacked others, deliberately misquoted them and made all sorts of outrageous accusations without evidence, and when people stood up to you, you begrudgingly struck the worst of your personal attacks and you haven't dared try again since. It was you who drove people away from Austrian economics articles, not the other way around and your "alternate history" (which draws attention to Bink's blind support for your "protection" of unsourced BLPs) does Bink no favours. Stalwart111 04:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilariously, Carol just minutes ago (right after her "break" from these articles ended), made (1) and then deleted (2) another erroneous (and therefore libelous) allegation of libelous editing. The "libel" was a direct paraphrase (almost a precise quote) of the passage, which she presumably hadn't ever read when she characterized my interpretation of it as libelous. Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dividing the question: It looks like the Proposal, which addressed the behavior of Binksternet, will not be adopted. Assuming so, is there another course of action which addresses the initial complaint raised by Steeletrap? Or should the whole thread be closed? – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the "proposal" thread is totally off topic, it should be hatted promptly. My original concern hasn't even been substantively addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Carolmooredc, Carlton, MrX, Mojoworker et al. And Sitush also hit a nail on the head. Writegeist (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior from User:Ryulong

Okay, this has gotten out of control real fast. I made an edit to Pokémon hoping to arrange some information in a way I felt was best, as a certain inaccuracy arises from the way it is now (see talk page). Ryulong reverted it stating "The series is "Pokemon" in Japan too."; completely reasonable, but my edit was for the same reason. So I asked him to explain further on his talk page, but he reverted the new section I had made and then went on to revert some edits I had made on some other Pokemon-related pages with no explanation. Then he had this to say on my talk page... despite the fact that the edits were made to resolve some clear, sourceable errors; one of the edits he reverted had actually been made at least two days ago with no opposition. So now I have to bug the talk page every time I want to make a change to any Pokemon article ever? What is even going on here? Despatche (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I explained my point on the article talk page as well as your own. This need not escalate to this just because you think things should be done a certain way on multiple websites.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong could certainly stand to be a little more civil, but otherwise, this just seems like a content issue that should be hashed out on the talk page, and/or posted at relevant WikiProjects if there's not enough discussion going on... Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Ryulong has been a continual problem in this area with bitey, arrogant and rude behavior coupled with persistant long-term abuse of the rollback function as seen here.[23][24] Ryulong removes his talk page discussions concerning any objectionable behavior making it difficult and tedious to find such actions, but they are frequent and fall on deaf ears. When Despatche brought the matter to Ryulong's talk page to discuss, Ryulong removed it with "I saw, it doesn't work". [25] This is part of a larger scope concerning the abuse of the rollback feature; which is constant, like on Pokemon X and Y,[26] Pokemon Origins,[27] and even corrections of the heading to match the text by IP users in Kamen Rider Wizard.[28] He does this at AFD even, where an explanation is most certainly needed.[29] Now going through only edits in the last two days shows more abusive behavior. Including frequent all caps yelling while removing good faith additions by IP editors. Three instances alone in List of Power Rangers Megaforce characters history.[30][31][32] Though also in the history of this one page shows a lack of discussion by Ryulong and more abuse of the rollback function.[33] Ryulong has ownership issues, constantly reverts good faith edits without explanation and doesn't engage in discussion, instead, often yelling at the editors in his reverts. I think Ryulong needs to have the rollback rights removed, I've asked him previously to use rollback function properly and he quickly removed the discussion and continued to abuse the function.[34] Ryulong's "consensus" and BRD argument only works if the reverting party intends to discuss and Despatche did attempt discussion only for Ryulong to remove it. There are numerous other examples that can be provided. Many show rudeness, lack of AGF.[35][36] The issue is deep that even editors who assert what a source says get reverted and the talk page discussion removed without even a reply.[37] Frankly, this behavior needs to stop and quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm allowed to do what I want on my user talk page, even with rollback. It's spelled out at WP:ROLLBACK. This has been proven time and time again whenever I use rollback on a talk page message and then someone comes to complain about it at ANI. I had already begun discussing this issue with formatting on his user talk page and the article talk page, but he insisted on opening another thread and I did not want to discuss the same subject on 3 different pages. Also, rollback can be used to revert multiple problematic (although good faith) edits in quick succession, so long as a message is left on the user talk page of the one reverted, which I did, and I see that I was a bit rude looking at it 12 hours later. However, I have been a bit too enthusiastic at List of Power Rangers Megaforce characters, but I am dealing with IP editors who constantly add WP:OR despite requests that they not, and unnecessary formatting changes, overly detailed plot summary, etc., particularly when I have to deal with the same IP editor making the same mistakes and deleterious edits over and over because they do not know how this website works.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've had my fair share of problems with RL in the past. I especially don't like that someone with such a limited range of Japan-related articles s/he edits effectively controls MOSJ (unilateral edits by Ryulong are okay, but consensus-backed edits by others are not). But in this case I have to agree with him on the substance. There is no feasible way to incorporate the information Despatche wants to into the opening sentence without cluttering it, and any changes like that that are reverted really should be discussed before being re-added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a man, thank you. And the edit you made to change the MOS never had consensus while mine changed nothing major.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That I can understand, but I cannot understand why he felt the need to revert other perfectly valid edits because I "didn't have consensus", despite the fact that one had been sitting around for at least two days at the time and both match up with Wikipedia consensus (one was an error and the other was missing information, which I'd really like to readd by the way).

But obviously, this isn't about the content, it's about the way he handles everything. Related: I'm tired of characters like Sergecross trying to hide stuff like this as a content issue (he's got some problems himself), because it's obviously not. People assume I have "hidden motives" because ????, when they have clearly shown their own desire to ignore reality. What do I do about these people? Despatche (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It only had been sitting around for 2 days because no one noticed it until you mentioned you had made several changes and I had initially thought they were unwarranted. Everything you've done and I mistakenly undid has since been properly formatted within the pages other than your insistence that Wikipedia no longer translate Poketto Monsutā as "Pocket Monsters" which is a content issue. And again, I am free to use rollback within my user space and I am allowed to use it to revert several edits in a row, provided I contact the user in question afterward (although I often find that this is fruitless for IP editors).—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything even remotely like that? I said that Pokemon articles as is try to put forward the idea that the series is known as "Pocket Monsters" in Japan, when that hasn't been true since before Wikipedia even existed; those sentences need to be rewritten to reflect how Nintendo has been doing its branding. And why do you keep trying to make this a content issue, refusing to talk to me about it where one is actually supposed to? Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what "problems" exactly you're accusing me of, but regardless, my point is, your opening paragraph above concentrated a lot about not seeing eye to eye working on a Pokemon article, which sounds much more like a content problem. It's one thing if you're presenting it like Chris G did above, but a centerpiece of your opening comment was "I don't want to bring it to the talk page all the time", which is ridiculous, that's what you do if someone disagrees with you. My point is, here we are, once again you're clashing heads with editors who don't see your way, and you're way too quick to run to ANI, instead of talking it out, contacting Wikiprojects, starting up RFCs, etc. You need to learn to work with people, discuss, and concede to consensus when necessary, not just run off to ANI to attempt to "rat them out". Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am an unknown third-party in this situation but I have been watching Ryulong's talk page for some time now. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the remarks that he comes off as demanding and arrogant. Yes, WP:ROLLBACK says you can use it freely on your talk page, but the way Ryulong uses it looks as though he is "covering up" certain discussions. Again, that's not a violation of Wikipedia rules, but Ryulong seems to be following an "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality. It's more of common practice to keep old discussions on talk pages and archive them as the page becomes longer.

Aside from that, Ryulong seems to not assume good faith at times which was when I started watching his page after a comment made on another user's talk page where he threatened them that they will "face the consequences" if they didn't stop adding unsourced information. More recently he's made comments like "Stop enforcing your damn proposed changes to the formatting when you do not have anything close to consensus behind you." on User talk:Despatche and insisting his correctness as it concerned Japanese because he "lives in Japan" on User talk:Ash Pokemaster.

All in all, I don't think Ryulong is a "bad" editor, I think he's merely passionate about editing Wikipedia and keeping it factual and tidy to the point where he can get heated at times. He needs to stay cool, be more civil overall, be able to talk disputes over, take constructive criticism and not take edits to his talk page and pages he follows so personally. Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"I don't want to bring it to the talk page all the time" <-- Wow, shows where your priorities lie. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works, and I'm really sick of you ignoring every little thing I say for the sake of whatever reason there may be. You are no longer in the "good faith" zone, not anymore. Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, I don't really like how he treats people either. I wish he'd tone it down a bit, be a little less aggressive. But he keeps it within the bounds of Wikipedia's civility standards for the most part, so all we can really do is ask him to summer down a bit, and Despatche to follow he proper channels before blasting into ANI... Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But this is the only proper channel to actually report people for behavior! There's nothing else, except real vandalism channels and the like. I don't think he's a vandal, but I do think his actions make him look like one. Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As others have said, I do not believe Ryulong to be a bad editor, but his attitude towards people who don't agree with him needs to be worked on. For instance, on the discussion of many of these matters, he says something along the line of "Nobody else thought this was a problem until you came along". It is a VERY WEIRD thing to say as it really doesn't mean anything, and sort of is pointy and goes against assume good faith. Just because somebody is the first to bring something up does not mean it is an incorrect way of doing things. It is entirely possible that other people may actually agree with this person. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position. My issue with Ryulong is rollbacking of good faith edits on article space, not on the talk page. Given the ArbCom case against Ryulong which included the rollback issue and is cited at the page, I challenge the acceptability of these rollbacks because they are done in good faith and typically by IP users and almost entirely on a single page or small subsection of related pages. This does not seem to qualify as an acceptable usage. Whether or not discussions are rollbacked back is moot, but refusing to discuss while continuing to rollback these edits are a problem. Ryulong may often be right about the content, but getting this point across in a civil and friendly manner needs work. Ryulong should stop using rollback as a substitute undo button or lose the right to use it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This right here is why the whole "you must open a discussion for every single little edit before you make it" is ridiculous. "Edit first, ask questions later" is good--that's the point of Wikipedia--we're supposed to have good faith in people by default. "Revert first, ask questions later" is bad; it is subtractive, negative, and combative, no matter how hard you try to stress otherwise.

(Content-wise, it's one versus one (actually at this point Sergecross would probably side against me every single time just because), and something that needs to be taken to 3O maybe.) Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I was notified about this AN/I since I'd had some interaction with Ryulong in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, where I weighed in on a proposed addition to the guidelines by another user. I advised Ryu several times, both in the discussion and on his talk page, that he was being unnecessarily antagonistic toward other users, and that I saw no evidence that they were deliberately hounding him as he claimed they had been. I advised him that he should cool off and keep the civility policies front and center. I'll note that he reverted all of the comments I made on his talk page, and apparently didn't even read my first one (since at one point he believed I'd only ever posted one comment there when in fact I had made three edits). I don't have any other specific experience with this user, but from what I've seen, I agree that his attitude could certainly use some adjustment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I've had (and am having right now, in fact) similar frustrating experiences with Ryulong and his tendency to revert edits without/before even checking if they might be correct. See the recent sections on my talk page, for example. I also remember depressing discussions over at the talk page of the Manual of Style for Japanese articles, where Ryulong was so confident about his Japanese skills that even native Japanese speakers had to give up... Basically, for the past few years, whenever I realize I'm editing a page Ryulong has been working on, I know there's going to be trouble. I've avoided certain articles specifically because of that. Erigu (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You never explained why I am wrong for the Baoh thing until today. You just kept reverting me without any explanation when I've shown that the translation is possible. Everyone just reverts without giving an explanation and I am also guilty of this, but I've attempted communication multiple times just to get nothing in return but editors consistently reverting me because no one wants to back down from their point of view and come to a consensus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're saying "until today" here nor why you said on my talk page that I have been edit warring over this for the past week. I first edited that bit just a few hours ago.

I also don't understand why you'd keep reverting something simply because you think the edit could be wrong. That was your argument: your translation is possible. And so was the one you kept reverting. You were reverting based on a mere assumption (well, maybe several of those: "for all I know you've been reading some illegal scanlation rather than an official English release"). Maybe you could (should?) have checked the manga to try and see which one was actually correct, before reverting. Erigu (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I see now that others had made similar edits (which you immediately reverted) over the past week. You apparently (and wrongly) assumed we were all one and the same. That's a lot of assumptions.

