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

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncooperative editor has serious problems with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS

Wheres Dan (talk · contribs) is always using sources (most WP:FRINGE) from the 1800s which contain information that modern sources don't bother to reprint. Dougweller, Heironymous Rowe, and I have repeatedly asked him to find the information in modern sources to verify that the information is still accepted by modern scholarship. To date, he hasn't (or hasn't found anything), and I know I failed to find anything as well (even though it's his job to find that stuff, not mine).

• He has previously been blocked for various personal attacks, including refering to good faith edits as vandalism (in that case, while reversing WP:BRD after I explained it to him elsewhere) and calling Dougweller an antisemite.
• Here he suggests that a 1938 occultist source is an appropriate source for to suggest that historians think that the Great Serpent Mound in Ohio is connected to the unrelated deities Kneph (more on that later) and Ahura Mazda, and unspecified "Japanese and Indian traditions."
• Even after his previous block, he shows contempt for anyone not supporting his edits, and makes up imaginary editors to support him.

The few good edits he's made (like this), do not begin to outway the amount of following after he is going to require, as he does not understand cooperative discussion in the slightest, and twists guidelines to his own ends (such as reversing WP:BRD to insist that other people discuss his edits without reversion, reinterpreting WP:RS so that outdated, unscholarly, or fringe sources have to be countered).

This is a highly uncooperative fringe-pushing editor, who one admin has considered blocking indefinately. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

 Question: Were you going to let us know who it is, or just keep us in suspense? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Meant to put that in the beginning. Editted in. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE has steps for liberal blocking of longstanding pushing of fringe sources. Trying to link a mound in Ohio with Ahura Mazda is definitely way fringe. If the editor has been sufficiently warned and can be shown to have continued afterwards (diffs, please, if you have them) then escalating blocks are definitely called for, in my opinion. Just need an uninvolved admin to do it. (And what was the more on Kneph?) DreamGuy (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion we have too much patience for this type of editor. There are obvious WP:COMPETENCE issues, and that should be enough for a block. Hans Adler 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ack, forgot that (should really finish my morning Mt Dew before I do anything). At Kneph, Wheres Dan continued to push fringe and outdated material, taking a 19th century source (which should have been removed) that conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna and turning it into the primary source for the article, and citing a metaphysical text by René Guénon for historical information.

The histories for the articles Tribe of Dan, Kneph, and Serpent Mound show nothing but continued reversions after being asked to not use fringe and outdated sources.

Wheres Dan has just cited several outdated and fringe sources that were previously removed, claiming that Dougweller approved of all of them because Wheres Dan included two sources Doug suggested along with the fringe material.

He is also being a hypocritical when it comes to sourcing. This demonstrates that he understands that 19th century romantic, reductionist, and religious material are not reliable sources for historical claims, but when ignores this when it supports his point of view.

Even if it weren't for the fringe issues, that his concept of cooperation is a bit one-sided seems reason enough to not want him on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And now he's reported me for edit warring (even though I have yet to violate 3rr and have reverted no more than he has), where he accuses me of acting out of a religious bias by taking a comment out of context (at first, he tried to accuse me of an anti-Biblical bias, which prompted me to point out that I'm a Baptist). As I've stated over at WP:3RRNB, I will no longer be nice about this, he is useless to this site and should be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement that editors of this persuasion are given way too much leniency here. The user has shown, per this conversation at Talk:Serpent Mound#Tribe of Dan Egyptian gods nonsense, that they either have WP:COMPETENCE issues or are on an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles. The user couldn't seem to understand the difference or wouldn't admit the difference between the armchair philosophizing of a historian (if you want to call an author publishing in "Rosicrucian Digest" in 1938 an actual "historian") in the early 1900s and the 100 years of peer reviewed academic archaeology that has taken place since that armchair historian wrote his book. They have also yet seemed to understand our policies on WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, and WP:RELIABLE. It's not our job to tell a person what to believe, but surely, we can stop them from serially inserting this] sort of nonsense into history and archaeology articles? Heiro 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since they've been blocked before, I've just blocked for a week for edit-warring at Tribe of Dan during which they overstepped 3RR as well as WP:COMPETENCE. I've pointed out both in the block notice, and also noted how they can contribute to this discussion. But frankly, if anyone wants to up it to indef, be my guest. Black Kite (t) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"conflates Kneph, Osiris, Jesus, and Krishna" — where have I seen that before — Caesarion and WillBildUnion (talk · contribs). Maybe.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Wheres Dan is citing a lot of 19th century sources, and a lot of people (whatever their beliefs) who wrote about religion in the 19th century were kinda stupid (IMO more so than in eras before or after). He doesn't quite smell the same to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there are generally very serious, questions about the current reliability of sources from the era of the source in question. Having said that, I think that there probably is, to some degree, information of this type which is relevant to at least some article, maybe a spinoff, in wikipedia. We do rather often have child articles which might address or summarize previous opinions regarding a subject, and it rather often is the case that such older premises, for good or ill, are in some way foundational to current theories, of varying reliability. I think maybe confining the editor to relevant talk pages, until and unless there is obvious and poorly-defensible editing abuse there as well, might be the best alternative. John Carter (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

*Ahem* I'm thinking it's time for an indef. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clearer about my previous remark, a sockpuppet of Wheres Dan has been found and indefed. The block on Wheres Dan is still for a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

More socks have been found. This guy knows what he's doing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wheres Dan after looking at the various contribs of the socks at the SPI, which go back for weeks and months even, I think my above mentioned suspicion that WP:COMPETENCE may not be the issue but that an elaborate trolling mission to insert inaccurate information into articles may be. One of the accounts (User:Sourced much) seemed to be overly drawn to articles on Nazis, specifically attempts to white wash their reputations(see here). I would like to ask for an indefinite block or possibly a community ban for this editor. Would there be any support for this? Heiro 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can find evidence of him using the socks to votestack, vandalise or commit other offenses, then the block can be extended. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban proposal

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

---

• I support a community ban on Wheres Dan and associated accounts due to the systematic and planned disruption of the encyclopaedic process by pushing FRINGE. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban as per my statement above. Heiro 03:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, as Where's Dan is too academically and/or ethically incompetent to be of help here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support community ban, with regrets, based on editors apparent inability or unwillingness to abide by basic standards of good conduct. While it is possible that some of the material he seeks to include might be appropriate, his actions to support that material very clearly are not. John Carter (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Serious competence issues, refusal to act collaboratively, and a preference for wholly unreliable, extreme fringe sources, and the use of sockpuppet accounts - we need to protect the encyclopedia. --NellieBly (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support Many issue of this user. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per all the reasons given above. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The weeklong block may have been appropriate at first, but if he's creating socks to push fringe theories it's obvious we don't need him. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Should this now be closed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Wheres Dan hasn't even been notified, as far as I'm aware (at least I don't see a notice on his talk page). No, don't close this yet; even if WD ends up being banned, he should at least have a chance to defend himself. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 03:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I've notified him. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • This was opened at least six days ago. What took so long? causa sui (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He was notified of the discussion that started this one at User_talk:Wheres_Dan#ANI_notification. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

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

• This is a bit of a hash, not that it matters too much in this case (per WP:SNOW). The block log says banned, the message on his talk pages says indef. blocked. A general discussion on user behaviour is not the same as a ban proposal, separate notifications should have been given, and due time allowed. It's good for the community to follow its own customs and rules where they may procedurally benefit the potential blockee, even in these cases. Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  

MangoWong Block review

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

I've just blocked MangoWong for 48 hours, for his latest in what I see as a long term campaign of thinly-veiled personal attacks and harrassment against another editor, User:Sitush. Sitush is one of a very small number of editors who have been working hard to improve our coverage of Indian topics, especially caste-related ones - they were originally horribly POV affairs, containing little more than the glorification of various castes, and now they are much better with neutral wording, reliable sources, etc.

In the course of this, Sitush and other content editors have been on the receiving end of quite a bit of abuse from various caste champions, pro-Indian nationalists, etc, a good few of whom have since been indef blocked. MangoWong has managed to get along by keeping his head just under the radar, thinly veiling his attacks, and being careful to avoid any individual attack that's been sufficiently egregious to warrant a block. But I think his low level of insults and insinuations has gone too far and constitutes harassment. Here are some examples...

• This is the final interaction that led to his block, in which he said "On caste articles, as soon as someone shows any objection to your edits, they are automatically "canvassed from orkut", "caste warriors", 'more than a caste warrior", "do not know English", "do not know policy", are dogs, stupid, tendentitious, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, unbalanced, has COI etc. etc. etc. and what not". Firstly, bringing up disagreements on caste articles is nothing to do with the article being discussed, and appears to be an attempt to personally discredit Sitush. The accusation that Sitush called people "dogs" and "stupid" is particularly despicable, as he has done no such thing. And the rest is a misrepresentation of actual events - there really have been lots of socks, etc, and it's all supported by evidence (eg SPI reports). I warned him only about the "dogs" and "stupid" slur, to which he responded "You may say that Sitush did not use the word "dog", but then, I may say that he made that insinuation through some other phrase" ([1]), which again is blatantly untrue. Anyway, please do see whole discussion - I've included these extracts here as the article is at AfD and may soon only be visible to admins.
• Unfounded accusation of "OR lies", "lynching" - [2]
• Unfounded accusations of "bullshit quality sources, OR, misrepresentations, synthesis, misinterpretations etc. for S***** fixation and other defamatory material. ... endless amount of ABF, incivilities, accusationmongering, argumentativeness" - [3]
• Unfounded accusations of "OR lies &/ synthesis &/ misrepresentations &/ unreliable sources &/ amateur sources &/ cherry picked sources &/ passing comment sources &/ off topic sources &/ misinterpreted sources &/ lead fixation &/ S***** fixation &/ defamatory material &/ undue material &/ sources with mysterious credentials", not specifically targeted, but it's clear who it's aimed at ("S*****" is "Shudra") - [4]
• Unfounded accusation of "massive obsession with inserting defamatory material about Indian castes" - [5]
• Unfounded accusation, "It is uncivil of you to keep asking people to leave WP. You don't own WP. Do you?", where Sitush has never asked anyone to leave WP as far as I know - [6]
• Unfounded accusations, "It is well known that you three (Sitush, MatthewVanitas and yourself) have been exercising an overbearing influence on the entire topic of Indian caste articles. You three have been acting in tandem on all these articles and have acted in tandem to obtain blocks and bans on hordes and hordes of eds who have tried to edit these articles" - [7]
• Throwing in "narrow minded colonial racist britishers" - [8]
• Further unfounded accusations, including that Sitush and others "operate on the principle -- "Any Tom/Dick/Harry writes a book, says something defamatory/palikuluing about an Indian caste, becomes an RS." - [9]
• Accusations of conspiracy - [10]
• Accusations of "trying to get blocks and bans etc. and doing various forms of armtwisting on anyone who has disputes on you" - [11]

The examples above are only going back a relatively short time, but it's been going on for a fair bit longer and there are plenty more similar examples.

On a number of occasions, he's been asked to take his accusations to ANI or can them - to put up or shut up. But he won't (eg [12]), presumably because he knows he won't succeed. In fact, you can see his opinion of ANI here - "The ANI is a completely useless place. It is stuffed with limeys who have written British-Indian history articles from a whitewased British POV and are committed to keeping it that way".

As it says at Wikipedia:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. It seems clear to me that that is exactly what has been happening, and it has to be stopped.

So, I'd like to ask for opinions on my 48 hour block, and on whether any further action might be necessary at this stage (I shall now go and post notices on the Talk pages of people mentioned here). Thanks in advance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Been a long time coming. An expert in poisoning the well to the extent that a WP:POISON could pretty much be written based solely on his actions. The only real surprise is that he was afforded quite so much good faith. Given the extreme unlikelihood that a two-week holiday will have the expected correctional impact I'd up it to indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly justified. The links above and a look at MangoWong's contribs give one side of the story. When MangoWong was asked to illustrate Sitush's crimes, he came up with this which I do not see as remotely equivalent - nor even problematic in any way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block considering the circumstances; though I very much doubt 48 hours will do anything to change MangoWong's behaviour to any degree that could be considered acceptable. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Yes. Boing, your lengthy explanation is appreciated, and I wonder if it'll show up in an RfC/U at some point. Also, what Chris said. And Kim. And Jezebel. Now let me look at my archive to see what vile actions have been taking place there. I will tell you one thing: I don't know how Sitush deals with all that chain-janking and still improves those horrible articles. I vote that we pay for him to get a JSTOR account, and that will save me some time as well, haha. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think we could see an RfC/U coming from this before too long - though with the endorsement I've had here so far I don't think I'd hesitate to quickly escalate blocks myself now, should this behaviour continue. And yes, Sitush has shown amazing patience and dedication - I'd certainly support a JSTOR account too (I do miss the one I used to have access to when I was an OU student) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Trivia corner: JSTOR was not available when I was a student, but I did have access to a magnificent erection". - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, is that what she said or are you still talking about that toe of yours? Drmies (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Good block indeed. Too many a poisoning-the-well experts are let to do their "handiwork" when they stop just a hair short of obvious personal attacks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have been somewhat puzzled since MangoWong made the "dog" statement but I think that I have now found the connection. For the sake of clarity, given how bizarre it seems, within this series of ANI messages there are three which appear perhaps to be relevant.

...a failed SPI which caused pain to about half a dozen individuals. The initial comment in this section was an irrational threat. Unless someone can show that it is presently reasonable to block much/most of India.-MangoWong ℳ 05:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, diddums. I apologised. Some of those named were subsequently blocked for various reasons. Look, just drop this bone: there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. - Sitush (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That you apologized does not mean that it is sufficient to take away the pain you caused half a dozen people. That most of the others were subsequently blocked for various reasons only shows that you are expert in obtaining blocks on your opponents. just drop this bone That you think I am a dog only shows your severe problems with WP:CIVIL. there is no way that range is going to be blocked. Common sense should tell you that. Whether or not the range is going to be blocked or not, I do look at the initial comment in this thread as a seriously intended threat.-MangoWong ℳ 05:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject was wrt someone suggesting blocking the 117.195.x.x range (!), then someone brought up what was at that point the only SPI I had filed that had proven to be "no match" & which involved MW. It is all a little distasteful, sorry, but I know that many at the time recognised the amount of flak being fired in my direction & that of a couple of others who were trying to straighten out some caste articles. I may be a "good guy" but I do not have the patience of a saint & will grrrr eventually. BTW, the ANI report in question led to the topic ban of User:Thisthat2011. I haven't been able to find the evidence yet but I am sure that the bone/stick phrase had been explained previously, & TT2011 both had used it and used it subsequent to my message. MW had been supporting, and then defending, TT2011 vigorously. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Around that time we were getting socks almost daily, and MangoWong was supporting just about every one of them and was being abusive to the people trying to clean things up - I think this particular SPI was justified, even if it proved a negative. But at least we probably now know where he got the "dog" thing from - from his own misunderstanding of English idiom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is partly why I have raised the issue. I might be committing wiki-suicide here but I do have a sometimes ridiculously honed sense of what is morally right/wrong. The entire systemic bias issue does, of course, include idiomatic phrasing & allowances have to be made for this. In my case, I ask when I do not understand/need clarification - examples of which MW has disparagingly referred to in the past being "straw man argument" and "Krishnaji" - but others may just jump in. If you look at it from this POV then MangoWong's comment makes a little more sense. At the extreme was a misunderstanding that appeared to cause them to connect "Bedside manner" to an accusation of User:Fowler&fowler somehow suggesting a pornographic connect - long story.

The problem is that the semantic obfuscation/wriggling that MW frequently exercises (as appears in part to be hinted at, for example, in the thread here) makes it clear, to me at least, that s/he does in fact have a reasonable command of the English language/idioms etc. MW can wikilawyer for [name your country here]. Also, MW was supporting TT2011 throughout this entire episode and therefore will have seen explanations of the term & that T2011 used it. I was just being open in declaring this situation. I do not know for sure that it is even the "accusation" to which MW was referring. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush and Fowler and Fowler contributions go much beyond cleaning out articles , they are audacious onslaughts on previous content and content provided by other editors . Their presumption to higher erudition is misplaced , and arrogant as I have noted in my attempts to discuss his/her deletions of cited content in particular. In fact its sad( but exceedingly dexterous !) how it can be missed , to see how successfully Sitush along with Fowler and Fowler and several others can work in conjunction to turn an article on its head , concurrently and minutely examining content to retain and delete as per his/her frame of things , from an article and also horrendously miss glaring facts needing the same inspection . It would be completely inappropriate to see MangoWango blocked , but not surprising Intothefire (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...you might want to be careful, as your comment is nearly a personal attack itself. In a certain sense, though, you are correct--Sitush and F&F often do make strong "onslaughts" against previous content. That's because so much of the content in the topic area is unverified, non-neutral, or verified by sources that don't meet WP:RS. Our policies say that we should aggressively change, trim, and re-source such articles. MW can be good at this activity--he has done good work before--but he has gotten into a pattern, primarily with Sitush, of attacking rather than discussing, and of making strong claims of inaccuracy and poor sourcing but without showing a willingness (in some cases) of actually demonstrating those claims. It's especially disconcerting when MW says that a given source is terrible, that it shouldn't be in an article, but then refuses to go to WP:RSN to actually discuss the issue and get outside involvement. Couple that with the personal attacks, and we're where we are today. If you want to contribute constructively in the field, you'd be much better off not following MW's example. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I dont see the right to unilateral removal of properly cited content or removal without discussion as policy endorsed by Wikipedia , and I dont see Sitush or Fowler and Fowler having a special privilege to arbitrate validity of good or bad cited content without cogent reasons or discussion. See Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush
• I also dont see justification for deliberately false reasoning provided for changes on articles.See Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler.Qwyrxian your Admin interventions on articles and talk pages in my interactions with you where Sitush and Fowler and Fowler have been aggressively engaged could have been more constructive albeit if they were more balanced and thorough .Sorry the ban on Mangowong instead of the restraining on Sitush , Fowler and Fowler and Mathew Varitas is a classic example of bad judgment Intothefire (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...I won't draw this out unnecessarily, but all editors all have the "right to unilateral removal" of material that is improperly cited, that is uncited, or that is cited to unreliable sources. See WP:V. Of course, if others disagree, they shouldn't edit war...but once an issue has been discussed, and the other party refuses to attend to any form of dispute resolution, removal is the correct choice. And just to clarify, I did not block MangoWong, nor would I ever do so outside of a clear emergency (and then I'd seek review afterward). Nothing, though, prevents me from commenting on the actions of other admins. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian , your response is general , whereas I have provided a specific link to Deletion of cited content and citations from articles by Sitush as well as Discussion on Talk Jat page with Fowler and Fowler , if you are defending Sitush and Fowler and Fowler , then please respond in specific reference to diffs provided and content thereon , Mangowong is hung on specific charges of bothering Sitush , so its only fair that specific instances of Sitush and Fowler and Fowler edits are put up to the same level of specific editorial inspection otherwise we have a witch hunt here. I may know little on the subject , but I know enough to see how these two along with and several others have really bothered various editors and I am willing to provide many more specific instances .Although I have myself been the recepient of a warning from Mangowong , I see the ban on him here is absurd and shallow , with justice really miscarried whereas the hammer should should have clearly fallen elsewhere. Intothefire (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Intothefire, MangoWong has not been banned but rather has been blocked for 48 hours. He had previously had a 24 hour block in July, and the nature of blocks is that they tend to become longer if the contributor continues to make similar infractions of policy etc. I think that if you want to raise issues regarding my conduct or that of Fowler&fowler then probably you should start another thread. NB: Fowler&fowler is not contributing at the moment due to real life issues & so discussion of his actions may be tricky. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol ,Earlier when I was having a discussion with you Qwyrxian said you were going to be absent , now you say Fowler and Fowler is going to be absent so discussing his edits is tricky, .I find this musical chairs syndrome tricky . No this block is completely misdirected but emblematic . Intothefire (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate the support here folks, thanks. I was a little wary due to the sensitivity of some India-related articles, so my block was quite lenient and I possibly went further than necessary with the amount of evidence. But I feel confident now to impose escalating blocks should the same behaviour continue. And if anyone has any dispute with any future admin actions I might take in this area, I am always open to discussion and will be happy to respond to any civil approaches - and will fully cooperate with any discussions here on this board, or in any other relevant forums. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You mean, you want to be adminning those caste articles which Sitush will be editing? MW ^ℳ 02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as I don't use the admin tools over a content issue that I have taken part in. And it's nothing to do with Sitush specifically. I have been providing admin supervision of a number of India-related articles for some time, and have acted against a number of editors whose behaviour is contrary to Wikipedia policy, sometimes egregiously so - socks, personal attacks and harassment, etc. And I will continue to do so, whoever they are and whomever they attack. Anyway, if you have a complaint about my actions, or anyone else's, you have been told a number of times what you should do - make an ANI report, or start an RfC/U, and have the admin corps/community decide -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that, as long as I don't use the admin tools over a content issue that I have taken part in. Does that mean you can be an admin on a content issue you have not participated in, even if you have otherwise been editing other content in the same article?-MW ^ℳ 15:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what it means. As I've told you before MW [13], just because someone has edited the same article as you have, it doesn't mean they are too involved to block you for personal attacks. Your habit of accusing people of making this attack or that, without providing supporting diffs, can certainly lead to your being blocked by any admin. I suggest you try to understand this. --regentspark (comment) 16:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please allow Boing! said Zebedee to answer the question. The issue you are clarifying is different from what BSZ is saying. BSZ is not talking about performing admin actions "in case of PA". BSZ appears to saying that it is OK to perform admin actions on content issues that BSZ has not edited, even if BSZ has edited other content in the same article. Clear?MW ^ℳ 16:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:INVOLVED. If you ever believe you see me violate it in my admin actions, raise a report in the appropriate venue. Over and out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it true that you and Sitush are from the same country, and live within 50 km of each other? That you have been supporting Sitush through and through, and the caste articles have been in flames ever since you two took to them? That you have claimed the right to be an admin in a caste article (Kurmi) after you had edited it (incidentally, to reinsert a misrepresentation which I had deleted) ?-MW ^ℳ 02:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Trying to make a case of admin abuse out of this issue is not going to work. Particularly in cases involving POV pushing in articles related to groups of people, admins are welcome to follow the case and take action as required. It is often necessary for some admin involvement to occur because completely uninvolved editors find it too hard to get up to speed with the complex back and forth. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Other admins have been doing their stuff on these articles, btw. Examples include User:Drmies, User:Salvio giuliano (who issued you with your first block), User:Ohnoitsjamie, User:SpacemanSpiff, User:C.Fred. I stress, those are just examples, and to my certain knowledge not all of them live in the same country as myself. I guess that I now have to notify all of those named. - Sitush (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, just to make sure that it doesn't appear we're involved, I won't say hi to you in the pub tonight. Also, these accusations on MangoWong's part are making my wife suspicious. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that you seem to have acknowledged that both of you are from the same country, would you like to clarify whether you and BSZ live within 50 km of each other or not?-MW ^ℳ 04:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? You are being rude and, yet again, assuming bad faith. Location is not relevant, as should be obvious from the list that I have already provided. However, if you or anyone else wants to call on me and share a cup of tea then you are more than welcome. Carry on like this and you may find yourself with a break that would facilitate such a visit. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear here: right after returning from a block for well-poisoning (with strong support), MW turns up at the ANI thread for said topic and begins trying to pin INVOLVED status on the admin who blocked him based on evidence-free insinuations of meatpuppetry? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Evidence-free insinuations are MW's stock in trade. JanetteDoe (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've re-blocked MangoWong, for a month this time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, I appreciate the support shown here - thanks folks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin either semi-protect Talk:Nair, or do a rangeblock? It's attracting unambiguous PA's from from an IP. JanetteDoe (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected, abusive edits rev-deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, in the event that this thread is referred to if/when MW returns in a month or so, I don't think that the postings of the last few days at Talk:Nair were by MW using some other guise. The wording/style etc was way, way different. I shall visit my mother later and see if there is any smoke/flames/redness around her ears. - Sitush (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The author of that rather childish stuff geolocates to somewhere in the US - the IPs belong to Opera Software ASA -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: If anyone sees personal attacks on articles like this, please do feel free to drop me a line on my Talk page too - I might not be around, but if I am I'll act quickly -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Davshul, disruptive editing

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly, massively vandalised 2011 in the United States and other 2011 in "other country" articles.

I have pointed out on several occassions, to no useful end, that all these articles are part of the parent 2011 (a well-policed article), and that the change he keeps making needs to be cleared there first in the talk section, Talk:2011. Instead he has gone to the talk section for the actual article, Talk:2011 in the United States with useless discussion that he knows in bad faith that no one but me will ever read since the discussion there is poorly read, and most likely, completely never read.

As per Wikipedia:Recent years#Article body - individual dates are linked.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that it is also bad faith editing to claim someone else is editing in bad faith? Leaving headings like "notification of bad faith edits discussion" on the user's talk page doesn't help either. No comment on the actual dispute, just an FYI.--v/r - TP 17:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

what are you talking about?, the posting mechanism here said i was supposed to notify him--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and generally that is done with a heading that says "AN/I Discussion". That isn't a free license to accuse someone of bad faith.--v/r - TP 17:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

i have changed it--70.162.171.210 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@70.162.171.210: I see nothing in the history of this dispute except your repeated characterization of Davshul's work as "vandalism" or "bad faith" or "disruptive". I don't see where any of his work is any of that. What you should do, rather than calling his editing what it is not, is to instead seek discussion on the article talk pages. If you believe that the discussion does not have enough participation from neutral parties, then see WP:DR and choose a mechanism there (such as WP:3O or WP:DRN) to get extra attention. Using perjorative terms to describe someone's editing doesn't help you "win", it merely makes you look like a bully and is unlikely to result in a positive outcome for you. Instead, speak to and about others in non-confrontational terms, use existing mechanisms for dispute resolution, and have the patience to understand that disputes may not be resolved instantly; it may take some days for enough people to comment to allow for a reasonable consensus to arise. --Jayron32 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Davshul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has finally in good faith attempted to justify his vandalism of year in country articles in an appropriate location (not just some talk page that no one ever reads), why he did not see fit to write anything here is beyond me to explain towards "his good faith", his comments are on this talk page Wikipedia talk:Recent years#Date linkage in subpages.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, let me make this clearer. Don't call his edits vandalism. Continuing to do so is unlikely to go well for you. Which is not to say that his edits are necessarily going to be best for Wikipedia. But if you keep calling his edits vandalism, it just makes you look bad, and thus you'll end up making your position in this dispute look bad. If you genuininly believe you are correct, stop using the word vandalism, because it is clear that you don't know what it means. I am quite interested in seeing the right thing get done here, and if your position in this dispute is "the right thing", I will be quite upset if you screw that up by calling his edits vandalism if they are not. I have not idea which side of the dispute is "right", but as so often happens, the "right" position gets clouded by "wrong" behavior. Calling vandalism things which are not vandalism is a bad idea. Instead, convince people you are correct. --Jayron32 04:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Supporting what Jayron32 is saying here. Vandalism is when a user makes a change with the sole intention of messing up the project, usually for their own entertainment. This is vandalism. If there is a chance that the user is trying to improve the project, you should assume good faith and discuss your disagreement with them, like this: "I noticed you were making edits to 2011 in the United States and other articles. I disagree with these edits. Could you explain their purpose?" Dcoetzee 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

i have been informed that the word "vandal" is too harsh --- i will withdraw it but not anything else said.--70.162.171.210 (talk) 06:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

70.162, I invite you to read our article on vandalism, WP:VANDAL, so you know what we at Wikipedia mean by the word "vandalism". It's not that the word is "harsh" (which quite frankly smacks of you saying we're too delicate for The Truth), it's that it's the wrong word. It's inaccurate. There is no requirement for an editor to discuss his edits to an article at some special centralized talk page, and expecting an editor to do so in advance - and calling his edits "vandalism" when he doesn't defer to your wishes - is unproductive and disruptive. (Note: as the editor is an Israeli-based Jew and the Sabbath has just begun, it might be best to timestamp this (I don't know how) to give him time to respond after the Sabbath ends.) --NellieBly (talk) 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving blocked for 5 days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the anon is correct as to the guidelines. Although there are errors in WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline articles. It's not vandalism, but it is unhelpful and distruptive. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly true: However, the way to be right is not to accuse people of things: It is to engage them in conversation, convince them you are correct, and if you cannot do that, then bring in neutral parties to evaluate the dispute. Accusing people of things that they did not do makes you lose. If you lose, and your position was the correct one, then Wikipedia loses. That's why you should not behave that way, ever. --Jayron32 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

my method may have been wrong but i have been trying to finger in the dike against the flood i knew would come --- if only i had been listened to at the begining the massive list below would now not exist ---

User:Davshul has made changes to all these articles:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1969_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461606429
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_India&diff=prev&oldid=461609054
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_the_European_Union&diff=prev&oldid=461611386
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461639619
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461643558
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_France&diff=prev&oldid=461646189
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930100
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Northern_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=461930248
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Germany&diff=prev&oldid=461554952
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Romania&diff=prev&oldid=461604489
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Argentina&diff=prev&oldid=461605345
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504010
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461504240
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=461506025
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554109
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_in_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=461554262

--70.162.171.210 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the following comments.

