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

User:Jaguar

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Jaguar

Hello, a user has asked me to consider whether it would be feasible to move this section back here from the subpage, as he feels that they were making real progress and the move to the subpage might hinder that, which seems a viable concern to me. I am however not familiar enough with the usages of ANI to know what's best, so I'd love if somebody more familiar than me could handle this issue. Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thread is over 181KB. Some threads listed here are around 90KB. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion on moving the thread back, but if there are conclusions coming, they should be posted here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) A long thread sure, but we were making real progress, and as Snowolf echoes above a move to a non-watched subpage might hinder that. It has splintered discussion. A linked subpage isn't unprecedented but those tend to be for massive discussions often related to long arbcom cases--like Betacommand, Giano, 'The Troubles'; this is in a different world. I haven't necessarily major issues with the board management aspect of it. Apart from anything else it looks awkward when a wikifriend of the last person discussed goes & shuffles it off the page. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC) ^{(formerly: User:92.6.200.56)}

Just thought a quick update would be worth posting. Although a community consensus was to mass delete the stubs, one plucky editor has volunteered to spend the next few months trying to fix the issue. There's a discussion regarding that going on at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A decision had already been made and a strong consensus reached - to delete the Chinese stubs - when the page was on AN/I. Moving the page just meant that it devolved into bickering between the usual suspects (including me). I really think we need to implement that decision, and solve the Chinese stub problem, before indulging in further scope creep. (There is a wider issue than just China or Jaguar, and some disagreement over norms, so an RfC might be a good idea after this thread is resolved). If somebody actually wants to write 8000 decent articles which meet wikipedia standards, that would be a colossal task - and keeping the existing unsourced microstubs in the meantime wouldn't make their job any easier (since we can't even be confident that names are accurate, even a list of existing articles is more hindrance than help). It's not the first time that one of these crises has been met with "Wait! Somebody else can fix them all!" but it would be a first if they actually did get fixed. bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy if the articles were incubated or sandboxed; that way the vast majority of !voters who said "delete" can see the articles removed from mainspace, but the remaining "keep" !voters also get a chance to work on them. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one. Blackmane (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld suggested incubation yesterday; I hope that's still acceptable to the good doctor now.

Would it be possible to put some kind of sunset date on incubation/userification? I don't doubt that the articles' defenders are earnest in their proposal to bring the articles up to standard, but past experience is not very heartening. Since the community agreed to delete, I wouldn't want unfixed articles to loiter indefinitely in limbo. 6 months maybe? bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the community agreed to delete then that's the consensus. Incubation generally amounts to stagnation; when one of the best-known ARS members supports Article Incubator being shutdown, it's safe to say it failed. At this point prolonging things is, unfortunately, unlikely to do much good. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that someone looking up an obscure term gets nothing instead of a starting point for further research. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

"It's useful" is something which often gets mentioned at AfD, but it doesn't overturn WP:N. Anybody looking up the obscure term will gain nothing from finding one of the articles as they stand, since they merely repeat what the seeker already knows - that a settlement exists with that name. Probably exists. (I just took one to AfD and a Keep !voter helpfully added coordinates to the article. Google's satellite view shows an empty field at those coordinates). A worryingly large proportion have been found to contain errors - if an article only says one thing and it's wrong about that, I doubt it's a good starting point for further research. I can understand why some people might disagree with the overwhelming consensus to remove those Chinese stubs, but it was a consensus nonetheless. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Anyone searching Wikipedia for "Aikou Township" today will be directed to List of township-level divisions of Anhui, which contains more information about that township than the stub did. Kanguole 19:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:John J. Bulten

User:John_J._Bulten (JJB) changed WP:SS to add that notability didn't matter for article contents in such a way that there is the implication notability is explicitly not required for article spinouts and reiterated it after I removed with [1]. I discussed this with him and others who have engaged in a wall of text and keep on taking everything in some strange way and wanting to spread discussion to other places rather than centralize at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Splitting articles arbitrarily. A request there to remove it led to him reiterating it. At [2] I pointed out JJB was being inconsistent saying they thought notability was always relevant and asked JJB to remove the edit or explain why they were standing by it. They responded by editing to show they wanted the bit about notability being irrelevant [3] and not putting any explanation in where requested but trying to split the discussion again back to that guidelines talk page.

JJB has bee involved in a related business Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f before doing these changes.