I also note that you said on my talk page "I reverted because it was the status quo before your proposed change". That particular bit was first added (by you) to the article not even ten days ago. A bit short to be talking about a "status quo", especially considering it's not an overly popular article and very few people have edited it since then. Also a bit dishonest to tell me about a "status quo" when you know very well that you're entirely responsible for it, that you've been forcing your version with immediate reverts of dissenting edits.[38][39][40] Erigu (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am wrong in saying that you were in any way related to the multiple IP addresses that have been making the exact same edits over the past week since the text was added as I was under the mistaken impression that they were simply using an overly literal translation of the phrase. However, I still find it ingenuous that no one bothers to go to the talk page after they're reverted and it just fosters an edit war.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And I find it unfortunate that you'd so quickly skip over the part where you made those reverts in the first place (not just this time around either, as the recent subjects on my talk page show), as if there were nothing to discuss there anyway (I got a similar "there couldn't possibly be an issue with my behavior anyway so why even talk about it?" vibe from your comment on this very discussion: "an ANI discussion that should have never been started in the first place")... I have to say it's a bit frustrating to regularly be treated by you like I'm wrong by default, to get yelled at like a vandal when you clearly didn't take the time to actually check. Erigu (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I need to use twinkle gadget to add edit summaries instead of using the rollback rights. I'm sorry for this. But I am right in that this conversation should have not been started by Despatche just because I would not budge in an argument over the title of a Pokémon game. What I find disruptive is his insistence that literal translations are fake because official ones exist and his response to me essentially asking "Why did you put the word 'Version' in parentheses" was to append every single instance of the games' titles on the page with the word "Version" as a means to disrupt to make a point. I have found that I am getting relatively heated lately, but it is always when I have reached a point when I expect an editor to discuss something rather than consistently edit war to institute their own preferred version of things when there was no opposition to the original form.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ryu, given that there's a clear pattern going on here, perhaps you should take a moment to see this situation from the point of view of the editors you're reverting. While it's fine to use WP:BRD when you see edits being made that appear incorrect, you should still make sure to be polite to the users whose edits you're undoing. I see a strong pattern of WP:BITE and borderline WP:OWN going on in the interactions you're having here, and those behaviors discourage other editors from engaging with you - frankly, I don't think I'd want to try to discuss any of those topics with you either, were I the one involved. Further, while you are entitled to do whatever you want with your own Talk page, keep in mind that instantly removing other people's comments is often seen as hostile behavior, and the few responses I've seen you leave there have most certainly come off as hostile. My experience has been that most editors, especially newcomers, tend to do what they can to avoid interacting with users like that, which makes things more difficult for all sides. If your intent is to get people to discuss changes, you need to invite that conversation in a less hostile manner, and you need to assume that others are acting in good faith - again, experience has shown that the vast majority of the time, people aren't here to cause trouble, and it's usually really obvious when they are. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, just wanted to add a note: I don't know if this is specifically spelled out on WP:ROLLBACK (I don't have time to read through the whole thing right now), but it's a common courtesy to leave actual edit summaries for reversion edits when the cause for the revert is anything other than simple vandalism (and even then, Twinkle and the built-in Undo feature both make it easy to note vandalism when it happens). Rollback is to be used sparingly, and originally was an admin-only tool (frankly, I think we might do well to consider changing it back to admin-only because I've seen far more abuse of it than what I'd consider legitimate use that couldn't be handled with Undo). My point, tho, is that if you're going to revert another editor because you disagree with their content, you really need to tell them that in an edit summary, and as I said above, you should do so in a way that invites and fosters conversation, rather than being accusatory or bitey. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I get it. I will cease relying on WP:ROLLBACK and stick with WP:UNDO and WP:TWINKLE and curb my language to be more approachable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that'll go a long way toward making things run more smoothly for you. From what I've seen, people generally agree that your grasp of content policies is quite good and that you do have the best interests of the project at heart. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus

Resolved

 – Neo^ blocked indefinitely

This issue has become ridiculous. It seems that any change I make, no matter how small or big, is reverted by someone "clever". After being blocked for a whole week, I made 7 small factual corrections in one edit and then I made another edit to balance social life. Both of them were reverted by PantherLeapord. Please tell me what to do! I am tired with this stupid argument. When there is a mistake, it needs to be corrected. When we need to balance something, we need to balance it. I cannot go into that much trouble to spot the mistakes and rectify them and someone "smart" coming and undoing everything and purely saying "Participate in the DR case and wait for that to close before further reverts". It seems that some people are more interested in the formality not the actuality... Neo ^ (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Beware the aussie flyin' stick Neo! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation was incredibly bad judgment. not the first time, either: [41]. — Lfdder (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo ^ persistently fails to understand that there is a dispute here over the sheer amount of detail that is appropriate for this article. There is a consensus of everybody except himself that the article was simply too long and overly detailed. His second edit today, which he here glosses over as being just to "balance" something was in fact a re-insertion of more than 6,000 bytes [42], all of which had previously been in the article and had been removed in the context of pruning the article down. He refuses to understand that such edits are by their very nature contentious, both for being reverts and simply for being so voluminous. He has had several escalating blocks over the exact same issue already, and shows no sign of understanding what's wrong with his approach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the way some people have approached Neo about it is provocative, intentional or no. — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Listen to me. The balance issue cannot be counted with bytes. There are certain organisations within the community. You cannot choose to keep one (AYMA and its satellites) and not make mention to the other important ones (AGBU, Armenian Club, LHEM, Nor Serount etc). This has become insane. One needs to look at this...

What you pruned you didn't look well. Let me put it in different terms. The community has organizations A, B, C, D, E, F and affiliated organisations v, w, x, y, z. The way the article was, you had organization A and suborganisations w, x, y, z. What I did was rectify the situation. Clear your head guys of all prejudice... You have demonised me... Neo ^ (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo; please familiarise yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with what he's saying? — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"you cannot choose to keep one and not make mention to the other 'important' ones". To me that portion of the text screams WP:OSE PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OSE is about drawing parallels btn WP pages, not the real world. Mentioning one but not the others is WP:WEIGHT, so Neo is right this one time. Do we need a whole bloody paragraph on each though? No, probably not. — Lfdder (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually while you're right OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't come in to play and UNDUE (also WP:NPOV) does, you're wrong about the intepretation. If one is highly significant and notable but another has miniminal significance and is barely notable (or not notable), there may be good reason to mention one but not the other particularly if the mention is brief. Whether this applies here I dunno, but the fact remains nothing in UNDUE and other relevant policies like NPOV suggest we need to cover one just because we cover another (we should consider it, sure). Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we establish that? These are all barely notable to begin with. You'd be hard-pressed to find them mentioned in lit anywhere. — Lfdder (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This report has indeed boomeranged. I became too familiar with this user over the last month through his increasingly obtuse (not that they didn't have far to go to begin with) unblock requests, and now after his third block he has just started this up again. So I stuck a fork in him. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This s--- is getting old", "sent off", "stuck a fork in him" and "had it up to here and back again". Are you sure you're in the right state of mind to be blocking people? I've not administered an online encyclopedia, but people who need to make such a big deal over blocking someone (block summary, edit summaries, comments here and on the user's page) strike me as unfit for the job. — Lfdder (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) While that's probably true, I don't think the result would have been any different if he had let someone else do it. Ansh666 20:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo ^ has stated he/she will stay away from this article. I think this hasty block should be lifted. Mentoring would probably go a long way towards helping this Editor know when he crosses the line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am far from convinced that it was a "hasty block," given the state of his user talk page, and honestly, the comments of his unblock request don't inspire a hell of a lot of confidence that he may not go on to other related articles in the same problematic way. I think mentoring might help, but that if the block is to be lifted a topic ban or maybe some sort of mandated editor review might be called for. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

After their recent behaviour I do not believe that for a second. That being said; I will support an unblock if and ONLY if they are put on an indefinite 0RR restriction. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess we need more Editors to weigh in on this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Being wikihounded for sure

My letter to info-en-q at wikimedia dot org (re AFD on everything I am associated with musically in the open source and on the greatest online encyclopaedia ever

Haello all, delete my page but leave Adam Rabuck's and Mike Wagner and Josh Alpert's bands alone. This is my note to the ppl who are supposed to aid me against this duffbeerforme witchhunt against everything I have ever done.

[show]Copy of en email to WMF re a series of AfDs

Hi all, I know I am notable. So do you because I was told so unequivocally several times and have screenshots of chat room transcripts and more wiki archival correspondence to support what I started this email with. It's true. But Ellin Beltz and DuffBeerForMe in particular are ignorant of this.

The Dennis Donaghy page (abbrev 'DD') may need cleanup (again, first time Revent was the user that neutralized the DD page). But not AFD Deletion.

Why? I am a musician, subject to musician guidelines as far as living people.

Musician guideline 6 even as reads now and even without my note edit a few minutes ago, is how I was repeatedly told you can never really become un-notable unless they change the rules or something. IU may be mistaken but I have screenies showing vet wiki ppl tellin me this. Snapped shots just in case Duffbeerforme types who inevitably emerge to strike ppl like me (is how i truly feel) instead of getting up and earning a possible notability if thats what they want. I didnt ever want notability (actualy in '07 I unpromptedly made a page called Iteprunct (Multimedia Artist) but didnt contest the deletion, had fun with it. Having fun with this one too, as much as I can, but it's stressful and I thik it's unfair for this and here is why I characterize it as a witch hunt-

This Duffbeerforme person is AFD'ing everything I am associated with. He's trying to unnotable all the bands that made me notable. Look fer yerselves, dont believe me as I am the biased subject.

But seriously, I am aware Duffbeerforme is perfectly entitled to do these afd's the tags etc, but man it really seems like overkill, like you know, some OTHER motivation other than loving and defending the wikipedia. maybe jealousy or to prove a point, or to flex wiki muscles, I have no idea. I don't have and never had 'wiki-jealousy' or feel the need to slash away at ambiguously notable ppl. I have been simply trying to adhere to the rules, creating pages (Button King, Golden Eagle Regional Park and Sports Complex, and I just helped oon the Navy Yard Aaron Alexis thing) and not editing DD page except those two minor times after RRevents neut. where I made totally minor uncontroversial edits to correct wrong info.

Anyway, Duffbeerforme has quickly slapped tags on everything associated with me. I don't care what happens per se as long as it is FAIR.

It seems fishily unfair at this point to me and I am trying to be careful pointing fingers. It's weird for this user to start hacking away at a very admittedly grey area as if its some clear-cut flagrant violation of some highly prized moral code he's crusading on. I made a page about me, it was neutralized, I corrected it, uhh, LOTS of time transpired where I either did nothing, or edited other pages.

The DD page is a listing of a man, a person (me) who seems fairly notable despite fragmented open source citation material, and virtually or not virtually, admittedly absolutely zero major media. WHICH IS WHY I was characterized initially as OUTSIDER MUSICIAN! read the entry, thats me almost to a T but I digress...

For the interest of your time and efforts please realize Revent was the first user who neutralized the DD page. It can be done again, but DELETING Dennis Donaghy, Blanket Statementstein, and Dirt Bike Annie over this is seriously weird since I had nothing to do with either of those bands since I left, nobody was questioning their pages and now they are due to my page being suspect.

You guys should leave Adam's andd Mike's pages alone (Rabuck and Wagner) they don't deserve to be part of this witchhunt, if its me you want knock me out of the wikipedia I wanted that in the fucking first place

This is so frustrating, but thx guys (meaning guys and or gals)

Dennis

So that's it. I'm done. (with this afd defending myself bs, not done contributing quality volunteer work here lynching successful or no. squigglies. Phaedrx (talk) Phaedrx (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is the Help Desk for requesting help with using or finding your way around Wikipedia. AfDs should be discussed on the relevant discussion page. If you genuinely feel you are being wikihounded by a user systematically reverting your past contributions or nominating them for deletion, you can report it to administrators at WP:ANI, but their first concern, like any other users', will be with the individual merits of each revert or AfD nomination. Other than that I'm afraid there's little for us to do here, unless you have a specific question. - Karenjc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)"

in the interest of full disclosure I felt the need to prominently publish the above text, verbatim, on my personal Official Artist Website at www,phaedrx.com and use it as a platform to defend myself, however MY site's rules govern what I can do there. I am acting with love and in righteousness as I always do. I am not simply gonna sit and take this if I think it's wrong. Please be fair. Thanks. squigglies Phaedrx (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND THANK YOU ADMINISTRATORS. LOVE, PHAEDRX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrx (talk • contribs)