• First, may I commend and thank NellieBly for her/his observation and suggestion (and thank The Bushranger for the his/her response) postponing the archiving of this topic to enable me to see the latest comments and respond.
• I had not participated initially to this discussion, since following the comment of Jayron on November 22 (in which he/she pointed out, in no uncertain terms, that my edits were neither "vandalism", "bad faith" nor "disruptive", and that anonymous user (Anon) who initiated this discussion was giving every appearance as a bully and that, if he felt that my edits were incorrect, there were various mechanism open to him, but this was not one of them), I had nothing further to add and believed the matter to be at an end.
• The edits made by me on were supported by three other users on 2011 in the United States and two other users on 2011 in Canada, who each undid the reversions made by Anon. It should be noted that Anon's revertion on 2011 in the United States were totally in contravention of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#The three-revert rule, four of such reversions taking place within a single hour on November 20. Furthermore, none of the edit summaries gave any indication to discuss the matter, and appeared to be based upon Anon's believe that only a regular editor of the page was entitled to edit it (such as "cool that you suddendly (sic) show up here having never contributed to this article and make wholesale changes to it -REVERTED"- "let the war begin - thou i think that any admin you get to look at it will see you as a vandal", etc.). The fact that Anon was even allegedly relying on any guidelines was only mentioned for the first time as an edit summary to his reversion of November 21, over 16 hours after he had commenced his reversions.
• I still believe that the guidelines quoted by Anon do not extend to the Year in Country series. However, although the various edits made by me were still in place, and there appeared to be no outstanding challenges, I opened up a second discussion on the issue, on Wikipedia talk:Recent years, (as the initial discussion, also initiated by me, on Talk:2011 in the United States, was alleged by Amnon, as stated above, to be "useless discussion that [I] knows in bad faith that no one but [him] will ever read..". Amnon responded to the new discussion with another wave of accusation of vandalism.
• The discussion, both here and on the various Discussion pages, has now been joined by Arthur Rubin, who states that although "there are errors in WP:LINKING, the RfC authorizing the change in the guidelines specifically exempted timeline". I do not consider that this is the place to discuss whether or not the dates in question should be links. However, I find it hard to believe that had the guidelines intended to initiate a change in the format of hundreds, or more probably thousands, of articles (there are alone currently 236 in the Year in the United States series and 313 in the Year in Canada series), would require users to rely on an extended interpretation of the guidelines or upon some historic RfC (which I have not been able to locate). The first line of the guidelines specifically states that it applies to "year articles (e.g. 2009, 2010)", there is no mention of it applying to sub-articles and indeed much of the guidelines has no application to such sub-article.
• I have now been editing on Wikipedia for some years, having created many articles (including a number in the Year in Country series) and have at all times endeavored to comply with Wiki guidelines. I would add that I have also put in a great deal of effort in order the ensue that articles are presented in an organized and consistent format and, in this respect cannot see why, say, the 237th article in a series should be presented in a different format to the 236 earlier articles, without, at least, some comment on the Discussion page or even in an edit summary. However, I was and am, as clearly demonstrated by me, willing to discuss this matter in an organized manner.
• One point that I find somewhat alarming and surprising is that Arthur Rubin, who appears to be an experienced editor, should have chosen yesterday unilaterally to revert my edits in 2011 in the United States whilst the whole issue is under discussion in several forums.

There are a number of further points that I had intended to make, but unfortunately this response is already longer that I had anticipated it would be and, unfortunately, I have a number of commitments, apart from Wikipedia, that take up my time, including th eneed to earn a living. Davshul (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You apparently weren't involved in the massive rewrite of WP:LINKING#Chronological items; if you were, you would probably have noticed that the the guideline exempted "intrinsically chronological articles", and there is no discussion as to whether "year in country" articles are "intrinsically chronological". I cannot see any rational interpretation in which they are not. If the guideline doesn't apply, then you're left with consensus on the article, which, at least in 2011 in the United States, is clearly in favor of linking. I cannot agree with the anon that you are a vandal; but I can agree that you are disruptive; I suggest you revert all the unlinking edits you've made against custom in "year in country" articles; or, at least, do that before doing any other unlinking. I find it difficult for any any of the bots and macros that I have access to relink only the appropriate links, so it may be necessary to revert to before your edit, thereby losing potentially valuable information. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

since you already did some of the revert work Arthur then now you can see why i was aggressive from the begining

1-the guy who made all the those massive changes - will he revert the work - of course he wont - so it is left to others to do the mind numbing effort of syntax changes
2-does the guy care that others will have to now hunt down all those same massive syntax changes - it appears not --70.162.171.210 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I note that Arthur Rubin has brought attention to the guidelines WP:LINKING#Chronological items, which exempted "intrinsically chronological articles" from the general guidelines against linking. These guidelines, on at least two occasions, give clear examples of what is meant by this expression, stating "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Note: no reference to subpages and what all these intrinsically chronological articles have in common is that they are all part of a series in which all other pages in the series contain such linkage. This is not so in the case of the Year in Country series, which do not full within the definition of intrinsically chronological articles and where earlier years are not linked. I note that, as a second line attack, Arthur Rubin now brings up the issue of consensus. I must admit that I had not considered the question of a small group of users reaching a consensus not to apply guidelines. However, as the general guidelines are not to link, there should therefore have been a discussion and consensus before the linkage look place in the first place, which there was not, and any such discussion should take into account that all earlier articles in the series were unlinked. If there is no consensus, then the default is not to link. The mere fact that my edits on 2011 in the United States were immediately supported by at least three other users must indicate that there is no consensus to link. Although I may have been hasty in not giving some notice on the Discussion page of my intention to make these changes, I believed, and still believe, that I was applying Wiki guideline. I would add that of the 36 pages currently listed in 2011 in Year in Country series, 25 appear never to have had linked dates, and which certainly does not show any consensus to linkage. Furthermore, as regards the edits made by me, in several instances, the pages included both linked and unlinked dates, and my edits brought consistency to the pages in question. Davshul (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Contrary to the anon's assertion, "subpage" is not the relevant criterion. It's "intrinsically chronological articles". Are you willing to argue that 2011 in the United States is not "intrinsically chronological"? Furthermore, the examples given of "intrinsically chronological articles" is obviously not intended to be exclusive, as it doesn't even have examples of a number of classes; November 27; November 1998 (generally deprecated, but new articles are still being created); 20th century; and 3rd millennium. I don't see why 2011 in the United States would not also fall in the category. As I pointed out in one of the other threads, years before 1990 or so have been unlinked, contrary to the guidelines, by an ambitious bot or bot operator. That doesn't mean that the dates shouldn't be restored. I haven't checked the history of all of the yyyy in the United States articles, but if mostly unlinked after 2009, consensus, rather than the frequently misinterpreted guideline, should be the primary factor in whether the links should be included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless I am very much mistaken this topic is currently subject of discussion at WP:MOSNUM, so really it should not be used as an argument here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Sneaky vandalism campaign involving fake references

Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk · contribs) is an agenda editor and edit-warrior who has been part of a small but pertinacious group pushing ideological positions of certain fringe groups regarding French royalism. He was edit-warring in support of Emerson 07 (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for revert-warring and also had several apparent sockpuppets blocked (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emerson 07). Most recently, Mophon joined Emerson in edit-warring with this and this edit. In these edits, he inserted an alleged reference to support a contentious BLP claim: "Prutkov, Kozma (2010). Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne des Maisons Principales de l'Europe. Montréal. ISBN 1925-5594. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)". This is apparently a fake, made-up reference.

"Kozma Prutkov" is a fictional writer made up by some satirists in the 19th century. There exist neither a book under the given ISBN, nor a book with this alleged title. There is a website calling itself "Annuaire de la Noblesse Moderne" (noblessemoderne.com), but its content pages are deadlinks. References to this alleged publication appear to exist only on several Wikipedia editions in several languages, where they all seem to have been inserted during the last few months by suspicious royalist agenda accounts, especially Rapportroyal (talk · contribs) (sp-wiki: [14], fr-wiki: [15], en-wiki: [16]

Making up fake sources to bolster a POV agenda is one of the most serious forms of vandalism. I suggest an immediate indef-block of both Rapportroyal and Mr. D. E. Mophon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OT: Thanks for introducing me to the word "pertinacious" - it's a great word -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Vandalism+lying+general dickery= indef? You get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed. Making up references, esp. book references, is a stab to the heart of RS and AGF. Mophon will be blocked; Rapportroyal inserted the same reference again after being urged by the boss not to do so: also indef. Fut. Perf., as thanks for your tenacity you get to take Kozma Prutkov (talk · contribs) as a sock. Congratulations. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good idea to indef anyone connected to this behavior. This is not to be tolerated. --Jayron32 18:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• indef away - this sort of behaviour is a complete no and we should waste time with people who think it is acceptable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks and I'd suggest WP:BAN immediately as well - this sort of thing is something that should be 100% zero tolerance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC) After reading the details I'm willing to accept this was a - very bizzare - error, and unblock on the understanding that no similar events should ever occur in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Good blocks indeed and I'd support a ban for this guy. Inventing references is, in my opinion, the most grievous vandalism possible. There is not an iota of good faith to be assumed. WilliamH (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Retracted per the developments; however, editorial standards must apply - don't cite something you haven't read/verified. WilliamH (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support and is anyone tipping off the other projects?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Reduce to time served given explanations that have emerged.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Heiro 23:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

*support Neither excusable nor forgivable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• support I hold with those that favor fire (but have they been notified of this discussion)? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Continued icey support: I know enough of bad sourcing practices to say that gross incompetence when translating wikipedia pages and a failure to read the source you're inserting in an article would suffice for disruption. It is exactly the same conduct as deliberately inserting bad sources in the first place. If you haven't read it, don't cite it. ISSN 1925-5594 returns nothing in Ulrich's by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support Given the subject, would the guillotine be too strong a solution? Einar aka 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock – With regard to Mr. D. E. Mophon I have the articles where these disputes have taken place on my watchlist so have seen the dispute but have not involved myself in it. I think with respect to Future Perfect at Sunrise they have grossly exaggerated the case here, Mr. D. E. Mophon made just a single edit on two different articles and as such they have been branded an 'edit warrior', ridiculous. And with that single reference, the Kozma book, it appears they made an honest mistake, the other references being very real and legitimate. I can’t see how an indefinite block for an honest mistake is sustainable and just. I would encourage people to read Mr. D. E. Mophon's explanations and unblock request and think again. It's sad the user has been condemned to an indefinite block on the basis of an exaggerated case and before they had a chance to respond here at ANI. - dwc lr (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock per dwc lr above. While I have disagreed with D.E.Mophon, including on the articles in question, I also think that this is a case of jumping the gun. The worst offense of which s/he is accused is having fabricated a source when, as near as I can tell, s/he simply copied the (admittedly fake) source from another article where it had been used to substantiate a similar point. But there is no evidence I've seen which suggests that D. E. Mophon actually created that source or knew it was fake. Although his accuser rejects all of D.E. Mophon's cites in support of the contention that Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou is Head of the House of Bourbon for one reason or another, in fact several of them are sources I would have thought acceptable, and cumulatively they make a case in support of the point the accused believes is defensible. My own search for reliable sources on this point does not substantiate that the man is indisputedly referred to as Head of the House of Bourbon, but I was frankly surprised to discover that fact (the real dispute is over the claim that Louis Alphonse is "rightful" claimant to the throne of France which is, indeed, highly contested and generally rejected even in monarchist circles, except by the small but staunch Legitimists). His claim to be Head of the House of Bourbon (or of the entire Capetian dynasty for that matter) is admittedly self-proclaimed, but since it carries no legal implications it is not generally disputed (being a matter of pure genealogy) although, I've now learned, not generally acknowledged either. In any case, this block for this infraction is overkill, and I think that the accuser, understandably frustrated by the edit-war, has mistaken sloppiness driven by over-zealousness for deliberate falsification of sources. FactStraight (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, if you used a source that you haven't actually seen, that is kinda shady in my book. If you put it in here, you should have seen it. When we insert an offline source, other editors are relying on us to have been ethical. Using an offline source you haven't seen is not too smart. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose block – have come across Mophon before, and he's open to discussion, without being overly a POV-pusher. Also, a quick Google of the supposed "fake title" shows it to be in use on 5 or 6 different articles, each a different language Wiki. Are you going to find each editor on each wiki who cited them, or use Mophon as a witch hunt example? Also, why is this here, instead of WP:RS/N? Suspicious sources should be properly investigated before laying into the editor with accusations, and blocks. Only one editors word has been taken for granted here, and Mophon has not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself here, due to a hasty indef block. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Editor has placed an unblock request and a lengthy explanation on their talk page. An uninvolved admin is invited to have a look. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block. Mophon's explanation has merit. Block was too quick and too harsh. Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose block/Support immediate unconditional unblock As per the above comments, the block was done way too quickly, and without waiting for any type of proper response from the editor. Their comments have merit, and they should be unblocked immediately, with an apology. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support block/ban, largely because we don't have the technology to nuke this sort of vandal from orbit over the internet yet. There is no way to AGF about falsified references, particularly falsified BOOK references. rdfox 76 (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Misinformation, accidental this type of edit does not constitute "vandalism". Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct Marcus. If there was an established history of such things, then one could make a case that they are a vandal, but a single act of a good faith error not does a vandal make. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unblock. I have noticed this user during clean-up of various BLP-related royalty cruft, which he generally opposed, but never in a disruptive way as far as I can remember. I am convinced that he merely added an existing though unreliable source under the impression that it is a reliable source. If we assume the worst, it would have been the conscious pushing of an unreliable source for a not particularly problematic BLP claim. Add to that the manner in which he asked for an unblock (polite and constructive; one really must read between the lines to see how angry he must be), and I think an unblock is absolutely justified. Hans Adler 08:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment How do you accidentaly use a source you have not checked?Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The funny thing is that the fr-wiki page fr:Louis de Bourbon (1974-), from which he said he got those references, wasn't even using the "Prutkov" reference to support anything related to the claim in question, but was listing it merely as an unspecific "further reading" entry [17]. So, even if we give him the benefit of the doubt with respect to not being aware of the fraudulent nature of that reference as such – and I'd be inclined to grant him that –, his claim that it supported the specific proposition in question is still something he must have simply made up on the spot, and knowingly so. (In fact, I now find that on the rudimentary website that is this alleged book's only reflection out there [18], on the few content pages it actually offers, it seems to be supporting the very opposite of the contested proposition, as it lists that other guy as the "chef" of th "Maison Souveraine" of Bourbon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• To whoever is interested: please see my comment on editor's talk page. With thanks to the editors here; Hans, your comment was helpful and constructive and I agree certainly with the tenor of your message. Whatever happens, I hope the editor will take some of the commentary here to heart, esp. Fut.Perf.'s last note. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note: 1925-5594 is in fact an ISSN, not an ISBN. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  
• I have unblocked. It seems that this is a perfectly understandable error on the user's part, although it might not have appeared that way. Many words of sage advice have been given to him, and an appropriate number of mea culpas said. No point dragging it out any further. Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC).
  

WikiProject Astrology discussion snowing

There has been discussion at WP:FTN, on Talk: Scorpio (astrology) and elsewhere about a template that has been added to all articles on astrological star signs that some of us consider to be unencyclopedic because it involves repeating the same chunk of information in each article, some of that information being poorly sourced.

I commented at length, and I think patiently, on the question, and suggested that WikiProject Astrology was the place to sort out whether the template was encyclopedic or not.

On 24 November, User:Zachariel (Zac) notified members of WikiProject Astrology of a discussion. To be fair, he did post on the WikiProject talk page, saying simply "Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members". He didn’t post about the discussion on WP:FTN where this was under consideration or notify me or anyone who had contributed at FTN. I had explained that I wasn't going to join the project but would contribute there from time to time.

My first impression was that Zac’s notification of individual editors had been very selective. I posted in a new section on the WikiProject talk page to say there was prima facie of vote-stacking. On investigation, it does turn out that he notified each member of the project. It has taken me hours to sort out who was and wasn’t a project member, or notified, mainly because so many listed project members are inactive, and several have changed their usernames. Most listed haven’t edited anywhere on the encyclopedia for years, some are blocked, and he himself is still listed under his previous username.

Zac also notified three people who aren’t project members. User: Ihcoyc, User:Lighthead and User:Prof.Landau. The last of these has not been editing for a long while. I don’t know why the other two were notified.

What may be of concern is that since the discussion was opened, in the last three days, five new members have joined the project: User:AxelHarvey, User:Dwayne, User:Logical 1, User:Robertcurrey, User:Ken McRitchie.

Zac introduced the discussion with a very long post, containing his own interpretation of my view, using only one of the three examples that I had given as typical.

Then various editors snowed in to support his position. They include three of the five new project members: User:AxelHarvey, a few minutes before joining the project; User:Robertcurrey, commented on 24 November, added his name on 26 November; User:Ken McRitchie, commented on 25 November, added his name on 26 November.

Most of those commenting in the thread declare themselves on their user pages as professional astrologers or writers on astrology, or are easily identified as astrologers active on the Internet.

I see few arguments that address the actual question: whether a WikiProject should recommend a template that involves repeating the same text across a number of articles.

Would you please advise whether this amounts to vote stacking? Any other advice about how to move forward on article quality would also be appreciated. Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been following developments off and on through an editor I have worked with the past who's involved (User:Bobrayner). It appears that the Astrology project has been trying to add questionably sourced content to articles; the discussion in question would allow that questionable content to stay. Bob, who has a history of removing questionably sourced content, attempted to remove the questionably sourced content, but was reverted by Astrology editors. I feel that the content in question needs to be discussed in a full community noticeboard where editors not involved in the Astrology project but familiar with verifiblity and reliable source guidelines can weigh in Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is unsurprising. Robert Currey recruits editors from offsite to meatpuppet for the pro-astrology point of view.[19] This is a serious problem, and I suggest that discretionary sanctions be applied liberally on these articles. Involvement of the larger community via RFCs has also been effective in limiting the damage this behavior causes. Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How does this get moved forward to resolution please? An RfC is already open on Astrology. I have raised the issues on talk pages, on RSN, FTN and now the WikiProject. Non-admin users who are willing to wade in to try and sort the mess out, by improvement to the articles, quickly become seen as "involved". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno...you started this thread. Skin, it sounds like you feel that Robert Currey should be blocked for meatpuppetry Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, it's practically impossible to get support for a meatpuppetry block - even in patently obvious cases. I think RFCs and topic bans are more tenable and effective solutions. Skinwalker (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Template:Zodsign1? That is an odd template William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

An RfC is a good step, though I don't see one active on the Astrology talk or on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astrology related to this template (to get one active such that the community notices it, you need to use the instructions here). So, open one of those. I'm going to accompany that suggestion with a non-partisan warning that the next person or people I see revert-warring on Template:Zodsign1 is/are getting blocked for edit-warring. Having an RfC open, if one indeed is, does not give anyone license to revert anything to their preferred version. This is not directed at anyone in this thread in particular, but at everyone involved in this entire thing: the warring is going to have to stop, now. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am not formally a member of the astrology project, but I have done some editing on astrology related pages. My take on this is different. There is a large body of available public domain text that's recognized by astrologers as significant and authoritative, including works by Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo. This material is available for wholesale import and updating, and meets all the usual tests for being a reliable source. I'd like to be more involved in updating and expanding the pages with information from these sources, but the pages have been lawyered to death by the "sceptical" contingent. A large number of editors, including a number of IP editors, remove content willy-nilly, and post dismissive messages claiming that astrological sources are from an "in universe" perspective, as if astrology were a fictional subject. The template's an attempt to respond to one recurring cavil, concerning the difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Smerdis here. There are reliable sources for the description of astrology, both ancient and modern. This is a separate issue from whether astrology is a pseudoscience: even if it is, it is only correct to describe astrology and its history from the sources the field itself considers reliable. I have observed some of these sources rejected by overactive skeptics. For a long time we did not have a good historical picture of Gnosticism: due to the elimination of "heretical" sources, we had only the descriptions written up by Gnosticism's opponents. A full description of astrology and its terms must be done from its own sources. Scientific analysis of its claims should certainly be included, but the basic description can't be restricted to such modern scientific criticism. That would defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. Yworo (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to clarify that I have commented on the Astrology Project discussion six times since August and being on my Watch List it is of interest. I did not add my name to the list of members of the project originally as nothing seemed to be happening and I considered that further highlighting my interest would be used against me as indeed it was today with Itsmejudith's comments. When Zac made this proposal and others followed, it felt appropriate to add my name.

Second, Skinwalker - this is the third time you have accused me of meatpuppetry or recruiting editors using this same link from March. Anyone who reads the public link, which I have not taken down, will see that I was not recruiting editors and if anything, advising people to follow the WP rules and not to go to the Astrology Page to edit war simply because other editors had been banned. As far as I know no one became an editor as a result of those comments on a Facebook page and I challenge you to find a WP editor. If you feel that there is a case against me, then you should go through the proper channels and I will answer it. It is time to put up or shut up. I believe it is quite wrong to take advantage of the fact that an editor does not have the protection of being anonymous to dredge up external information in an attempt to make something out of nothing. Robert Currey talk 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Both of you are involved editors, at least as involved as I am. I already raised the primary source nature of ancient, medieval and early modern writers. There is extensive historical research on these periods, and that's what we should be using. Having articles restricted to modern scientific criticism is just a red herring. We are talking about history here. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an example of the sort of lawyering that gets in the way of building these articles constructively. Whether you label Lilly, Leo, or Ptolemy as primary or secondary sources is should be a matter of indifference. They are treatises. Their texts are recognized by astrologers as foundational authorities. All of them write as the presenters of an established tradition, not as doing original research in astrology. If you object that astroiogy is a pseudoscience and doesn't use empirical methods, you don't get to complain that the authorities consulted are out of date. The main focus of an article on Scorpio (astrology) ought to be "What does astrology say about Scorpio"? When you have reliable public domain material that we can adapt easily, we should grab with both hands. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, go on, use the Ptolemy, then. Of course you're thoroughly familiar with it in the original ancient Greek. You've read all the relevant literature in Classical Arabic, Latin, Old French and Middle English. Of course you have. Itsmejudith (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Meatpuppetry is a valid concern. One of my attempts to cleanup astrology articles was very swiftly undone by an editor who created their account earlier this year, during the previous campaign of ballot-stuffing and meatpuppetry by astrology editors, and who has only made a handful of edits since then - turning their userpage and talkpage into bluelinks, and then voting in astrology-related polls... bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  Meanwhile, we have all too many articles which look like [20]. When I try trimming some of the cruft or doing some minimal rewording so it's presented as "Astrologers believe that..." rather than a statement of fact, I'm usually reverted by an astrology editor on the pretence that the content is backed by some imaginary or manufactured "consensus" or that there's no justification for cleanup. Sometimes even blatant fiction gets reverted into articles; content that's incompatible with even schoolkid physics, but the text looks nice to an astrologer... Personally, I would be happy to see a historical subject presented neutrally, but quite often astrology articles fail to do so. bobrayner (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Everything I've read here and on the project page suggests to me that wikiproject is rogue - either via POV-pushing or straight forward incompetency the main people involved in it seem to blundering around with no idea what a wikipedia article should be - that template they created and all thought was a great idea is a disgrace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the project should be disbanded, then. It sounds like a POV-pushing CABAL Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's reminding me of WikiProject World's Oldest People, which was used for maintaining a walled garden (with accompanying off-wiki canvassing, outing threats et al.) until there was an ArbCom and bannings.

I'm going to open the RfC on the template as suggested above. The discussion is spreading out over multiple forums at the moment. Thank you all for your attention to my post. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For info, I did open an RfC but someone else took the template to Templates for Deletion. Which I could have done all along, had I thought. Looks like it will be deleted there. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the misinformation placed above, some clarifications are in order.

Itsmejudith, who opened this, was the one arguing most strongly that the contested content should be put to the Wiki:astrology project members for evaluation, and that the astrology project members should create agreed guidelines for a consistent approach towards structure and content of this set of articles. She first suggested this on 19 November. I agreed in principle and hoped she or someone else would initiate it. Due to time pressures, it was with reluctance that I initiated it myself, after a period of delay, in order to satisfy her arguments that this was the right thing to do (see also here and here).

She now says:

On 24 November, User:Zachariel (Zac) notified members of WikiProject Astrology of a discussion. To be fair, he did post on the WikiProject talk page, saying simply "Need for discussion of issues has been put to WP:Astrology project members". He didn’t post about the discussion on WP:FTN where this was under consideration or notify me or anyone who had contributed at FTN. I had explained that I wasn't going to join the project but would contribute there from time to time.

This is simply not true. The opening comment of my astrology project post - given with working links - was this:

There has recently been a lot of discussion about the Scorpio (astrology) page. The concerns have been discussed on the talk page of that article and on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. They relate to the structure, content and sources used for all the 12 zodiac signs...

I also kept Itsmejudith and the other editors who had contributed to the previous discussion fully informed. Posting several times on the Scorpio-talk page (where this was being discussed) that I was making a post on the Wiki:Astrology project members and inviting their comments there – see this, this and this.

Itsmejudith was perfectly aware of the situation (see here) and I have no understanding of why she chose not to comment herself in the place where she knew it was being properly evaluated, following her suggestion – especially after she took it upon herself to define the astrology project tasks and principles by inserting – without any prior project discussion – a list of rules, purposes and goals for the astrology project (see the series of six posts she made starting with this).

She now implies “Zac’s notification of individual editors had been very selective. I posted in a new section on the WikiProject talk page to say there was prima facie of vote-stacking.”

There was nothing inappropriate and my procedure was this: I contacted the members of the project by using the list of members advertised on the project page and the ‘what links here’ list of users who demonstrate their membership by displaying the project membership box on their user pages.

As Itsmejudith acknowledges, most of these are clearly out of date, but I am not able to establish which these are so I contacted them all without any attempt to be selective. She says I notified three people who aren’t project members. User:Ihcoyc, User:Lighthead and User:Prof.Landau. Actually, though the account is almost certainly dead, Prof Landau’s name is listed on the project’s membership page, and Lighthead was also listed as a project member – (he de-listed himself after I issued the notice). User:Ihcoyc, the only editor not listed as a member, was known to me as one of the few editors who had contributed content and news recently to the astrology project pages, and who I felt would expect to be treated as a member because of his obvious involvement with project concerns – see this, for why that was failry obvious logic.

She also states:

What may be of concern is that since the discussion was opened, in the last three days, five new members have joined the project: User:AxelHarvey, User:Dwayne, User:Logical 1, User:Robertcurrey, User:Ken McRitchie.

Why should this be of concern? There is a high profile discussion currently taking place across several pages, asking editors to demonstrate a willingness to be part of a working team for this project, so quite naturally some have been reminded that the project is still active and in need of contributions. Equally, Lighthead, similarly reminded about the project, chose to delist his membership.

So the situation is this: I was urged to get the astrology project members involved, and did that to the best of my ability. The person who argued most strongly in favour of that happening chose not to contribute, despite being fully informed and requested to do so. Having seen that the use of the template found unanimous support, she now wants to suggest that there was something inappropriate about the process.

The notice at the top of this page states “You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion”. The accusation directly concerns my activity, with the suggestion that I was selective in who I contacted in order to engineer deliberate vote-stacking. Yet I know of this ANI report only because I have just read the short and rather vague notice on the astrology project page – one that I missed yesterday and might easily have missed today.