I believe these actions indicate pointy and disruptive behaviour by John_J._Bulten . Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My first response is here. I invite recommendations but may not be available immediately. JJB 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told Dmcq that charges like the first sentence of the OP are false, that Dmcq is inferring something not stated (as Jclemens just agreed with me on). The VPP discussion has been fruitful. Though it may also assist with MMA mediation (Agent00f), it has been discussed by many editors now who recognize its global policy value. Dmcq's charges to spread discussion to other places will not be supported by any diff, as every suggestion I have made to use other pages has valid grounding. Dmcq's charges of inconsistency arise because of the misstatement in the first sentence: I do affirm notability is always relevant. Dmcq also unaccountably calls me "they" though my name is John. I do believe editing a guideline belongs on the guideline's talk page, yes. What should I do? JJB 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The charge that "others" engaged in 3 behaviors is perhaps conflated, as the 3 charges refer specifically to me, and the many others from VPP (should I name and invite some or all?) should not be tarred by that. The charge that I did not explain "where requested" objects to my explaining changes to WP:SS on its talk page rather than VPP. JJB 01:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq also failed to notify Agent00f of mentioning him on this page (now corrected); and my other significant objections appear at the first link I gave, and at the current last section of Wikipedia talk:Summary style. JJB 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed odd behaviour with JJB as well with his proposals to make large (mostly pointless) changes to WP:NPOV: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Recommended_changes with very bizarre interpretaions of what consitutes opposition: despite large opposition he moved ahead to make his large sweeping changes to NPOV with: As I suspected, these matter-of-fact changes were not opposed, yet because of what page this is they were not implemented either Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Forward (look at this in conjunction with the history as well: [4]). Also here he re-inserted a new addition to the page [5] with the reason of [6] On this page we start with silent consensus. You now have a vocal consensus of two (Unscintillating and me). .

Note also that JJB has returned only recently from his year long ban for sustained edit-warring, misuse of edit summaries and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground etc Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#John_J._Bulten. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you (Dmcq) are attributing motive that is not in evidence. Quoting or paraphrasing WP:NNC in WP:SS is actually a very good idea, and you've brought non-edit-warring policy dispute to ANI rather than discussing it on the appropriate talk page. If I were you, I really wouldn't want to bring something to ANI where I'd called a good-faith policy clarification attempt vandalism--even if it was just an automated edit summary. I also think the best thing to do here is for everyone to discuss their positions and objections, without benefit of or need for blocks, protections, or any other administrative tool use. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is odd, as he and I had a long discussion about this very topic here [7] where he had already concluded that WP:SS didn't require notability for spun out articles. This was his rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability. I maintained that all articles required passing WP:V and WP:GNG independently and disagreed with his conclusions. I'm curious as to why he would change WP:SS to reflect something he said it already stated, and why he wasn't following the good advice at WP:BRD by discussing it once his changes were reverted. I don't have time to review this completely at this time, but felt his previous discussion may shine some light on the subject. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. On NPOV I have not continued prosecuting my improvements. On WT:N I also admitted when a superior argument was made just after my edit. On Longevity my history is an open book, but the last editor who brought up old news at ANI didn't get anywhere. On Dennis my initial statements to him were more supportive of "not requiring N", but I believe I always upheld that "N is relevant". I didn't change it to reflect something I said it already stated; I added something to it that WP:N already stated. On BRD I affirm it and I believe evidence will show I upheld it. On Dennis's hint that previous discussion may shine light, I affirm that my attempt to pseudomediate at MMA is related, but so are many other topic areas, as other editors have affirmed. JJB 01:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC) User:Hasteur has just committed a WP:TALKO violation to this page, rearranging my comments differently from the intended presentation. JJB 01:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*1 It's called making it easier to read. TRY IT Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically granted under Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Hasteur — continues after insertion below