??? I have no idea what's is going on here, or what is being asked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief, I thought it was just me. Looking at his website, I'd guess he's cross with us. Not that what he's written there about us makes more sense. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So, we AfD'd some articles he created. Most were deleted by the community. He whined to the WMF, and is copy/pasting those e-mails here. He's mad because the community determined his "work" was not-Wikipedia-worthy ES&L 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, based on some of the comments, like "I know I am notable," I get the impression he's also talking about articles he or someone created about him, and is complaining that they were deleted. I think maybe WP:COI might apply as well. If this editor can establish through sources that the subjects of the articles involved, whether they directly relate to him or not, meet guidelines as per WP:NOTABILITY, then I guess he is free to create pages on them, although he probably should indicate his relation to the subjects of some of those articles somewhere. Otherwise, honestly, I don't know if there is anything that can really be done here, and I guess maybe, except for perhaps someone maybe advising the editor of some of the relevant policies and guidelines, this thread could be closed as there really doesn't seem to be in any way really actionable. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. He presumably ended up here because of my response to his email copypaste here at the help desk, which he's then repasted here along with my reply. The catalyst seems to be the AfDing of the article about himself but he was claiming a sustained campaign. I hatted him but offered links to WP:HOUND and here, with what I hoped was a suitable caveat, in case he found he did need admin assistance, but he's obviously not reading links or taking advice, just forum shopping. Sorry to give him this as another venue. -Karenjc (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this today, so it's new to me, too. It's a COI and a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. His associated IP account was blocked for edit warring on his bio [43], and in his dudgeon he's taken swipes at other editors [44], [45] and played with the music notability guideline page for WP:POINTY effect [46]. The subject interprets the AfD process as a personal attack, and is questioning the integrity and motives of other editors. JNW (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• A person with no wiki experience and little knowledge of our processes who is understandably (not "justifiably") irritated with what he sees as a concerted effort to wipe him off the wiki map. Pay it no mind, let the AfDs run their course, and this will all blow over. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're mostly right on all accounts, as usual, Drmies. But: he has edited at least since April, when he created his bio, and has subsequently edited primarily to debate his notability, using--per his admission and credible claim that there was no intent to sock--multiple accounts [47], [48]. This is someone with enough wiki knowledge to have created and, as much as possible, controlled their own bio. That's not unusual, but it neutralizes our response when the subject cries foul. JNW (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, maybe I should say "limited" wiki experience. I do believe that this will blow over. Then again, I'm not singled out on their website. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi: I was one of the people working with this editor from the beginning. On my advice he left a note on his userpage about his previous use of other names and various IPs, and has since edited under the single account of Phaedrx. The article on him was rewritten by an experienced editor to be more neutrally worded, and Phaedrx has been occasionally tweaking it to make it more accurate. (Those edits are in the record of course; I have the article watchlisted and did not see self-aggrandizement in them.) He's also written a couple of other articles about topics other than himself. His notability rests on his having played in various bands; now the bands have been taken to AfD as well as the article on him, and the nomination statement refers to it as a vanity article. Unfortunately his response culminated in his blanking most of the article while logged out, and I was forced to block him for edit warring, so he will not be responding for a few hours more. That's the short version. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a good summation of the history, Yngvadottir. Though for all your good intentions, perhaps you, too, will receive acknowledgment at Phaedrx's website. JNW (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you'd already been thanked [49]. This and Ellin Beltz's experience to be filed under the heading of 'No Good Deed'.... JNW (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As one of the ones getting the "barnstars" on this user's personal webpage, I too hope this blows over. The user asked me to review the article. I read the notability criteria for musicians, offered my observations on the situation and he was apparently displeased. While I found the writing in the article to be non-biased, the citations didn't have the content to back up the phrases in the article. Also I noticed that the subject's name as shown on the Wikipedia page did not occur in several of the citations listed, including "The New York Times". "The New Yorker" and "The Seattle Times" articles. There were valid links to his own website and a couple of blogs. Please let me know if there's anything else I have to do to reply to this ANI? Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Jaguaré Bezerra de Vasconcelos

May some administrator please simply remove edit in the above article from

• 09:06, 4 July 2012‎ 186.221.156.37

and forward. Improvements later are less significant than crapification then. I don't intend to sort out details with means given to me. If my request is ill placed here, please forward to where in place. Just get things done. Thank you. Researching the article was work. Cheers, Oalexander-En (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Getting thing done" usually means doing simple things yourself or politely asking for help from a fellow volunteer. I've removed the unsourced nonsense from the article. For future reference, this is what Talk:Jaguaré Bezerra de Vasconcelos is for or Wikipedia:Help desk is another option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Talk" is read rarely, because it is abused by the "scope" and whatever crap - which should have an own tab if considered useful at all. "Talk" had some value to look at before that, when it not generally only contained content by maniacs that are to lazy to actually create content or doing something else that is useful.

Judging, that an article rates "0" on importance and whatever is about as low as it gets around here, where "volunteers" - to use your term - apparently make extremely often extremely useless contributions.

Can you kindly refrain from being condescending in the discharge of activities you chose to do. Else, just do something else, if you don't like it. It is because of people like you that people like me who have a flair for providing content just vomit too often and do something else.

Now, why shall I thank you for your job here? I have created well in excess of 200 WP articles from scratch plus substantial revisions - nobody has ever thanked me. Not in the slightest.

Congrats for whacking an "copyedit" tag on the article. I trust, somebody will take care for that. Oalexander-En (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: People may be invited to look at my contributions an their time differences. It is because of master race users like talk to me that are extremely superior. I am not sure if low-life like me deserves hanging out with them. Oalexander-En (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Oalexander-En: What User:NeilN is trying to say is that there is no reason to post here. He's not an administrator, but still managed to do what you wanted. Your tone was slightly condescending ("I'm above doing this work"), and he replied in kind. Ansh666 00:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't ask for your thanks. It was a two-second job (cut, save) that I'm still not sure why you couldn't do yourself, given that you are familiar with editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

IP making unfounded accusations

IP 212.50.182.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been prodding a number of law-related articles created by David91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who no longer seems active on Wikipedia and is therefore unable to respond. While I have no reason to doubt that said articles do need reviewing by expert editors and the prods will follow their natural process, I consider that unfounded and malign accusations, such as these, supposedly "supported" by links that do not in any way support said accusations, should not be tolerated and need to be brought to admin attention and corresponding action taken, including removal of such comments.

Although circumstantial, I have consulted with an admin, who is also a lawyer and had a number of dealings with David91. Said admin is of the opinion that the latter is a lawyer with many years of law practice, which coincides with my opinion that the IP's accusations in that respect are, to say the least, unfounded. All of which seems to suggest that there is probably more behind this than an IP wanting to help clean up Wikipedia. --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While it is a hassle, you can remove PROD tags if you object, Technopat, and then if the IP user wants to nominate them at AfD, they will have to register and compose a nomination for each article which is more work than slapping a tag on an article. I'm glad you're watching over these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, Liz. While the prods themselves undergo their due process, I do think that the IP's unfounded accusations regarding the bona fides of a user who is no longer active should be removed by an admin.--Technopat (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, now I'm slightly doubting myself for assisting the IP user in the creation of this AFD. Seemed like the correct thing to do at the time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This may be worth mentioning. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The article "Civil recognition of Jewish divorce" was started by the then a 14-year-old Singaporean school pupil (([50]); ([51])), then in (secondary, or middle) school in England, but pretending to be a "retired "lawyer" " of 91 (([52]); (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive44#Searching_for_info_on_User:David91); (User:SouthernNights/Archive_5#David91); ([53]); ([54]); ([55]); ([56]); ([57]); ([58]) (see the words "retired" or "memory" on the pages given at the last six links)), who somehow thought that he knew Law by getting hold and reading one of (probably his father's) academic (not legal) titles (the difference between "academic books on law" and "legal books" is that between books about "how the law should be like, and how they should be changed accordingly" and books about "how should you practise the law as it is, as the law currently stands") (by one John Greenwood Collier, who only used to teach (a very specific area of) Law, possibly as a jurist and a legal theorist; there is no available evidence to suggest that Collier is himself ever actually a member of the Law Society as a solicitor or a member of the General Council of the English Bar as a barrister) (([59]); ([60]); ([61]); ([62]); ([63]); ([64]); ([65])) on the subject of Private International Law (Like his book, he even changed the name into "conflict of laws" after the title, and often wrote without even the article.), and started thinking that he had studied Law and could write about Law, when he had in fact neither—nothing, not even GCSE Law, International O-Levels Law, IGCSE Law, A-Level Law, International A-Level Law or IB Law (if the last in fact exists), as I had originally thought and opined accordingly, albeit upon a different page!


It was very unlikely that he was not giving out private legal advice, especially on divorce, perhaps by internal E-mail from his Wikipedia account ([66]); and the whole article was his private "crackpot" theory—like me, as an outsider, not being a Jew—on how to procure a Jewish religious divorce with unreasonable, immoral or unlawful terms (perhaps secured with the help and co-operation of an unethical Rabbi or Rabbis) to the benefit of one of the parties, and how to make such terms somehow "stick" and enforceable as if they were valid in civil and secular courts of law and record without the need to secure a separate civil and secular divorce for the marriage to be lawfully dissolved in the eyes of both Jewish (Orthodox) religious law and secular law, based upon his own private theories on Private International Law. (He believed that even mere academic theories, purely on the drawing board, of Private International Law (that he mistook as actual law), can somehow take precedence, nay override, national and international law without so much as a signed and ratified (and enacted, for some jurisdictions) treaty or convention.)


He certainly could not have been a "lawyer" (When was the English, Northern Ireland, Irish and Scottish distinction between solicitors, barristers, Scottish advocates and notaries public abolished?) in the United Kingdom and Islands or in any of the jurisdictions within any of the most other major Countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations and also retaining the use and application of the English Common law, if he thought that the Law Lords in the House of Lords (He simply described them as "the House of Laws", a layman's term, instead of "the Law Lords".) somehow had appellate jurisdiction over the Isle of Man, Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey—when the House of Lords did not, on almost all things since probably the last 200 to 325/350 years; the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey were treated as autonomous private fiefdoms of the English and British Crown, or, the Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, and the Parliaments of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not usually have jurisdiction over them, and it was long considered (by an extension of the legal principle—from the ruling detailed in the enrolled (with the Master of the Rolls) Memorandum from the Lords of the Privy Council for the King-in-Council, on the 9th. August 1722 ("...Acts of Parliament made in England, without naming the foreign Plantations, will not bind them ...")—to cover the Isle of Man and the Two Bailiwicks) that Acts of the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not apply or extend to the Isle of Man or to the Two Bailiwicks unless they are specifically named; hence their "Supreme Court" is (a Committee of) the Privy Council (originally a body of advisers to advise the King or the Queen exercising his or her Royal Prerogative independent of Parliament), not a few members (the Law Lords) sitting in a chamber (House of Lords) of the Legislature that is not normally supposed to have jurisdiction over those Islands) (A person who had actually been brought up in a British Colony when it was still a British colony would also highly unlikely to mistaken the Lord Laws/House of Lords with the Privy Council's Committee (JCPC), bearing in mind that Colonial capital cases in the 20th. century were sometimes referred to the Privy Council/JCPC, and were widely reported locally.); or even to think that the Isle of Man, Jersey or the Guernsey were ever a (constituent) part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—an unforgivable mistake that he would not had made, if he had even watched so much as the FIFA World Cup, or even the Commonwealth Games! (User_talk:Morwen/11#English law)


He lacked competence. He was a charlatan. He was a fraud. He was a pretended "lawyer" who had only read one (wrong) book, and too lazy to decide whether he wanted to be a solicitor, a barrister or a notary public. I have not yet even gone into his amateurish way of mixing American and English cases—something that only academics—but not usually actual practising or retired solicitors and barristers—are allowed to do (because English cases after the year 1776 are not usually considered "persuasive" in American Courts, and American cases have almost never been considered persuasive in English Courts)! And if he were an American attorney and not an English (or a Singaporean) solicitor or barrister, then why was he even giving out commentaries on English law in the first place? An American attorney who comments on post-1776 English law (but without also qualifying as an English solicitor or barrister), in the same way as what "David91" did, based upon his record of edits ([67] ), would definitely fall under the Competence rule!


I do indeed realise with much foreboding that each and every word of what I had written and about to submit can cause your most loyal, humble and obedient servant to be blocked, nay banned, yet I am a faithful believer of "calling it what it is", and I also faithfully, earnestly and sincerely believe that, by "role-playing" on Wikipedia like some kind of a game of Second Life, he MUST be considered to be partly acting in bad faith, and all this has to be said. All his misguided support (([68]); ([69])) did not in any way serve to refute my case, my allegations in any material way—playing the man (me) instead of the ball.


Supposing that I were to believed, if he could lie about his age, his education and what his did as an occupation, what else could he also not lie about? And could a 14/15-year-old really write in the way, manner and style that he did? Can it believed that his works was his, and his alone? I know that I could not, when I was at that age! It would be highly foolhardy and reckless of us to think that none of his words were copyright violations, either from any of the works of this John Greenwood Collier, or from some other source.