I would like to have Itsmejudith’s involvement scrutinised since I believe the fragmentation of discussion has been highly disruptive. Already this ANI thread and has elicited negative responses, which then influence the new RFC, based on unfair representation of the problem, alarmist suggestions and the unfounded declarations that the disputed content uses unreliable sources – this is not the case as other editors (above) have tried to explain. The purpose of the Astrology project discussion was to centralize discussion so that all criticisms could be looked at, understood, with proposals suggested, guidelines created, and any difficult issues referred to appropriate notice boards as these were identified. Instead blanket criticisms (many of which have no substance) have become scattered again, so no one knows now the correct place to engage in meaningful evaluation and debate.

So far, the astrology project members have clearly supported the notion that some sort of clarification of the sign-identification issues needs to be included upon every page, because there is too much confusion on issues that are quite easily explained and are fundamental to the understanding of the topic. The project needs time to evaluate whether modification of the content is necessary and to agree the guidelines on how to improve the quality of all the 12 pages - so that they are offering information on the history, mythology and technical issues connected to the astrological use of the zodiac signs. Nothing can move forward while-ever there is uncertainty over where to evaluate and formulate consensus over these issues. To create an appropriate environment of rational debate I hope the administrators here will approve of the astrology project as the best place to work through all the issues systematically, and that requests for comments should be directed to the astrology project pages where the issues are being explained in full and proposals for solutions can be explored in full. As previously explained, all contributions are welcomed there, whether they come from editors who identify themselves as members of the project or not -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Zac, a template, particularly one that is as POV-pushy as the one you have, is not the proper way to do the things you seek. You claim that the information is reliable; I seriously doubt that. And, regardless of whatever consensus may have been reached at the Astrology project, it's the consensus of the greater community that matters, and it appears that the greater community does not want things done the way the Astrology project wants. Particularly when it seems quite clear to me that the Astrology project ignores or even violates several policies and guidelines. And I see no reason to scrutinize itsmejudith's involvement...she has not violated any policy Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈

Furthermore, you ask why bringing up those other editors is relevant. Pointing to those editors could be a reference to either meatpuppetry or canvassing, both of which are egregious policy violations Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And one more point...both here and at the TFD, you claim that the best way to convey this information is with a template. That is not what templates are for Templates are either boilerplate notices or links to other articles. Large amounts of sourced text have no place in templates. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Zachariel accuses editor of censorship

Zachariel (talk · contribs)

Here, User:Zachariel accuses me and another editor of censorship. This after he was told that the template should be deleted primarily on grounds that it violates what a template is, in addition to cruft concerns. Just thought someone should know. I know I'm involved now, but I think, due to Zac's baseless accusations, his general lack of CLUE, and additional concerns expressed above (mainly considering either meatpuppetry or canvassing), a topic ban is in order Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah! The old "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!" routine. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• We normally have to suffer longer before someone on a mission is topic banned—but it is clear that a group of astrology enthusiasts has got used to promoting their in-universe view on Wikipedia, and topic bans will be required. Zachariel has over 2500 contributions and I cannot see any outside the topic of astrology. Their first edit was four years ago (adding a link to an astrology website—there was a long period of inactivity soon after). I suspect that it is only recently that much pushback against cruft has been experienced by the members of WP:WikiProject Astrology, and the wider community needs to take control because there are sufficient enthusiasts that any standard talk page discussion is swamped. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 2500 contributions would not surprise me - nor would it surprise me that I have corrected more patent innacuracies and added more lacking citations and references to this subject than any other editor. I realise that makes me a sitting target for the many editors who are quite open and transparent about their hatred for the subject, and don't even bother to disguise their inability to be objective in their reports on it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Purplebackpack89, your edit summary reads like a tabloid headline: “New subsection: Zachariel accuses editor of censorship”. It also has the same degree of reliability.

How about this one “Topic ban proposed for Zac: self-confessed involved editor argues prior use of words could work; another suggests a 'too many contributions' argument” (?)

No Purplebackpack89, my comment was not directed at you, and I’m sure the editor whose post it did follow understood that general irony and analogy was being used, even if you didn’t. I will let the admins decide if I have made baseless accusations or defended myself from them. The fact that someone uses the word ‘canvassing’ does not mean the case is closed before it is judged. Now – this comment is addressed to you - are you saying that I am involved in meatpuppetry? I know I am not, so I am interested to hear what you have to support that. Or are you of the belief that it’s only necessary to make accusations, and not at all necessary to justify them here?

Anyway, for those who want to ‘read all about it’, my post that mentioned the word "censored" is here. (I didn't know, BTW, that the word "censored" was censored, or that if anyone uses it, it becomes grounds to make sure they are censored ....) -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

First off, why is everything directed toward me, and why the criticism of the edit summary? Second, I didn't say you meatpuppeted, merely that someone else said you did. Even if you didn't, you have engaged in similar concerns, such as canvassing (earlier today, you insisted that it was necessary that astrology editors be notified personally of these new rounds of discussions; that's canvassing plain and simple). Add to that editwarring and countless examples of being CLUEless. Clueless that we actually have rules about what goes in templates. Clueless about what cruft is. Clueless about the fact that the word "censorship" isn't to be joked around with. I could go on. Put it all together and, even without the cleaver, IMO you've still got grounds for a long block, let alone the topic ban I've floated Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 02:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is everything directed towards you?? Geez, could that be because you just started this ANI notice about me and suggested I should be topic-banned without good reason? Actually:

1. no one has said that I have meatpuppeted. I would take great exception to that so if you believe anyone has suggested this please point to the diff. I am fully responsible for my own posts and no one else’s, and all of my comments are made in good conscience with a good understanding of the topic I comment on and the relevant WP’s policies that apply to it. All you did was bandy a word around, in the hope that a negative suggestion would stick without the need for it to be justified.
2. I have not engaged in canvassing – the purpose of my contribution to the previous discussion was to clarify that, and I leave it to the judgement of admins to differentiate between canvassing and following the procedure that I was recommended to instigate by those who now complain about it.
3. I neither canvassed nor “insisted” anything in the post you linked to – and the facts of that are “plain and simple” to anyone who checks the link you gave (the comment is the bottom one). All I did was ask a genuine question about whether the editors who had previously commented needed to be aware of the new discussion and asked to comment again. It is hardly “insistence” to ask a reasonable question once and then make no further response or take no further action on that point. Please note that I have not contacted anyone subsequently to the situation described in the thread above, where it was suggested that discussion be generated amongst the astrology project members.

I am not so clueless as to not note the prominent orange box that appears at the top of this page when contributors edit it – stating quite clearly “You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion”. Where was my notice for either of these accusations? It is only because this page got added to my watchlist yesterday (after I commented on the previous post, which had developed substantially in a very negative vein before I became aware of it and was able to clarify the situation) that I have been able to see how you put two and two together to total five.

I didn’t joke about the word “censorship” (you can’t even quote me correctly on that) but you certainly need to lighten up or at least get your facts straight if you are going to carry on thrashing that cleaver around. Everything about this accusation and your proposal that a topic ban or long term block be applied to me shows that you are too willing to by-pass procedures and ignore what is really relevant in the hope that vague and unsubstantiated critisms are all that will be noticed here.-- Zac Δ ^talk!

Zac is not getting it—that diff shows the reinsertion two hours ago of a template that is a SNOW delete at TfD, and without consideration of the many widely experienced editors who have explained that we don't use a template to insert article text, let alone duplicate that text in multiple articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I do 'get it'. There is a RFC on that template, and astrology project members have been pointed to that page as a demonstration of its use, in order to establish consensus on the content it proposes and whether this needs amendment. Responses are not able to be elicited on the use of the template if the template is removed whilst the RFC is running. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem, you just don't get it - there is no way on earth that template is acceptable to the community, your RFC could run for months and that template will still be deleted at the TFD discussion. This is the big problem for me, your guys (the wikiproject) are basically incompetent (I don't say that with malice, that's just it seems to be) - you don't seem to have any understanding of why that template is completely unacceptable and seem no closer to any understanding even after multiple editors have explained it to you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to me that most of the project members are unaware of the template discussion. I have fully understood the problem, but recognise that it goes deeper than you appear to realise. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Zac, is that there is a policy that says this is not what templates are used for but you think that this subject - with which you have a conflict of interest - deserves special treatment. You're living in a dreamland if you think that (i) this is going anywhere but a snow delete, and that (ii) if enough people on WP:AST argue long enough that this will override policy. Let me be clear: even if 100 people from project astrology show up on TFD and !vote keep, it will still be deleted because consensus is a policy based discussion, not a vote (incidentally, the "!" in "!vote" is supposed to be read as "not-vote"). If you want to change policy, go to the policy page. Otherwise please stop wasting time by arguing that these types of things aren't violating policy when they very clearly are. Yes, it is clear to people outside of the astrology community and that's why the only votes to keep on TFD are from astrologers. N^oformation ^Talk 20:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That TFD is snowing - why not nuke it from space now to prevent editing warring? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note the title of the previous discussion - from which this one was spawned. Decisions are not made at the first sign of snow. Sometimes, apparently, a rapid fall of snow gives cause for concern. Better to ensure that all who may wish to contribute discussion are given the opportunity to do so -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Look forget it, no matter what a lot of meat-puppets turn up and say, that there is absolutely no way that the community will allow that template to stand - it's just not going to happen, policy does not allow it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then what's the problem? Don't you think it would be wise to at least establish whether it is the use of the template that is causing the problem, or the content it presents? Currently it seems that it would be easy to drop the use of the template and transclude the text instead. But I very much doubt this will fix the problem, don't you? Better to have the issues identified properly, and then resolved properly. Besides, editors are still commenting, but this is just my view of course -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to the meat-puppets remark: are you a meat puppet Cameron Scott? (Be aware that now I have asked this, any editor may legitimately report that questions have been raised about the possibility of you being involved in Meatpuppetry.) Do you think I am a meatpuppet? Do you think I am representing here any views but my own? Er, why not look around … where are the meatpuppets turning up anyway? Most members of the astrology project appear to be completely unaware of the template discussion, and there is no one commenting here but little old me, in this special thread that has been dedicated to me, in honour of all the WP contributions I have made. That’s the way I am seeing it anyway, since it was a silly ANI post that should never have started. If an admin requires comment I'll duly answer, otherwise if I’ll make this my last post (if you want to make non-essential remarks about me you can do that on my talk page). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both the technical way in which the template is used (transclusion of identical article text into many articles, making it practically impossible for casual editors to change the text) and the current content of the template (serious pro-fringe POV pushing coatracked on a somewhat related topic) are a problem. Both will be solved. The solving has started with the technical side. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe we should have started with the content so long as it's all in one place. But I see no legitimate reason why we shouldn't be able to find a central location, such as WT:WikiProject Astrology, for discussing whatever happens to all the individual zodiac articles. Hans Adler 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I consider the above post a very sensible one. There definitely needs to be one place for centralised discussion. I think that currently there are about 6 active discussions, all simultaneously talking about the same essential issues, but scattering different views across talk-pages, project pages, noticeboard forums and this ANI thread. So you go to one place and get a clear consensus on one opinion, go elsewhere you get a clear consensus on another. A complete mess. I agree it was not helpful to turn what I now percieve to be a dispute over content into a use of template debate. The latter is easily fixed but if the dis-ease over the template is only a sympton not the cause, the problems will rumble on and on. The WT:WikiProject Astrology exists to consider these issues, and it is not supposed to represent only the view of enthusiasts. Some of the members are sceptics who have joined in order to ensure the subject gets balanced appraisal - but it's not necessary for anyone to 'join' the project to participate in the discussions. The project should be given the opportunity to define sensible guidelines which acknowledge legitimate criticisms. Questioning the project's ability to formulate these guidelines appropriately should only be done when it has engaged in the discussions fully and formalised the task, not when it has only just begun looking at it. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Being as how astrology is as bogus as a 3-dollar bill, isn't Zac's term "inaccuracies" kind of redundant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep this small - you see there are many differing views on this subject, most of which are purely subjective as yours is. WP aims to give an objective assessment of what is reported in reliable, verifiable sources. Are you a reliable, verifiable source? I think not. So we’ll take this as just your personal opinion, which is no more weighty than mine. But what is reported should be accurate – so if a page says something like “Hindu astrology includes several elements not found in Hellenistic astrology, such as its system of lunar mansions” when the reliable sources show very clearly that the lunar mansions are described in Hellenistic (and Babylonian) sources, then this is an “inaccuracy” which is best corrected by reference to the reliable sources – can you see how this works? -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that Bugs can back up his assertion with a myriad of sources Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think someone needs to start a movement similar to the Flying spaghetti monster but parodying astrology instead of deistic religion. That kind of reductio ad absurdum does wonders in explaining why something is retarded without actually calling it retarded, which allows people to evaluate an argument without taking it personally (since it's now about X instead of astrology). On the other hand, I guess you could say something like Feng shui is already a parody of astrology, it's just not intended to be.

Anyway, on topic: the astrology cabal here seems to severely misunderstand WP policy in many respects. It took 2 RfCs and who knows how many thousands of kilobytes to explain to them that using fringe sources to criticize mainstream science was unacceptable, and now it's taking a ridiculous amount of time to explain the very simple fact that templates are not used for these purposes. Do they not get it, do they not care, do they think that policy is more of a guideline than a rule? I think, perhaps, that they believe that policy is secondary to rhetorical argumentation, and so if they can convince other people of their position (not related to policy, just their position in general) then their POV will stand. Most of the arguments in both the RfCs and on the template subject are total red herrings filled with Special pleading. I don't know, but it's been problematic for a while and it's good that the larger community is finally getting involved. However, I think something more substantial needs to be done in regards to the SPA astrologers, I'm just not sure what. N^oformation ^Talk 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

MarcusBritish

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours by Fram, increased to 48 hours by Boing! said Zebedee. 28bytes (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster This has resulted in a wikiquete discussion [[21]] in which MarcusBritish has made a number of highly confrontational comments, and sees this as some kind of a battle in which you are either an enemy or a ally [[22]]. He has accused me of saying things I have not said [[23]]. I don’t think the user is generally a problem, but in the subject of WebHamster he has a highly aggressive battlefield mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So in short, what you're saying is – "if you want a blocked user banned outright, you should be blocked". And you question my mentality? You do realise that I'm more than willing to push this type of reaction through ArbCom and throw your attempt to question my integrity into the firing line, I hope. Wasting you time, trying to make a name for yourself Ste. You stand in middle-ground, making false indications that you support one opinion, then another, but in reality you're luring people. There is nothing here worthy of ANI interest. It took EIGHT years to get Webhamster blocked, and he still has people toadying to his every desire. Where do you thing that puts you, apart from clear as mud sycophancy to ANI, Hell bent of pushing your own POV? Laughable liberal wish-wash. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am here because more then one user has said your commeents about webby oversteped the mark, and you response is this attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't take "the mark" of a BNP supporter as a reliable. You're as petty as it gets. Your motives are not above suspicion. In fact I suspect you're looking for retaliative action because you "can't win" with your unassisting remarks at WQA. Don't know why you bothered in the first place, your entire history there did not have anything to do with the aims of WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Who's being accused of being a BNP supporter? Nev1 (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Political affiliations (which have not been demonstrated in any case) seem tangential to this conversation. I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the no personal attacks policy, in which "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is given as an example. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol, what views? He's not said anything of value that can be discredited – he's simply a general, all-round WP:IJDLI kinda guy who doesn't know how to make a stand, and makes petty arguments and vague rebuttals, all in the form of a storm in a teacup. To be even more to the point, this isn't even his argument, so why he attempted to make it about him is beyond me. Perhaps he was bored. He certainly bores me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Slatersteven supports the BNP is irrelevant to this discussion, so why you brought it up in the first place is unclear unless you wished to discredit him. And the assertion is unsubstantiated, considering the strong views the party provokes it is unwise to level such accusations. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just say; over the last couple of days you two have done basically sod all except argue about this topic... There is a level of maturity in simply walking away from a confrontation and finding something productive to do. No one has to have the last word here. But what we could do is divert this attention into writing some article content. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As both times [24] it was in direct reply to a post by me the target is logicaly me.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yo, Brains. This.is.not.about.you. You.are.not.the.subject. Stop.trying.to.become.the.center.of.attention. I.do.not.find.you.interesting. Your.desire.for.revenge.is.transparently.obvious. Drop.the.stick. — And use a spell-checker for Pete's sake, they are free, and come in-built in browsers like Firefox. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)The issue is not whether the user should be banned, but that it is inappropriate to use terminology such as "prime nut," and "the only good thing that could ever develop in what little brain he does have is a tumour." to advance such a case, and to accuse anyone taking exception to those personal attacks as being in some sort of collusion. Gerardw (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

As someone who is supporting Webhamster in overturning a block, which had a ~65% pro-block consensus, the question of your motives, COI, or bias leaves me to conclude that you will say anything to contradict me. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've been on the receiving end of some of Marcus's vitriol, sure. But I don't see the need for administrative action here.

  Now, the above accusation (in response to Gerardw) is really in bad faith, and I'm sure Marcus would say something similar about me: "you don't support a block so you're partial"--which of course works both ways: Marcus supported a block so he's not partial? Come on now. "Liberal wish-wash" is nonsense; Marcus, you'll have to live with the fact that people disagree, and that it's not always for political reasons, and that your argument is self-defeating.

  There's a bit more--besides accusations of partiality, there was some nonsense of 'all of us' Hamster defenders being a club of regulars at Hamster's pub in Manchester or something like that, which isn't just in violation of AGF but also extremely silly. I mean, really--geolocate me, or, if you really don't want to put your money where your mouth is, give me your address and I'll send you a postcard from Alabama.

  Anyway, I don't want to compile a laundry list. I think that Marcus's behavior left a lot to be desired, but I don't want another editor blocked as a result of this mess. I hope Marcus sees that not everyone in the community feels as he does, and that ruffling feathers is not always a good thing. No action please, if Marcus keeps his cool. Or finds it. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A touching example of floccinaucinihilipilification, from Drmies, there. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call you unimportant. I'm sure someone loves you. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'd double-check your definition of flocci— there. I didn't mean me. Rather, the situation itself. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 05:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry: I bow to your vision--"Wiki is currently the "land of the blind" in which I have one eye." Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If you actually know what that means, and can apply context, then do so. Otherwise it's just a meaningless quote without any form of interpretation. Nor is it any of your business for the time being. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps MarcusBritish needs a block for his general behaviour (uncivil, NPAs) over the last days. But more urgently, I don't think he is the right person to be adressing WQA discussions, see Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Editor is following my edits and canvassing. WQA responders should be patient, helpful, not disrespectful. In his second post to that discussion, he states "To me it sounds like paranoia,[...]", which is not the kind of response anyone should give at a WQA discussion without some very good evidence to back such an opinion. The rest of the discussion isn't much better, berating the initiator for using old posts and diffs ("holding grudges is counter-productive.") then when he presents recent diffs replying "Stalking lasts for months, is a malicious act and usually subtle." Well, perhaps that's why he posted these old diffs you didn't like in the first place... Perhaps the complaint by the initiator is utterly baseless, I don't know, but the manner in which MarcusBritish is addressing it is extremely negative and not really what one would expect when one comes to get some "wikiquette assistance". Fram (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time for WQA but his posts there are clearly unsuitable given the rationale behind it's existence - likely to inflame rather than solve any problems. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above two points; whether or not MarcusBritish is to be blocked (probably not) is of secondary concern to his involvement at WP:WQA. Reviewing this situation, and his performance over there, WQA requires a bit more diplomacy and tact than MarcusBritish seems to wish to use. It would be best if he found other places at Wikipedia to use his skills, because that arena is clearly not well suited to his style of interacting with others. --Jayron32 00:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The instigator wasn't interested in diplomacy, nor was it a matter of etiquette in reality. It was over-spill from an SPI and the editor was seeking to advocate support with regards that his accusations of being "stalked" were feasible. Another editor supported my findings and requested closure of the WQA. I suspect the two editors will be here, on AN/I before long anyway.. neither wants to drop the stick, with one accusing the other of being a sock, the other accusing of stalking; behaviour which he has carried to no less than 5 editors talk pages and rattled a few cages in the 26 days since he registered. I, modestly, think I handled the situation well considering that the editor was never going to be interested unless someone who believed every word he said and was willing to block the edited he was accusing, showed up. It was a matter of expressing concern for his behaviour. Another editor expressed the same concern. I did my "voluntary" job, whilst none of you now complaining about how I handled my first WQA lifted a finger to offer any assistance. To be frank, the previous WQA aimed at me was far less productive, and editor Slatersteven who argued with me there did not attempt to resolve anything, he just argued. Whereas I achieved a result to the satisfaction of several people. Before you employ double-standards, I suggest you take that fact into account.

WQA reads "The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution." Another fact, is that the opening editor did not even inform his opponent of the discussion, so there was no aim for a mutual resolution on his part, his comments were aimed at reporting his opponent and discrediting him with SPIs dating back nearly 3-years, which I rejected as being somewhat uncivil, and the discussion whilst it started amicably, broke down upon his realisation that myself and another editor did not agree with his conclusions, or accusations against anyone. The editor he accused was invited, by myself, to present his story, and I gave a neutral conclusion after looking at the diffs and comments offered. WQA isn't a Samaritan Hotline, nor is it AN/I, and the two editors were advised to keep their distance or use AN if they had a solid reason to. There was, in my judgement, no other outcome or better way of handling the matter, except with a firm hand. It was a fast moving WQA, as the opening editor was unwilling to take time to present information to give us a clearer perspective of the harassment he claimed to receive – I hunted for a while and found nothing to support his claims. So based on what was presented – old news – the matter was closed, by a third editor, following agreement between myself, and the two involved editors that there was no further course of action at WQA – they didn't want to make up, they didn't want to back down from their opposing claims.

Like I've said, if any of you feel that could have done any better, you could have chimed in - the first two of you commented 7 hours before the case was even closed, so there is no excuse for only spectating if, as responsible/"skilled" admins, you feel that I was mishandling the matter – a personal opinion that is a load of nonsense with no merit whatsoever. In short, these illogical comments leave little to be appreciated. An admin who calls for a block, when they didn't lift a finger to partake in a WQA which lasted from 06:06, 28 November 2011 until 17:30, 28 November 2011 – 11.5 hours – should be blocking themselves, for being unable to justify their own lack of action, whilst attacking someone else for bothering. There is no block rationale can be brought to bear here, because there isn't even a case – my first WQA (as an outsider) was handled without any disruption, as "patiently, helpfully, and not disrespectfully" as possible – contrary to the supposition and near-miss attack implied above – and a trivial uncivil reaction from the WQA opener, which is no skin off my nose, and case closed.

Before some of you start waving your mops about indiscriminately again, you might consider putting "Wet Floor" signs down – you're liable to cause an accident using them without training. Some of the WQA people seem better behaved than many of the competitive, disdainful and patronising admins on AN/I, as evidenced here where admins attack another editors honest selfless actions, but refuse to put themselves in the firing line, despite ample opportunity. Given that people are normally banned from areas of wiki reactively not proactively, and given that I have volunteered a total of ONE single WQA response, you have no basis on which to even discuss this with certainty, except in bad faith (esp. considering the edit summaries aimed at me). The suggestion, which actually bears no relevance to this AN/I topic as the WQA came 3 days after it was opened, but whatever I'll humour this questionable side-track, whatever the motive, is that of a form of interaction/WQA topic ban. And per WP:BANPOL, there has been no disruptive behaviour there from me as an outside responder to the case dated 28 November 2011, and no warnings have been issued to me relating to that one WQA. Whilst I don't consider this a personal attack as such... rather, a condescending lack of AGF, and prudish admin behaviour. To be honest, I expect my decorum is better than most. So, that's that!

Now — Go 'ave a cuppa! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a WQA case and at the same time claim that another participant in the case should stop participating there. If I had done that, people would claim I was involved and not neutral in my statement here. Damned if you don, damned if you don't. If you believe that e.g. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is a "patient, helpful and respectful" comment, it only strengthens my believe that you are (at the moment) not an editor who should be involved in handling WQA cases. As for this coming without prior warnings and so on: you have been warned repeatedly for your incivility and personal attacks, so getting involved in the one area where those are least wanted is a logical continuation of this, and doesn't need a new set of warnings and numerous cases. Fram (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There was still nothing to stop you adding to the WQA and discussing your "concerns" on my talkpage. Which, FYI, is what I am referring to when I say I have had no {{uw-warning}} type notifications. I'm sure you know what I mean though, and I should not have to clarify myself after writing "Gone with the Wind..." up there. "To me it sounds like paranoia" is frank.. just because you don't consider the word "paranoid" as a productive word, doesn't mean everyone doesn't. In fact, your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. Let us bear in mind I speak native English, and you may not be as familiar in terms of what is "mild" and what is "strong" wording. Now, if I had called him "delusional", which means much the same thing, that would be stronger and more aggressive. Paranoia relates more to social judgements, delusion more to mental instability. I hope that is clear, and you do not think I am patronising you. As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times. As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour. As for accusing me of "continuation", that would seem, again, to represent your lack of good faith, and looking down your nose at me. Something I don't take from anyone in this day and age. You either recognise yourself as an equal when you address me, or you don't address me at all. Wiki isn't a place of "class distinction", not do I care who you are, or what your edit history says about you. As far as 1:1 respect between people goes, it should be earned, nor given away or inherited. So once again, I repeat that your critique of my ability to handle WQA is flawed. For your humble information, I have exactly 4 years and 4 months experience working in live customer service for one of the UK's biggest companies. Direct real life communication with people, customers, both resolving complaints and handling difficult and regular people. I think I am probably more aware of my ability than you are, from your limited understanding of the circumstances behind this topic, rather than the unrelated matter of my answering a solitary WQA, which hardly constitutes a career move/ I suggest you adopt a less pessimistic manner regarding my ability, I consider it a personal attack on my integrity rather than my character. You concerns are not justified, because your opinions are merely unsupported guess work, no one can predict the future. Even SPIs need more than that to qualify an IP block. So you certainly do, to qualify your insinuations regarding my work at WQA. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Further comments in that vein will result in a block.""but WP:NPA applies even when talking about blocked users, and if you do not follow it you will find yourself blocked." User Slatersteven started this section (correctly) with "Has made a number of PA’s against WebHamster". Nev1 in this discussion stated "I'm concerned such comments fall foul of the no personal attacks policy,", Gerardw in this discussion stated "anyone taking exception to those personal attacks". Errant in the WQA discussion stated "Long, immature and wearisome rants are only going to encourage admins to block you." I don't think stating that "As for "warned repeatedly", again I beg to differ. Some people have raised concerns, mostly that I appear uncivil at times." correctly describes the situation. You have been, at different venues and by different people, warned about your comments, the PA nature of some of them, and the block that may be the result of it. "As for "personal attacks", there have been no confirmations of such behaviour.": well then, let this be the confirmation: you have made a number of personal attacks, for which you have been repeatedly warned by different editors, and should do well to stop making them (and other highly uncivil remarks) if you don't want to get blocked. Fram (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Took your time digging for dirty socks in my drawers, didn't you? At least I know what level of mentality you operate at now. You either don't want to listen or don't want to understand, so let me make this as clear as 1+1=2 for you, because you're only going to look foolish if you keep using an imperative tone against someone who is not easy to belittle:

You and you alone raised the matter of my WQA involvement. It is a fork, because it does not relate to the matter, no matter how hard you try, you have a square peg, this topic is a round hole. You have applied a line of reasoning that "if MarcusBritish has been uncivil to persons A and B then he will also be uncivil to persons C, D, and E." That, for your information, is synthesis. I suggest you go read about it, and as an editor with 100,000+ contribs, do not do it again! That is a warning from me, regarding you making false accusations, incriminations, bad faith judgements, and personal attacks of your own! If you think your opinion, which has more bull than a Spanish arena, stands for anything, you better take your "WQA ban" proposal through ArbCom.

Your attitude leaves a lot to be desired – in fact, you are ruder on AN/I than I was on WQA. Shirking WQA whilst branding someone else for at least making an effort and getting a result whilst you took a back seat. Inflated egos don't impress me. You may think you're invulnerable and above suspicion, but basing your proposals on synthesis alone proves you're as fallible as any regular editor, perhaps moreso – with 100k+ edits in 6 years, you should know better!