Please do not charge my single-paragraph style as "error". JJB 01:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you post "wall of text" single-paragraphs, it's likely that many readers will just skip over them, because they are difficult to read. Paragraph breaks not only give you the opportunity to present your points cogently, grouping like ideas together, but the visual break provided helps the reader navigate through the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 I think JJB has missed the point of the notification clause. In no way did Dmcq state the name he linked to a ongoing conduct discussion about the user. JJB did however mention the user, so his notification was appropriate. Sidebar: I bet money that the first posting the editor makes will be to claim a conspiracy to suppress his/JJB's viewpoint by a cabal out to destroy all of Wikipedia. I'm not bitter, just no longer innocent to the type of posting that this micro-consensus posts when they get challanged with no good reasoning.Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"The editor" (Agent00f) was mentioned by Dmcq as part of an RFC/U link (which you started), which is pretty good mention. I don't believe your prediction about "the editor" is appropriate for this board. JJB 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, when objections were raised at WP:NPOV you waited until the comments stopped coming and then started again: [8]. You clearly have not upheld BRD because you were adding content for which there was no consensus for, in fact the consensus was against it. Also here is where I revert you bold additions: [9], here you re-add them again [10] IRWolfie- (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I must also categorically reject IRWolfie-'s characterizations, and disagree with Dennis about my having a "rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability." Rather, I was investigating whether N considerations could result in a mediation solution, not firmly deciding on any particular consideration. If specific explanation of my use of BRD at NPOV is needed, I will be happy to oblige. JJB 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) However, I am taking a brief break now. Feel free to pile on, I will respond or ignore when I get back. JJB 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In this comment [11] you pretty clearly say that MMA articles shouldn't have to pass WP:GNG if they are filtered through WP:SS. "But first, standing alone does not mean standing alone for N, in context it means standing alone for V; and second, not every article must pass GNG, which is why we have SNG and local consensus as well." I'm sorry, but the whole point of your conversation there was to find a way to have MMA articles, via WP:SS, that didn't have to pass GNG. I didn't get it at the start of the conversation, because the idea is rather "out there" in terms of interpreting policy. Your stated that rather "firmly" there, there was no ambiguity in your position. I'm not making a comment on this current case, just saying you already had indicated that you were convinced that WP:SS was a way to avoid having to pass N / GNG (WP:N), and trying to persuade me to this point of view, which I rejected. This is why once I saw you were tinkering with WP:SS, this threw up a red flag, and even though I wasn't going to be on Wikipedia tonight, here I am. I'm not expressing an opinion on this ANI itself (and won't), but your recollection of the previous conversations is less than perfect here. The coincidence is simply worth pointing out, and others may consider or discount as they please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then I think he flatly contradicted himself in a statement he made in that VPP discussion "Masem 1: It is true that Dmcq raises the bogeyman of "all spinouts become automatic keepers", though there is no evidence I ever held this view" in this diff. Dmcq (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, as current WT:N discussion confirms, N is not GNG; N is the superset of GNG or SNG or local or AFD consensus of N independent of any guideline. So it's not a heresy to admit not every article must pass GNG, firmly and unambiguously. I was hoping that SS might be a way to find a middle ground between two hot camps. When I first started editing SS I advertised that one reason for doing so was a then-current conflict. Again, if either of you can "connect the dots" for me and show that I made the claims you inferred, I would appreciate it. JJB 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I will leave to others to connect as I feel it is obvious to anyone who wants to pour through the conversation[12], I'm not going to offer an opinion here and haven't looked at all the information, and I'm only noting a pre-disposition and possible motivation as it was relevant. Having such strong feelings about WP:SS as well as the desire to connect it to MMA to allow keeping all articles is a conflict for you. It doesn't automatically prohibit you from editing it, but your fundamental understanding of the policy is and was flawed, and at the least it is biased/ Self-restraint would have been a better option. I like you JJB, even if we disagree on many things, and your interpretation is certainly imaginative, but it is inconsistent with the policy itself. I would think it better if you didn't tinker with it as you have a demonstrated bias here. We all have biases on one subject or another, and it is wise to simply avoid those areas. If you are going to forcefully use a policy as a basis for keeping all your articles, do not go and change the policy so that others will question if it is only to make it fit your world view. It is a bit of common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Jclemens encouraged discussion, I'm disappointed you've drawn obvious conclusions that are also not worth your connecting for my benefit. MMA was merely the catalyst to reveal a problem, acknowledged at VPP, relating to spinout notability. Ending 5-6 years of delete wars that I documented there would also improve the encyclopedia. I have no desire necessarily to "allow keeping all articles": I'm merely looking for methods that might bridge the gap.

I went into RFC and into RFC/U unbiased. Communicating with Agent00f revealed a concern that could be tested by policy discussion. Communicating with Hasteur revealed, let's not go there, but it was a different experience than with Agent00f. Communicating with you revealed that you don't always see things any more neutrally than I do (a first example is that you see those other two editors differently than I do; a second example is that you affirmed Hasteur for calling my migrative resolution proposals "Stockholm syndrome"; if you want more examples I'll go back to your talk).