The evidence of his other glaring and unforgivable errors, unbecoming of either a solicitor or a barrister in England, include the following: (([70]); ([71]); ([72]); ([73]) ("Northern Island"? "Guerney"? Pull the other one!); ([74]); ([75]); ([76]); ([77]); ([78]); ([79]); ([80])) The fact of the matter is, in England, barristers and solicitors are not—and probably never, unless the trial was supposed to be wholly conducted in Latin—supposed to throw Latin legal terms and phrases about in Court as liberally as our "David91" and also a lot of our cousins in the American sister profession do. There is probably never a tradition in England for it (see the Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730, Chapter 26 (4 Geo. 2.)). — 212.50.182.151 (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question was last active in 2006. May i kindly remind you that this particular horse isn't just dead, it's actually been turned to glue. Kleuske (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making wild accusations and conjectures. I have found nothing anywhere in the impressive-looking wealth of "evidence" above that bears out any of the accusations. Needless to say, I have not even bothered to check out the external links provided, for obvious reasons. For the benefit of those who might be considering wading through all of the above, the vast majority of the links are completely irrelevant and the few that could possibly have a direct bearing on the "case" are so circumstancial as to be derisory, to say the least. Might I suggest that editors'/admins' time would be better employed to see whether the prodded articles are encyclopedic or not, which is what should really concern us. --Technopat (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tecnopat opened this thread without discussing with 212 first, includes vague accusations and an appeal to authority to an admin / lawyer who isn't participating, and now says reviewing the editor's response is a waste of time? Given that a longstanding editor supported 212's analysis at Talk:Conflict_of_property_laws -- indicating we've had a very poor article sitting in mainspace for over seven years -- we should be thanking 212 for improving the encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Circumstantial? There are none so blind than those who refuse to see! With the greatest possible of respect, and with no undue disrespect to Americans (or even Canadians), but a licensed New York Attorney (having personally confirmed his record of license, I have no reason to question that), practising or otherwise, is no more qualified to judge who is a "kosher" and "legit" English solicitor or barrister or not than my neighbour's black cat! The legal professions of England and the State of New York are far from identical, and the legal traditions of the two respective jurisdictions are even less identical, and so much so that all this is a little like an American telling me that there is nothing wrong with a counterfeit English one-pound coin with "dodgy" indentations, or with a forged twenty-pound note, and that I am somehow being rude for refusing to accept either of them.

Has it ever occurred to any of my detractors that he might had been simply making things up as he went along? Just delete ALL of his surviving creations that are in any way remotely "original" or "controversial", I say! Wikipedia is surely making a fool of itself by allowing the jokes of his kind of original legal research to stand! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia practice -- as mentioned in that wall of text on top of this page -- is to discuss issues with other editors before opening ANI threads. NE Ent 10:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:. Replied to NE Ent here. --Technopat (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

All the accusations by the IP that involve outing (i.e. any speculation about the identity, age, region, ... of User:David91 should be removed (rev-deled or oversighted) for violating WP:OUTING, and the IP told that he needs to stop or will get blocked. Food for thought; the IP claims that David91 is a 14-year old, based on this post he linked above. The problem is that that post is from 2010, but David91 joined Wikipedia and created e.g. Freedom of contract and Closed-end leasing in 2005, when he was thus supposedly 9 years old. Just to show you how dubious the sleuthing by the IP is. Really, we shouldn't care whether David91 is 91 years old or from 1991, what only matters is the quality of his edits. (Note, this post should be oversighted or revdeled as well of course). Fram (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Article on Alfred H. Bartles

Some time ago I submitted to Wikipedia an article on Alfred H. Bartles, American composer. Some editor decided that it had too much "original research" in it and that it needed more references. I presumed that that was the end of that submission and thought it completely canceled and rejected.

I then gave what I had written to the library of the Blair School of Music at Vanderbilt University, where "original research" is welcome. With minor changes, it was then put on the library's website, as I had hoped. It was my intention then to rewrite the article for Wikipedia with references to the Vanderbilt website for facts. Today I get a notice from Wikipedia that my Wikipedia article -- which I thought had been completely rejected and thrown away by Wikipedia -- is in flagrant violation of Vanderbilt's copyright! Well of course! The website IS my rejected Wikipedia article!

I find it extremely difficult to communicate with Wikipedia. For example, there is no clear way to respond to this strange notice. Your instructions for authors are verbose and confusing. I have no idea whether I have found the right way to respond. But I know that I do not like being accused of plaigerism of myself when the problem is the difficulty of communication with Wikipedia.

In any event, would you please completely remove the previously submitted article from any place where it is still lurking in Wikipedia files.

Someday, if I have time and get over my irritation with the self-righteous attitude of Wikipedia, I or someone else may send you an article on this remarkable American composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClopperAlmon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi ClopperAlmon. I'm sorry for the frustration you've been put through. The Alfred H. Bartles page was posted on 10 January 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. Wikipedia uses a variety of namespaces, each having a different purpose. Wikipedia articles are posted in Main/Article namespace. Your post was in Wikipedia:Project namespace in a project called "Articles for creation." In that WikiProject, contributions can become Wikipedia articles, but are not Wikipedia articles themselves (because they are not in Main/Article namespace). The notices you received on your talk page included a username of the person who posted the notice. You can communicate with them by clicking on the "talk" link next to their user name. The previously submitted article has been deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created Alfred Bartles and notified ClopperAlmon on his talk page. I think some of our templates (particularly the standard Twinkle notifications for A7, G11 and G12) are bitey in the extreme and said so previously. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to provide an explanation at User_talk:ClopperAlmon#My_view_of_the_sequence_of_events--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if undeleting the AfC and histmerging it into the new article would be appropriate attribution? Rgrds. --64.85.216.33 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit war at Curse of Ham

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

A user called "User:WatchingEyes" has been engaged in long edit war with several users, removing reliably sourced in information which he insists comes from "zionist sources". He has not broken 3RR yet, but simply continuously reverts to remove the information that Muslim writers supported the concept of a "curse of Ham". He has so far removed the content and been reverted 15 times. The editor has ignored attempts to raise the matter on the article talk page, but has responded with a long, rambling comment on my talk page [81] (which I have copied with responses from another editor to the article talk page). He then blanked his own talk page and replaced the content with "jews are masters of the slave trade, known fact." It is clear that Dispute Resolution would be pointless with this editor. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

He has returned as an IP. [82]. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

He's escalating. The article, I think, needs to be semi-protected. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just done it. Deb (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP, it appears the IP is just looking for controversies to inflame, and is probably not related to the editor here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• And range blocked... Monty₈₄₅ 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the IP seeems to be more interested in Pop culture than Jews. Thanks for the interventions. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrator threatening me

Admin User:RegentsPark removed properly sourced "Pathan" [83] from Prithviraj Kapoor and now telling me to stop adding this ethnicity in articles.[84] I find this as a threat and a bad behaviour by an admin. This all started when POV-pushers User:PISCOSOUR786 (talk · contribs) (from India) and

(Pakistani from Australia) repeatedly removed Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor. [85] I reported them, PISCOSOUR786 got blocked as someone's sock and Saladin1987 got blocked for a month. RegentsPark and User:Fowler&fowler now took over the article and are removing "Pathan" from it. On the talk page I presented more than enough reliable sources (RSs) for the Pathan claim, which includes: 1) Kapoor identified self as Pathan; 2) his father and grandfather were described as Pathans; 2) his son Shammi Kapoor in an exclusive interview tells that his parents and grandparants were Pathans [86]; 3) Madhu Jain (author of a 2009 book on the Kapoors) explains in details that Prithviraj belonged to a "Hindu Pathan family" [87]; 4) and several other RSs which confirm this. [88] The mentioned users strictly refuse to accept Prithviraj as a Pathan no matter what experts say [89], and they wonder how can there be such a thing as a Hindu or a Sikh Pathan (note: Pathan is alternative for Pashtun, both terms redirect to each other). I also provided convincing evidence that there in fact are Pathan Hindus and Pathan Sikhs [90]

They consider themselves “sons of the soil” – Pashtuns to be more specific – and are identified as such. “We are proud to be Pashtuns,” says Sahib Singh. “Pashto is our tongue, our mother tongue – and we are proud of it.”[91]

I think it's appropriate to warn RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler to stop removing Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor's article.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a threat at all. You're going to have to try to work with them because getting rid of them like this isn't appropriate.--v/r - TP 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it as a form of threat, especially coming from an admin. I told him and the others to wait until editors familiar with the issue come and resolve the issue but why is he telling me to revert proper edits?--Fareed30 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A "form of a threat" is not a threat. It's an extreme hypersensitive emotionally-biased interpretation to suit your own purposes. The question is whether it is or is not a threat. The diff contains no mention of action against you. Admins are editors as well, they can make comments such as "You're close to violating XXX policy" without it being a threat. The only time it becomes a threat, or even against policy even if it were a threat, is when they say they will take action against you themselves while they are involved in a dispute. That hasn't happened, move on.--v/r - TP 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The expressions "Hindu Pathan" or "Hindu Pashtun" do not appear in the reliable sources of the last 50 years. See here (what appears are five copies of a sentence, "Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds to revolution; Hindu, Pathan, Moghul, Maratha, Sikh, English, all are masters in turn ...") I have already told you, your sources are unreliable, "Pathan" is not relevant to his notability (there were no Pathan or Pashtun schools of Over-Acting, or Theatrics in Peshawar, Kabul or Kandahar, besides he wasn't from those places anyway; he was reliably only from Lyallpur in the West Punjab. Your claims about "blue eyes" and "sharp features" of Pathans etc (see talk page) are in the realm of lore and speculation. Finally, as I've stated on the talk page, India is a multi-ethnic country with a great deal of diversity. There are people there of all shapes and sizes, colors and looks. The Indian constitution doesn't recognize the imagined phenotypical claims of a few. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are again and again mentioning "Hindu", a term that relates to religion, and I told you again and again that I'm not interested in religion stuff. This issue is over his Pathan background, it is mentioned in every source so it should also be mentioned in his Wikipedia article. This is done everywhere, and him being born in Lyallpur is another issue that has nothing to do with his Pathan background. Hasnat Khan was born in the same area and he is Pathan as you can read in his article. Peshawar is where Prithviraj grew up, his father was a sub-inspector of police in this Pathan cultural center. When Prithviraj went to India, he even made a popular play called The Pathan (or Pathan), which was about his personal experiance living in Peshawar among Muslims. This play was performed about 600 times on stage in Mumbai, India, to the mostly Hindu audience. You cannot hide someone's background just because it may upset you. Btw, there were stage shows and cinema schools in Peshawar.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly Fareed, no one has threatened you. I merely pointed out that repeatedly adding an ethnicity against consensus is tendentious. And, doing that in numerous blps, and possibly in an underhand way, is disruptive. When the ethnicity on an individual is in doubt, it is better to leave it out. Once again, my suggestion is that you demonstrate your good faith by self-reverting yourself. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm making constructive edits, properly sourcing everything and nobody other than you guys are challenging me, and I'm not being silly so please don't use such provocative words. You have to learn to wait until this argument over the Pathan background is exhausted.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called getting consensus. You should try it sometime ES&L 18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I did try it but the above users (RegentsPark and Fowler) decided to flee from the discussion, see the last few comments at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can read, you tried to gain consensus for the addition, but failed. You then continued to insist, even though consensus was against you. You've become increasingly belligerent about it. Please stop - consensus rules on Wikipedia, as per WP:5P ES&L 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• ES&L, you probably didn't understand the situation correctly so let me explain. I added in the early years section of Prithviraj Kapoor's article that he was of Pathan background or at least he presented self as that and cited reliable sources, and then Saladin1987 changed Pathan to Punjabi, which is a different group of people. After he got blocked, RegentsPark and Fowler decided to support Saladin by completely removing "Pathan" from the article, claiming that it is disputed but nobody has ever disputed this. I asked to provide a source which mentions the dispute but they failed and decided to flee the discussion. I told them on Prithviraj's talk page that I'm busy and would take the issue to ANI so others can have a chance to review everything and decide what is best. There was no need for RegentsPark to leave a message on my talk page in which he tells me to remove "Pathan" from Anil Kapoor's article. These actions of RegentsPark are inappropriate, he's suppose to discuss edits on the article's talk page so others may get involved and if that doesn't work then he's suppose to start discussion somewhere else, he's a long time editor and an admin so obviously he knows these basic rules.
• Whenever I read an article about a famous person I get to learn everything about that person, including race or ethnicity, but here they're saying don't menion Pathan. Why shouldn't we mention this when it is mentioned in articles of other famous Bollywood actors, including Shahrukh Khan, Kader Khan, Madhubala, and Feroz Khan?--Fareed30 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I write for a living; please don't ever suggest that I had trouble reading something well enough to understand ES&L 00:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a first? A complaint about an India-related discussion in which I have been a participant but I am not being lambasted? Since I agreed with RP and F&F, the consensus thus far is even stronger than the reporter acknowledges. Fareed, the whole ethnic thing here is nebulous, you've had the issues explained to you time and again and those explanations have come from some contributors who have a pretty vast experience in dealing with the subject matter on Wikipedia. Of course, they could all be wrong ... but it isn't likely and this is not the place to resolve your differences anyway. At most, it is a content dispute and there certainly has been no threat. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush, that is indeed a first, you should treasure it. It's also as far as I know the first time the mild-to-a-fault RegentsPark has been taken to ANI in the guise of a "threatening" administrator. Shows it can happen to anybody. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