And FYI, I didn't plan to make a regular habit of answering WQA cases. You drew that conclusion based on your own false sense of self-importance too. So that puts a big halt to your logic, period. Logic is based on patterns. One WQA response is not a pattern or trend, and bears no correlation to behaviour on any other area of Wiki. Again, you should know better after 6 years. You introduced a false line of reasoning to this topic. Any ulterior motive? As for your use of the term "highly uncivil", you are the first to use it. Hyperbole. Bringing a WQA response to the forefront of this topic was bold, but lacks credence, except that I suspect your only hope is that Fram-loyal admins will support you unwaveringly, without even considering that you made a mountain of a mole hill. You see, the thing about digging for dirty socks is the more you handle them the quicker you get used to the smell on your hands – a.k.a. power corrupts.

Per WP:CIVIL I'm going to suggest you intentionally presented a fork to support your own argument, using synthesised logic all based on a false premis, that is in fact:

2. Other uncivil behaviors

• "(a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves"

Go figure! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked MarcusBritish for 24 hours for repeated and continuing uncivil behaviour and personal attacks. I don't believe that getting verbal abuse and walls of text from someone after you warn them about their personal attacks against others makes one involved (or it would become very easy to make many admins "involved" and remain unblocked by virtue of that), but if people see this differently, feel free to change the block of course. I have had no prior involvement with MarcusBritish that I am aware of, and have not been a WebHamster defender (having blocked Pink Oboe and his talk page), so I don't think there is any chance that this can realistically be seen as retaliation for his attacks on Webhamster. Fram (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

For appearances sake it probably wasn't a good idea to do this yourself, given the above. But I doubt anyone else will come to a different conclusion. causa sui (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

(Moved here from WP:AN, since the complaint is about a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

This article is impossible to work on. Any attempts to fix the obvious POV-pushing of having endless quotes taken from propoganda sources, contrasted with no attempt to explain the arguments for the mainstream view, or against the fringe claims (except for a couple trivial attempts in image captions), are met with rudeness, obstruction, and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT to ridiculous levels.

In particular, William M. Connelley's behavious seems to be straight out trolling, including having launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him.

This page is pretty much pure propaganda, it being on Wikipedia at all is a sign of Wikipedia's failure - we really need a page consisting of quotes from fringe propaganda?! The editing environment is intentionally made as awful as possible, in order to drive any mainstream editors off. It basically survives by having global warming deniers camp on the page, and shoot down any mainstream editors who come by before they can get organised. 86.* IP (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's why I don't follow those pages anymore. They're trash.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. William M. Connelley is anything but a "global warming denier". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to the contentious nature of the content, what did you honestly expect? It is an article about fringe theories, after all.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I must have missed the bit where (allegedly) problematic behaviour is considered OK in articles on controversial topics. It's not. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

He has not proved that there has been problematic behavior and he has posted something that is the opposite of what is known to be true (William M. Connelley is a climatologist and is being accused of being a global warming denier). 86.** appears to be in the minority of the consensus on the talk page and appears to be coming to WP:AN to try to sway a growing consensus against him, and there are misconceptions by 86.** throughout this page and this one.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, WMC is trying to violate my privacy, and, in this issue, is pure troll. I'll provide links in private if you need proof. Forgive me if I don't want to link half-arsed speculation about my identity, lest it gives someone a boost towards violating it for real. I'll also point out that I may be a minority on the talk page - because the rudeness and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT makes it very hard for anyone to stay there that doesn't agree with everything - but that a majority of people in the last AfD voted for it to be deleted, so it would appear a majority of Wikipedians as a whole think it has severe problems. See poisoning the well for what Ryulong is doing. 86.** IP (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well this seems to be a merely baseless attack against someone who is part of a separate majority opinion from you. If you expect us to believe that these issues exist, you should at least post direct links to examples of it happening, barring the WP:OUTING issues.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You'll forgive us if, in the absence of evidence, we reserve judgement—particularly given that this isn't the first time in recent weeks that you've made spurious complaints about this article and this editor.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive725#William M. Connolley and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

At this point, it may be appropriate to consider restrictions on 86.**'s conduct under the discretionary sanctions provisions applying to climate change topics. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How on earth am I supposed to link to the outing issues while avoiding linking to them? That's all WMC does as direct attacks on me. There's some examples of him seemingly intentionally missing the point or being very rude, e.g.

Are the only secondary sources available "journalists"? If so, I expect the quality of them varies a great deal. If people have been categorised by well-known science journalists writing in good mainstream publications, that would seem to fit our criteria for good secondary sources. Any academic sources on philosophy of science, sociology of science, etc. would trump those, but I doubt if many are available, will have a look. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but: you've been commenting here for quite a while. Isn't it about time you actually found out about the sources? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you did an academic literature search before starting editing? I find 91 results in WoS for "climate change" AND (sceptic OR skeptic OR denier). Some look to be refereed journal papers. Starting to go through now, will take a long time. Would you like to try alternative search terms? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(from the talk page)

But I'd need to quote hundreds of these to show a pattern, which is impractical.

86.** IP (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I would like to suggest that you email the Arbitration Committee with the supporting evidence showing WMC's attempted outing. That would both preserve your privacy and allow for them to investigate. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that William M. Connolley was ever notified about this discussion, so I have done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very unfortunate. I don't know how much more clear the notice could be. I will AGF and assume it was an honest mistake that he was never notified. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't posted here originally, it was moved here, and was intended to be general. I can't help it if people make this about a particular person, when I wanted to discuss a general problem. 86.** IP (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You say you wanted to discuss a "general problem", but your comments put forth a claim of being "outed" by William M. Connolley, which you make in the second paragraph of your original post. Whether that claim is made on WP:AN or WP:AN/I is irrelevant, once you advance a specific charge against a specific editor, you should notify them of the thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Enough, Ken. Don't muddy the waters by turning this around onto 86.**. Try to assume some good faith, alright? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It's hard to know what 86.** IP is complaining about. Because he seems not to be a new editor, he has been repeatedly asked to clarify whether he has had former named accounts (e.g. by DGG, Itsmejudith, WMC, Colonel Warden). He started editing from a range of IPs geolocating to Edinburgh in September, with edits to Ayurveda. A long discussion took place on User talk:Itsmejudith. [25] His repeated postings about this and related articles here and elsewhere are unhelpful and are now becoming disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Side note: Many BT IPs appear as geolocating to Edinburgh/Scotland including IPs from Northern Ireland so I wouldn't use geolocating to say much. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think he simply requests more eyes on the article, that's all. His outing issues should be between him and ArbCom via private email. Let's archive this thread and move on, ok? 76.16.72.26 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You've only got like 5 edits here. Why is this important to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, there do not appear to be any outing issues on-wiki. If, as he says, 86.** IP happens to have had a previous account, trying to identify that account does not constitute WP:OUTING. (Colonel Warden I think suggested at one stage this could be an alternative account of User:Shoemaker's Holiday.) The frequency with which he posts on exactly the same topic here, on WP:AN and on WP:FTN is excessive. Many aspects of his posts are not quite right, including his use of the word "trolling". WP:AE under WP:ARBCC might be what comes next, or at least a warning. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I got the idea that it might be Shoemaker's Holiday from a suggestion of WMC. It seemed fairly clear that this was a tendentious editor returning under a new account. My first guess was that it was ScienceApologist or perhaps one of the editors banned from this topic area by arbcom but WMC's guess seems quite plausible, given that that editor has a history of editing the article in question. Anyway, given the arbcom sanctions on this topic area and the alacrity with which Scibaby socks are driven off, I am surprised that 86 has been allowed such a free rein. Warden (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Diffs like these [26] [27] on the article talk page from 2009 are quite similar to some of the postings of 86.** IP. Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not my guess; someone posted it to my talk page. But those diffs are quite suggestive. But does anyone care, greatly? SH isn't banned or anything, AFAIK William M. Connolley (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I should have noted here earlier that I warned 86.** IP (talk · contribs) for edit warring in the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming article in response to this report. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, in response to your question of me having "5 edits" and "why this is important to me", please read WP:HUMAN. Thank you. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to BMK for notifying me of this discussion. It is hard for me to know what to say: as has been pointed out, 86 has totally misunderstood my position. For whatever strange reason, 86 has taken up a campaign against that page, to the point of being disruptive. Perhaps he should be encouraged to find other interests. Someone suggested to be the 86 might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday (aka AC) and who knows, this may or may not be correct. 86 is evasive when asked, as already noted William M. Connolley (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

86 has been edit warring at the page and is touchy about that, too [28]. The page falls underARBCC; can some admin not give 86 a warning under that? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This topic (= conflict of opinions) is a tough one for Wikipedia because the "question" itself is not one question, it is a POV-selection-of-the moment variable question. (E.G. is man having some effect?, is man having a significant effect? are variations we see mostly from man, mostly from nature, or a good mix of both?, which effects count as effects?. Also, even for the questions where the minority view is the smallest, it's a minority view, not a fringe view. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

See, again this is why I don't don't even bother with these articles any more. It's just a bunch of POV pushers trying to win the hearts and minds of the mass population. Geesh, get a grip, all of you. In reality, nobody gives rats ass what any of you think about global warming. Its just a bunch of hoo haw, wrapped in tin foil, and sold to the sheeple as gold plated ear rings. People are smarter than you all think, so whatever voodoo science goes in or out of these articles is just a waste of space in my opinion.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shall we close this thread and be done with this? What is the admin intervention that is being requested here? 67.175.159.127 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Admin intervention? The user account 86.** IP might be blocked or topic banned for canvassing, incivility, disruption, sock-puppetry, edit-warring, tendentious editing and violation of Arbcom sanctions. Admins might also take a look at the user account User:Jabbsworth which openly admits to being another sockpuppet and which has now started editing this article. They seem to be the banned sockmaster Ratel. Warden (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Jabbsworth, I was cleared to edit by Arbcom. Thanks. I have no sanctions on this article, and did not have in my other accounts. I have not edited article space here either.  Jabbsworth  01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

According to J's talk page, he is User:TickleMeister, who is indef'd for socking William M. Connolley (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

See section below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The original poster should be allowed the chance to comment. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously.I complain about attempts to violate my privacy, so unfounded, evidence-free speculation gets repeated to a wider audience? And apparently, I'm the one at fault? What the hell? 86.** IP (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your "complaints" were without merit, since linking you to other wikipedia accounts is not outing. No information that is not publicly available on wikipedia has been mentioned. In those circumstances it is unclear what you mean when you write "violate my privacy". Perhaps, since you have already mentioned that they exist, you could disclose which named accounts you have previously used. That might help clear up matters. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the space of two months, 86.* has raised this article at its fifth AfD (Result: Keep), AfD Review (Result: overturn to No Consensus), at the Fringe noticeboard several times, on Jimbo's page(!) [29], and now here. I've asked him/her several times to contribute to the discussion, which he/she's done to a limited extent. 86.* has made a couple of relatively constructive edits to the article in the last month. Most recently 86 was warned for reverting article tags three times in quick succession. In the circumstances I find the reference in the original post to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is rather rich. I would have thought a reminder of the general sanctions, and that Wikipedia is based on discussion and consensus building, not appeals to authority, would certainly be appropriate. --Merlinme (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that IP***86 isn't a sock but is probably a previous user returning. I encouraged him to set up an account, which he did, and his contributions to Ayurveda-related articles have been useful. In regard to this article we all need to work harder to get consensus. IP***86 needs to spell out the points he objects to and to realise that it isn't really a climate-change-denial position being promoted here (ironically it might at first sight appear to be, but on further inspection it's not). I need to look up the sources I said I would. And some of the page regulars who know who they are need to drop the WP:OWN and be more welcoming to policy-minded, science-friendly editors coming new to the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, you are a policy-minded, science friendly editor coming new to the article who's willing to making constructive edits to the article and contribute constructively on the Talk page; I've seen precious little evidence 86.* is. Catching up after the weekend, I noticed 86.* had reverted three times on the page, which is the first time a single user's done that in a long time. I left him a polite notice on his Talk page. Since leaving that note, I've discovered that he's raised his concerns again at an inappropriate venue for content disputes, having made essentially zero further attempts to engage in the article page discussion. I then discover that he had previously received the 3RR warning from an admin... which he removed from his Talk page. On top of the groundless accusation against WMC included in the original complaint, without even informing WMC, I'm afraid I've rather lost patience; "launched (so far unsuccessful, at least) attempts to try to find out my real name in revenge for me disagreeing with him" is a ludicrous distortion of the truth. It's clear from 86.*'s user page that he's not a newbie; someone suggested to WMC that he might be User:Shoemaker's Holiday, to which WMC's response was mainly mystification. WMC then asked 86.* if he would clarify any previous accounts used, to which 86.*'s response was to delete the request from his user page. --Merlinme (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not, as 86** states, that this article is "impossible to work on." It is more like 86** finds it impossible to get what he monmaniacally wants. His appearance here is just another instance of his forum shopping, which is just one facet of his general tendentiousness. His overblown hyperbole ("This page is pretty much pure propaganda") and total misattribution of his difficulites to "global warming deniers" illustrates the difficulty of trying to reach him. His presence has not been conducive to improving this article; he should be invited to leave. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 00:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Side issue?

76.16.72.26 (talk · contribs)
67.175.159.127 (talk · contribs)
Oddly aggressive editing by the above Illinois-based IP series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like closing the discussion with "Needless drama" and not signing the close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

TickleMeister (talk · contribs)
Jabbsworth (talk · contribs)
The one is a self-admitted sock of the other, as noted by WMC farther up the page. I've asked Future Perfect at Sunrise to come here and explain what's going on with that user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I know is he admitted the socking but was given a second chance by Arbcom's ban appeals committee, after promising to stick to a single account [30]. I now topic-banned him from the Aspartame topic (under "Pseudoscience" discretionary sanctions) because he was relapsing into the same sort of disruptive behaviour he had shown as TickleMeister a year ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Should he not be obliged to provide a link back to the old account? It seems wrong to have to reply on admin-memory. For example, you've just topic-banned him, but you couldn't have done that without a prior warning, which was given to an old account. Similarly, the arbcomm block memory (and unban discussion) is lost without a link back William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

One would think. And if he's not interested in creating that link, maybe someone should create one for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a link. If other editors had known that he was TickleMeister - and known that Arbcom had allowed a multioffending sockmaster to continue to edit - we'd all have been better prepared to deal with him.

If people like him are allowed to keep editing, then there should be a general amnesty announced on the front page of the New York Times for all banned sockmasters to return, get a new account, hide the connection to their former disruptive accounts, and we can start all over again wasting time dealing with these creeps.

It's this kind of time sink, injustice and drama that discourages so many good editors from using more time at Wikipedia. These types of partisan editors who can't control themselves that make good articles into battlefields. Articles have no stability, even when they get to be good articles. That's too bad. The better an article becomes, the more protections it should enjoy so as to allow editors to concentrate on making progress in other areas. I'm not saying that articles should be locked, but it should be harder to vandalize and edit war at such articles. Only significant and important additions, changes and revisions should be allowed.....but I digress....it's a slightly different topic.

Anyway, a link should be provided and it be required that he never remove it. It would be cool if a standard template was made for such purposes. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

J has now removed what link there was [31] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I see I'm being discussed here. (1) Thanks for telling me (2) Are my edits to the Talk page in question "oddly aggressive" as are those of the IP named above (clearly not)? Do I have a history, under any other account name, with this page (I believe not)? If not, is there any cogent reason to be discussing me here?  Jabbsworth  23:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a problem with user 46.196.33.96

Resolved

 – causa sui (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have a problem with user 46.196.33.96. This user has changed things in the article (Ben Gurion Airport) without any proof (and these things are not true...). I wrote to him twice and i asked to give his evidence on the talk page of value but he didn't answer me and continued to change. I put my proof today on the talk page of the article. I'd love if you do something about it --Friends147 (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There's an open thread on the talk page. If the IP doesn;t respond in a reasonable timeframe, feel free to revert referencing the talk page. There's no point going to ANI on the very first revert. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I spoke with an admin and he sent him a warning. --Friends147 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Mughal Lohar

(unarchiving as unresolved)

I'm reviving this thread concerning the behaviour of Mughal Lohar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've been attempting to engage him in conversation about his unexplained image changes and removal of sourced content [32], and my efforts have been met with allegations of racism [33], [34]. I see from this user's talkpage that they have a history of non-communication, copyright violations and sockpuppetry, among other problems. It would help if some users here could keep an eye on him. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be calling you racist - he's suggesting that the image in question is a "racist depiction", as far as I can tell -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Zebedee ... nobody is being called a racist, however, the WP:OWN, WP:PUFFERY, non-WP:NPOV and slow-WP:EW has led to a brief block ... apparently his second this month alone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good call -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you may be right. I didn't want call him out for personal attacks because I wasn't quite certain of his intent. I figured other sets of eyes would see it, if it was there. Thanks for taking a look. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for further block or ban

I am taking a short break from my Wikibreak to comment here and to ask for further action. There have been problems with this editor for some time, from copyright violation to failure to communicate to his even when told not using proper references (no details of books, just links, sometimes to snippets). He's been asked to use edit summaries a number of times, for instance, and still doesn't. I suspect he is still inserting copyvio but this is not always easy to check. Please also take a look at my talk page - it's complaints there that have brought me out of my break to ask for more action. Certainly if he doesn't respond here and satisfy editors that he is going to change his ways I'd go for an indef ban until he does. I'd be happy to have his block lifted so that he can discuss here if he agrees not to do any article editing fur at least the duration the block was supposed to last. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got suspicions about some of the phrasing in his Siege of Bijapur article (i.e., that it's copyvio), but he seems to be tweaking things just enough that it can be difficult to trace. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, I was concerned that bare URLs were being used in, for example, Muhammad Shah which pointed to google search snippet view for a rather generic search term; and I am not convinced that the snippets support what he actually says in the articles. Nor is it easy to see to which particular statements an end of paragraph reference refer. Two articles recently created also either point to a generic google books snippet view, or simply to the entry for a whole book, without giving page numbers. Thanks again and sorry to disturb your break, eric. Esowteric+Talk 15:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And despite being asked to follow our guidelines for copying from other Wikipedia articles, he continues to copy and paste without attribution (and he uses other articles as sources). Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Snippet view example: In Aurangzeb, this edit diff introduces a Google Books snippet view for the very broad search phrase "aurangzeb" in the book. There are 91 results and no page number is given.

This is used to support the sentence: "Shah Jahan fell ill in 1657, Aurangzeb's elder sister Raushanara Begum appropriated his seal to ensure that he would not involve himself in any possible war of succession."

I could not find anything like this in the snippets. A narrower search for the word "seal" does not appear to yield something that will support the above sentence (unless say, the word seal occurs again, further down the same page).

Page 50 and page 153 come the closest:

p50: "Her younger sister Raushanara fell out of favour with their brother Aurangzeb because whilst he was ill she took over the Great Seal and signed decrees in his name."

p153: "During the crisis sparked by Shah Jahan's illness, Raushanara apparently appropriated Aurangzeb's seal to ensure that his seal was on all decrees, to establish him as his father's legitimate successor."

What Mughal Lohar writes could well be correct, but it is not at all easy to verify. It could be that he's initially searched for (say) "aurangzeb", then carried out a different search, but not adjusted the reference's URL accordingly? Or I could be getting this wrong. Regards, eric. Esowteric+Talk 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

(od) I suspect there is some block evasion going on as well [35].--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's him, mainly due to the differences in geolocation between this and known IPs. This one also actually tries to communicate primarily via the talkpage, which Mughal Lohar seldom does.

In any case, he's fresh off his block and reinstating his preferred versions to Suleiman the Magnificent and Aurangzeb, again without discussion. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see post-ANI entry on his talk page, about what to me is a bizarre use of snippet view. Esowteric+Talk 19:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC) diff for ease of reference

Few mentions show as snippets. Maybe there's a random element to what snippets are returned? Esowteric+Talk 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm still laughing about the nuts and prostitutes. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice on use of Google book search by Jayen466: I asked an experience editor, Jayen466 about the use of snippets, and this is what he said on his talk page:

"It's often possible to find a text match in a Google Books search which is shown as bold text in the Google Books search listing. However, if you click on the search hit and the book has snippet view only, the snippet shown will only be the nearest one available to the relevant passage that Google Books found. Sometimes you're lucky that your search string is in a displayable snippet, sometimes not. Generally, it doesn't make sense to link to a snippet display if the snippet doesn't show the relevant text. The book may well contain a relevant passage on that same page though. However, there is another thing that has to be said: if you haven't got the physical book, and you don't have a Google preview spanning several full pages in context, it is quite risky to add anything to a Wikipedia article just based on having seen a snippet, either in the Google Books search listing or in snippet view. Context may be all-important (the book may quote a discredited theory, or you may fail to realise that the whole passage is intended as humour, etc.). So it's not a way of working that should ever be used, except in the most straightforward cases (like finding a birth date in a reputable dictionary of biography with snippet view). These days, Amazon (linked to from Google Books) has Look Inside enabled for many books. Using both Google Books and Amazon in tandem is often worthwhile. --JN466 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)" Esowteric+Talk 09:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked him indefinitely (which is not a ban, it's simply a block that can be lifted at any time. I've no problem if anyone wants to unblock him, but he really does need to start communicating better and I don't see any other way to get him to do this. He also needs to stop this type of use of snippets and sources. I hope that people will copy any responses on his talk page to here (I really am trying to keep by Wikibreak and wno't be around in any case, contact me by email if vital). Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Block seems fine, though you really should leave a note on his talk page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd I wrote one something went wrong. Done now. Dougweller (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

User requests unblocking: Hi, Mughal Lohar requests unblocking: "i honestly didn't know anything about the snippets law." Can someone handle, please? Esowteric+Talk 10:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, he has previously been advised at least twice about the problematic nature of the Google books snippets, both on his talkpage five days ago and on the Arangzeb talkpage two days ago. I'm not sure "I honestly didn't know" is a legitimate defense. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My mention of snippet view verifiability is probably detracting from the real issues, which have yet to be addressed, actually: slow edit warring, lack of edit summaries, uncommunicativeness; etc. Could be that the user doesn't quite know what's expected of him now, re unblocking? eg a statement recognizing the issues and a commitment to rectify?Esowteric+Talk 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's been spoken to repeatedly about all these issues, as well as the importance or reliable sources. He certainly should know what the problem is - I just don't know if he understands that he needs actually to listen to what others say and learn to work in a more collaborative way. Nothing he's said yet indicates that.Kafka Liz (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request. I agree with Kafka Liz: the editor does not seem to have taken in at all what others have said. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The range is very busy so getting socks from the IP is difficult, but I believe this one is Sridhar100 -- Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sridhar100 —SpacemanSpiff 09:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice catch. They certainly have similar interests. Interesting. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Stephfo, disruptive editing after unblock

Unarchiving as it was not closed - can an uninvolved admin have a look?

Stephfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked Sept 3rd for disruptive editing, but was unblocked late October after agreeing to work with a mentor on his talk page. This week, his problems have resumed, and he's been contacted by a slew of editors requesting that he work more productively. I notified his mentor when the problems began, and his mentor has been contributing actively to Stephfo's talk page, but to no avail. Recently, he's begun edit warring, making personal attacks, and slinging accusations of disruption and vandalism at other editors. I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems. He responded that he wasn't interested, and planned to continue editing anyway.

Please review his talk page for a small sampling of the issues. I'm afraid that, either due to competence, tendentiousness, or intentions, he's unable to contribute productively to the project, and is only serving as a disruption to the community. I feel that he may need to be reblocked.

Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off. For context, here's a previous ANI case, but most of his history is contained on his talk page (some of which has been deleted). I can provide more diffs if necessary. Notified Stephfo, Alpha Quadrant, Amatulic, and Dominus Vobisdu. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pls. note as I was allowed to do so, I will present my defence in new section.--Stephfo (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe the issue is due to the fact that he currently doesn't have a good grasp on several Wikipedia policies (in particular WP:IRS, WP:NPOV, WP:VANDNOT, and WP:NPA#WHATIS). Part of the problem is due to the fact that he appears to have a strong opinion regarding religion, creation, and evolution topics, resulting in further difficulty in remaining neutral when writing in these areas. Eventually, he may make good contributions in the area. I believe he needs to edit in other less controversial areas, where he can gain editing experience. I suggested he do this, but he continued to edit the in the topic. Before he is indefinitely blocked again, perhaps we could just try a six month topic ban from the areas of religion and creation/evolution. After that time period, he should have gained enough experience in editing and would have a better grasp on Wikipedia policies. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is that he has previously said he will not do X or Y, and then has done X or Y. I am not sure that just a topic ban will do the trick. I may just be cynical, but, that is my opinion. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(Stephfo has never specified gender, and for that matter neither have I for myself. For some reason I have always thought of Stephfo as "she" but I'll use "he" established by precedent in this section unless Stephfo feels the need to correct it.)

I was one of several admins who declined one of Stephfo's frequent unblock requests back when Stephfo was indef-blocked. I also supported Stephfo's unblocking.

Since then, Stephfo has made the mistake of creating disputes in controversial areas, activity which resulted in blocking in the past. For the most part (except for in Christian terrorism), Stephfo has adhered to the spirit of WP:BRD, in that he actively uses talk page to challenge reverts. Unfortunately, Stephfo's conduct on talk pages, while civil and polite, borders on tendentious, causing the patience of others to wear thin. Whether deliberately or through misunderstanding, Stepho has given the appearance of ignoring explanations, demanding clarification for answers that have been given repeatedly, as well as some amount of Wikilawyering.

There's a battleground mentality evident here, where Stephfo sees atheism or anti-Christian bias everywhere, and feels that it is proper to "correct" this, not by attempting to re-write anything neutrally, but to introduce opposing bias, regardless of whether that bias is non-neutral, relies on fringe theories, misrepresents sources, or otherwise quotes sources out of context.

I think Stephfo can become a good contributor to Wikipedia. Re-enacting the prior indefinite block would be a mistake. At this point, however, I support the view of Stepho's mentor (Alpha Quadrant) above for a temporary topic ban of areas in which Stephfo evidently has a conflict of interest, namely articles with topics that would be controversial to fundamentalist Christians (creationism, evolution, articles critical of Christianity, and so forth). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I will try to challenge you, please explain why you deem an article on Christian terrorism as NPOV -balanced, I suggest to perform a survey within project Christianity members whether they support your assumption that given article is neutral in respect to Christian views on given topic, if they will agree with you, I accept your point, otherwise you should accept mine that article is really biased. I do not know single Christian who would hold such views as presented there and it is not true that I break NPOV rules, I never ever deleted opposing opinions AFAIK but always have tried to balance them in line with NPOV policy.--Stephfo (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to engage in content disputes. Furthermore, it does not matter whether Christians feel a topic is non-neutral from their religious perspective. This is a secular encyclopedia. Being offended by some content due to your personal religion is irrelevant to editorial decisions about article content. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem I see is that the editor plainly doesn't have the English as a first language, but unfortunately has taken it as a personal attack that someone asked them about it. A good deal of the disputes seem to centre around not understanding what others are saying, and their own communications are not that great either. We could try a topic ban for a month - tell them to edit anywhere from architecture to zoology, but avoid creationism and intelligent design. I don't want to stop them creating articles - the notability hurdle seems to have eventually been got over, and they can always just use a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything said so far. His contributions to Busch and Hartnett were good ones (even if one doesn't quite meet WP:N), and I'd hate to see those sorts of contribs go, sparse as they are. On the other hand, he has a major problem communicating which is divorced from the topic area, and which seems unlikely to ever be fixed. Whether it stems from a language barrier or (more likely) competence, Stephfo has consistently shown that he simply cannot work with other editors on even the most basic of tasks. That's a problem for a collaborative project. Frankly, I would rather see him topic banned until he gains an understanding of policy (or indefinitely if coming back is too problematic) but after all we've been through, I simply cannot fathom any possible resolution than an eventual block; if topic banned, I fully anticipate these same issues will turn up everywhere he interacts with another user, and we'll be back here in no time at all. I mean, look at the "Big Bang" dispute he had with Farsight. Farsight's explanation couldn't have been clearer, but Stephfo drove him off in frustration, demanding he clarify every minor detail. His primary contribution in any topic is to frustrate and drive off productive users everywhere he goes. That's not a negligible issue.