I announced my involvement when I started editing SS. As VPP reveals, the widespread nature of the issue merits discussion not fixated on MMA. My edits to SS were either minor, accepted by Dmcq, or were exact quotes from other guidelines, so I don't know why my "fundamental understanding" is flawed and don't know that you want to enlighten me. Your phrase "keeping all your articles" charges me with WP:OWN without evidence. But see my next comment below. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB is continuing disruption by trying to move or fork the centralized discussion to the talk page of WP:SS see [13]. The topic clearly could affect the wording of WP:SIZE and also involves bits copied from WP:NOTABILITY and might affect it too. The discussion was clearly at WP:VPP#Splitting articles arbitrarily and there is no point having talks at Wikipedia_talk:Article_size#Discussion_about_split_of_large_articles_at_an_arbitrary_point where he also tried to have separate talks, or continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#Policy_check. Dmcq (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is just more MMA related disruption, the tactics of the MMA fans is to create as many points of discussion as is possible, use SPA to debate the community into submission, to try and change community guidelines and policy in such a way as to allow them to have there one article per event and have the encyclopaedia the go to place for MMA related news and gossip. Mtking ^(edits) 09:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As such, we should never discuss it again. Deor (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In the last graf of Dmcq's diff, given to allege I'm trying to move or fork discussion, I acknowledge Dmcq's idiosyncratic views about proper discussion pages by beginning, "So at whatever page we continue to work this out ...." I am no MMA fan nor SPA. I am merely someone discovering the effects of sticking both feet into attempts to pseudomediate MMA. JJB 11:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you can not mediate at MMA. You clearly have a bias and are not objective in this matter. This is fine and you are certainly welcome to participate, but your bias is very, very evident, as has been demonstrated in a number of venues. Mediation implies neutrality and your actions clearly indicate you are not. I certainly would never go and change the guidelines for something I was "mediating" in, as that is clearly a violation of neutrality and trust. No mediator would dare do such a thing. That you would present yourself as neutral is disturbing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I entered the discussion neutrally. I discovered data that appeared to tend in one direction and gradually affirmed that data as more and more accumulated. The first datum was that the diffs presented were nowhere near the type of misbehavior usually seen at RFC/U, and your inability to see that makes your own bias evident IMHO (perhaps you had no bias when you began, of course). You seem to believe it is unnecessary to bring more evidence to convince me of my bias, it's so obvious to you. Also, no party considered SS as a guideline for MMA resolution, so there was nobody holding out trust for me to not improve SS. However, I have been cautious about the word "mediate" in the past so am refactoring it.

My recommended closure is that you rejoin VPP, or else ask me to link you an essay on spinout notability for joint collegial discussion such as we enjoyed at your talk. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm not involved in the MMA debate, my bias isn't being called into question here. The conversation we had shows that I did consider your argument, and much of what I'm seeing at the PPV confirms what I told you there. Even if I were to consider you neutral (and I don't), editing the policy pages for policies that are being used to bolster your solution is clearly a violation of that neutrality, and yes, is disturbing. Regardless of what side of the argument someone is on, or if they are in the middle, changing the "rules" to match their outcome is not acceptable. To me, that act alone disqualifies you from calling yourself neutral, as it looks like you are trying to manipulate the "rules" to be consistent with your desired outcome, even if that outcome is a compromise. That is a rather huge, cardinal sin in mediation, and a fatal one. You just don't do that in mediation. Ever. That you fail to understand this shows that either you don't understand what neutral or mediation means, or that you have a bias and are manipulating the policies to fit it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