You guys work together editing Indian related articles so the consensus is unfair since you guys share the same anti-Pathan POV. It would be different if non-Indian editors get involved.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So go follow the steps outlined at dispute resolution if you want to shift the consensus. Coming here and whining about it isn't going to change anything. Nothing is going to come of this ANI complaint, so you may as well drop it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not whining. I'm busy renovating one of my bathrooms (marble and tiles cutting and grouting, etc.) so I can't concentrate on this right now.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(I might be repeating something already said, but here goes.) Fareed, simply telling you to stop adding material is not a threat. If the admin said "Stop adding this or I will block you", then it would be a threat, and then the question would be whether the "will block you" part was within policies (eg. if you were in an edit war, you can be blocked temporarily for edit-warring regardless of the merits of the content.) And I posit that a truly inappropriate threat would have taken the form of "Stop adding this, or I will hunt you down and do nasty things to you." THAT would be the sort of thing that would warrant an AN/I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I added relevant information in Anil Kapoor's article which many readers like to know. If there was a problem with the edit, someone would have reverted or removed the addition. I'm not into edit-wars, it's silly and just a waste of time. I just want to expose these editors so they can cool off with their anti-Pathan POV.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If everyone else who edits the article says to NOT include what you consider "relevant" (which it isn't), then it doesn't go in - hence the word "consensus". You re-adding it ran the risk of getting yourself blocked. It also does not mean they're "anti-Pathan", and saying such could ALSO get you a block, because now you're accusing someone of racism. Time to rethink your way forward ES&L 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusion very fast. First, I didn't re-add. Second, I was saying they're against the term "Pathan" so they're anti-Pathan. That's the shortest description, what should I call them? Pretend that their editors from different background when they're not? I'm not accusing someone of racism, you can clearly see what they're doing or what they're up to. They edit mostly Indian articles and that's not something they can hide from anyone. It means that they think like Indians. Based on their edits, it is more likely that they are Punjabi Sikhs of Indian origin. It helps to know this whenever there is a consensus or a dispute, especially when ethnicity is the primary focus. I'm an expert in this area (on South Asia), the Punjabis hate Pathans (Afghans) with a great passion. This is due to the wars between these groups since 1738 until around 1818. Pathans destroyed their holy sites, killed many Punjabi Sikhs, including Sikh leaders Baba Deep Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa and others.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Fareed, I notice that you're busy editing here but you haven't reverted your addition of the Pathan ethnicity to various Kapoor clan pages. I'm going to do that for you. --regentspark (comment) 00:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I got most of them. Now please don't re-add it without first going through some sort of WP:DR. --regentspark (comment) 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Anil Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fareed, I an assure you that I for one am not a Punjabi Sikh. I'm not even religious and I'm not even Indian or indeed from anywhere in South Asia. I also certainly do not "think like Indians" and that is one of the reasons why I have been reported here myself so often. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Request block for threats of bodily harm

Danpolitiet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of long time vandal Amanbir_Singh_Grewal (his lastest sock was blocked the other day (pr. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Amanbir_Singh_Grewal:_ban.3F)), aparently took offence with me blocking him indef on dawiki and choose to express his recentment om my usertalk, User talk:Knud Winckelmann.

While that's nothing new to me, it's not every day that I'm threatened with slitting and lynching. Could an admin take a look and take the appropriate action? Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Invalid Edits by Wiki User User:Titodutta

I am adding an image link to a page which is not copyrighted but is being intentionally changed by the user. Page: Jeet Gannguli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Titodutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs)

File:Jeet Ganguly.png and File:Jeet Ganguly Photo.jpg have both been deleted from the Commons, as they are copyright violations. Almost all images you find on the Internet are copyright and thus not available to us.-- Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees

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

---

The Rambling Man tries to give me blood pressure at List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees. I've tried to remove non-Indians or foreigners of Indian origin from the list, but he keeps challenging my edits and doesn't appear to understand that there is a nation called India with Indian citizens. He repeatedly asks on talkpages "what are the inclusion criteria for this list?" as we could "possibly" list non-Indians there. Any other user would get a block for this disruptive behaviour ! It's not a content dispute, it's mere disruption ! -- Dravidian  Hero  18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, simply having a list of "Indian Academy Award winners" is open to interpretation and it's not spelled out on the page. Is it Indian citizenship? A person born and raised in India? Ethnically "Indian"? It doesn't even specify that it couldn't be an Indian-Canadian or a white filmmaker who was born and lives in India. It's ambiguous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is the list of the Indian Academy Award (informally known as Oscar) winners and nominees" Now try to check linked Indian people. It says "Indian people or Indians are people who are citizens of India," , It's sooooooo ambiguous!!!!!!!! -- Dravidian  Hero  19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, having blood pressure is good. Too much of it is a different kettle of fish! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, let me think... "content issue", "go discuss it", &c &c. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an ANI issue. I suggest that you raise a general point at WT:INB because it affects numerous equally-ambiguous lists concerning India, eg: List of Indian Christians. Be prepared for much discussion about definitions (pre- and post-partition India etc). - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's becausing people like Rambling Man support nonsense in Wikipedia. What could be ambiguous about Indian Christian???? Indian citizens of Christian faith! Holy shit, this looks impossible to handle!!!- Dravidian  Hero  19:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proving Indian citizenship would be even more difficult that proving "from India". I've just massively pruned that "Christians" list, which contained Canadian born people and all sorts of other dubious stuff. Take the general issue to WT:INB, open a RfC or try dispute resolution. There is no administrator intervention needed here. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Stiarts erid

User Stiarts erid has repeatedly launch personal attacks, first when editing The Fog (2005 film) and now George of the Jungle 2. People have warned him repeatedly (User talk:Stiarts erid), and yet he still does it. He started 3RR again on George of the Jungle 2 as he did on The Fog (2005 film). He needs to be blocked.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this a continuation of this discussion from the 3RR board? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure How to Proceed

Effective today, Nielsen has completed it's purchase of Arbitron. As you all may know, back in 2009, Nielsen filed a DMCA Takedown Notice (via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854), which caused all TV region templates to be removed because they had Nielsen television "DMA" information. Since Arbitron's radio "DMA" information is now owned by Nielsen, this will carry over.

Currently, most radio station pages carry a link to the Arbitron page for the respective station in the external links as part of the {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}} templates. To avoid another DMCA takedown notice, should we remove the Aribtron links from those templates (which would require an admin as they are indef full-protected) or will they be OK as-is? If this isn't the proper location for this discussion, my apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How can a takedown affect something they didn't own at the time of the takedown demand? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but they do have a copyright on the term "DMA" (which stands for "Designated Market Area, by the way) and from what I understand Nielsen was allowing Arbitron to use the term "DMA" in their ratings. That copyright is what caused the DMCA takedown notice back in '09. Arbitron didn't have a problem with us using it, so we didn't have a problem there. We do now since Nielsen has said they don't want us using their copyrights here on Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you DMCA a link to your own public database? Linking to them, isn't the same as hosting the data onwiki. That said, without having OTRS access, or being familiar with the past removal, its hard to say with any certainty. Still, my preference would be to wait and see if they DMCA anything. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would rather they don't DMCA anything. Last time they did, legal didn't fight it (the "DMA" information could have been easily removed) and it took 3 months or more of non-stop work to get the TV region templates created and back up (sans the Nielsen information, of course). I don't want to have to do that with each and every single radio station page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would wait to see if they take any action on the radio database, though have a backup template ready in the sandbox for the AMSD and FMSD templates sans Arbitron info ready to go if we get the C&D. The Arbiton people are still there for now and until we hear from Nielsen we should be able to go forward with it. My thinking though? They'll eventually throw it up behind a paywall to block all access to everyone except paying customers since the only way to get the weekly Nielsen ratings publicly is the USA Today chart on Wednesdays, and they're even more strict about their numbers than Arbitron has. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Render unto English Wikipedia what is English Wikipedia, and render unto WMF what is WMF's Since DMCA take downs go to WMF (as the actual owner of the website) it seems it like something they should provide guidance on. (Message left on liason's talk page) NE Ent 02:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Things change, corporations change. WMF should wait for a takedown before any action is taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's good and all, but what do we do if legal decides not to fight a DMCA notice from Nielsen like last time and we have to rebuilt thousands of radio station pages? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw personal attacks

Montanabw has been making personal attacks on me that violate BLP rules at Talk:Labor unions in the United States I reverted (citing BLP) and she put it right back in a couple minutes ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States&oldid=575206902&diff=prev Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is not the topic of a wikipedia article (in fact, he's not in the least notable) so no BLP violation. I removed the one bit about how he lies about his own credentials and moved it to his talk page here There also is no "outing" involved, as I just explained to him:

"You publicly disclose your identity on-wiki, so I am not "outing" you to mention what you yourself are apparently very proud to admit. In this link you post on your user page, so also no BLP issue involved; you aren't the subject of a wikipedia article (and, frankly, you aren't particularly notable, so that makes sense). But, I moved the personalized comment from the article talk: "You also behave in a deceptive fashion, keeping up the lie that you are a professor at MSU-B when a search of the current and emeritus faculty clearly shows that you are not." (Going back to 2009. You have a right to your POV, but you need to re-read WP:SOAP."

Frankly, I am sick of this POV-pushing right-wing editor, who PUBLICLY SELF-IDENTIFIES on WP (with first initial and last name plus a link to his works) and is also an administrator at Conservapedia, (see [92]) and has an obvious pattern of pushing a political agenda into WP. He's nearly derailed some FACs with his POV-pushing edits (see Richard Nixon and Thaddeus Stevens) and is now throwing a temper tantrum because he's getting called on his stuff. He's pissed because I removed his overactive adjectives from the article in question, but who needs to keep adding the words "liberal" and "left-wing" every three sentences, particularly when NOT adding the words "conservative" and "right-wing" in an equal fashion? Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently in a dispute on the article Real Clear Politics. The opposing editors are insisting adding "Founded by conservatives." By your logic, should they be blocked for POV pushing? What does being an administrator on conservapedia have to do with anything? BLP applies to all living persons named on Wikipedia, of which Rjensen is one so BLP most certainly does apply.--v/r - TP 23:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Montanabw's rhetoric above speaks for itself in terms of personal attacks on me. As for Montana State-Billings, I have been a Research Professor there for years see this Montana State University website Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, this was pointed out to you before you posted it here: [93] and that's the MSU-Bozeman library's page about the wikipedia ambassador site, not MSU-Billings faculty list. It also doesn't say you've been anywhere "for years" AND it looks like it's a resume you yourself submitted. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is seeking to have me sanctioned in some vague fashion for calling him out on his agenda when he is the one doing what you decry (only in this case, adding "liberal" everywhere he thinks it needs to be added). The point is that he's being called on his POV-pushing and is throwing a fit because he's caught in the act. Rjensen is doing precisely what you are critical of, inserting POV language into an article and then making personal attacks. I try to keep things neutral. When he becomes all condescending and attacks me personally in edits and edit summaries, I called him on his shit: Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• creates personal attack section header titled, "Montanabw is misinformed"
• I responded (then fixed typos in a few subsequent edits)
• Rj responds with vague generalities
• I edit the NPA attack header and reply on-topic
• Rjensen claims neutrality, I call bullshit, but provide some suggested source material
• Rjensen essentially, in a tl;dr, calls me stupid
• Rjensen is dismissive of another editor who confronts him
• and we have the edit of mine that he dislikes

Okay, ya'all back off for a little while so I can look.--v/r - TP 23:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen Your comments toward Montanabw, while not a personal attack, have been highly uncivil. You've been patronizing, sarcastic, and dismissive. On the whole, your behavior on this talk page disrupts the building of an encyclopedia.

Montanabw Your comments toward Rjensen have included ad hominems, such as his adminship on Conservapedia, and accusations of POV pushing. That behavior is not constructive and counter-attacks are not excusable.