Maybe I'm wrong. The issue may be a language barrier, exacerbated by a strong opinion on the topic, and perhaps with extensive mentoring on a neutral area, he'll improve. Perhaps a topic ban is worth a shot. However, if we go with a topic ban, it needs to be broad ("religion, science, and controversial topics"), and there needs to be an understanding that 1) his behavior thus far has been inappropriate, and 2) if it continues on other topics, he will be blocked. I have reservations on even this, since Stephfo does not yet have an understanding there even is a problem, much less what that problem is, so I can't imagine how he's going to change, but if users are willing to work with him to improve, then perhaps we can salvage a few of his positive contributions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I can read Stephfo's native language (not perfect, but well enough to follow a discussion), and the problem has nothing to do with a language barrier. Wikipedia's problems with Stephfo predate his appearence on English WP. Before he came to English WP, he had been an editor on Slovakian WP as "Steffo" since April 25, 2011. (No outing here; Stephfo clearly identifies himself as Steffo [[36]]). He edits mainly articles related to creationism, and quickly gained a reputation there for being a POV warrior. He has been repeated warned by multiple co-editors that "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It's not for making statements either of your political, religious or other views", and that his edits were disruptive [[37]] [[38]].

Stephfo's debut here on English WP involved expanding a stub that he wanted to use in a discussion on Slovakian WP. He was discovered, and the article was deleted. A copy of it and it's history remain on his user page: [[39]].

After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on Intelligent Design, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked. As one of the main editors that dealt with Stephfo at that time, I can assure you that the experience was unpleasant to the extreme. He inserted highly POV material that was essentially OR and SYNTH based on unreliable sources, and when challenged, adopted a battlefield attitude that included abundant accusations of bad faith on the part of other editors. He engaged in interminable deadhorse arguments, ignoring the responses of other editors and repeatedly demanding answers to questions that had already been answered several times, or that were completely irrelvant to the topic.

Both content-wise and behavior-wise, his editing was vastly at odds with WP policies. He ignored repeated instructions to familiarize himself with WP policies, using them solely as a source of cherry-picked quotes taken out of context to support his own POV and behavior. He never demonstrated any interest in building consensus, and consistently treated anyone that disagreed with him as an enemy that was out to get him. He wasted huge amounts of his fellow editors' time in pointless deadhorse arguments and Wikilawyering. This is what led to his eventual indefinite block.

Stephfo appealed his blocks several times, during which he demonstrated that he did not understand why he was blocked, and placing the blame on other editors. Eventually, a sympathetic editor told him to find a mentor, and having done so, successfully appealed the block with their help.

After his return, Stephfo took his mentor's advice and avoided controversial topics like creationism for EXACTLY one month before returning to the article on Intelligent Design and resuming his previous disruptive behavior. In the discussion about a change he had made and was reverted, Stephfo wrote an astounding 31 posts in only 10 hours, which demonstrates that he barely took the time to read the responses of other editors, never mind to understand them. He repeatedly demanded answers to questions which had already been explained in great detail, and his posts and edit summaries demonstrated that he holds his fellow editors in very low regard, repeatedly calling their contributions vandalism, weird, odd, or just plain dishonest.

I've only peripherally participated in that discussion, but have been dealing with Stephfo on an AfD of one of his creationism-related articles. While his behavior there has been somewhat more civil, there still have been multiple accusations of bad faith as well as Wikilawyering. The most important thing, though, is that it is patently obvious that he does not yet understand what Wikipedia is about, and what the policies mean. Not even the core policies. And I have to conclude that he has absolutely no intention to ever educate himself in this matter.

He has ignored all warnings to cease his disruptive behavior, even those of his mentor. When it seemed that he had calmed down an tacitly agreed to stay away from the Intelligent Design article, he moved on to another highly controversial article on Christian Terrorism, where he is contnuing his POV warring.

I'm sorry, but unlike Amantulic and his mentor, Alpha Quadrant, I see no hope for Stephfo ever being a constructive editor here on WP. He is by nature first and foremost a contentious POV warrior, and he has come to WP in order to pursue his own agenda. Stephfo has amply demonstrated that he is a leopard that will not, and cannot, change his spots.

I believe the reasons he gave in his last block appeal and his month-long period of "good behavior" were not sincere, especially considering that that period of good behavior lasted EXACTLY one month. His behavior indicates that his agenda is fundamentally not comaptible with Wikipedia's mission, and that he has no intention of complying with WP policies. Most of all, there has been no improvement since before his block, and no sign that he intends to improve except for self-serving reasons.

I therefore recommend that he be indefinetely blocked. I would strongly object to only a topic ban, but if one is decided upon, it must include all religion-related topics, including atheism, creationism and all areas of science relating to creationism, including biology, geology, astronomy and cosmology, very broadly construed. And it should be indefinite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You agree that the problem is that he cannot maintain a neutral point of view on this topic. If a topic ban were imposed, would that not solve the problem? As you have said, Stephfo had a productive period of editing while away from this topic. Indefinitely blocking him therefore seems a bit premature. At this point, I believe a temporary topic ban may be imposed, if anything is done about this. I don't believe that we should rule out the possibility that that as he gains experience, he could learn to edit this topic area neutrally. If after the topic ban is lifted, and he goes back to the same behavior, it could always be extended to indefinite. If after the time period he does fine in the area, then we won't need to do anything. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Alpha, but, as I said, I don't believe in the sincerity of Stephfo's one month of good behavior. I believe that during that period, he was just biding his time and itching to get back to POV warring. That is why a temporary topic ban simply will not work. The second the ban expires, Stephfo will undoubtedly resume his bad behavior. Stephfo is here on a mission, and that mission is fundamentally at odds with everything that WP strives to be. There is just no place for Stephfo in a collaborative project like WP in my view. He is far too hot-headed, rash, hasty and hostile to work with others. Even if we topic-ban him, he is eventually going to get into a dispute with other editors on non-controversial topics, and he will behave then as he has had on controversial topics. Frankly, we have spent a lot too much time indulging him and giving him second, third and fourth chances, and now you want to give him a fifth? Even after he has ignored your advice as his mentor? There is no point in chasing good money after bad anymore. Sorry, but I don't see any baby in the bathwater. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to agree with DV. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen editors with far worse behavior, who received much lighter sanctions; WikiManOne/BelloWello comes to mind. Alpha Quandrant, Stephfo's mentor, has been working with him and can best appraise the situation. If Alpha has that much faith in Stephfo--it's good enough for me. It's occasions like these where we need to trust in the mentorship system: it's here for a reason. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring works only with editors that are able to restrain themselves and consult with their mentors before making any rash moves, and then to accept the advice they receive. Stephfo is either incapable, unwilling, or both. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Stephfo is currently ignoring his mentor's advice. I don't know how a mentor is going to help when he's being ignored.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, he is following my advice. I told him yesterday to stop editing articles until this was resolved. He has heeded my advice, and has not edited since then. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask whether I have right to defend myself and react to accusations presented. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do. Please post here if you wish. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Add. “can you just back the hell off Stephfo”

As I was allowed to defend myself, I will try to use this opportunity step by step as soon as permission stays in force, even though having very limited possibilities as being on travel. I apologize as accusations are long, naturally my defense will most likely also be long, although I will try to do my best and partition it. First of all I’d like to point out that I see this ANI report in the context of following sentence: “can you just back the hell off Stephfo” [40] and this general trend at WP: [41] . I very much suggest those who accuse me of my bad English to help me with translation interpretation of this phrase, as I only manage to find Spanish explanation (I had only one semester of Spanish) and that mentions something about “a rather rude way of saying” something, possibly insult, what I would not believe my good-faith assuming fellow editor have anything to do with. I would like to say that I was participating on translation project for fund-rising (“ Your translations make the fundraiser great!”; [42]), but in light with these current trends at WP I stopped and currently I’m hesitant whether I should continue. Nevertheless, please free to judge myself independently of this fact and block me if you deem as appropriate. I”ll try to be brief:

• 1. Add. “Recently, he's begun edit warring”  Please note I was not edit warring but following WP:VAND advise: “If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it. … With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred.” If you look at reason for deletion, it states: “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead.” What is false reason in discrepancy with reality as I explained in my revert summary. Vandalism might seem to be too strong word, but I believe still the fact that user have not provided any other reason than false one fully entitled me to revert back. Imagine what most of the people trying to get me blocked here would do if I start remove their content by reasoning “this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead” even if it clearly would be there. Also Note: “Assess whether the edit was made in good faith or bad faith. If it is in good faith, it is not technically vandalism, ... If it is in bad faith, then it is vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it.” I evaluated it as bad-faith because in discrepancy with accusations the article body clearly contained this information in section “Christian attitude to terrorism” referred to as missing. Jess continues arguing that I’m allegedly edit warring but escapes discussion at talk page where the argument “I doubt you read edit summaries, if you would, you would find that there is a section named "Christian attitude to terrorism", it cannot be overlooked although I'm admitting it can be misunderstood” is clearly stated.
• 2. Add. “After that, he focused his attention on English WP, especially on the article on Intelligent Design, where his disruptive behavior led to a couple of blocks before he was eventually indefinitely blocked.”  Please note I’m not aware of any my activity on that page allegedly occurring there before my last unblock and this information is taking me by surprise. Anybody interested can verify in history of Intelligent Design edits.
• 3. Add. “Prior to bringing this issue here, I made my intentions clear, and asked him to reconsider, but instead of responding to me, he continued editing and then (presumably) logged off.” -> In reality I just went for business trip with no access to Internet.
• 4. Add.” I, his mentor, and other editors have requested that he stop editing until he can resolve these problems.” – As a matter of fact, I did stop right after reading his message about (although technically there might be one more later-stamped message given the fact I was involved in discussion and read message only afterwards) and Jess broke his word to put ANI report only if I continue editing: “This is one last request to stop… If you can't agree to do that, I plan to take this back to WP:ANI.”

To be continued later.

• 5. Add. “Now, the only correct answer to this post is "Yes, sir. I understand, and will comply". I'm not at all interested in hearing you protest, object or defend yourself anymore, nor is anyone else.” I’d like to ask dear administrators if someone would leave at talk page of theirs message like this, if their response would be “Yes, sir/Mr(s). Dominus Vobidsu, I understand, and will comply” [43]. Personally I would not deny anybody right to defend himself if we would have a dispute over any topic and I regard such denial for rude. I also had an encounter with DV after he was pushing the idea that he found “gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry” in one of my source ("I've read the paper, and it is basically gibberish, and contains gross fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC) ") but in fact refused to enlist what the alleged errors should be (“Would it be please possible to enlist the three major fundamental errors in basic biology and biochemistry you have managed to find in that text? Thanx--Stephfo (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)"). My reading of that non-collaborative attitude was (just my interpretation of attitude, not actual statement by VD): “it is not important if there are claimed problems, if I do not like it, I can state whatever I want and you have no choice but to accept it.” I wonder if it is encouraged at WP to remove article content by arguing that it contains errors but not stating a single one. Should I do the same and it will be accepted? I have nothing against VD, but experiences like this really make it hard to keep the rule on good faith and civility in mind when dealing with him. Nevertheless, I’m always able to excuse myself if I do anything wrong and I’m trying to do my best and ask for pardon if I might have harm him/her anyway. - just explanation why our relations and collaborations are so challenging.--Stephfo (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo, the behaviour that is causing difficulty is set out above. You'll see it that a number of editors have given statements. The community thinks that a topic ban as set out would be beneficial for a while, to allow you to gain editing skills in less contentious areas. Would you be prepared to consider avoiding the areas that are problematic for a while? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"set up above" is very vague term to accept that involves accusations of alleged edit warring even though I just did exactly what WP recommends to do when somebody deletes content based on a claim that is in discrepancy with reality. You would need to be more specific and explain why such things should be allowed at WP and whether you grant me the same right - to delete content from article leads by making claims "this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" even though the truth is exactly opposite. If not, I'd like to learn why there should be such double-dealing. It is also a test for your intellectual honesty - if you do not accept my crystal-clear point here, it is awkward to demand someone else to accept such vaguely defined accusations. Please, explain. Thanks--Stephfo (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo - the proplems that people are reporting are set out (not set up) above. Wikipedia does not tell you to keep reverting and call other editors vandals. It tells you to discuss the matter. It doesn't tell you to attack other editors. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for typo in set out. As for the remaining reaction, does it mean that if I do the same action as the one that I corrected, namely if I would delete from article leads parts by making declarations that "this isn't in the body, and so does not belong in the lead" even though it can be clearly demonstrated that it is there, that you will support me in doing such activities and you will try to get blocked people who will correct it after me and you will blame them for edit warring? Sounds strange to me, I apologize for any inconvenience, but I have all reasons to believe it would not be so. --Stephfo (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on whether you were trying to make a WP:POINT. N^oformation ^Talk 23:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Then please advise what would be the legitimate defence in your opinion against accusation of being EW when in my strong opinion I just corrected actions that was made based on untrue declaration. Is the only reaction the board of WP administrators can offer to me the acceptance of such false accusation? IMHO, if someone makes crystal-clear wrong accusation, it is civil to apologize, at least I normally do so when I make mistake; we are, after all, humans prone to making them, and to say "sorry, I was wrong", is not a tragedy.--Stephfo (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Add. "See this is exactly one of the main problems with your editing: I cannot understand even vaguely what you are trying to say above. I regarded for tendentious approach the requirement that I should understand the 5 voices calling for inserting reliable source presented at the article talk page on one occasion as an consensus against inserting such document[...] is not how English speakers communicate. Ultimately, you have to be able to communicate in English that people on en.wiki can understand. All the good faith in the world means nothing if you cannot have a succinct, concise conversation. Noformation"

Thanks a lot for expressing your opinion, I may try to help you out if you have difficulties to read "what [I'm] trying to say" from the given hyperlink (Pls. advise if following people having trouble to agree on the meaning of one sentence should be blocked too to get chance to improve their skills in communication so that people on en.wiki can understand them better in the future). I believe the sentence "I think it demonstrates that my wording was, perhaps, unclear. It was not intended to be of course." proves sufficiently that occasional unclear wording at en.wiki is not an extraordinary phenomenon, let alone uniquely associated just with me. Now back to your contentions point:

• "Provide reliable sources that meet QP policy requirements!!!!" -I provided, if someone disagrees I guess he/she should go for WP:RSN to find out the reliability status of Texas A&M University press, I counted VOICE #1 calling for reliable SOURCE
• "Finding sources is YOUR responsibility." -I took it as my responsibility, I counted VOICE #2 calling for SOURCE
• "do you ever intend to start editing according to policy, finding sources for your claims" -I found the required source according to wish, and counted VOICE#3 calling for finding SOURCEs
• "We have as yet no third-party source" -I did provide the 3rd-party source that, I believe, I satisfied by providing quote from Texas A&M University press that addressed all remaining concerns as well. I counted VOICE#4 calling for third-party SOURCE
• and at the same time I followed the clear advice of other editor {“Perhaps, if you add references after the content in the format that I have done in this article (with the title, publisher, original quote, etc.), your edits will not be disputed as much.“ I counted VOICE#5 calling for adding REFERENCEs
• IN TOTAL I summed up 5 VOICES (none oppose)= in my reading CONSENSUS that I should add 3rd-party reliable SOURCE, has been reached.

Now guess what was the 1st reason for my indef block:

• You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing despite previous warnings and blocks. This has included continued edit warring in the Objections to evolution article (this edit, which was made despite a consensus against including this material on the article's talk page which was reached several weeks ago)

(cf."Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. ... --Lambiam 07:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)"). At the same time, I answered the summarized concerns of others one-by-one at article talk page while numbering them and I have been waiting for 15days to see if someone might have anything against that, and then when nobody raised any opposing opinion, I performed the given edit in line with WP rule that consensus arrives with absence of objections. Please, advise what would you do differently if you were in my shoes. I personally believe that from the perspective of elementary logic, it is extremely difficult to conclude that the call for 3rd party reliable SOURCE should be understood as a consensus against including this material , but of course I do not have such rich experience as you and I naively assumed a good faith of aforementioned editors, I had no clue that they actually meant exactly opposite wrt. what they wrote. I hope this will help you to understand a bit more than vaguely what I'm trying to "say" above, and I would really appreciate a lot if you could try at least remotely answer with your extended English skills my aforementioned question raised, and especially what went wrong in my understanding, all to be explained in line with your wish to maintain succinct, concise conversation, if possible. Thanks in advance for your genuine effort to adhere to wikipedian policies. --Stephfo (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Indeffed.

The Cavalry (Message me) 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) for one month for vandalising while logged out, as well as using Somali123 (talk · contribs) as a  Confirmed sockpuppet. Somali123 is indeffed, but I'd like an opinion from the community on whether a one month block for Lucy-marie is appropriate, or whether it should be upped to indef based on the long-term disruptive history of Lucy's editing. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that based on their long history of disruptive activity, the fact that this is the second sockpuppet they've used before, and the fact that they've operated this sockpuppet since 2007, that an indef block should be considered. As a disclosure, myself and Lucy have differing views on content and indeed have in the past had an adversarial relationship, so my comments should be taken with a grain of salt, but I don't feel that I am alone in my feelings, as her talk page and archives show. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I previously blocked Lucy-marie (talk · contribs) for abusive sockpuppetry years ago, and let him/her off the hook with a final warning. The socking in question was quite disruptive, and if it's happening again, then I think it's time for an indefinite block. That said, I haven't followed this account closely over the years, so if there are mitigating factors I'd be open to hearing them. MastCell ^Talk 01:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Having looked through her and her sock's edits a bit tonight, I'm wondering why she hasn't received a formal ban or at least been indef blocked. Just from looking at User:Somali123's edits, I see disruption, vandalism (and really, calling Heather Mills a (edit) bad name is so 2009), ignoring consensus, vile racism, and distasteful ethnocentrism. If a new editor did this, he/she'd be gone in four edits, and rightly so: this editor is damaging the project. An indef block would protect the project, a formal ban even more so. --NellieBly (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

By poor man's checkuser (and the deafening quacks), 95.147.55.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is L-M. I think an indef is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block Using a bad hand sock for four years for disruption, edit warring against consensus, vandalism and BLP violations is bad enough, even ignoring the sock was created just after a month after a previous disruptive sock of Lucy-marie's had been blocked. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Advice, please?

Valoem (talk · contribs) and Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) notified. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that several months ago, a user brought back a deleted version of the Dieselpunk article. (It was deleted after a discussion last year, and shortly thereafter the page history was undeleted to assist in the creation of a viable article.) I wish I'd discovered this sooner. In the ensuing months, the article has been modified, but remains essentially the same as the deleted version. I redirected the article to correspond with the outcome of the discussions, but was reverted twice and accused of vandalism. Any thoughts on next steps? - Eureka Lott 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Start a new Afd; follow the consensus at the outcome of that Afd.AerobicFox (talk) 07:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

edit:on a side note I find it interesting that the previous deletion discussion had 9 users in favors of keeping the article and only 1 in favor of deleting, yet the article was closed as delete. I have never seen this happen, and believe that the role of an admin is to determine consensus and act according to that, and not to enforce their own interpretations against consensus, although I cannot affirm or condemn the actions here as of now because I haven't fully looked into it yet.AerobicFox (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by WP:VOTE. If it's 9 to 1 but the 1 points out that there are no reliable sources then not much else really matters. It's a core policy. N^oformation ^Talk 09:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. A remarkably strong close in the face of the usual terrible arguments for keeping fictional cruft. The current "article" is the usual parody of encyclopedic content which results when you ask WP's fictioneers to find reliable sources: a hodge-podge of self-published sources, trivial mentions and OR / SYN which looks superficially well-referenced but is as a whole no more than a user essay in the wrong namespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the "resurrector's" contributions, this seems to be a recurring theme (for instance, asking for The Devil's Tree to be moved to his userspace following an AfD and then restoring it, with no alterations, to mainspace while nobody was looking). This is a fairly blatant end-run around deletion by a user who doesn't hold the same notability standards as the rest of the community. There are likely more out there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned by the suggestion of a pattern of behaviour of bad restorations of poorly sourced contents over the results of AfDs. I would appreciate other users investigating this and reporting on this pattern of behaviour while proposing a community sanction. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I recommend immediate removal of reviewer to start ... I was about to do it myself, but figured some additional consensus might be a good idea (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You can remove it, but its not doing any harm considering that the pending changes "trial" is long over (are you perhaps confusing WP:REVIEWER with WP:AUTOPATROLLED?). Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because if I remember, REVIEWER granted the person AUTOPATROLLED, and thus removing the reviewer access would in fact remove autopatrolled as well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, reviewer never granted autopatrolled (they are completely separate userrights). Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then I have a faulty memory. Nevermind then :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at my edit history I had been on wikipedia for over 5 years. The Devil's Tree article is in fact notable and I unfortunely did not have time to fully edit the article. I had several more citations ready. I generally favor inclusionism as Wikipedia is not paper. However, you can see that I always have made strong edits and have no history of vandalism. A single edit regarding The Devil's Tree which there is disagreement is hardly the call for removal of reviewer. I do what is best for wikipedia and my edit history shows it. If you take a look at Ben Jackson (electronic sports player) article I did a full DR review when deletion was clearly not the correct answer. To remove reviewer would not only be a personal attack but clearly unfounded. Valoem ^talk 17:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with AerobicFox An appropriate action would be to hold a new AfD, because whatever happened in the intervening time, an 18 month old AfD is too stale to act on. I might not like the outcome of such an AfD (I advocated keeping the article in the first place), but I would respect it as an action according to consensus and policy. Deleting 30k articles though is vandalism, and repeating that deletion immediately it's reverted is both edit warring and vandalism.

Nor do I appreciate being threatened with immediate blocking by admin Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), who is happy to accuse others of "fairly blatant end-runs around" policy when they disagree with him, but casts a blind eye (maybe it's that pirate eyepatch) to Eureka Lott's actions. This isn't about an article (I agree, it's fancrufty, maybe it just isn't good enough to keep), it's about one editor using redirs as a shorthand for POV-deletion. That should never become how things are done, especially not when it's backed up by their friendly admins threatening to make other editors walk the plank if they disagree. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Recreation of material previously deleted at an AfD in much the same state as it was is CSD G4, and is specifically designed to avoid red tape. An 18-month-old AfD is only "stale" if there's been significant change to the content of the article, which there have most assuredly not been (the changes consist of the addition of two one-word citations and some trivial / bot cleanup). The "threat" issue is orthogonal to this: you (twice) misused Twinkle to make anti-vandalism rollback of an edit which wasn't vandalism, and a user talk warning is a standard response to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Then why didn't Eureka Lott use CSD G4, rather than a summary deletion? CSD is rapid, but it isn't instant - it still allows for challenge and review, because we're supposed to work here by a collegiate process, not individual fiat.

Your claim that vandalism stops being vandalism provided that the deleter puts an "I've deleted this" message on the talk page afterwards is ludicrous. The purpose is not to make an audit trail, we have page histories for that, the purpose is to support action as a cohesive group. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Because redirecting =/= deletion. With a redirect, the article history remains. With deletion, it does not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• As an aside to those claiming that Dieselpunk is a non-notable WP:MADEUP, the page view stats are a pretty healthy 10k/month. Not bad going for a non-subject. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an Alexa 10 site. Any large piece of content on it will bubble up through Google like lava. That's why page hit count is a bogus indicator of notability (which != popularity), something which you already know through your extensive history of these debates at AfD, and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand (a user unilaterally undoing the result of at least two AfDs, and an editor misusing Twinkle to support that action). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Just as a comment...since Dieselpunk is a valid term, if perhaps not a valid article yet, maybe instead of outright deletion a bold redirect to Cyberpunk derivatives#Dieselpunk (where it is reasonably discussed) might be in order? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
      • That's precisely what I tried to do. Prior to its recreation, the page redirected to that section for more than a year. - Eureka Lott 16:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Then it should be reverted to that and protected, perhaps? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
          • That would be fine with me. It can be unprotected if somebody creates a draft that meets WP:V. - Eureka Lott 20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
            • This is an article with 61 cites on it already. Now even if 90% of those weren't up to the standards of WP:RS, that would still be enough to support an article. Please don't discuss this as if it's our usual othercrap and is "obviously" non-notable, as if it warrants deletion and protection without further chance of debate. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
              • It's exactly "our usual othercrap". The 61 cites are either one-word references (as likely to be influence by WP validating the term "dieselpunk" as anything else; no different from any xckd neologism) or OR / SYN which doesn't mention the subject at all. But regardless, this is not a do-over. The right result here is a redirect; should that be undone again without significant reason to believe things have changes, said redirect should be protected. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "page hit count is a bogus indicator of notability" No, as of the latest pronouncement from WMF (ask Malleus, he will explain it so much more forcefully than I can), page hit count is now to be the primary driver of WP editing effort. Those who work on minor topics are mere "dabblers" or even worse "star collectors". 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am renewing my bid for a new AfD after looking up this topic more. I want a chance at discussion which was previously denied due to the unexpected deletion closure of a snow keep AfD. I won't mind a similar thing occurring again if it must, but I want a chance to weigh in and for others to as well as I believe there are legitimate reasons for keeping this article.AerobicFox (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Then make a userspace copy of the article and improve it so that the deletion rationale no longer holds. "Another chance" is a totally wrong approach here, given that this was an almost uniquely strong AfD closure in light of "snow" keeps of absolutely no weight; most admins would have given in to the weight of numbers no matter how useless the arguments to keep were (hint: they all were). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  The deletion rationale has not been proven to hold because it has not been discussed because the last one was closed prematurely without a discussion of many points.

1. One editor described this as getting the appearance of "something made up in school".
   • That is indeed what the WP:GNG are supposed to prevent, but that is not the case here. A web magazine(formerly a print magazine) dedicated to it exists. There exist many dedicated dieselpunk groups around the world including Russia, Germany, Spain, Canada, Australia, etc. The presence of it in many reliable sources on Google scholar is evidence of its accepted use, although I cannot read the many different language ones so I don't know if they go into depth or not.
2. For instance, I don't believe any of the games in "Dieselpunk and the gaming industry" have in fact been classified as dieselpunk by their creators or by reviewers writing in reliable sources.
   • "“Bioshock 2” (PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360) • The diesel-punk-inspired sequel to 2007’s best first-person shooter", Salt Lake Tribune, the largest circulating newspaper in Salt Lake city
   • Sine Mora has been widely called a dieselpunk game, from Grasshopper Unveils Diesel-Punk Shooter, the Escapist, and A Diesel-Punk Shoot’em Up? Sure, Why Not., Kotaku. The direct himself has stated so "Theodore (Reiker), the director, has a very solid idea about the animations ... he wants to create the game with a Diesel Punk style."
   • Bright Hub is also a reliable source, and it has described many of these games as dieselpunk as well as discussed the differences between steampunk and dieselpunk.

There are two points that can be easily addressed, the bottom one though couldn't even be responded to since it was the admins closing statement. I suppose it would be less disruptive though to just wait until there is more coverage and its notability more clear, so I will wait until then.AerobicFox (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You're making the depressingly common mistake of assuming that because a green bus appears in 4576356 different Saturday morning kids' TV shows, green buses are notable even if there is literally no direct analysis of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Douglas Adams, and the philosopher who proved black was white, only to be killed on the next zebra crossing. Yes, you have conclusively disproved the existence of green buses. It's still not a good idea to go for a sleep in the road outside the bus stop.