\The other possibility is disruption whilst understanding the policies and without having a bias. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What do people here make of 'There is still one other page that discussion may still validly "split out" onto later, viz., User talk:Dmcq.' in his latest diff on the WP:SS talk page? I had just written "Thanks for that offer, in general I'm happy to go on about how things work or ways to do things or a bit of general waffle or even a few days of a one to one dispute, but I have this thing against meatpuppetry and canvassing and groupthink so for longer or wider disputes I try for transparency as far as possible - so I try to practice what I preach as far as talking about articles or policies is concerned" on Jclemens talk page about talking there separately. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an oblique hint that your behavior linked from that diff (continuing to discuss on other pages) not only refuses to discuss a guideline change at its talk, but also is starting to cross the line into needing a user warning. Since you ran here, such a warning is also appropriate here, if necessary; but per Jclemens only a warning. I have been waiting for you to discuss policy substantively on any page. (I see your new 3 grafs at VPP now, so I'll try back there again.) JJB 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have clearly described the objections to the insertion [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=494667789&oldid=494654943 diff] which also includes JJB's reply. If some admin would like to make a decision about my complaint against JJB of disruption I would be very grateful. Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one else will, then I guess I need to make it clear, although I thought I had in a more gentle manner earlier. Anyone who is involved in a dispute discussion, and their central point is based upon a policy, should not edit that policy page. Period. If you arguing how WP:SS is why your proposal is "right", then you do not go and modify WP:SS to make it fit your view. Common sense would tell you that you don't even go and modify anything for the policy during a conflict that is based on it, as you have a conflict of interest at that time. JJB, do not edit any policy that you are using central to dispute resolution, which at this time means WP:SS, until the MMA dispute around it has concluded. Dmcq, since you are involved at the pump discussion and other RFC/U venues, you should also refrain. I will only to revert to a state prior to when both of you began editing it, and I will consider further editing to be disruptive. Right now, I'm not taking any other action except to revert and tell you both to stop editing it, directly or by proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that stops it whilst the MMA business is going on and I can't see why things shouldn't then get back to normal. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• • At the talk page of WP:SS he is intimating that I am not removed enough to make this determination. If any other admin wants to review, please feel free to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record I support the revert, in fact had considered making the very same edit, this shows a clear change in tactics to move the discussion to other parts of the 'pedia so as to demonstrate MMA events meeting guidelines and policy by changing the guidelines and policy to say what they need them to say. Mtking ^(edits) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• It is not a good idea to propose far-reaching general policy interpretations for the purpose of achieving one's end on a specific localized issue. Myself, I do think we ought to sometimes split on the basis of complexity & logic rather than Notability, but I think it would be unconstructive to suggest doing so to accommodate more fully any one particular area where I have a special interest. I agree with Dennis & Dmcq about the intent of JJB's changes here, and I agree that they should not be discussed in the MMA context. Trying to do things that way would result in unstable policy, and damage the encyclopedia as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well said; I think your first sentence in particular should be framed and hung on the door for all who enter to read. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Another admin has chosen to fully protect the page from editing by anyone as an extra precaution, which I support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not part of the WP:SS editing disagreement above though my RfC was linked, but I'd like to point there was significant agreement at VPP on other issues of notability outside of the thread that discussed WP:SS specifics. It was unfortunate that instead of building on this consensus, the conversation was shifted towards accusations about inherent notability and other wiki-law minutia. I only hope the other editors there can continue the productive dialog without getting mired in ANI drama.

To that end it would be best if Hasteur didn't keep attempting to conflate with myself or other editors (fixed link). This behavior's already previously resulted in this comment at the RfC/U started by him/her, which was very confusing given I wasn't involved with any WP:SS/SIZE specifics or wherever "games in a series" came from. Fortunately that confusing incident was sorted out, and it's only due to it that I'm circumstantial involved here for what looks to be the same dispute.

More generally, the broader guideline discussion at VPP seems worthwhile for clarification of the 99.99%+ of wiki outside of any individual subject, as evidence by participation and various consensus of all others with no involvement in any sport. At least that was true until the turn noted above. I've commented in brief about bringing drama from elsewhere before; the advice applies widely and IMO needs no elaboration. Agent00f (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with Hasteur, and this is a bit out of venue. Here, the result was JJR and the person who brought up the issue, Dmcq being banned from editing WP:SS, a partial boomerang of sorts. It wasn't about the content of any edits or MMA specifically, only the principal of editing a policy you are temporarily "involved" with. Dragging up other editor's unrelated actions in this particular ANI report isn't useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The link is rather direct given Hasteur's comments are the reason why previous MMA drama was specifically roped into this where it only produced unhelpful confusion. I'm merely suggesting that we can minimize future outbreaks of the same by similarly minimizing such behavior. Agent00f (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton 29 copyright violations

Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a habit of uploading copyrighted photographs taken by people other than themselves and claims it as own work. This issues with copyright may also apply to their text based contributions since for example most of Brett Whiteley Studio article is from Brett Whiteley Studio web page. Also back in October 2011 Merbabu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tagged the use page with {{sockpuppet|Jackp}}, going by the behaviour of both editors and the areas they edit (stalker) it seems possible but may not be enough. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the sock puppet suspicions, that's based on uncanny editing habits that include boasting about Sydney being a global city, and a film editing streak. Also, Adelaide and South Australian topics. Both editors have contributed a lot to Chloë Sevigny and other female actors, and also horror films including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. --Merbabu (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Any Admins going to do something or we just let them continue? Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton 29 has previous socking history. I'm uncomfortable with sockblocks outside SPI myself, but I dare say that there are editors more familiar with that who will block on the provided evidence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the sock puppetry evidence; the copyright issues are enough for me. Multiple times, this person has uploaded images published on various webpages claiming they are his or her own work. This can't be permitted to continue. I've indeffed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Independent review of Xenos2008's block and ultimatum

Moved back to original thread on WP:AN. – Fut.Perf. ☼

Disruptive and uncommunicative IP at Secular humanism

There has been a longstanding introductory sentence to the article - "The philosophy of secular humanism... embraces human reason, ethics, and justice while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.." 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) first sought to remove the reference to "justice" (first example here), and, on being reverted, sought an WP:RFC for the change here. There was some support from other editors that the reference to "justice" needed to be better sourced, but agreement that the RFC was premature. The IP did not comment at all - and has not done since - on other editors' responses to the RFC. The IP then - here - rewrote the introductory sentence, adding in supposed sources (in fact, in some cases irrelevant and certainly not balanced). Again, despite requests from other editors that these changes be discussed on the talk page, the IP has not done so, but instead has reinstated their RFC request. Other editors have made the point that the references added are partial, and inappropriate for the lede, but have restated their willingness to discuss improving the article, particularly through better and more balanced sourcing to support the opening sentence. As it seems to be impossible for the IP to be effectively blocked, is the only solution to protect the page? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth should I be blocked? I researched the topic, I found a broad range of sources, I added them to the article. Why is it that you're unhappy with that but perfectly willing to accept a completely unreferenced lede? "Other editors" haven't "made the point" that the references are partial. You have made the claim that the references are partial. The "supposed source" as you like to call them were completely relevant. Why do you think that they're unbalanced?89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ledes are not supposed to be referenced; they are supposed to summarise sourced text in the article. Editors agree that the definition of the term needs to be better sourced in the article text. The way to do that is to discuss sources and article text on the talk page, and then agree a lede through consensus - not by adding random, barely relevant or irrelevant, sources, to the opening sentence, and changing the longstanding wording agreed by consensus. Consensus can change, but it needs to be done through discussion on the article talk page. You have not yet contributed to that discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing random, irrelevant or barely relevant about the sources. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the sources, please do so at the article talk page. This page is about your behaviour. You need to withdraw your unilateral edits to the opening sentence, and discuss your suggestions on the talk page, with other editors, to move towards a new consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So... You can complain about me adding "irrelevant" sources, but I can't say "but the sources are relevant"? I don't think that's the way it works. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You've been properly advised that you can discuss the sources and the changes you wish made to the article on the Talk page. Until then, stop insisting on editing the article. I reverted your latest change.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Ghmyrtle's point above, as far as I can tell (and I'm no expert), an IP coming here through a proxy server (dynamically assigned by an ISP), can still be blocked, even if it is not completely effective. One possibility is a soft block. Normally, page protection is reserved for disruption by multiple IP addresses, not just one. Thus, if a block of this particular IP is warranted (say for edit-warring), but after the block, they come back, then at some point page protection would be the right route. Otherwise, we would be penalizing a much broader number of IPs than the particular one assigned by the proxy server.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of dealing with this. The ip is having problems on a lot of articles. Take a look at his talk page's history. Nearly every edit is him being warned, or him reverting the warning. On Secular Humanism in particular, he has continually inserted his own novel definition, edit warred to keep it in, and actively refused to discuss his change on the talk page. His only participation to talk has been to argue that he doesn't have to discuss it. He has also created an RfC (despite refusing to discuss the matter himself), and is edit warring to keep it open. Every editor who has so far commented agreeing that it should be closed, but up to now, I've been the only one to actually close the RfC or engage him on his edit warring over it. Since I'm not interested in being disruptive, his edit warring has been "winning" to keep his content in the article and his inappropriate RfC on talk. Combined with other disruptive editors I've dealt with very recently, it's exhausting... can someone else please step in? (I appreciate Ghmyrtle and Bbb23 correcting the lead. Can someone else block 89.100... for consistently edit warring (or warn him again, or semi the article), and close the improper RfC?) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And in case someone doesn't want to look through his contrib history themselves, here's a few diffs. History of one article, showing 17 combative reverts within just the last 50 edits, spanning back to April,EW warning on April 15, EW warning on May 18, and edit summaries like this are not appropriate. Those are just the first 4 things that popped out at me in less than a minute of looking.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly have I "actively refused" to discuss on talk or "argue that I don't have to discuss it"? I weighed in on discussion here [14] here [15] and here [16], then waited for others to weigh in. I also discussed the issue with you on your own talk page here [17] and here [18]. By delisting the rfc, you prevented fresh pairs of eyes from getting a chance to look at the article. And how is an rfc inappropriate when the regular editors have failed to write an appropriate lede? A responder to the rfc has now inserted referenced info relating to secular humanism and justice into the text body, which nobody had done before the rfc, and which was what the rfc was to draw attention to. Keeping editing of an article exclusively to regular editors is a recipe for WP:BIAS. I never inserted "my own novel definition". I researched the topic, and added three differing descriptions referenced to reliable sources. It wasn't my definition. It was the definitions I found in published sources. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That is grossly misrepresenting facts. Your first diff was to open the RfC, your first edit to the talk page ever, and your second and third diff are you arguing that the RfC was justified. Every editor has told you that you're handling this the wrong way. You've responded to them by edit warring without discussion. That's disruptive.