The both of you While I am intellectually mediocre compared to the both of you, especially on the subject of history, what doesn't take an idiot to figure out is that your current paths lead no where. This is a collaborative project. The bickering isn't helpful. You have clearly opposite political viewpoints, either of you could be considered POV pushing (Montanabw, white washing in your case by removing the liberal label). I am not going to rule on content, that's not in an administrators remit, however on the subject of POV pushing, I can see at least one case where I think you both could be wrong. As two intellectual types with advanced degrees, you have the opportunity to get this article well balanced and to GA or FA status if you can cooperate. So, what needs to happen here to get you two to cooperate?--v/r - TP 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to just drop the stick and declare a truce wherein the personal snark stops. I have other fish to fry than this particular article, I was only alerted to the problem via a third party post. I'm fine with the article as it is as of the moment (I did a bit of cleanup just now of my own last edit). My changes, which gave rise to this talk page spat, involved tossing what I viewed as some unneeded editoralizing. Through all the snark, Rjensen and I were basically disputing two issues: 1) Whether Ronald Reagan was a "liberal" (as opposed to merely a Democrat) in the time he was the president of the Screen Actor's Guild - and whether the qualifier was even relevant in any case; and 2) If strikes declined solely due to corporations threatening to close factories and move jobs abroad. So for #1, we seem to have dropped the issue on Reagan, even at talk - I agreed he had been a democrat and union president, Rjensen seems to have agreed that he wasn't a screaming liberal and that he was quite the anti-communist as SAG leader. For #2, I kept Rjensen's useful stats, and all I really wanted out of the union decline thing was to either keep the tone neutral as to causes, or, if causes were to be explored, then a truly full and NPOV exploration of all non-fringe views, including the impact of things like right-to-work legislation, the changing world economy, yada, yada... but we got all bogged down in snark. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

...have included ad hominems, such as his adminship on Conservapedia. That's not an ad hominem, that's a warning sign. --Calton | Talk 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly an ad hominem. It uses a person's characteristics to challenge the validity of the argument instead of actually providing a counter argument. The use of conservative as a perjorative on this site is startling. I've seen RS's like Fox News, Washington Post, and USA Today called non-RS's simply for their viewpoint. That an editor edits on a project with a conservative viewpoint doesn't mean they edit here with a conservative viewpoint. Ad hominems are not a substitute for discussion.--v/r - TP 13:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "a person's characteristics". It is a person's associations, which makes it ad hominem in the present case. Conservative is not a "characteristic" in that characteristics, (eg. skin color), are generally something the person does not choose -- political outlook for mature people is something they generally choose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rolls eyes* I can't believe we have to argue about the definition of a characteristic. But yes, a person's affiliations and associations are a characteristic. Skin color would be a physical characteristic. Despite that, the argument about what is a characteristic is pointless because you agree that the issue here is an ad hominem.--v/r - TP 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you gentlemen agree that words like "misinformed" in the contest used (a section header with my name on it) also constitutes an ad hominem personal attack, even if spread out over multiple tl;dr paragraphs of a talk page? Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the statement "Rjensen is not the topic of a wikipedia article (in fact, he's not in the least notable) so no BLP violation" is erronious; WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, to any living person, notable/article-having or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • However, Montanabw is correct that Rjensen does edit from a very definite political position. Most of the time he keeps it under control, but not always, and there's nothing at all wrong in pointing out those instances when he allows his POV to override his instincts as an historian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• All true and fair enough, and it is just a heated talk page discussion, it actually began with Rjensen's personal attack on me, (his original section header at the article talk was "Montanabw is misinformed"), and he's mad that I called him on having an undisclosed right-wing agenda when he kept claiming he was "neutral." But no BLP issue here: I stated the truth, sourced, and I pointed out facts he boasts of on his user page. Rjensen self-discloses his identity and claims a number of academic credentials on his user page ( to be fair, most of them are true). Still, look at what he removed in the link above: criticism of his editing approach and calling him on his POV-pushing, which is not a BLP violation, and even then, a couple edits down, I decided it was more appropriate to move my comments about him being a Conservapedia admin and not a real MSU-Billings Professor (even though both true and sourced) to his talk page, where he promptly deleted them (which he is entitled to do). ;-) He also distorts his credentials on his user page and claims he is a "research professor" at MSU-BIllings, when the Montana University system has no such title as "research professor." (His link above is to MSU main campus in Bozeman, and it's his wikipedia ambassador bio, which he probably submitted himself) I've seen him listed elsewhere as a "retired historian," which appears to be true, and an "active scholar," which also appears to be true. But he's not on the faculty of the Montana University system anywhere and should not be presenting himself as such. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read through Montanabw's comments both here and on the article talk page and find his comments beyond what one would expect of civil discourse. See Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States. Rjensen began this discussion thread by saying that Montanabw was misinformed about what Montanabw has here identified as their two points of disagreement - Reagan and strikes - and provided sources. Montanabw then replied by accusing him of personal attacks and of editing from a "right-wing view only." I do not see the disagreement as being left-right, but will discuss that on the talk page. I think Montanabw should redact his excessive attacks and promise to stop. Many editors have been blocked for less than this. TFD (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I removed the bit about conservapedia from the talk page already, and moved it to Rjensen's talk page, where he chose to delete rather than discuss. I also think his active presence on conservapedia is completely relevant, as the site exists primarily to attack the perceived "bias" of wikipedia and openly advocates inserting a conservative view into WP articles, which is permissible, I suppose, but surely not NPOV, particularly when connected with calling other editors stupid and "misinformed" for holding certain center-left views. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

for the record: 1) I am really annoyed that Montanabw continues to imagine that I have some sort of "right wing agenda" for Wikipedia. That is completely false. Like most historians and indeed many Wiki editors who work on political topics I do have my personal political views. For Wikipedia I do not broadcast them and have tried very hard to be fair to liberal leaders such as in the 364 edits I made to Franklin D. Roosevelt and my 469 edits to New Deal. Take a look. s) As for my agenda for Wikipedia I do have one and have presented it in public for several years now--it involves putting more scholarship into long-established history articles. see my 2012 statement here. 3) Montanabw calls me a liar, based on her failure in one poorly done Google search. I have been an official "Research Professor" at Montana State U., Billings, for years and have the formal letter from the chancellor to prove it, should anyone ask. (I've been officially retired for years; the appointment lets me teach courses and use the library; it does not pay a salary.) I have also officially been a paid professor at numerous other universities such as Illinois-Chicago, Washington, Michigan, RPI, West Point and Harvard (including even Moscow State University in the USSR in the days of Communism). 4) In the article at hand I also think Montanabw's edits erasing a few uncontroversial words of mine were poor ones and were motivated by a lack of good faith and a fear of having a conservative actually write for Wikipedia. That did indeed tee me off and I wrote in an angry mood that does not encourage civility--sorry. Rjensen (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently finished battling with Rjensen over at the US labor union article; noting that his editing style is right wing and not neutral is stating the obvious. Equally problematic is that he's largely unaware of this (see here [94]). To see an example of his POV pushing see here [95]. My fairly limited interaction with user:Montanabw has been fine. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How is it POV to note that after the 2010 elections, Republican state houses passed legislation limiting the power of public service unions? TFD (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I see Rjensen thanks you in the credits of his paper linked below. Just noticed that. BTW, kudos to him for pushing for JSTOR access on WIkipedia, that's a plus Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen's comments strengthen my case. He makes unwarranted assumptions about my motivations (he has no clue, can't read my mind), and assumes bad faith, both constituting a personal attack. He deleted two paragraphs of my comments at the article talk, claiming "BLP" when there was one sentence that may have contained any BLP issue. As for others, his "putting more scholarship" into articles nearly derailed the FAC for Thaddeus Stevens (do read that talk and FAC, if interested). To the best of my knowledge, he has never been lead editor on one single FAC or even a GA on wikipedia (I've been lead or second whip on many); he makes hit and run edits across multiple articles, often with insertion of subtle stabs of "left-wing" or "liberal" where the context does not require such WP:POINTy adjectives. WhiIe I'm happy for him that he has been a "paid professor" at various universities and I am sure he is a genius (in spite of his own admission on his user page link that he currently edits history books mostly targeted for fifth-graders), he could not be an instructor or adjunct in the Montana University system without pay, (as he apparently alleges) and getting permission to use a library within the Montana University system is no big whoop. (I have similar access, they hand it out like Skittles). He appears to be a wikipedia ambassador, but does not appear on any lists of classes taught at MSU-Billings (I'm sure he can set me straight if he finds one), and while I could discuss his credentials further, I chose not to share other results of my own simple google search per WP:OUTING; I confine myself to verification (or not) of his disclosures on-wiki and closely related activities such as conservapedia, which is, basically, a wiki attack site. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban

• Support an interaction ban between User:Montanabw and User:Rjensen. We have two editors here who dislike each other. The details (having to do with ideology) do not matter, because their acting out of their dislike is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  It's only gotten personal in the last week or two; before that, Rjensen was merely (as TP said) "patronizing, sarcastic, and dismissive" in discussions, not so much in edit summaries and section headers (which or more permanent records). Other than articles about Montana and the west, we don't interact much elsewhere, though we cross paths when I am helping others on various American History articles. Before you take this much farther, please note that Rjensen has a prior sockpuppet problem. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see anything actionable on Montana's part. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We need more knowledge on our articles, not less. And both editors bring a good bit of knowledge. Find common ground or back off for a bit. There is nothing here that can't be solved by a little good faith. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no evidence that there is any problem beyond one article. TFD (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose These are both experienced editors that can work it out. Agree with User:The Four Deuces that the problem is limited to one article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Oppose I don't see a ban actually accomplishing or solving anything in the greater scheme of things. Intothatdarkness 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by user:Czixhc at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - part two.

See here [96] for part one - the extensive previous discussion on this matter. In brief, User:Czixhc has spent the best part of three months on Wikipedia doing very little beyond arguing that an image s/he created [97] based on one by architect and cartographer Jonathan Hagos [98] should be used to illustrate "skin color for modern populations" despite the fact that the creator of the original is neither qualified to compile such a map, nor claims to have done so. Having supposedly agreed at the previous ANI discussion to drop the matter (on September the 22nd), Czixhc then added his/her map image to the World map article (on Sept 27th), without any edit summary - and without giving the slightest indication that the map had been the subject of extensive debate, and was not considered a reliable source. [99] Needless to say, this attempt to smuggle the image back into Wikipedia did not go unnoticed - at which point, Czixhc again raised the matter on WP:RSN, under the thouroughly-misleading topic header Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is the University College London reliable?. Yet again, it has been explained by multiple contributors that the map is not a reliable source for what Czixhc claims it to be, but yet again, Czixhc refuses to accept this, with the same repetitive and circular arguments that have wasted so much time for so many people already. Accordingly, I think that there is no alternative than to call for an indefinite topic ban for Czixhc on any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. Enough is Enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Andythegrump again have brought an issue on which i'm involved, and again is unnecessary, actually more unnecessary than what it was the last time. As anybody can see here: [100] I already accepted the consensus of the comunity, which is that for now the sources aren't enough to make the file reliable, thing that i told to him here [101]. Right now i am discussing with another user the policies regarding reliable sources, because i don't want to be involved on a discussion like this one again, i have no intent to prove the file as reliable for now, that's something that i've left very clear I would sugest to close this discussion right now as a false alarm and to really check the behavoir of andythegrump, i mean, something who acts like him really is of not use on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note the weasel-wording: "for now" - it is self-evident that Czixhc will find yet another excuse for yet more tendentious time-wasting, given the slightest opportunity. A topic ban is essential, if we aren't to have to go through this nonsense yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I say as of now because the source must not have enough sources today, but what if 6 months on the future the creator of the work on which my file is included is featured on National geographic or something like that huh? Nothing can be permanent. That's exactly why i am discussing the policies with the opposition right now, i'm more tired of discussing this than you or anybody else. Really the one who needs to be put in check is you, for wasting administrators time on issues where they ren't needed, issues that aren't existent at all. Czixhc (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The above illustrates perfectly why a topic ban is essential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you should give a look to what topic ban means on wikipedia. i'm not being disruptive, i'm not even trying to push my view on the discussion anymore. the one who needs a topic ban is you, one that prevents you from posting on ANI, you are too inmature to do so, I can only imagine how many times you have reported users here without any valid reason or with the resolution not being what you asked for. Czixhc (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User:AndyTheGrump is a respected member of the Wikipedia community, even if he is known to be a grump. Czixhc's allegation that he is "too immature" to post to WP:ANI rises to the status of a personal attack and raises competency issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support either a topic-ban, or, better yet, a community ban on this wiki-lawyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't knew that "inmature" constituted a personal attack on wikipedia, mind you this same user has attacked me way more times and with real insults on past discussions. A topic ban really is not necessary, I already accepted the consensus of the comunity (like two hours ago), I'm very tired of discussing this. Czixhc (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I want to make clear some things here. I accepted the consensus of the comunity around 6 hours ago, this one being that the new sources presented weren't (again) enough to make the file reliable because varios users say so. If i upset some users with this discussion or the previous one, they must know that it wasn't my intention and that wikipedia's guidelines are very important for me (maybe the reason of this incident was that i care too much for them, who knows?). I need a rest from all this "noticeboard storms" and i really don't feel like coming back to any of these any time soon. I will make some edits to articles that might need it from time to time. I can't say that i didn't learned from this, now i know that what the comunity says has more weight than any source (something that i didn't expected to be honest). At this point i care more about finishing this tiring and pointless discussions than if the resolution favors me or not. I also hope to continue being helpful to wikipedia in the future. Since i already stated all that had to be stated on this i'd like to have this rather pointless case closed and move on. Czixhc (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban but preferably a community ban. This editor has responded in an insulting manner to other editors with whom he has had contact, and has tendentiously argued for the inclusion of an image long after it has been explained to him why it is inappropriate. TFD (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've never insulted anyone, the further i've been to do so have been to call an user attitude inmature, for bringing a non-existant issue on this board. As i told above i have no interest on arguing on that file for a long time. Czixhc (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would Support the proposed topic ban, but not a community ban, as a way to stop these endless arguments. From time to time, most of us find some point on which we disagree with the rest of the community - push that point for too long and you end up flogging a dead horse. It doesn't help either side. I really think Czixhc should have a chance to contribute to the rest of the encyclopædia, and a topic ban could help accomplish this. if possible I would prefer a slightly narrower scope for the topic ban, ie. get rid of the "broadly construed" as I think the current issue is quite specific. bobrayner (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Czixhc continued to ignore explanations (such as being told a number of times that an academic's description of his interests on his personal page on a university site is not an endorsement of expertise in those fields), continued to argue after saying he accepted consensus and has not left me reassured that he won't be back on this or something similar sooner than he thinks. His statement "I've never insulted anyone, the further i've been to do so have been to call an user attitude inmature," doesn't square with him telling Andy earlier this morning "How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously". Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have a feeling that a topic ban may just be the first stop on a path to community ban as this editor has real difficulty with WP:HEAR, but we can hope for improvement. Topic ban is appropriate and measured. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronoun fun on Christine Love (visual novelist)