Dieselpunk exists. People write about it, 10k readers a month come here looking for it. Whilst high quality standards are a great thing, and it's possible that Wikipedia needs to hang up that sign saying, "Sorry, Wikipedia has so far failed to produce an article on dieselpunk that we can be proud of", sitting here pontificating in a pirate hat about how "Dieselpunk doesn't exist" is that same ridiculous old fallacy that WP defines existence, rather than the other way round. The more vehemently you claim this, the more ridiculous WP looks, and the more detached from reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're at the same time missing and proving the point I'm making. Of course green buses exist. People see them all the time! But if nobody says anything about them other than "they are buses, and they are green", then we can't write an encyclopedia article on them. Nobody has been able to come up with anything in the way of direct references to dieselpunk which say anything other than "it's steampunk shifted forward a hundred years", and "X film resembles dieselpunk". Is it a distinct subject, separate from steampunk (which does have plenty of direct analysis) to the extent that we can write an article on it? Not that anyone has proven. And hence, a footnote in steampunk is a perfectly adequate treatment of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I seems absurd to argue the merits of an article here: these discussions should be offloaded as soon as possible to AfD. It is much more productive to argue there on the merits than to argue here on whether or not int was close enough to the previous version to merit a speedy. Perhaps we need to revise G4, to say within the last year. Consensus can change. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The AfD has already run its course. The DRV did not overturn it. Nobody could honestly argue that this represents a significant enough change to the article that G4 doesn't apply. As suggested above, editors who believe this content can be salvaged are encouraged to request it be userfied and work on it outside of articlespace. Leaving it where it is sends a clear message to editors that they can simply ignore AfDs they don't like and then edit war with those attempting to undo that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Those arguing most vehemently to delete the article are also those most opposed to an AfD. Their line is to delete it, to salt it, and to block anyone who disagrees. Just what are they scared of? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Re-running the AfD simply encourages editors to repeat this chain of activities (to wit: ignore the AfD and DRV, recreated the deleted article exactly as it was, edit war over its removal, and demand a re-run) every time an AfD doesn't go their way. We don't want to encourage that. There's a path out of this (userfication, improvement, nomination for a move of the new version back to articlespace) which bypasses this drama and does not explicitly support disruptive activity. One might, to invert your rhetorical trick, wonder what "scares" anyone about that suggestion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• There's no way a new AFD is warranted, the only thing needed is for the redirect to be enforced by page protection. Look at the history involved here:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk in 2005 resulted in delete
  • A speedy deletion in 2008 was overturned at DRV to relist at AFD
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (2nd nomination) was the AFD in question, and resulted in delete
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dieselpunk (3rd nomination) in 2010 resulted in delete
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 14 endorsed that result
• Nothing has really changed in the article since the end of the last AFD. Every time this article, or prior versions of it, has gone to community discussion the result has been the same - delete. So why do we need to waste more time with this? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • I had restore the article on the basis that there were no reliable sources when in actuality I discovered 5 sources which were academic in nature. There are many more sources on the internet and this article is in no way cruft. I posted those sources on the talk page as reasoning for my bold restore. Valoem ^talk 17:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Note I have declined the speedy G4, since the DRV result was, while listed as "support" actually a redirect result. For that reason either the page should become a redirect again, or, if the criteria for an article to exist there are met, an article. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC).
  

HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This discussion is unlikely to produce any actionable result in this forum. Closing per multiple requests to do so. --Jayron32 06:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

In nearly five years of editing here on Wikipedia, I don't think I've every actually brought somebody to ANI. But I feel compelled to do so now. There has been a long and contentious discussion going on over at Talk:Pregnancy relative to the lead image. In September, an RfC ended with no-consensus. ("If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion.")

Everybody, including HiLo felt the original RfC was poorly executed/run. The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. [...] I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. HiLo48 24 October 2011 Yet, even acknowledging that the first RfC was a disaster, he chooses to use it as the primary reason not to discuss the subject further. According to him, further discussion is not allowed and any arguments presented should be "deleted" because the "umpire" declared that no-consensus existed.

Well after the first RfC ended, another RfC was opened. I initially didn't like the new RfC so close on the heels of the original, but during over a months worth of discussion, have changed my mind. Numerous new arguments/positions have been added. But HiLo refuses to acknowledge them because according to him we had a "perfectly good" decision already---no-consensus. Since I've chosen to take an active role in this RfC, he now accuses me (and anybody else who posts) of bad faith. He's been insulting and refuses to discuss the issue. I think his own words summarize why he should be topic banned:

• Since the new RfC began I have actually not debated the merits of any of the images. (Surely you've noticed that!) So I haven't said anything about liking any picture. I have certainly discussed censorship. Too many people here seem keen on that.[44]

HiLo has declared that his role is to "persist in highlighting" the bad faith editing by poor losers. He has also declared, "Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't." In other words, compromise is not an option and that he will hold dogmatically to his stance regardless of the process. HiLo refuses to acknowledge any argument that does not conform to his own position. When presented with an argument, he accuses the editor of bad faith and being motivated by conservatism or "anti-breast" campaign. He holds firmly to the mistaken notion since the closing admin of the first RfC found no consensus, that the first RfC "which DID NOT convince the closing admin that the image should change, all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision." This week he declared, "I have not initiated ANY discussions. I reserve my right to treat garbage posts with contempt, as should you." Garbage posts, based on his comments are any that come from the "anti-breast" "conservative" camp---which is how he views anybody who wants to move the image.

Beyond that I want to give you a taste of his contributions to the discussion. He "strongly believe[s] everything [he] have posted on that page"[45]

Rather than discussing the issues, he assaults the character of the people who post contrary positions. He regularly called people "prudes", "stupid", "irrational conservatism", "bad faith editing", "unethical", "poor ethics" etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America 19:54, 17 November 2011 so why post such rubbish? Your post is pointless 07:48, 10 November 2011 I find debates with people who say stupid things very frustrating 19:51, 17 November 2011 Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. H 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (emphasis his) But, if no good reason for a new RfC is presented, it will just be bad faith editing by poor losers and I will persist in highlighting that (not time stamped but between Nov 16 and 17) (emphasis added) You clearly don't, and won't, get it. It's not worth explaining such matters to people so obsessed. I will not waste my time. 02:40, 13 November 2011 Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011 I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.) No, the reason for the current RfC is that a number of unethical editors on the conservative/censorship side could not accept the umpire's decision ... Having supporters with such poor ethics does not say much for the merits of the case. 07:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC) My views haven't changed, and they don't disappear just because some people here don't have a life. HiLo48 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

HiLo regularly makes assumptions of bad faith, according to him anybody who participated in the RfC acted in bad faith. Here are 9 examples of him calling the edits of others bad faith because they disagreed with him
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote) There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.} I'm just glad I at least occasionally had the time to come here and point out the bad faith behaviour of those failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:50, 13 November 2011 People ONLY interested in the good of this article and Wikipedia would not behave in such bad faith. But people pushing a POV through unethical means would. 06:45, 14 November 2011 all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision. 06:23, 14 November 2011 I actually love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play within the rules. 04:18, 17 November 2011 (Note---According to him, anybody who is debating the issue now is not playing within the rules.) And any editor who has used this second RfC to argue against the image in the lead has acted in bad faith. 20:03, 14 November 2011 (This includes any editor who joins the discussion now.) I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) I usually like to think that people will behave more ethically, but this page has proven me wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

He falsely believes that the only reason why people might want to change the image is because they find it morally offensive, are conservative prudes, and want to censor the lead image. The reality is that many of the arguments are based around other issues, but he has declared that he will not be swayed. That moving the image is censorship and he won't even consider it. Here are several examples of his proudly declaring that he will not budge, compromise, or listen to what others have to say:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship. 29 October 2011 Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't. 23:55, 29 October 2011 Any deadlock here has been created by the pro-censorship crew seeking action that breaches Wikipedia guidelines 23:24, 29 October 2011 What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards. HiLo48 19:57, 30 October 2011 If you cannot tell us what your real problem is with nudity in this context, you're not being honest. 23:25, 21 November 2011

Rather than discussing the subject, over 20 of his posts are centered around why any current discussion should be summarily discarded out of hand as we already had a "perfectly good decision" (which was "no consensus").
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011 Pointless RfC, [...] It will be a failure of process. And bad behaviour by that admin. I do not intend to comment again 22 October 2011 That reinforces my point that this would then be an RfC decided on the basis of who shouts the loudest and most often 23 October 2011 everything posted since that earlier RfC up until now should now be struck out, 10 November 2011 Please just note that the minds here that won't be changing include those who refused to accept the result of the RfC a month ago 30 October 2011 And we already have an RfC result confirming that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2011 We already have an RfC result confirming that there is nothing wrong with the current picture. HiLo48 07:51, 10 November 2011 (Note* the first RfC did not make that conclusion, only that there was no consensus to move.) No acceptable reason has ever been presented for commencing a new RfC so soon after the first. HiLo48 18:42, 10 November 2011 There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. Wait, didn't I say that just above? HiLo48 04:25, 17 November 2011 There was an RfC decision a month ago. To re-open discussions so soon shows very poor faith. 07:44, 8 November 2011 There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011 Absolute rubbish. It gives legitimacy to nothing. It demonstrates that some editors will do anything, with no regard to rules and principles, to get what they want. And please subtract from your total of 200K any posts like mine and Desources' saying this should not be occurring. HiLo48 20:02, 8 November 2011 We don't need a new decision. We had a perfectly good one a month ago. Some people didn't like it. HiLo48 23:42, 6 November 2011 We have a decision. No justification has been presented for requiring another one so soon, apart from not liking the one we have. 02:59, 8 November 2011 No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon. 03:13, 8 November 2011 That may or may not be true, but to totally ignore the impartial decision of an independent arbiter, just because it didn't go your way, shows incredibly bad faith. It means that Wikipedia judgements are likely to lean in the direction preferred by those without a life who are able to spend virtually unlimited time here pushing POV here without fair and due process. 19:02, 9 November 2011 Nothing posted since that most recent, completed RfC should count for anything. It should all probably be deleted. 22:09, 13 November 2011 [A long tirade on the RfC] 00:40, 14 November 2011 No amount of time is appropriate. This RfC is an abuse of process. The fact that it was started immediately after the closure of the last one showed an incredible absence of good faith 06:58, 25 November 2011

If he did more than impugn the motives of others, he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument. Since somebody might be offended by any picture, then the logical course is to leave the one that we know has offend some.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people are offended by bare skin. What you really should have said is "To satisfy MY cultural biases, we should use Image 1." 02:05, 8 November 2011 And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ( There are some conservative groups that will object to almost any bare flesh. Every proposal here is still going to offend somebody. 1 November 2011 This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter 20:13, 25 November 2011

This is not the first time this issue has been raise. At least 10 other editors have called him out on his behavior and failure to adhere to the basics of civil discourse here at WP. I personally think civility blocks are ridiculous, but when a person brags that their purpose is not to let others win, to stand up to them, and regularly impugns others rather than discussing the issue. And when 10+ people on at least 14 different occassions tell him that he is out of line, then it is getting a little ridiculous.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(his talkpage) I look forward to seeing this case go to arbcom so that I can see you and others taken to task for disregarding consensus, encouraging a battleground atmosphere and engaging in edit warring, and for failing to compromise or promote alternatives to your disputed, obsessive demand that we insert a single disputed image into an article against the complaints of multiple parties. Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2011 (his talkpage) It may be time for you to step back from the Pregnancy discussion. This is grossly inappropriate behaviour. Why not fold your arms for a few days and see what the hundreds (?) of other volunteers, many even more experienced and some possibly even as sensible as you, come up with, without your constant badgering Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2011 Are you going to badger everyone that doesn't agree with you? Where have I said that the nude image was unacceptable? I was agreeing with WAID's excellent reasoning. You need to take a step back, you are taking this far too personally. AIRcorn (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) The discussion is already tedious enough. Please don't start trolling it.[7] Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2011 Come off it HiLo, your badgering and cheap shots are starting to border on disruptive.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 17:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) There is no good reason for you, or for that matter, anyone else to impugn the motivations of others and at the same time introduce unverifiable personal accusations against others. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (his talkpage) It seems that you must be urged once again to desist in your refusal to deal with any matters of substance and your repeated stating of unsupported personal assumptions regarding the opinions and motivations of others. In doing so, you are violating the standards of acceptable behavior. I very, very seriously urge you to review and abide by talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (his talkpage) Anyway, please knock it off with the "ethics" and "conservative" baiting. If you're truly unhappy with the RfC results, you should start a new RfC, not attack the people who participated in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 HiLo48, would you leave off the "conservative" and "pro-censorship" schtick already? Herostratus (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2011 . But you have stepped far past the line. And you still have to answer my question about RfC's above.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC HiLo/Powers, your language is all about us and them and how they must not be allowed to win. It has no place in a reasonable discussion where folk respect other people's opinions when they differ from your own. You've lost the bigger picture Colin°Talk 11:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) your only objection to this image is that it lets them win and that that their behaviour is thus not only unpunished but appears to have been successfully rewarded, then please please let it go. Colin°Talk 16:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC) I assume you're frustrated but I don't think we can make blanket statements about the editors here. Olive 20:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)) Yeah, can you stop with the personal attacks against Balloonman, and others?--v/r - TP 21:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC) I once again urge the above editor to act according to WP:AGF and not make unsubstantiated allegations regarding the motivations of others, or make remarks which may well seem more incendiary than productive. John Carter 21:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia is not your battleground against the forces of conservatism. You have swamped this page and, from what my watch list tells me, at least one policy page in your crusade. Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 27 November 2011

In closing I want to quote the post I made at 17:47, 19 November 2011:

Perhaps that is why I have found you to be particularly unhelpful in this thread... all you seem to do A) Whine about how this issue was decided (via a no-consensus) !vote in the previous discussion B) attack others for bad faith and other reasons, and C) whine about censorship without actually addressing the issues presented. You've added the most to this discussion without adding anything of benefit.

If he actively engaged in constructive dialog regarding the image, I would not be here... but he has drawn a line in the sand and has declared that anybody who posts on the subject is doing so in bad faith and should be ignored. He has not added a constructive comment relative to the discussion, he merely criticizes the current discussion and anybody who partakes in it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: It should be noted, that I waited until the RfC was closed before filing this ANI report, lest he accuse me of arguing in bad faith.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing much I can add here. It's not as if you were the only one who noticed the problem.

Your post was full of asterisks where one would have expected colons. I fixed that to make it easier to read. Hans Adler 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had written it with colons to start every quote, but realized that was hard to read when I posted it here... so I did a find/replace in NotePad to make them asterisks... guess, that didn't work ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad there was such a negative reaction to the nude photo, which was beautiful and harmless. And it's hard to figure why Wales got involved with this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear your opinion on the images but that's not what the AN/I is about. It is also not about the totally uncontroversial close of an RfC by an admin (who happens to be Jimbo Wales). Let's not make additional drama here please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. What an ungracious win on a Sole Flounder decided RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo, this isn't about the way the RfC was closed or about the image itself, but rather about HiLo's behavior during the discussion. If he contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way, other than to impugn the motives of people who commented, then I would not have opened this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the RFC, it's about your fee-fees being hurt - we get it. Show a little compassion for someone that put a lot of heart and soul into a project that he believed was an egalitarian, free, uncensored attempt to broaden the world's knowledge who, found that when the curtain was peeled back, it wasn't quite as egalitarian, wasn't quite as free and wasn't quite as uncensored as he thought it was. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the evidence I do want to say that I find responses like this entirely unhelpful. People need to realize that it is behavior that is or is not problematic not intentions. Surely good intentions can mitigate the response the community has to problematic behavior, but first we need to determine if the behavior was problematic or not. So Hipocrite, while I appreciate your reading of the intentions and emotions involved here it simply doesn't convince me to dismiss the complaint, which appears to be your aim. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "complaint" is more like a novella. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Side comment. On pregnancy there were two alternatives: either keep the image in the lede; or move it further down in the article to a more appropriate place swapping it for the other image of the lady in blue. The image has been deleted and not moved; presumably someone can fix that. As for topic bans, I think that is a more general issue with several users, providing too much unconstructive and disruptive input on images (mostly on pregnancy and Muhammad). I am not sure that can necessarily be decided here, although it's worth a try.

While not disputing Balloonman's evidence, could he please find a more condensed way to present it? At the moment it is tl;dr. Perhaps a summary with details collapsed for readability? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SF certainly reviewed the RFC when closing it as replace one image with another, remove replaced image entirely, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's supposedly at 26 weeks, so I placed it in the second-trimester section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It should not be removed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I went back and hatted all of the quotes/supporting evidence. The key points are now highlighted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two. I was just going to collapse all the evidence in one collapse box, but your way works just as well. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidence would be a lot more condensed if OP didn't split/duplicate single posts and place them into different categories. For example:

1. And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote)
2. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011

• These are part of a response to Balloon: "And that is a bad faith post. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants, for several reason, least of which is that there was no reason for it to even start... "-10 November 2011

1. Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011
2. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.}

• These two lines are also both from a single response to Balloon: "Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision." HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.)
2. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
3. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• All from one 3-line post "OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?" HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are more. If we just deleted the duplicated lines and merged the different lines back into their original post then all of this evidence could be shrunken down and be more manageable. Balloon, considering you have spent weeks arguing over the finer points of syntax and the importance of the context wherein you place things I find it more than dubious that you would split a single post into multiple lines, taking them out of their original, intended context, and place them into separate, unrelated categories, and I feel it's hypocritical that you condemn his distrust of your motives for only caring about the subtext/placement of the image while you distrust his motives for editing on the talkpage. Also, if you are going to omit a line from the middle of a quote then you should place an ellipsis(...) in between the two lines your using to indicate that there is omitted content in between them.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• My only comment here is that my behavior at Talk:Pregnancy was not above reproach and my comments to HiLo should be taken with plenty of bad faith because that was how they were intentioned and made. I made several comments to be WP:POINTY and to cause some editors, including HiLo, to retaliate. Not my finest moments, but I want to clarify so HiLo isn't judged on issues he may have been provoked by me.--v/r - TP 15:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban - To put it bluntly, I'm astonished that this user has a clean block log after all this time. The examples presented above are unacceptable and should not be tolerated from any editor. And, sorry, but there's no way that sheer mass of examples is all a result of baiting by TParis. But most importantly, this is not just an issue on that talk page, where people are provoking each other and things are getting heated, it's part of an overall pattern of incivility, bad faith accusations and otherwise inappropriate comments (which can be easily seen just by scanning their talk/user talk contribs). I've also witnessed disruption on the part of this user at ITN/C, which led to a topic ban proposal against them in August. The proposal received unanimous support, but was never formally closed or put into effect. Anyway, it's absolutely time we do something about this editor, and if kicking them off the Pregnancy talk page is the first (and hopefully last) step, I'm firmly in support of that. Swarm ^X 18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. My turn. I won't say much. Despite insulting predictions to the contrary, I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have, even though I am disappointed by it, largely because it is clear and simple. Obviously Balloonman doesn't like my style, and I don't much like his, but I actually regard many of the things for which he has criticised me as positives. Unlike others, I have been completely consistent and honest in my position on both the process and the choice of image here. I do suspect the real motives of most of those wanting the nude image removed or moved. I doubt if some realise what is really driving their position. But I will no longer fight that fight. I am not from the same culture as most of those arguing for hiding the nude image. I know that means that my style doesn't always fit the "don't upset anyone" approach that they believe we must ALL follow. I am happy to accept different styles of behaviour, and admit that I do enjoy vigorous debate. I hope that is never stifled here at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked in to the evidence but personally I would be be mildly opposed to a ban at this time. The RFC just closed, let's see how everyone including HiLo48 moves on from there after a week or two. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic is already heated enough from both sides, and since I have issues with this ANI being used as a coatrack of incivilty by HiLo I will bring forth similar behavior by Balloon:

".... Speaking as a sample of one, the thought of natural childbirth never, really never, even crossed my mind till you raised it. I hav to agree with LO. Sorry 'bout that, mate! JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)"

"Wow, can you be any less eloquent in your rationale."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "it expresses one more thing; that pregnancy is also a state of mind"? WTF? Pregnancy is a state of mind? Please show that to me in a medical journal?
• "Now that is pure rubbish... your argument is strictly WP:ILIKEIT."
• "HiLo has essentially admitted that he is not contributing to the discussion on the merits of the image. His contributions are nothing more than 1) this is censorship 2) this was already decided ergo everybody who contributes to the discussion now is doing so in bad faith, and 3) making snide comments about users and their motives. He has added the most to this debate while adding the least amount of merit."

The whole debate on that page just circles around, escalating in tension with each loop. The appropriate response to such circumstances is not to ban/block the first editor to cross the line, that will only escalate tension, generate distrust, and promote back-handed "civil" attacks on other editors while avoiding outright incivility. The correct response should be to try to cool down tensions on both sides, and not just comments on Hilo's talkpage such as "Please don't start trolling". Imagine the circumstances of an editor who is being singled out for incivility that they feel is justified, while others are being similarly uncivil but not receiving such criticism; when this type of one-sided criticism occurs there is a very reasonable and foreseeable possibility of your criticisms being viewed as a dishonest way to attack those who disagree with them, and not a genuine attempt to cool down tensions. Instead a promise to cool down yourself as well, an assumption of good faith, an apology for any misunderstandings, and a sincere request to remove hostility between you two would have been a much preferable path.

Balloonman, there is much you can do to be aware of your own actions and responses to editors, and how that affects the discussion as a whole. You frequently dismiss all the arguments made by the other side as WP:ILIKEIT and having nothing more than WP:NOTCENSOR as an argument, this will no doubt increase the likeliness of receiving uncivil comments. Your rhetoric at times makes it seem as though you are attempting to establish yourself as some sort of quasi-impartial outsider figure; this can make you difficult to work with as you portray accusations of you having a POV as baseless and uncivil, yet you feel fully justified to frequently accuse all those in favor of the image as solely promoting their own POV. The natural outcome of repeated confrontations with people will be misunderstandings, incivility, etc, these are not licenses to dismiss, ostracize or alienate editors, but are something you must accept and work against by demonstrating good faith, because that is the only way that a discussion will move forward. Turning the other cheek and assuming good faith is a requirement for having any chance of making an ongoing dispute productive, there is no threshold of civility that you must maintain up to, but not beyond, civility is something that must be exercised whenever the need arises even if you feel it is more then you should be required to maintain. An ANI discussion won't result in an editor you're having trouble with just being whisked away, it will likely make both parties look bad, bring upon lengthy/nonconstructive arguments about avoidable things, and result in more difficulties with future dealings with said editor who will likely not go anywhere from an ANI. As it stands this ANI is inappropriate at this time.AerobicFox (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF you are missing a couple of key points:

First, if a person posed an argument, I either addressed the argument or ignored it. HiLo takes pride in the fact that he didn't address the merits of the images. HiLo boasted that his role was simply to prevent compromise and to prevent the otherside from winning. This is not an attitude conducive to wikipedia.

Second, yes, I attacked ideas and posts. If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it shows that pregnancy is a state of mind, then you need to be prepared to support that notion (last I checked it isn't so having an image that shows it is, is not a valid argument.) If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it is the "best illustration... conveys so much emotional and human impact... sterile image... beautiful... meaningful...transcends the actual photo." Then I'm going to call it rubbish and decry it as ILIKEIT. Attacking ideas and positions is one thing. Accusing everybody who posted of acting in bad faith and having low morals/ethics... which HiLo did on a repeated basis... is a different story. He didn't attack ideas/posts, he attacked people. I could live with his attacking ideas/positions, but he didn't attack people for what they said, but rather because they said anything.

Like I said, if he were actually to have discussed the issue, I would not have come here. Hell if he hadn't boasted that he hadn't contributed to the actual discussion I might not have come here. Instead he chose to make his argument based upon making ad hominem attacks against anybody who posed an argument in favor of moving/removing the image. A handful of comments going back several archives, does not equate to the scores of quotes.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon."
• "There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011"

I don't why you think HiLo was unjustified in making comments like these against starting another RfC a month after another one when no significant change has occurred. Many of these comments aren't even impolite, "Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship," "What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards."; I have never seen such harmless quotes brought to an ANI before.

• "And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ("

Why have you characterized this as "he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument.", this is a perfectly valid argument.

• "I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?"

Your description of this "He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt), is extremely odd, he is not stating he is only there to disrupt. In fact, you have characterized him as stating he is only there to disrupt several times, but I have yet to see any evidence of him stating as much. Reading through many of these quotes I am feeling that you are taking way too much in bad faith on his part. While a handful of these quotes are concerning with their accusations of bad faith and dishonesty the majority of these are completely harmless, and indeed all of this could be handled much better.AerobicFox (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF, out of over 50+ edits, you pick a few... but let's see... the quote on the 18 was in reference to an issue that had been explicitly explained to him on numerous occassions PRIOR to his making this statement (look up the section where I talked about constructing a film/book/article with a controversial opening and explained how shocking events/scenes can be built up to and thus become acceptable---which he was involved in and is only one occassion of explaining this principle.) Rather than address the new argument/point, he routinely said, "No new evidence/arguments." As for disruption... when you brag that you haven't discussed the merits of any of the images and that you have drawn a line in the sand. That is disruption. When you routinely accuse others of bad faith for presenting an argument, then start saying that anybody who is participating in the RfC has low morals and ethics. That is trolling/disruptive.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban. I don't like his style in any of that discussion and he's pretty annoying in it at times, but I do not think it's at all within policy to topic ban him for the tone in which he asserted his point. The most bothersome aspect of HiLo's behavior is the badgering. HiLo is perfectly free to declare that he will not budge in his position or to muse about motives. The only grounds here I would see for a ban is if the continued reassertion of his position crosses over to disruptive (not just annoying), meaning that it keeps others from having the discussion. Some may say that line's been crossed. That's fine; that's a reasonable disagreement and grounds for a ban. But I do not think it's reasonable to ban based on "civility" or bad faith. It would be ironic if WP:AGF became a ban bludgeon. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Civility is perfectly suitable grounds for which to ban someone. We have a policy against it for a reason. We can't have people acting like that in a collaberative community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's more nuanced than that. Our policy says "Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." We block for the disruption or the attack, not for the incivility. In the same way we strive to have proper spelling and grammar in articles we strive to have civility in discussion. We don't block for misspellings (I'd be gone a long time ago if we did that). We do block if I go through and purposefully mispell.
  It's perfectly fine to say he's been disruptive, therefore needs to be banned/blocked. But taking administrative action due to his tone is unacceptable.
  I also am unconvinced that bans/blocks like this do anything to increase the level of civility. That's an issue of culture on Wikipedia; an issue not helped by extending battles onto ANI or bringing out the threat of ban. That's why I think it's critical that the touchstone of all administrative action needs to be around disruption, and I think longstanding policy backs me up on this point. It's my informal impression but I notice more calls for action based in incivility now than before. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support some action I took part in the discussion briefly and immediately encountered Hilo and find the characterization above to be quite accurate. It was quite obvious from the start that Hilo was not there to constructively discuss anything. They often ran around in circles, ducked direct repeated questions, and claimed evidence they never provided, all while hurling insults, misdirecting and making false characterizations. Having not encountered Hilo previously, that I can recall, it becomes a question of whether or not this behaviour was limited to Pregnancy or if this is a general editing style on the part of Hilo. The fact that Hilo sees this as positive behaviour in a community is fairly troubling, and gives me no hope that the behaviour won't continue. At the least I'd support a block until the community can be assured that the disruptive behaviour won't be repeated, and clarification can be given as to whether this is a localized issue or indicative of a greater problem with their editing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• I had actually intended to bring a proposal to block or ban of HiLo48 on the grounds of his abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground. My apologies if any of the following is redundant.:

HiLo48 has been abusing Wikipedia as a battleground, waging ideological warfare and attempting to "win" and "beat" the other side. The strident rhetoric is part and parcel of the partisan battle. Some examples from Talk:Pregnancy include

• • Yes, I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is it so important to hide nipples? Is it an instruction from God? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And there is a point where your argument goes right off the rails. If the picture is offensive, how can it possibly be OK for people to encounter it as they scroll through the article? Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • John Carter - you have failed to state the fundamental argument against the existing image. It is "I CAN SEE HER BREASTS!!!!!" This is often acompanied by comments to the effect that "It doesn't bother me but there are some people I believe it will bother." This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter. It is NOT an argument that says there is anything wrong with the image. Breasts have never hurt anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not here to cooperate with those who want to move Wikipedia towards Conservapedia. So shoot me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No That's NOT an acceptable step. It's a win to the conservatives and censors. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Sets the wrong tone" Eh? That'a almost laughable. What discussion are you looking at?It's such a culturally loaded, "I don't like it", pro-censorship statement. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is not sexual. It hurts nobody. This MUST be an issue concerning your conservative values. It can be nothing else. And that means you want censorship, which I will continue to aggressively oppose when it is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And this gem From a related dispute on WT:What Wikipedia is Not: Some very popular reliable sources, particularly from the Murdoch stable, feature Page Three girls. A link from that article takes me to The Sexiest 100 Page 3 girls. Breasts and nipples everywhere! I suspect these would be unacceptable in conservative parts of the USA, but are obviously OK in the UK and other countries where they exist. It's impossible to declare a clear, single community standard on this stuff. Do the conservatives really want to ban from Wikipedia material that is commonly published in the daily press? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also numerous and wild accusations of bad faith that I have not bothered to catalog here.

While not nearly the sole culprit, HiLo48 has been ratcheting up the rhetoric throughout this entire (and rather foolish in my opinion) dispute. The pervasive disrespect he's shown others has poisoned the editing environment and corroded the quality of the discussion and the Pregnancy article as a result.

It is my opinion that this behavior is grounds for an indefinite block for disruptive editing in his abuse of [WP:BATTLE|Wikpedia as a battleground]]. If I was not involved myself, I would do that now that now. In the alternative, I suggest something lengthy, around 2 weeks, or a six month topic ban from Talk:Pregnancy and "censorship" related policy discussions. --Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I make no comment as to the appropriateness of sanctioning any other user on any side of the discussion. It was widely ugly with a lot of bad behavior. HiLo48 in my opinion, stands out, but I am open to further action, including against myself if needed.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I looked briefly at Talk:Pregnancy a long time ago when the fuss started, but have not followed it, and have only quickly skimmed the long discussion above. However, this comment by HiLo48, which includes "I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have", may be a statement of intention to back away. Perhaps if HiLo48 were to clarify that, this discussion could be closed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm unusual here, but I when I post something I try to choose my words carefully so that what I say is EXACTLY what I mean. I am not backing away. I am accepting the umpire's decision. This is entirely consistent with a point I have repeatedly made throughout this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you routinely assumed bad faith on those with whom you disagreed. You routinely said that people who commented had low morals/ethics/and operated out of bad faith. Rather than discuss the issues, you chose to make it a battlefield and make blanket statements about everybody who had commented----if that isn't the epitome of trolling then I don't know what is? There was no way to discuss issues with you because you assumed bad faith and refused to recognize any position based upon a previous RfC which was closed as "No Consensus"---and if somebody pointed out that the previous RfC was "No Consensus" you accused them of not representing the truth and distorting the closing admins statement (which clearly said no consensus.) Like I said, in 5 years on WP, I have never opened an ANI case against anybody, but your behavior and desparaging remarks against everybody who posted does not epitomize somebody who was on the page to discuss the subject---but rather to disrupt.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a failure to communicate happening here. You are seemingly not understanding what I am saying. (And much of what I said on the page we're discussing.) You're certainly not responding to the actual words I say. (At least as I intend them to be read.) Maybe I don't understand all of your points either. As I said earlier, it's obvious that we come from different cultures. If you cannot for some reason respond to what I actually say here, there is not point in me continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever acrimony was on the original talk page, it's clearly spilled over here. This is not constructive, I don't think there's any consensus for any bans right now, and nobody is looking any better from this. This feels like a continuation of the arguing on Talk:Pregnancy under a different premise. It would be best for everyone if those at odds would disengage. Seems to me it's much better to treat this as water under the bridge than a chance to argue again. Shadowjams (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

^^Agree, there is absolutely no chance of something constructive coming out of any of this. This dispute wasn't productive to begin with and should have dissipated with the failed RfC and not escalated into AnI. Drop the conflict, it isn't worth fighting over, there's nothing actionable and continuing will just make everyone involved come out worse. AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Gotta love going out for a bit only to come back and find the discussion closed. These things are supposed to archive after 24 hours for a reason. The "multiple" requests to close were a grand total of 2 made by two people who've already stated their positions as opposing any sanction against the user, no wonder they'd request a close. There did see to be at least 4 users who disagreed with Hilos behaviour and supported sanctions, and others who disagreed, but didn't explicitly state they supported sanctions, and yet there is no chance to go from there to an actionable result?--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What Crossmr said. Two in favor of close, 4 in favor of action...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin restoration and peacockification of article deleted at AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The OP, Delicious carbuncle, has agreed that this does not have to be discussed here further. Further discussion about the newly fixed article can be done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Shields (2nd nomination). --Jayron32 23:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Tyler Shields was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Shields. I was surprised to see it resurrected today by admin User:TParis, but deleted articles are sometimes improved in user space and restored. This is not the case here. In the edit which restored this article, TParis also added the peacock word "famed" to the lede. That same edit contains the addition of the sentence "Shields has been called Hollywood's "favorite photographer" by the Daily Mail". The reference used contains no such phrase (plus, it's the Daily Mail). Additionally, they have restored spurious "world record" claims, this time placing them in the lede.

I have not discussed these concerns with TParis. Even if they addressed the issues with the current state of the article, this will do nothing to explain why an admin is taking actions such as these in the first place. I would not expect these types of edits from an experienced user, but they are completely unacceptable form an admin and are puzzling when the article was so recently deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Step 1 should still be discussing this with TParis. --Onorem♠Dil 18:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Had you discussed it with me first, I would've pointed out that I was the first AFD's deleting admin and I discussed it with the deleting admin from the relisted (after I reverted my close) deleting admin who agreed that "it sounds open-and-shut enough not to need a DRV". Further, "favorite photographer" was used in the article's title, which I included in the citation. Famed may be wrong for the lead, it was spotty editing at best and I would've fixed it had you simply asked or done so by yourself.--v/r - TP 18:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My concern is not that the edits you made could not be easily fixed, but that you restored an article recently deleted at AfD and proceeded to add puffery from a dubious source which did nothing to address the reasons why the article was deleted. The consensus there seemed to be that while the subject was good at generating controversy, they were not notable as a photographer. You removed the sentence "Shields has no formal training as a photographer and uses many varying styles" (sourced incidentally to the subject's own site). You restored the bogus "world record" claims and moved them into the lede. I presume this was your impetus. This looks like more of a puff piece than when it was deleted by consensus. Perhaps this should have gone to DRV first? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(Incidentally, can someone restore the talk page of the article? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC))

(edit conflict) I removed the sentences supported by self-published sources. "No formal training" can be a good thing and a bad thing and I figured since there was a POV tag on the article and it was sourced to the subjects's own webpage that it was considered promoting the photographer. As far as not notable as a photographer, apparently that has changed. This article might be of worth to you where it says "For the actresses, being shot by Shields is a subversive status symbol." As far as the "Personal Life", the content was originally in the "Career" section and I was moving things around. I hadn't intended to leave that part in the lead. I was correcting it. Since you've removed it, I don't think it's a problem anymore. This could've all been discussed on my talk page. I've also restored the article's talk page.--v/r - TP 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed the "Legal matters" section as well. Those generally discouraged on BLPs, so I'm mystified as to why you -- an admin -- would create one. Again, I could easily have fixed the problems, but I don't think that I should need to keep AfD-deleted article on my watchlist in case an admin decides to restore them and turn them into puff pieces. I'll send this back to AfD and let others decide. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I restored it at 17:31 GMT and then got caught up in the above issue with User:Hipocrite at 17:37 GMT, I think it is excusable that I had not finished working on it in the last 2 hours.--v/r - TP 19:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You created a section entitled "Legal issues". It was not present in this version, but appears in this version (I do not know why the diff does not display this). Did you intend to come back later and delete that section? You added a peacock term to the lede. Did you intend to remove it later when you had more time? You reinserted information about a "world record" that has no justification other than the subject's own claim. Did you put it in the lede because you were short of time? None of your explanations hold water. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I neither created the Legal issues section (see this version before I touched the article) nor did I reinsert any information. I restored the article and I was working on it. You need to take a closer inspection before accusing me of these things. I'll admit to putting "famed" in the lede, since I did do it and all, and I'm chopping it up to "I was still working on it". I was still playing with it and deciding how I wanted to use it.--v/r - TP 19:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Legal matters" was created in this edit by User:Northamerica1000. Thanks.--v/r - TP 19:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I know why you mixed this up. In your first diff, there was a citation issue preventing the "Legal matters" from being visible. I fixed a citation issue with this edit which made it visible. That's where the confusion is.--v/r - TP 19:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You are right. There seems to be little point discussing this further. Let's chalk it up to lack of time, as you suggest. I'll let the AfD sort out the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Appears to me to be a reasonable REFUND, given the additional events since the AfD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Fæ = User:Ash (and was previously User:Ashleyvh and User:Teahot)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Nothing for administrators to do here. 28bytes (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I recently learned that User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften (he disclosed this since he's on the board of Wikimedia UK [46]. Mr. Van Haeften went through a successful RFA in March of this year [47] in which a previous account was acknowledged. But aside from insisting that it was a clean start with no problems, no information was given. Current arb User:John Vandenberg said he did know at the time the identity of the previous account and that in his judgement it wasn't really relevant. Well, now I know who the previous account was. It was User:Ash who departed Wikipedia in April 2010 during an RFC [48] that was not going well for him (Ash was originally User:Ashleyvh and then User:Teahot -- an attempt of mine to redirect from Teahot to Ash was just deleted by arb candidate User:AGK.) I was a participant in that RFC and in some of the problems surrounding Ash and Blps, and learned his real name at the time (he'd edited some articles of people close to him). No big deal, but some of the editing was. As Teahot, for instance, he had created articles like the since deleted (over his objections) List of gay bathhouse regulars (afd here [49]). Mr. Van Haeften is a grown man (i.e., not some dumb teenager whose views are likely to shift substantially as they mature).

• I would hope the knowledge that someone requesting a position of authority and trust (on one of the highest trafficked sites on the internet) thought listing people as being fond of cruising for anonymous sex was a good idea would give most RFA voters pause. By the time of the RFC, Van Haeften (i'm using his real name since it's disclosed and avoids confusion with the four online handles) had been found by me and a few other editors to have a habit of misusing sources in BLPS (that is, he frequently asserted that sources contained information on living people that they did not, in fact, contain). Van Haeften, as Ash, also frequently attacked people who criticized his editing as being motivated by homophobia, implied he was a victim of real world stalking and harassment, referred to "hate crimes" and implied that he was leaving wikipedia to protect the safety of himself and his family. The Ash user page continues to say he left the project because of a "disturbing personal attack" and "sustained wikihounding" (there was, of course, neither; he merely got caught fudging sources). He remained an active editor until April 13 2010 (the RFC was opened on April 5) and the RFC was then closed with the line user has stopped editing wikipedia; delisted due to inactivity. [50]. Yet Van Haeften had already taken up editing as Fae on March 28 2010, even as "Ash" was retiring over some alleged, yet incredibly vague, threat to himself and/or his family (the story changed a lot). The paranoia about real life identities and "hate crimes" struck me as disingenuous then, and more so now that he's openly disclosed his identity on wikipedia.
• I could go on, but this is already overly long. What action am i seeking? A re-run of the RFA with full disclosure. This was an editor who not very long ago was mucking about with BLPs in a cavalier, to say the least, fashion. I'd also like for the arbs and admins that enabled this obfuscation to reflect on why so many people don't trust anything that happens behind closed doors on wikipedia. Your judgement about what other folks might think is relevant A. Isn't good and, 2. It's inapropriate to even try. A clean start for some gnomish guy who wants to avoid his past problem areas? Fine, great. A clean start for someone who wants a position of authority that does (no matter how much you deny it) have an outsized impact on content, just so they can avoid scrutiny? A really bad idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Urgh. The opposition at RfA was primarily due to the non-disclosure of the previous account. Had the identity been known at the time it'd never have passed. Textbook gaming of the system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The desired outcome of the RFC was The desired outcome of this RFC/U is a voluntary agreement by Ash to cease editing BLPs (biographies of living people), which require "particular care" in the sourcing and verification of facts as per WP:BLP. Further investigation into the extent of the misuse of citations may also be warranted. I think a key question is whether the Fae account did avoid BLPs.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

User left while the subject of a RFC user and it isn't relevant at that users RFA seems incredulous. The user is open to recall and I suggest that would be the way to go. If there are six to ten users that object to the non disclosure of the User:Ash account at Fae's RFA you could ask him to re apply with the disclosure of the now known previous accounts. User:Fae has himself in the cat admins open to recall and I would support recall. - Youreallycan (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. If admins are open to recall, then that should be rewarded by using that procedure as opposed to another, more humiliating one. This is especially important for a user who has connected his real name to his account. I was not familiar with that user and have just done a little bit of unsystematic research starting from the links provided by Bali ultimate. What I have seen so far suggests to me that in the editor's past contentiousness there was a mixture at play of (1) homophobia (or at some points maybe just reaction to Banjeboi's activism), and (2) seriously sloppy sourcing which was denied or downplayed by the user. I have so far not seen a really bad smoking gun, but rather things like incorrect references to a page in Google Books where it doesn't appear that the information is on the next (unavailable) page, either, but someone claims without proof that that is the case; or a reference to an ad in a magazine that does not mention it's only an ad.

Under these circumstances, I think it was inappropriate to run for RfA without disclosing the previous account and will also support recall. Hans Adler 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A completely different matter is that while the account Fæ has outed itself, this thread is outing the previous accounts by setting up the connection. I think this is not explicitly forbidden by the outing policy, but we are treading on delicate ground here. If User:Fæ reacts swiftly by giving up the bits, I would support oversighting this thread to minimise the danger for his reputation in real life. Hans Adler 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be fair here, it appears that Fae did his best to run his RFA as completely by-the-book and openly as he could without publicly disclosing his prior identity - according to the Fae RFA, he informed an editor who had opposed him on the Ash RfC and got their blessing AND he informed both arbcom and an individual arbitrator and had THAT person also evaluate whether the issues of the RfC had been resolved and whether he had refocused. It's valid for editors now to feel that the prior identity was so tainted that it had to have been disclosed to run a valid RFA, but please keep in mind that according to statements on the Fae RFA (I haven't trawled through his recent edits), Fae does truly have appeared to a) have left behind his problem areas and b) disclosed as much as, and possibly more than, would usually be required of a cleanstart editor.

  Those things said, at least some people clearly seem to feel that Ash (an editor about whom I knew nothing prior to this outing) departe4d "under a cloud" that needed to be dealt with prior to the person behind that account running an RFA. While I strongly disapprove of the purposeful malice with which this outing was carried out on another site (from which it has now filtered down, without the malice, to here), it may be in the best interests of Fae to consider a reconfirmation RFA or other recall/reconfirmation procedure. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just re-read the RfA (which I opposed by the way). I see nothing at all misleading from Fae/Ash in that RfA. He made it clear he left during an RfCU. I think John V. gave honest replies. I think we all knew we might be getting a pig in a poke and we all made decisions based on that. I don't see the basis for a recall other than perhaps buyer's remorse. We weren't misled by Fae and I don't think we were intentionally misled by John. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Good points, but if I factor in the hat collecting after the restart (OTRS, director of Wikimedia UK), then I am really not sure that I can change my opinion. Hans Adler 23:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by this comment: "Had the identity been known at the time it'd never have passed." Isn't the fact that it was not obvious at the time of the RFA or until now what the old account was reason to believe that the user has in fact changed and improved since the events that led up to the RFC/U? I dont see the problem here. If I couldn't tell one account from another, it would lead me to believe that there was a change in behavior. Don't we base the WP:DUCK test on behavior evidence? If there isn't any here, than the user's perspective toward editing has demonstratably changed and that would seem to support the idea of a 'clean start' and the RFA would be valid. Right?--v/r - TP 23:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is actually a quite simple case. Fae made a clean start, was transparent about doing so in his RFA, and passed quite clearly (85% support) in spite of being "a pig in the poke". Bali (and others), you have since then uncovered facts about his past that make you uncomfortable. However, absent any actual misuse of the tools or other egregious behaviour on-wiki since then, we cannot and should not compel him to re-run, any more than we would compel someone who some time after passing RFA turns out to have real life aspects which are contentious. However, since Fae is open to recall, you or any other editors can investigate what his criteria for recall are, and go down that route - assuming his criteria for recall allow recall for any loss of confidence, not just misuse (I have not checked). I do also find the repeating of his real name gratuitous; this situation without the loss of any necessary detail by merely linking to the requisite accounts, possibly also the Wikimedia UK page. Martinp (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Has Fae done anything wrong? Are Ash's interests of any relevance here? Is Bali ultimate simply dramamongering after reading some gossip at the Wikipedia Review? Tune in next time to find out the answers to these questions! (Hint: No, no, and probably, but there are more important things to do than to read WR.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

CLEANSTART is not a deletion of previous behaviour. Editors who disappear under a cloud and who subsequently make rapid moves towards positions of power (such as adminship) upon reappearance should be treated suspiciously: history strongly suggests that this leads to eventual problems for the encyclopedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Fae hasn't abused his admin tools. Second, he hasn't repeated the behavior that resulted in the RfC. Third, he was extremely transparent about the cleanstart at his RfA. I really don't see any reasons for an action here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 00:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

History suggests a lot of rubbish. If ArbCom allowed him to start an RfA under the account Fae, then why are we wasting time questioning it now? All we are doing now is making an established contributor unwelcome and uncomfortable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• And what do you expect to be done? ArbCom allowed Fae's RfA and return. There's no issue here; this thread is just rubbish. HurricaneFan25 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Arbcom fucked up, then. They don't get to pick and choose who is allowed to run for adminship without disclosing their past troublesome identity and who is not. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's anyone's fault, it's the community's, not arbcom's. Fae openly disclosed that he did a cleanstart in the middle of a contentious user RFC and that he was seeking adminship without disclosing his prior identity. Based on the strength of his yearlong participation as Fae, the community was comfortable making him and admin with an 85% support percentage. It's not Arbcom picking and choosing, it's the community choosing this was OK. Now, I agree with Thumperward that maybe the community should be more careful about cases like this going forward, but that's another story. Martinp (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't frequent RfA much, but if I had known that Ash was reincarnated as a potential administrator that I certainly would have showed up to vote "no". I question the agenda-pushing that an editor shows when creating and supporting the retention of articles such as List of gay bathhouse regulars. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Ash had been exposed as having a long history of misrepresenting sources. I hope someone on Arbcom has been checking he hasn't continued this habit as User:Fae. Epbr123 (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The graver matter we are completely missing is the fact that User:Fae, who is (shockingly) a WP administrator, has indulged in sockpuppeting. From the discussion I have seen, it is clearly one of the biggest WP crimes one can commit. Certainly you are not going to take his multiple sockpuppeting lightly? Other users who were not admins have been less lucky when regarding this issue, even if they re-started with a view to a clean slate. AnkitBhatt^WDF 12:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to be corrected if there's something I'm missing, but I have seen no discussion/evidence of sockpuppetry, either since the user RFC or mentioned within it. In fact, I would encourage you to retract the accusation unless you do have evidence, since it raises the temperature of the discussion. As far as I can tell, Fae seems to have done a by-the-book CLEANSTART, and then achieved adminship on the new account with the full knowledge of the community and arbcom that this was not the full story (the community did not know the full story but was comfortable anyway). Martinp (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the evidence for the sockpuppetry allegation. The Ashleyvh -> Teahot and Teahot -> Ash transitions seem to have gone through the standard account renaming process. There was some overlap between the Fae and Ash accounts which was acknowledged by Fae in the RFA. I've seen speculation at WR that there might have been other accounts but no candidate account names, let alone proof. Am I missing something? The key question is whether the problem behaviour which led to the RFC/U has been carried on by the new account? Has anyone commenting here checked for it and did they find it?--Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I was about to write something like your post. I found the following information:

• In the RfA, Nikkimaria explicitly asked whether there was an overlap of editing between the two accounts (i.e. Ash and Fæ as we now know.) Cunard made this an official question, got an evasive response, asked again, and got the following: "There was an overlap; I continued to work on a few articles with my old account in order to finish adding information without outing my new account or to close down discussions. There were a total of 23 edits outside of my userspace or not made to fix broken transclusions made by other people as a result of deleting pages in my userspace. There was no double voting and it was made clear that I was closing the account."
• The Fæ account was created 08:21, 28 March 2010 and started editing 22:27, 28 March 2010. [51]
• Notice at the top of Ash's user page and talk page when Fæ account was created
• 6 Ash edits while Fæ account was dormant
• 463 Ash edits after Fæ started editing

The description "23 edits outside of my userspace or not made to fix broken transclusions" appears correct. I counted the same number. Although it would of course be better to make no edits at all after deciding to switch, there is no specific guidance on this in WP:Clean start, and I can see nothing problematic. Hans Adler 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb here is 3 months between last edit previous account, and (eg.) RFA; whereby on new account I see clean behaviour. (I also go by internet personas rather than natural persons, because -hey- welcome to the intertubes; but that's complicated, and 99% of the time leads to similar results anyway. Here I'd look at whether Fae and the previous editor had any form of overlapping editing patterns whatsoever, later than 3 months before RFA. (ie:Distinct personas or not.). If not, Fae would also be in the clear). Either way, apparently, -based solely on evidence already presented above- we're closer to either 9 or 12 months. So my position is that Fae is solidly in the clear here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God. So stupid of me! I forgot to check the user transition history :(. I fully retract my statement, and next time I should really be more thorough before saying something so silly. Please accept my sincere apologies. AnkitBhatt^WDF 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think this has been {{resolved}} ... Yes? 22:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Dj nix and image uploads

Dj nix (talk · contribs) 's Talk page contains warning after warning about copyrighted images, dating back to 2008', and yet they continue to upload images with no copyright information. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't appear to ever edit Talk pages. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And now they appear to have moved their Talk page to User talk:Dj nix 001 after my having notified them of this discussion. It looks like an attempt at trying to hide their problematic history. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 05:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• support a block. Clearly disruptive, active refusal to communicate.--Crossmr (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does their wikipedia e-mail work? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's irrelevant. We don't have to continually bend over backwards for disruptive users. He's clearly aware of his talk page and the content on it since he made an attempt to hide it. He's being actively and intentionally disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

By trying to upload lots of images? <scratches head>. Has anyone tried to explain how this CC thing works to them? Just askin' ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Also, user appears to be active on multiple languages. Not 100% cut-and-dried imo.

Review of auto-patrolled rights

Stumbled upon articles created by auto-patrolled User:Assassin's Creed‏‎ who is creating many poorly referenced articles on non-notable subjects. He should have his auto-patrolled rights revoked so his articles will be properly reviewed upon creation. Appealcourt (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It may possibly be just a little bit early for that. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative process, it might be a good idea to wait a little while to see what other people think about these articles in the Articles for Deletion-s that you have initiated.--Shirt58 (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that the OP sat nearly idle for 2 1/2 years after creation, then suddenly, in the last two hours, started nominating a massive slew of articles for deletion, ring alarm bells for anybody else? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that after 2 1/2 years of idleness he's suddenly knowledgable enough to post AFDs, report someone to ANI, and ask that someone be denied autopatrolled status. --NellieBly (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It happens. (look at me! ;-) ). Definitely needs checking on all sides though! --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC) ok, maybe I'm never quite on a 2.5 year hiatus, that's pretty long.

Hmm, I never really liked the notability and RS criteria, but I do see that some of the articles by User:Assassin's Creed‏‎ could be better referenced. Who could help him with that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think one time you should check out the contributions of User:Appealcourt, he had tagged so much articles for Deletion. I think he has created his new account to tease me and others. I have referenced properly all the articles and wrote about the really notable things. What can I say now, its your decision. Thanks --—Assassin'S Creed ^(talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's what I said. ;-) It certainly bears further checking. At the same time, my random sample of some of his deletion tags show them to be somewhat accurate. <scratches head> . I'm willing to Assume Good Faith on both sides, until proven wrong. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

CETI Patterson Power Cell

I'd like to report myself for breaches of WP:CIVIL (at minimum) in edit summaries etc on our CETI Patterson Power Cell article. I have had just about enough of POV-pushing fuckwits endlessly reinserting the same old rubbish about a failed 'free energy' device that briefly gained media attention back in the mid 1990s,but has led to no recognised science whatsoever. I have tried to explain policy. I have tried to point out why the sources being cited don't meet WP:RS. I have tried to explain that Wikipedia bases science-based articles on mainstream sources, not obscure blogs and 'journals' run by nobody in particular. The only response is more unverifiable garbage, guesswork and WP:OR in talk pages (on the rare occasions when there is any attempt at discussion), and totally-unexplained additions by an IP who then deletes the same junk on the next edit, only to add more. Articles related to 'cold fusion' seem to be attracting a large number of SPAs currently, and none of them seem to have any regard for anything beyond their delusional fantasies, and ludicrous hype. I should probably leave these articles to the loons, and to some other sucker prepared to take them on. Please topic ban me, before I blow an artery... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Its on AfD now. Since you reported yourself, this is what I have to say : You've done your part. Calm down, and work on something else for now. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1 question. Why are you not trying to help write the article? Wouldn't that salve everything? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should I be interested in writing an article about a non-event? It is vacuous hype, and should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy, I'm extending his block (originally for 24 hours) to 72 hours. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that calling people "morionic [sic] POV-pushing turds" and telling them to fuck off is not acceptable behaviour, no matter how mad one is. Talk page access will be left enabled. m.o.p 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• The two blocks of AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) are mindless bureaucracy. Yes, Andy is out of line, but when an excellent editor freaks out from an overdose of nonsense, they need help: remove the uncivil comments and leave a gentle note at Andy's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The extension is certainly a little eyebrow-raising. Why go from 24 to 72 like that for the same civility offenses but with no edits from Andy after the initial "cool-down" block was laid down? Really?! Doc talk 07:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Double jeopardy? - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• @Doc, extending the block was payback for Andy's strong criticism of a recent AFD close by MoP. This sort of personal point-scoring is unfortunate, but it's part of life on Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not acceptable if true. But Assume good faith in general --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock considered

• I'm minded to unblock and just order Andy to stay away from the whole thing till the Afd finishes - I don't think that overall it was reasonable to extend the block after he had stopped, although m.o.p's decision is not in any way bad faith. m.o.p. should have known better I'll take consensus on this - thoughts?Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• MasterOfPuppets' block extension doesn't seem to have any purpose. There's no explanation given for lengthening the block, there was no discussion with the original blocking admin, and the editor in question made no edits in the fifteen minutes between the original block and the lengthened block. What was it that required such an urgent override of the original blocking admin's judgement? There's a little paranoid part of my soul that thinks this looks like giving Andy rope ("Talk page access will be left enabled"), so that he might say something nasty in response to the block extension and thereby provide an ex post facto justification for the tripling of the original block's length. As admins, we should use great caution wherever we might appear – however inadvertently – to be making a bad situation worse through needlessly precipitous actions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• I'd go along with the unblock as a good will gesture and a pragmatic way forward. No need to rub salt in any wounds. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• unblock as per Elens conditions or as a minimum return to the original 24 hour block - Andy says the user Master of Puppets is carrying an "involved" position and the block extension is a result of as prior fall out in this previous recent ANI discussion-Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive726#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FEnergy_Catalyzer - I can't see another explanation - also I would block Master of Puppets for the same time as he extended Andy's block without a decent reason. Youreallycan (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock as long as he stays away - extension of block was not justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, not prepared to endorse the although m.o.p's decision is not in any way bad faith part of EotR's post.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh! Andy posted his comment while I was typing this out and getting edit conflicted. I would have said that m.o.p should not have been the one to take action if I'd seen it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Unblocked I unblocked Andy per Elen's rationale and the support above.--v/r - TP 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously? That's not even half my original block. Just because he's a good editor doesn't mean he can throw a tantrum when things don't go his way. I stand by my block, and I think there should have been a longer cooling off period. --Chris 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. We'll see which one of you was right in due course. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • We don't do cooldown blocks, you know that. Besides, Andy hasn't edited since reporting here and it's obvious he's fairly done with the topic. As blocks are supposed to be preventative, I just can't fathom how Andy will continue to be disruptive. He knows he crossed a line, he's admitted to it here. Had you blocked before this thread and he admitted to the behavior in an unblock request, he would've been unblocked anyway. There isn't any reason to either extend nor continue the block.--v/r - TP 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense; of course we do "cooldown" blocks. The notion that we don't place cooldown blocks is a classic Wikipedia myth right up there with "blocks are preventive, not punitive" and "The ArbCom can't rule on content". What you and Chris are really arguing is that what he called a cooldown block is really supposed to be a "punitive" block, and that we therefore need to make sure that the full measure of punishment is properly meted out.