Resolved

 – Semi-protection should take care of this. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocking and locking would be cool I guess tia. 96.231.152.235 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin again

An incident was reported here 2 days ago about CFredkin, which went to the archives without any action. Well, the editor is again inserting original research and synthesis into articles concerning living persons. Kay Hagan Mark Udall Joe Donnelly Amy Klobuchar Al Franken All of which he was reverted and warned on his Talk page, which he deleted without comment(as he does to almost all attempts to discuss his editing). And then promptly reinserted the edits without comment. He is also inserting claims by one blogger into articles concerning climate change without discussion. I have asked the editor(and another editor) to stop reverting the addition here and follow BRD, which was ignored. The editor was recently blocked for using socks to edit war on other political articles.This editor has been making mass changes to many articles and does not seem to want to follow basic Wiki guidelines. Something needs to be done. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Let me also add the climate change edits(1,2) are either unreferenced or by known paid advocates that were hired to disprove climate change. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Those looking into the matter may wish to add Jon Tester to the above list, though his edits there are not as problematic as the ones above. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Threat of violence--does not seem credible, but reporting to be on the safe side

Hi there. I reverted vandalism by an IP editor, 31.222.222.2, and shortly thereafter received a vitriolic message on my talk page that included threats to kill me, wipe my ass off the face of the continent, and so on. I hope you'll understand my not notifying this editor prior to starting this thread. Given that the person claims to have access to "the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps," I do not consider the threats particularly credible. However, I'm reporting them because that seems the right thing to do. Frankly, I wouldn't want another editor to receive a similar message. I've deleted the message from my talk page. Please let me know if I should take any further actions. Thanks very much. DoorsAjar (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta — Lfdder (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Figures. I should've Googled it. ;-) Thank you. DoorsAjar (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but like WP:NLT also applies to "chilling effects", whoever put that on your talkpage was also trying to create an effect. Still counts ES&L 09:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm glad I'm the one who got the message, because I hate to think how it might've affected a very young editor. I'm grateful to see that someone has given the IP a one-year block for persistent vandalism. Speaking generally, I'd be happy if messages as violently threatening as this one--meme or not--earned indefinite blocks. Is this a subject that has been previously discussed? DoorsAjar (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

However, we rarely block IP's indefinitely - the reasons are obvious why. We would likely block a named account indef ES&L 11:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting User:Dogmaticeclectic

Hi.

I am filling this report because I have run completely out of choices. Wikipedia is full of nice people but people visiting this board often are probably familiar with User:Dogmaticeclectic. We have previously tried discussion, discussion and discussion, various methods of dispute resolution, WP:EW and blocks; yet, in the latest dispute in Talk:Windows Movie Maker, he has called me a liar (explicitly) and threatened me. Normally, I'd use WP:DR but that is only good for editors who want things fixed, right?

I am not even sure what is the lie.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)... okay, let's see how administrators choose to handle this - with or without hypocrisy? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note for administrators: this user has willfully misrepresented another user's comments in order to provide support for this user's own position in a content dispute - is that not a blockable offense? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional note for administrators: I previously reported this user in this dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline). In that report, you can see that this user had reverted to this user's preferred version of the article five times before this dispute flared up again recently. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. There has been a case before; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221 § User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline). Meanwhile, it is interesting that in the diff above, he has invoked WP:BRD to justify a revert. Does BRD really apply in these cases? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I invoked WP:BRD not for my own edit directly, but in the sense that you did not follow it when you repeatedly (as the edit warring case clearly shows) removed material that had previously been in the article without obtaining consensus. I've now clarified this at the talk page of the article in question as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: Topic ban

It seems clear to me, given Dogmaticeclectic's lack of WP:AGF, accusations and block log that they have trouble editing articles about Microsoft products. I wasn't aware such a topic was this controversial, but apparently Dogmaticeclectic believes that it is. So I propose a 6-month topic ban from articles about Microsoft products and their talk pages.--v/r - TP 14:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yet another administrator supports WP:OWNERSHIP for certain users. How impartial.

Seriously, how do these people become administrators? Is the Wikipedia community willfully blind? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support(ec) Though I generally am known for opposing "draconian solutions", in the case at hand the editor seems not to quite comprehend why specific processes are used -- and that edits from months previous do not count as reverts (Albeit we do have a precedent from ArbCom that four reverts in five months is "edit war"!) I would limit the ban to any edits regarding Windows products, and not ban from the new tablets etc. lest the topic ban be too broadly construed. Appending: the reply above seems quite unhelpful here. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Four of the five reverts were made in the span of two weeks - what do you say to that? (Or perhaps: do you not quite comprehend that?) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Attention: I am about to open a separate case against both of you, as well as anyone else who decides to join you in supporting this, for the simple reason that WP:NPA states: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support their proposal below combined with the stuff shown in the original complaint and the block log is enough to convince me this editor has a problem. As noted by Collect, the reply seems to just reenforce the point as does the further reply. I'm not sure just banning them from Microsoft articles is a sufficient, but an indef block is a bit much and undesirable if they can prove to be a productive editor without such problematic editing so I'm hoping it will be. It seems the problem is at least partially personal yet interaction bans can be problematic so probably not desirable particularly without CL asking for one. Howecer I would take a dim view if they start to show up in other areas (if any) where Codename Lisa is active if they weren't active there before (if they are already active, I hope they realise they're on thin ice). Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Questions: do none of you realize that this report is essentially for my involvement the discussion of the content dispute in question? Are you seriously proposing a topic ban that would basically be for discussion in an attempt to resolve a dispute? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between discussion to resolve a dispute and attacking another editor. Your later comments there were clearly beligirent and largely unhelpful for resolving the actual dispute. (For example, the bit where you accused CL of being a liar was dependent on how you interpret what was said, and was also just dumb since you were referring to an old discussion which someone may not remember and may not bother to check before commentingyet was at the end of the previous section i.e. right above above so was a dumb thing to 'lie' about anyway.) You've backed that up by showing similar behaviour here. The fact that you don't understand all this is further proof of why your editing is problematic and some action appears necessary. Considering that your biggest problem area appears to be Microsoft related ones, it seems to be a fair call as I mentioned in my support. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban at minimum. DE's behavior in the topic area has been clearly problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting - the material for opening a case against you per WP:INVOLVED is quite welcome indeed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I should wait in case that other administrator (you know who I mean, don't you?) comments here, though... oh, what fun that would be! Although I'm not quite sure whether that would fall under WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK, and which one of you is which... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, WP:ALLSOCKS applies ES&L 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Block for User:Codename Lisa

This user has seemingly asserted superiority on several occasions on account of not being blocked as I have. A block seems to be the only fair way to deal with this and bring this user down a few notches to force discussion instead of reverts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a helpful suggestion. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As an alternative to a probably (I haven't looked in to the details) undeserved blocked to dis/prove that you both have equally problematic editing patterns, how about you prove your behaviour is problematic as shown by stuff other than your block log so most people won't even bother looking in to your complaints? That way perhaps finally you may learn that whatever problems others may have, it doesn't excuse poor behaviour on your part which may be shown by more than just your block log. And at least people don't have to look far for evidence of your problematic editing. To prove your poor behaviour, how about you do something silly like come to ANI and propose a block for such silly reasons guaranteeing a boomerang? Oh wait .... Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comprehending this poorly-written paragraph is a bit difficult, but I can definitely say that I wasn't the one who came to WP:ANI. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You will note I never said you came here first. However you clearly did come to ANI otherwise I couldn't be responding to your response to my response to your comment (well unless someone copied them here without your permission). Nil Einne (talk)

400 articles about Transformers characters?

I was checking the number of transclusions for the Template:Infobox Transformers character, and the number of articles using it seems seriously excessive, there are 425 of them, which is almost as many as the total number of articles about video games characters (currently 622). I have not seen something on this scale since the days when each Pokeman had his own article so I thought it would be worth reporting somewhere. This is probably not the right place to discuss this, but since the notability noticeboard was shut down a week ago, I can't think of a more appropriate venue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this relates back to a spate of AFDs that had been raised in the past on Transformers articles largely created by Mathewignash. Hard to think what encyclopedic value articles like these could be. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

bah, 400? thats nothing. check out the bazillion articles on D&D related creatures, gods, characters, locations mentioned once in a sourcebook. Like this guy Guardian daemon -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You could send the articles you think aren't notable to Afd or perhaps PROD them first, but you'd need a better argument than "this many transformers articles seems excessive". Reporting it here on ANI is not going to accomplish anything.--Atlan (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not sure what the notability requirement would be for a fictional transforming robot. And at least here I can find out if I'm not the only one who, yes, thinks that this many transformers articles seems excessive.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I get depressed about the number of topics on here that just really should go on some other website, but the best thing I find to do is to just ignore them completely and work on your own stuff - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and there's no reason somebody can't look at me taking The Who to GA status and scoff at me for not going for more serious and highbrow stuff like Shakespeare or periodic table elements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know if even the people at WikiProject Transformers would agree that they need that many character pages, or if they just accumulated over the years because nobody bothered to delete them. I would ask the WP which ones they want to keep, but it seems pretty dead.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia going to run out of space? I think not. I have not created any of these, and probably haven't edited them except to make the occasional disambig fix or correct typos, but I don't see the problem here. The Transformers media franchise has been around for thirty years, including hundreds of different episodes across multiple TV series, a theatrically released animated film, three blockbuster live-action films, video games, comic books, not to mention the toys. Billions of dollars have been made from these. If there are stubby articles without potential for expansion, those can be merged into a group reflecting the next higher level of abstraction (the particular series they were featured in, for example), but it is not that surprising that such a broad media empire has this many articles. bd2412 T 12:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The same description can be made of other media franchises, like The Smurfs (55 years old, comics, 3 major movies, an extremely succesful and long-running animated series, heaps of toys and merchandising, ...). Yet we only have three (3!) articles on characters from the series, Papa Smurf, Gargamel and Smurfette. The others are combined into List of The Smurfs characters. 400 for Transformers is serious overkill. Fram (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Having an article on every Transformers character is what TFWiki is for. Having an article on characters with real-world notability, such as Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream to name three (but not to say those are the only three), is what Wikipedia is appropriate for. Those that don't have out-of-universe notability can, and should, be in lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No surprise this was raised at some point. I once tried to start tidying up the area however found Mathewignash hard to work with as they kind of went about in an WP:OWN way with these articles which they are largely responsible for creating so I gave up and let them rule the place. Though looking at the whole project - it is seriously daughting, with the major problem being the reusing of names in the different Transformers franchises. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Being part of a 30 year old media franchise does not grant inherent notability to every passing character of that franchise. The requirements for a stand alone article are clear - the subject of the article needs to have significant coverage about it published in an independent reliable source. There are a number of Transformer character for which that is true. there are vast numbers of characters for which that is NOT true. Ignoring the problem and allowing such content to linger sets a bad precedent, as newbies who are not aware of the policy see an article for some throw-away character that appeared in one scene of one episode the impression that "Gee, we should have an article for Y".