If it were just a cooldown block, after all, there's no question that Andy is sufficiently cool now. Despite having his block extended by an involved admin – without discussion and for no apparent reason, and accompanied by the condescending-bordering-on-insulting non-rationale of "Given the amount of stress this seems to be causing Andy..." – Andy responded calmly and civilly. Since Andy a) is now apparently quite cool, b) has agreed to stay out of the original area of conflict, and c) just responded patiently and maturely to a slap in the face from an admin who had no business taking action here, he's being let off with time served. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In reality we do a lot of stupid things that we really shouldn't; we're human, after all. But the figure of speech is still "We don't do that" ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While master of puppets shouldn't have extended the block, the original 24 hours should have stayed in place. One of the core ideas of WP is that all editors - admins included - are equal. That someone is established (and Andy is certainly one of my favorite editors here) should not give them the ability to grossly violate policy. Unfortunately WP has gone from egalitarian to aristocratic, but I suppose this is the human condition and not specific to wikipedia. N^oformation ^Talk 22:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't give him any special treatment. Andy said he understands his behavior is wrong and won't continue to be disruptive. That is a valid unblock reason.--v/r - TP 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

TP Beat me to it. You can get unblocked once it is clear that the block is no longer needed. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Invoking discretionary sanctions

As both this article and Energy Catalyzer are cold fusion-related, they ought to fall under the Abd-William M. Connolley descretionary sanction domain. AndyG is not the only one whose behavior has been pushing civility limits, but there is also a relentless battle to include all sorts of primary source and unreliable material to keep these various devices from vanishing into the obscurity of cheap energy scams and fads. The effort being devoted to keeping this in line is absurd. I invite any passing administrator to take a look into these articles and apply discretionary sanctions. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Cookiehead

I've asked Cookiehead (talk · contribs) to come here so we can get some admin opinions, as I don't understand that guy's approach:

• I observed yesterday that a few days ago, he restored a Bernie Fine talk-page comment that had been made by a since-blocked user called CincyLost (talk · contribs).[52] I suspected he was another sock of that user (who had been posting anti-Jewish comments), though I wasn't sure, and said so in the AIV. Admins concluded not. So far so good.
• Rather more disturbing, earlier this evening he did a significant revert on the Bernie Fine article,[53] which resulted in the restoration of the same anti-Jewish junk that the blocked user had tried to post. I would say that his change of "was" to "is a former" was correct. It was the blind reversion that was incorrect.
• Ironically, when I have repeatedly tried to advise him to watch out what he's reverting, he responds (see edit summaries in the user link above) with insulting comments that I interpret to mean that he thinks I'm lying about the effect of his reversion to the Bernie Fine article.

So, I don't get it. Could an admin or someone with a different stle than mine speak to that guy and give him some good advice? (And maybe give me some in the process. And unlike him, I won't respond with obscenities.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that IP's from various places have been posting various anti-Jewish stuff:
96.253.220.30 (talk · contribs)
108.21.15.221 (talk · contribs)
152.121.19.254 (talk · contribs)
158.143.166.60 (talk · contribs)
which I take to be BLP violations as well. I will ask for semi-protection of the article unless someone wants to do it from here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Bugs, apparently you should fuck off. I'm quoting, of course. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeh, I was duly impressed by the eloquence and originality of that comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Adult

We have an editor who is recreating Angry Video Game Adult (ins some cases as AVGA). This editor initially used the account User:Josephnintendonerd to create multiple versions of this article. The article is unsourced and is clearly inappropriate. After three attempts yesterday as Josephnintendonerd, the article has appeared again, this time created by User:Angry Video Game Adult. I've tagged this new user as a sockpuppet of Josephnintendonerd, on the basis of a loud quacking sound. The new version of the article is, rightly, tagged for speedy deletion. Could I ask for a salting of the two article titles? I don't see any likelihood of this subject reaching close to our notability requirements and it appears clear it will be recreated after deletion under on account or another. Thanks for the consideration, Sparthorse (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both salted. Not sure how to handle the possible socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect that this is a single purpose editor that will go away once they get the message that we're not going to accept the article. I'll keep an eye on both accounts' contributions and open an SPI case if they start moving into other areans. Again, thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 07:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Angry Video Game Adult and gave a warning to User:Josephnintendonerd not to do it again. –MuZemike 14:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring & legal threats at Bay FM 99.3

Two IPs are actively vandalising Bay FM 99.3. I've requested page protection and reported one of the IPs to AIV but since legal threats have also been made,[54][55] I'm reporting that matter here, per Wikipedia:No legal threats. There are indications that both of the IPs involved are one person, so we have some sockpuppetry thrown in.[56][57] The IP that I reported to AIV has threatened "Through our network we have acces to over 200 IP addresses and will continiue to delete information until this page is removed in its entirity"[sic], and has stood by his word, removing valid sourced content.[58] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the editor make valid complaints about the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the complaints seem valid. In fact, some are completely ridiculous, like this one, claiming to have "deleted unverifiable information". The owner's name and original frequency were sourced directly from the station's own website.[59] The IPs have also been vandalising disambiguation pages to remove records of the article,[60] or to remove links to the article.[61] --AussieLegend (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:203.45.50.147 per WP:NLT. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As noted by the OP and by the "owner" himself, they have endless IP's. 165.228.61.164 (talk · contribs) has currently taken over for 203.45.50.147 (talk · contribs). You need to semi-protect the page, and that will fend them off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi'd 2 weeks. T. Canens (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, blocked User:165.228.61.164 for 24 hours for disruptive editing. Some of their posts are nearly illiterate and I'm not sure how seriously I take their threats of being able to manipulate IP addresses. But meh, it's semi'd, thanks Tim C. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Both IP's emanate from Sydney, for what it's worth. The one item about an employee supposedly being fired because he couldn't get the article deleted needs to be added to the list of socking excuses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a blatant troll to me and so it is probably better to ignore, but I still think WP:DOLT is important to consider. Have we definitely verified that this information is not a copyvio? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I went right through the article and checked it to make sure it was all fine. I ended up fixing several extremely minor errors, mainly in the infobox.[62] Most of the content is actually sourced from the Australian government's public register of radiocommunication licences. Only a small amount has been sourced from the station's website but there's nothing in there that is a copyvio. There never was. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They have also taken their grievance to their Twitter account, which sticks out like a sore thumb among what is usually a humdrum rolling community calendar feed. As an editor experienced in mass media station articles there's absolutely nothing wrong here at all; all of the information is sourced to Australia's radio regulator except for the format, which is the only thing that could be argued out, however unlikely it is. The clipart station logo is also inarguable with all public domain characters and drawings. Nate • (chatter) 13:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Tom Morris (talk · contribs) proposed deletion [63]. An elegant solution if it goes through. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, my mistake: I should probably have checked the history of the article before proposing deletion. Without disclosing anything, I'd suggest that an admin with OTRS access handle this case from here with reference to VRTS ticket # 2011112910012043. I would find an admin to handle it but I will be very busy for the next twelve hours or so. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like trouble is brewing...

...and my lunch break is about to end. So I thought I had best draw another admin's attention to the DB-Attack notice that has been placed on User talk:Djathinkimacowboy/Archive 1 by User:Erikeltic. It looks like these two have some history, if this thread is anything to go by.

Cheers! Stephen! ^Coming... 12:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

People might want to read this before commenting here. (I should be considered 'involved' because if Djathinkimacowboy isn't a sock, I don't consider him of net benefit to the project) --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I felt that the "running commentary" Cowboy was assigning to that page fell under the guidelines of an attack page, that's why I nominated it for deletion. There is no trouble brewing from me, that's for sure. As far as my history with Cowboy, that history is two days old provided he isn't a sock. However, between the hostility he's shown me and other editors and all of the other reasons listed in the SPI, I believe he is a sock of the infef-blocked Jake Fuerstrum. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 13:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I have no comment on Erikeltic's behavior, but I've blocked Djathinkimacowboy for continued personal attacks on multiple editors both on the linked subpage, the WQA board, and most recently on User talk:Walter Görlitz.--v/r - TP 14:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I just want to add that my block is only for 24 hours. It appears this discussion may be leaning toward a longer block.--v/r - TP 15:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I collected this User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Steampunk this morning. I can't make any sense of it, other than to assume it's gratuitous stirring. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not an uninvolved editor in this matter, having participated in a conversation with Djathinkimacowboy in which I asked him to be careful when tagging edits "minor" (here: [64]), although his frequent blanking of his Talk page makes it difficult to find. My impression, based on this experience, is that he tends to start out in a defensive/argumentative mode rather than assuming good faith. This, along with his frequent clearing of his Talk page, detract from his ability to contribute to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Short of looking through every single contribution an editor makes, is there any method at the disposal of an admin to search a user's edits for a particular phrase? I only ask because other than Cowboy I have only ever read one other editor write, "I edit hard-and-fast". That editor is Jake Fuersturm. If there is no way to search, I will have to start digging through contribs. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 16:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, check toolserver. Else maybe there should be :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Going back to the editor's behaviour, what I saw from a case that "cowboy" opened at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance is that the editor refuses to accept that other editors may be in the right and that "cowboy" may be in the wrong. I think that goes beyond assuming good or bad faith, it's assuming personal superiority.

Another problem that I noticed is that "cowboy" starts the edits in one location and then follows the editor to their talk page and then opens complaints or cases against those whom s/he feels is attacking them when in essence, it's the other way around. It's more than wikihounding, it's poking a bear (or lion) with a stick and then complaining when growls.

However, the editor seems to have made a few good edits. Can the latter behaviour excuse the former? Will the former behaviour be tempered over time? I don't know. I don't think that a longer block is in order, unless the behaviour starts up again. If it resumes immediately, it's obvious "cowboy" does not wish to be a cooperative editor and the block should be indefinite. If there is a lull of a few weeks in the bad behaviour, then a block longer than 24 hours may be in order, with instructions and intention of rehabilitating the editor. In no way should we attempt to be punitive.

As a summary of the WQA case: it was closed as a non-issue. I certainly made it clear that the problem was not the editor being reported but rather the editor making the report. Another editor had similar comments, albeit not quite as pointed as mine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of administrator privileges by User:Toddst1

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

---

Administrator User:Toddst1 has committed abuse of his blocking privileges as admin.

User:Latish redone was blocked by Toddst1, who gave a reason for the block. Latish redone decided to appeal the block by using the {{Unblock}} template. [65]

Toddst1 made additional comments on Latish redone's talk page in order to support his block of Latish redone. [66][67]

Latish redone, in accordance with user talk page policy, and because of the clear conflict of interest involved in having the blocking admin provide further comments, decided to remove those comments so that the reviewing admin would see only Toddst1's block reason and Latish redone's appeal reason. [68]

This is where the abuse occurs. Toddst1 proceeded to block Latish redone from editing his own talk page. But, while Latish redone was blocked from editing his own talk page, Toddst1 abused both his admin privileges and the conflict of interest by continuing to add comments to Latish redone's talk page to bolster his argument for the reviewing admin. [69][70][71][72]

So basically, Toddst1 blocked Latish redone from providing arguments to be unblocked, while continuing to provide arguments to support the block. This is clearly abuse of admin power, in addition to a conflict of interest violation. I think Toddst1 should be desysopped, or otherwise sanctioned, as appropriate.

--198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Also, why don't you read the "Guide to appealing blocks" that was linked in the block notice where you would've found an email address (unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org) and you could've appealed there. Removing your talk page access isn't abuse. Don't blame your lack of attention to detail on abusive admins.--v/r - TP 14:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not referring to myself in the third person, I am not one of the involved editors, just an unregistered user. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whose second edit was to this page. What an amazing coincidence. There are only a few things a blocked editor should be doing. One is to file a reasonable unblock request. Another is to engage in civil discussion. Deleting another editor's comments is NOT on that short list.[73] (Nor is socking.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I saw the unblock request this morning, and was quite surprised to look at the talkpage history: the blocked editor had removed "evidence" provided to whichever admin came by to judge the unblock merits. Really not appropriate, no matter what the talkpage guidelines say. If they insisted on removing commentary relavent to the block/unblock then page protection was inevitable. Now, where's the poultry? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I only have a few edits because I only edit when necessary, in addition to editing from a site where my IP address is subject to change arbitrarily. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is complete nonsense. There is no "conflict of interest involved in having the blocking admin provide further comments". On the contrary, it can be very helpful to a reviewing administrator for a blocking administrator to provide clarification of the reasons for the block. Removing comments relating to a pending unblock request is not "in accordance with user talk page policy". When the user had abused their talk page access to try to suppress comments about the block, removing the user's talk page access was perfectly reasonable. There is no "abuse of admin power", nor any "conflict of interest violation". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The IP is likely either a sock of the blocked user, or just has a grudge against Todd. In any case, the blocking admin leaving comments for other admins is standard procedure. I've seen it done hundreds of times. The IP's complaint is unwarranted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Heck, we even have an "unblock on hold" template for use when the original blocking admin is being specifically requested to provide additional information. Admins are required to explain blocks, and should provide additional info when unblocks are requested if things are not readily apparent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • So why wasn't that used? --198.137.20.208 (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Clearly, the abuse comes from the blocking admin continuing to comment while the blocked user is blocked from being able to comment. --198.137.20.208 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor was abusing their rights on their talkpage by removing the information. Like I said before, access removal was inevitable. Blocks are quite often discussed on a usertalkpage while the person is still blocked from editing it - there was, after all, still an open unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • There is no abuse, no rule violation. But keep talking. You're looking more like a sock every time you open your mouth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like that no warning was given before removing talk page access, but don't really think this goes so far as to be called abuse. Restore the comment, warn the user not to remove it while they are requesting an unblock, remove talk page access if they do it again. (EC: This comment was being added as the section was being archived, but I believe it's still worth adding. This could've been handled better. --Onorem♠Dil 15:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add to that gray summary box at the top of this archived discussion that "Admins should give warning(s) to the blocked user before blocking the user from editing his/her talk page." --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC) And/or add that "Blocked users should not remove admin comments from their talk page, but should instead provide their own comments in dispute of a block." --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A BOOMERANG addendum

I think the filer needs to be scrutinzed a bit more closely. 198.137.20.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)'s first edit was to remove the generic "there may not be a userpage" text from the page of Rhinoselated (talk · contribs), who was indef'ed as a vandaliam-only account, presumably because his last two pagemove vandalisms resembled that of Willyonwheels'. Rhinoselated once tried to add garbage to the Cam Newton article and once created a "Scam Newton" page, see User talk:Rhinoselated#Attacks in the article Scam Newton. also a curious redirect of Kelly Martin's user page to talk page. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhinoselated is too stale for a checkuser, but the quacking is getting very loud around here. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely a similar pattern of editing between User:Rhinoselated, User talk:Latish redone, and the "anonymous 3rd party" IP user in the above discussion - very few good faith edits, lots of "humorous" vandalism, and plenty of over-the-top melodramatic arguing about reverts and the inevitable blocks. This person has been here long enough to thoroughly understand policies and procedures, and he seems to enjoy playing the game of seeing how long he can string out his obnoxiousness before getting blocked. I would be absolutely shocked if he doesn't have more socks out there, perhaps even a truly useful user account. Zeng8r (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more than clear at this point that Rhinoselated has at least a few socks out there. I've tagged them, but I think it would be better if someone else issued the sock/block evasion blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a "sock" and I resent such characterization. --198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Either I'm missing something really important here, or we need to a be a bit more careful with our sock tagging. Aside from the curious redirect, is there any evidence linking Kelly Martin to Rhinoselated? Kelly Martin was active from 2004 to 2007; Rhinoselated edited beginning in 2010, and I see no obvious links between the two editors. (I've now re-deleted what looks to have been the blanked userpage of a retired editor.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Did someone tag Kelly Martin as a sockpuppet of Rhinoselated? I can't see now their use page is deleted but it doesn't look like Rhinoselated was tagged as a sock of Kelly Martin. My guess from Zeng8r said on Rhinoselated's user page is perhaps Rhinoselated redirected Kelly Martin's page to theirs which someone AGFed (which they probably shouldn't have) as an accurate self declaration of Rhinoselated being a new account for Kelly Martin Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm don't know what to make of the Kelly Martin angle. While helping to deal with Rhinoselated's mischief a few months ago, I noticed that User:Kelly Martin was redirected to Rhinoselated's talk page. I asked about it and never got a reply. Looks like somebody has recently deleted the redirecting user page. Zeng8r (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, Kelly Martin's talk page was deleted in 2008 (three years ago). Today (29 November) Rhinoselated redirected the user page to Kelly Martin's talk page. About 12 hours later, Toddst1 replaced the redirect with a sockpuppet banner. I caught this on my watchlist, and redeleted Kelly Martin's userpage a little while later. As far as I can tell, there's no other link between the two accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's this rather odd conversation: User_talk:All_in#I.27d_like_to_talk_to_you_in_private.... Zeng8r (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Which suggests they may have some history together even if there's a fair chance Kelly Martin herself doesn't remember. (I didn't remember removing the misleading info in Rhinoselated's user page.) Kelly Martin was also a fairly well known. I'm guessing Rhinoselated intentionally created the redirect to try to make the link as a form of vandalism and perhaps a subtle personal attack. And unfortunately Toddst1 while tagging sockpuppets and perhaps not being aware of Kelly Martin's history tagged her as well. BTW I presume the dates are wrong. Rhinoselated has been indef blocked since May so either someone else did the redirection or it happened earlier, possibly both if the IP reverted to the redirect (it sounds like it happened in January). Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I've applied a narrow rangeblock (198.137.20.0/24) for 48 hours try to put a lid on the IP. Whether it's a sock (and the duck is pretty loud here) or just a nuisance editor, he wasn't making beneficial contributions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And I've blocked User:Latish redone indefinitely.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Has nobody else noted that "Latish redone" is an anagram of "Rhinoselated"? RolandR (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do so many of our trolls think that they're low-grade Batman villains? (I don't mean the scary, creepy, eerie villains of the latest Batman films; I'm talking about the cartoonish 1960's villains in vividly-colored but hideous costumes.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, it works - User:NoPuzzleStranger was here for four months before someone realized it was an anagram of User:Gzornenplatz. --Golbez (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this link here for future reference. (Kidding... I think.) Zeng8r (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

St. Catherine of Alexandria

Resolved

There is a low-intensity edit war with an editor who started by removing sourced material that asserted that Catherine of Alexandria was ahistorical ([74],[75],[76]) and has since insisted on inserting his OR rebuttal of the sourced text ([77],[78]. This editor has not grasped the policies against original research and synthesis. As the edit summaries and Talk Page discussion show, we are not against presenting rebuttals to the sourced assertions that Catherine is ahistorical. We just insist that those rebuttals be sourced rather than based on the OR of a Wikipedia editor.

It might help if an admin were to reinforce this point with a reminder of what the relevant policies are.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with the implicit assumption that an admin's view on this deserves more weight than a non-admin. Editors with experience in the area may deserve more weight, but they don't have to be admins. I would think a better place would be Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, where someone with experience, not necessarily an admin, could make the point.--SPhilbrickT 16:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Admins do not have that kind of authority. You could ask for help at 3rd opinion or the newer Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, however. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Doesn't qualify for WP:3O since there is already a third editor involved. Didn't know about those notice boards, though. I'll try one of them. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Death threats

Resolved

Probably not serious, but I thought it important to report this nonetheless. Dallasmartino (talk · contribs) has made death threats at Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Block and report to the secret service. I bet he won't be trolling wiki if men in black show up at his door step :). N^oformation ^Talk 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and reported to the foundation. They can escalate higher if they choose.--v/r - TP 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And now the diff has been deleted so the police can't see what was written. Bad idea. Good idea to report, bad idea to stonewall the report. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe some admins have the ability to pull deleted posts if needed, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

All admins can see deleted articles and diffs. It's only stuff that's been deleted and oversighted that goes beyond the "standard" package of admin powers. Bencherlite^Talk 21:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Likely student editing

I was looking at one of the articles brought to AFD yesterday: Human Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines Labeled for Use in Dogs. The article is currently on track toward deletion as novel synthesis/original research, with the first commenter remarking that "it is a research paper". In fact, based on the article history, I think that is exceedingly likely. In fact, there is a fairly expansive group of editors with similar names, most in the form 570xxx, plus one at 507xxx that may have been a typo at creation. From the talk pages of these editors and the articles they have created, it is obvious that they know each other from outside Wikipedia. I suspect this is a university project, possibly at Iowa State.

Contrary to the ANI banner, I have not notified these 16 editors of this ANI thread at this time, although I will do so if the community feels that is in our, and their, best interest. However, I want to avoid giving the impression of being unwelcoming (and ANI is a terrible welcome mat). Although some of their contributions have original research issues (as the one at AFD now) or are potentially forks of existing content (Hazard (risk), in particular), they are generally well-written and generously sourced. I seem to remember there is some management or outreach group to handle this sort of university project? Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with where groups such as this might be directed, but I'm confident that someone here has some experience with this sort of situation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:570ajk has a list of what's being worked on. If Iowa State is right, I'm guessing it's related to this course Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

COI and edit war involving I.pezzuto

User:I.pezutto is a new user who has posted links to publications by Ivo Pezzuto, an academic at Swiss Management Center. While these citations may well be useful to the project, the conflict of interest issue has caused editors to remove these contributions while they are discussed on the talk pages of the associated articles (Financial crisis, Subprime mortgage crisis, and Securitization). Instead of responding to requests to engage in dialog I.pezzuto has engaged in edit warring at Financial crisis and Subprime mortgage crisis. I suspect most of this is due to this user's lack of experience in the project and that s/he is likely to be a valuable member of the editing community. However, we need to get his/her attention first. Jojalozzo 18:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

They've been spamming these links on article for a while but in the past it's been as an IP. MrOllie requested an edit filter to at least slow this down. It was created, but might need some tweaking. Ravensfire (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As a further note, Pezutto has been adding the exact same links to multiple articles. If there's a further reading section, he always adds them to top of the list. It's pretty blatant spamming of his own research. I don't see anything notable about his work, no effort on his part to discuss this despite many, many requests and no reason to keep the links. Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support a block if the user continues making COI edits against consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems more serious if it's been happening for a while. Looking at the contributions of the IPs suggests a block is in order:

• 94.36.107.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 94.36.101.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.14.231.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 78.14.232.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Jojalozzo 21:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New account creating sock farm

Resolved

 – Just MascotGuy. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Santa's Holiday Smackers, a new account, is building a sock farm. See [79]. Enjoy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Eton edu ph

Resolved

Organization account used for promotion in contravention of numerous policies including WP:ORGNAME. ^Bongo_matic 19:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:UAA couldn't handle this, why?--v/r - TP 19:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And you need to make sarcastic comments, why? I'm not a frequent poster to the admin boards, but the user is violating numerous policies not limited to UAA. Feel free to remove and repost there if it's a more conventional place to handle this kind of request. ^Bongo_matic 19:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a directory at the top of this page that says "To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention." Regardless, I blocked.--v/r - TP 19:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk page trolling/soapboxing, unrepentant off-topic battlegrounding by User:Objectivist

• Objectivist (talk · contribs) aka "V"
• Notified [80]

A month and a half ago, NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) created a request for comment on the user conduct of Objectivist (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist. The RFC was on Objectivist's behavior on talk pages, which included posting to talk pages long rhetorical diatribes on philosohpical, political, and ethical issues unrelated to improving articles and baiting other users into confrontational debates. In particular, he posts opinion pieces at controversial article talk pages such as Talk:Abortion and Talk:Conservatism that are critical of conservative politics and inviting other users to debate his ideas with him, as he did here: [81] and here [82]. The principles at stake were WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Objectivist responded by trolling the RFC itself, first in his statement antagonizing NYyankees51 for being too thin-skinned to stand up to the "Truth" that Objectivist was sharing with him and the rest of us. A review of his contributions suggests this stirring the pot technique is standard, as he has met prior attempts to halt off-topic and irrelevant discussion at Talk:Abortion with accusations of cowardice and censorship of the "Truth" with the following indignant rant:

In discussions it is far worse to shut someone up by deleting what they say, than to shut someone up by proving what they do say isn't worth saying. The former is an act of cowardice, practiced by book-burners throughout history, who were afraid that a differing opinion would result in less control over other people. Truth always hurts liars and the deluded, but only those groups. Honorable people have nothing to fear from Truth. If you believe that a "pro-life" stand incorporates more Truth than a pro-abortion-rights stand, then you should be able to back it up in a Debate. If you can't back it up, then your so-called "truths" aren't necessarily what you think they are --that's a real Truth. You've thrown down the gauntlet by, apparently, not wanting others to see my willingness to directly Debate any "pro-lifer" into a kind of speechlessness on that topic (because just about anything you say can be used against you). Do you have the integrity to follow through? We shall see! V (talk) 2:07 am, 23 July 2011, Saturday (UTC−7)

I posted a statement to the RFC here describing Objectivist's behavior as patent trolling for adversarial debate, reminding him that talk pages (and ultimately, all pages outside the article namespace) are for coordinating efforts toward improving the encyclopedia, and asking him to limit his use of Wikipedia to means that serve that end. Several other editors weighed in.

Objectivist has since drawn Blackmane (talk · contribs) into a disruptive meta-debate at the RFC itself, ironically about whether his battlegrounding behavior is truly disruptive. Meanwhile, he shared on Talk:Cold fusion his opinions about what counts as a confirmation of cold fusion and what avenues researchers should be pursuing [83]. Yesterday, he posted a long statement on Talk:Conservatism in the United States proposing that a new section be added that incorporates novel arguments drawing a bizarre analogy between developmental psychology and conservative politics. He compares conservatives who support or enable industrial pollution to children whose parents failed to teach them to clean up their messes, and suggests the comparison should be made in the article. [84]. He then made the proposed changes immediately thereafter, posting a short and highly rhetorical POV essay to the article [85], but was reverted by NatGertler (talk · contribs) [86].

Evidently the RFC/U failed to reform his disruptive behavior, which has continued unabated since 2008. I'm inclined to indefinitely block him to prevent further disruption. causa sui (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I figured this would make its way to AN/I from RfC/U eventually. Objectivist seems to have a misunderstanding of the point of Wikipedia, what an encyclopedia is, and what talk pages are for. Since the RfC/U didn't paint the picture any clearer for him/her, I would support an indef block until the user agrees to tone it down and to take a mentor with whom he'd have to get approval before posting to talk pages. N^oformation ^Talk 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped that the rather extended debate would have opened his eyes as to what he needed to reform with even some friendly suggestions. Also ironically my linking to WP:IDHT ultimately proved prophetic. I would have to agree to a block of some sort. --Blackmane (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Two userids?

Is it ok for an editor to "retire" an account, but leave it active, but then continue to edit with a new account? Assume he has been clear he is now using a new account, and has linked to it, but the old one is still unblocked. I don't see this meeting any of the items listed at Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate uses. I 'd prefer not to talk about a specific incident or editor for now. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought of that, but CLEANSTART is for editors who have decided to break all ties with their old account, abandon previous topic areas, etc. In this case, it's just two active accounts, and old one and a new one. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question is editing simultaneously with two accounts? GiantSnowman 21:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so--just the new one. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as the link between the accounts is clear and conspicuous, and the editor has actually moved to the other account – that is, he isn't interleaving edits from the two accounts – there's not really a problem. (It's not all that rare for editors to retire in a huff, and then come back—sometimes sheepishly, and sometimes under a new name.) It is pretty much mandatory for the new account to indicate the old account's name on its user and/or talk page, and advisable for the old account's user/talk to point to the new one. If the original account has a non-trivial block history, an admin should add a link back to the original account's block log to the new account's block log (a 1-second block with the link as the reason would do it) to eliminate concerns about concealing the previous account's history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's the user I suspect it is, both accounts are labeled as not active; the first is identified as abandoned, and the second as retired, with a clear link to the old username. The old username also linked to the new username in an edit summary, so there's no real potential for avoiding scrutiny. Horologium (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI requires that editors being discussed be notified. If Jayjg isn't planning on being candid as regards the subject of these questions this should be closed. Private behavioural issues worthy of action should be taken to ArbCom, who are th only approved secret police on the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, asking the question before escalating into WP:DRAMA is not a bad idea. Of course, as it's not an incident, I would have asked this question on WP:AN instead (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but as long as the accounts are publicly linked, "retired" or not, I wouldn't worry about it. 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Abusive message at the Feedback dashboard

Could an admin please deal with this unacceptable feedback that was left by an indef-blocked vandal? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've hidden the comment. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note that we have an article about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shows you where my mind is. I interpreted it as a term (slightly misspelled, though) used as an insult in Spanish, which I won't bother reiterating here per WP:BEANS and whatnot. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)