but this is not really an ANI subject. probably better suited for Village Pump or Jimbo. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It was suited for here, but, like WP:WQA, somebody got the bright idea we didn't need it anymore. Oh, BTW, somebody should probably check on all those Pokemon articles; I get a feeling the number has snuck back up...significantly... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@TRPoD, The gravamen of the discussion is "there are too many of these", not "these lack coverage in reliable sources". One could as easily say, "we have over 180 articles on characters from Shakespeare's plays, that's too many". My response was addressed solely to the proposition that we have too many articles on this particular topic. However, I also noted that stubby articles can be merged up. bd2412 T 13:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I tried, a few years back, to cut this number down. I merged some obviously non-notable ones into lists (after a number of reversions), a few of the really bad articles got deleted, but many of the AfDs simply resulted in Keep-spam from the usual sources. However, 425 isn't as bad as it was - I think the number was something like 650 at one point. To be honest, I waas more bothered at the time with the outrageous overuse of non-free images, which no doubt has gone back up since I stopped watching the pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the vast majority should be deleted. Wikipedia needs a "bulk move to wikia" button. However, also agree that success at this venture is unlikely do to the cliques that will come out in support. Also we should delete the "page for every episode of every popular tv show" and many other crufty pages, but down that road lies despair. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a glut of articles on Transformers, Pokemon, lots of anime titles (and for some reason, roads and highways). I only object because the requirements for new articles is so high and yet these cartoon/toy pages seem to get a pass. The problem is that the people who would like to winnow down the number to just those that are notable are not the same people as those that are knowledgeable enough to separate the essential from the trivial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about the highways and road ones. They cite state or federal documentation (after all, the government needs to know what it's supposed to maintain) but often little else, so in my view they fail GNG. Try and AfD one and they all go nuts. But then again, somebody else could equally come along and say, "look, we don't need those articles on Pink Floyd albums, just redirect them to a discography" and I'd at least put up an argument. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Unacceptable commentary regarding the BLP subject and transgendered people during the debate was a big problem the last time a month ago. I see the first such comments in the second RM have already come along, with User:KoshVorlon making inflammatory and disrespectful commentary regarding the article subject.[102]. His comments were redacted by one editor, then reinstated, and he has refused on his talk page to make any changes to it. -- Josh Gorand (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Fluffernutter has already stepped up to patrol it. Other uninvolved admins are welcome.--v/r - TP 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, anyone who wishes to make outrageous comments while an ArbCom discussion is contemplating sanctions for other editors who have made similar comments is fishing for trouble. I am quite certain that this sort of thing will be dealt with accordingly, without being raised here as the sort of "incident" that administrators might not be aware of. bd2412 T 16:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd call them nonsensical (I could use stronger words), not necessarily outrageous. IMO. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If one compares Kosh's comments to those currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies, his words are similar to those editors who are unlikely to face sanction if the votes continue to trend as they have been. There appear to be only 3 editors who face a real possibility of a topic-ban for their incvility; IFreedom1212, Hitmonchan, and...you yourself, Mr. Gorand. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it. I'd appreciate a fuller explanation from Josh Gorand as to the specifics of why he thinks the language unacceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not really helpful, Tarc. Despite picking each of Fluffernutter's actions to selectively support or oppose, we should just be happy that some admin is willing to subjecate herself to torture to try and keep some resemblance of civility. Let's give her wide discretion and support because I doubt anyone else is willing or could do it better.--v/r - TP 16:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact , my comments are not outrageous. Please close this up as an attempt to chill discussion on the move page.−  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's issues like this that show why this move request should have been put off until the ArbCom case had closed. But, ultimately, I don't think there's anything that needs to be done with a comment like this; KoshVorlon is entitled to say He is NOT Chelsea, not legally, not biologically, not even reliably. The best choice of words? Probably not. Inflammatory and disrespectful, at least to the degree that warrants admin intervention? No, I don't think so. And if you look at the proposed decision in the related ArbCom case, you'll see that it doesn't look like the ArbCom will sanction comments like this.

If you want to register your disagreement, go ahead. That being said, given the trajectory of the RM discussion, I'm not sure why you'd think it'd be worth your time. -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh, KV's comments are certainly naive/ignorant (he demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of trans issues) but that does not mean they are offensive/unacceptanle/outrageous, and certainly not worthy of any sanction. GiantSnowman 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I redacted part of Kosh's statement earlier today on the basis of discretionary sanctions allowing me wide latitude to take actions I felt were needed to "ensure the smooth functioning of the project". My redaction was reverted by MZMcBride and I've not re-done it, but I would very much appreciate other opinions (preferably from people not already involved in this dispute) about both the acceptability of Koshs's comments and how the community would prefer problematic comments on the RM be handled. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that the discussion is not about whether Manning is male or female, or whether she intends to live as Bradley or Chelsea, I think KoshVorlon's comments are needlessly inflammatory. They are discriminatory in tone, as they disregard Manning's expressed gender (even questioning whether Manning actually wants to be Chelsea at all). The entire point of this RM is to discuss the article title and a proposed change to that title - not Manning's ability (or inability, according to KoshVorlon) to determine her own gender. I think Fluffernutter was justified in removing the comment, and I'd re-redact it myself if I had not commented at arbcom on this issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! is monitoring the discussion taking place and attempting to keep the waters calm. The recent comments on her talk page might be an indication that this is too big a job for one person. Can someone help her please?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

.....and the current consensus on Fluffernutter's page is 3 to 1 with Fluffernutter being the lone dissenter. Again, please close this out, there's nothing to see here, just an attempt to silence discussion on the move  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, you are free to disagree with my judgment, but please do not accuse me of trying to "silence discussion." The only thing I'm trying to do here is keep things from spinning out of control, and I would appreciate you assuming good faith of me even if you disagree with me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't directing that at you, I already posted on your page that I realize you're attempting to keep the flames down over on that page (even though I disagree with you reverting my comment ), I was directing that Josh Gorand.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be no agreement over what constitute an acceptable comment, it might be best not to redact absent clear abuse directed at a community member.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is wise. In retrospect, it seems that the original Manning RM turned into the mess it did in no small part due to the largely hands off approach taken by admins while it was occurring. Now, I don't know what the best course of action for admins to take this time is, but I think waiting until the RM devolves into direct personal attacks and the like before taking strong action is probably a recipe for disaster. Simple Sarah (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• The redaction is reasonable. 1) The selective enforcement claim, is an argument for no discretionary sanctions, but there are discretionary sanctions, here. Second the selectively removed part does not change the gist of the User's support or its reasons, "He ..." (so no silencing); it was the belaboring/inflamatory that was removed in discretion. The other comments complained of for "even enforcement" don't belabor ('he is a woman like Christine Jorgensen,' 'she says she is a woman' 'she says she is seeking treatment' - none belabor); it is, moreover, another issue (a BLP/Civilty one) when you start arguing with the Subject of the article about themselves and needs to be addressed with carefully chosen wording (or not at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not arguing for or against removing the comments, I think Alanscottwalker has a point here. The problem is is this isn't a discussion in abstract but about a living person. In other words there's a difference between saying 'I reject the concent of gender identity and only follow genetics' in a discussion(even if that ignores the actual complexity of genetics) and saying living person X is a man. And the nature of BLP means that if person X clearly identifies as female, saying person X is female doesn't have the same problems as saying person X is male. For better or worse, that's the way BLP works. This doesn't mean there can't be problems from the other side. Clearly accusing other editors of being transphobic is problematic. The main saving grace here is that this is such a hot button public issue with so much external commentary that I'm not sure how strict we should be. (For example, if someone says 'recent US president Y is a war criminal' I don't know if we'll necessarily bother to do anything even though someone saying 'fairly unknown person Z is a war criminal' may be removed.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there might be a difference between calling someone a man and calling one a war criminal. The point is that one side of this argument does not recognize Manning as a woman. They may be right, they may be wrong. But removing their right to say so as "hate speech" doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It would certainly have an effect on the debate, but I'm not certain chilling said debate is a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can substitute 'not a Muslim', 'not Jewish', 'is gay' or whatever you want. However I think you have missed my point if you think this is about hate speech. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no "right" here. Saying "Manning identifies as a woman" is clearly true, and sourceable. Saying "Manning was raised as a boy" is also clearly true, and sourceable. OTOH, saying "Manning is a woman" or "Manning is a man" is not sourceable, nor necessarily true, since woman is a social construct, and what is included in that box, and under what conditions, is subject to social negotiation, and the parameters of that negotiation are still being debated. Our particular society, circa 2013, has not yet come to consensus on this, and there are for example women who exclude trans*women from certain spaces because they were born male. There are multiple points of view on this, and they all have some validity (see this exchange for an example of where accusations of transphobia go too far). But the main point is, NONE OF THIS MATTERS for the article title. Not one bit. There are oodles of arguments, that can be made on either side, that have nothing to do with what gender or sex Manning "is" (as if we could even sort that out definitively). Since the very discussion of such things here ends up pissing people off, and wikipdia is not a forum, I think the best route is to redact all mention of Manning "truly" being one gender or another, from either side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't object to that, although I do stick by my comment that per WP:BLP on wikipedia, since Manning has clearly identified as female, saying she is so does not carry the same problems that saying she is not so, does. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

After taking another read-through of our DS guidelines, I've re-redacted the comment, since MzMcBride's revert was significantly against policy and the point of DS is that they are fast-track actions and are "sticky". Note that community consensus or appeal to arbcom can overrule a DS action; those things would be done at WP:AE if anyone wishes to pursue the matter. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

.....You're invovled as you've already voted against the move, and once again, there's already a 3 to 1 consensus against you. Please revert your action, that comment is fine as it was. I won't revert you as I can't (due to voluntary editing restrictions)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, it sounds like you're not really familiar with the concept of discretionary sanctions. I encourage you to read the page describing them, but in short, DS enables a single admin to implement a wide variety of sanctions or other actions, based on their best judgment, in hot-button topic areas. Once an admin has implemented a DS action, that action may not be undone except by that admin, through an appeal to arbcom, or based on community consensus on WP:AE. In this case, Mzmcbride short-circuited that process, which was very much against policy. I have restored it to the status quo, because until one of those three entities undoes my action, my action stands on the strength of discretionary sanction policy, backed by Arbcom's previous implementations of that policy. Is it possible the redaction was wrong? Sure, it could be. But the way to find that out is to appeal according to policy and find a consensus about it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(Pro-Gun?) Administrator Needed...

Resolved

 – --v/r - TP 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

...to close Wikipedia:Ani#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban, above, where in my totally biased opinion a totally objective consensus is easily discerned. First admin to act will not be furloughed (military personnel excluded). Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like this was directed at me :). Actually, I think a pro-gun or anti-gun administrator is not needed, but an impartial or uncaring one ;). I'll take a look.--v/r - TP 16:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just stuck the headline in to get some attention, hehe. Your bonus, at the C4 level, has been approved. The rest will have to wait for Congress to act one way or another. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Implied legal threat

User (Husky2014) is blanking page claiming it violates copyright laws (on this page). Reporting in the spirit of WP:LEGAL. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting a WP:COPYVIO concern is not a legal threat. Unless Husky2014 is threatening to bring action, there's no threat, and no administrative action for a legal threat is required. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't appear to be a legal threat - more vandalism at this point. I note that he was not approached FIRST before reported here ... not even welcomed with the rules as per WP:IGNORANCE ES&L 17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ownership issue on Federal assault weapons ban page?

I think there may be an ownership problem on the Federal assault weapons ban page involving one or more of the following editors: Anastrophe, GregJackP, North8000 and possibly Sue Rangell. In that time, the following incidents have occurred:

1. 9 AUG 2013: Despite my being a newbie WP editor and our never having worked together before, Anastrophe reverted an edit I'd made, accompanied by a terse warning on my talk page about "scrubbing" the article. He also said there'd been previous discussion and consensus on the "scrubbed" word.

My newbie mistake: I'd removed three instances of the word - a word highly debated among concerned parties - from one section of the article. It still appeared in a subsequent, less complex section. (I'd also made a half-dozen edits for WP:MOS and WP:BETTER, guided by my experience as a trained news writer.) As for discussion, the only thing recent I found on the subject was the first two sections of Archive2.

2. 10 AUG 2013: I started an RfC about use of the word in the section in question. Despite knowing that I was a newbie WP editor, he continued to criticize me without citing sources or WP policies or guidelines. He also made it WP:PERSONAL by making "you" statements to me over 30 times, by questioning my ethics, by saying I was making a mockery of the process, by accusing me of vandalizing his user page and of ignoring his remarks.

3. 14 AUG 2013: After only four days of the threaded discussion under the RfC - about a contentious topic, and without my knowing that the default RfC length is 30 days - GregJackP used the terms IDHY and DROPTHESTICK (about 15 paragraphs down - it was a lengthy discussion).

4. 24 AUG 2013: Anastrophe deleted my addition of a simple, sourced statement to the lead. Although the lead already contained the statement, "There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded," Anastrophe said the addition of "Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of AWB 1994, but all were rejected by reviewing courts" was WP:UNDUE. He moved the statement to the end of an unrelated topic, and suggested that it could be returned if a Legal challenges section was developed. A section was developed, but not allowed to be put in the article. GregJackP wrote: "Third, in the section just below, the current consensus is to not add this section to the article. If you feel you must, go ahead, but either myself or ... another editor will revert it based on talkpage consensus." The "consensus" was based on a three-person vote.

5. 5 SEP 2013: A discussion about renaming the article was closed by Sue Rangell - in mid-discussion. Keeping the article title in caps is supported by nothing more substantial than that's how it's been for years (although it was not in caps, and properly, for years before it was changed to caps). Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

6. 30 SEP 2013: Most recently, after active editors agreed to use the BRD cycle and after a number of WP:MOS and BETTER edits (many that an English teacher or good newsroom editor might have made), and a few sourced WP:BALANCE edits that helped to make the article NPOV, North8000 said the article was a "mess" and suggested that it before reverted to a version from five days earlier. Four hours later, GregJackP rolled it back to week-old version, with the "consensus" of Anastrophe, North8000, and Sue Rangell. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is a microcosm not only of the hyper-vocal pro-gun lobby and its advocates, but also of the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia. If anyone can suggest the best place to report that, I would be happy to know.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)