Don't take credit for Donald's work; he agreed your proposal was inappropriate, and he actually took the time to collaborate on a solution and found sources to support it. Considering that everyone agrees the RfC was unjustified, and it's only open due to your insistence on edit warring, and the issue it intends to address has already been handled, it would be a measure of good faith for you to listen to their advice and close it. Short of that, I think a block for consistently edit warring across multiple articles is warranted (or a final warning to that effect), and someone else should properly delist the RfC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything, grossly or otherwise. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying "A responder to the rfc has now inserted referenced info relating to secular humanism and justice into the text body" is not claiming credit for someone else's work, and you know that it is not. It's saying that someone else added referenced material. He didn't "agree that my proposal was inappropriate", and you know that he did not, so do not say that he did to try to prop yourself up. The rfc was completely justified. The regular editors had failed to add references for material they wanted included, and wouldn't allow the unreferenced material to be removed. Responding to the rfc, user:DonaldRichardSands added references for unreferenced material. I wanted to remove unreferenced material, doing so is perfectly okay. He added references for unreferenced material, doing that is also perfectly okay. You wanted to keep unreferenced material, that is not okay. When I took the time to find sources for the article, they were deleted. That is not okay. Other editors are still commenting on the rfc, so it would be inappropriate to close it. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't break up the responses of other editors. I moved your response down. As for the rest, I think the diffs, and conversation on article talk speak for themselves. IRWolfie has correctly (per the input of everyone who has so far commented) removed the RfC tag. Please do not re-add it again. And please stop combatively edit warring across multiple articles. You need to work collaboratively with others. The RfC did nothing to help the article; discussion (from editors other than you) did. Please learn from that experience, and take the advice of everyone else here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"As for the rest, I think the diffs, and conversation on article talk speak for themselves." Translation: You have no defense other than ignoring me. "The RfC did nothing to help the article; discussion (from editors other than you) did". The rfc is what brought (and is still bringing) editors there. Why are you ignoring that fact? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you refusing to discuss the matter on the article talk page? I don't get it. You've spent an incredible amount of time arguing about the validity of the RfC on talk, my talk, here, and now you've brought this to DRN too... but you've spent no time at all to discussing the actual article. You've been advised to do so everywhere. Why won't you? If you're not willing to discuss this on the article talk page, then I have no interest in rehashing this discussion over and over on ANI. I'll leave others to comment.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible paid advocacy/socking

Classified ad here shows potential for paid editing for author Jon Gordon. The job was awarded to an Elance contractor. Today (the 27th of May) an article was created forJon Gordon by an account that was created on the same day. Well written but I'm not sure meets notability. Also, the Elance contractor has completed Wikipedia jobs as late as June 23rd 2011, but the account that created the article for Jon Gordon is new. Maybe abusing more than one account? Editor has been notified of discussion. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note This Elance contractor was also hired to write an article for Sahpreem A. King. Evidence hereLawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen several conversations on paid editing, but there is no consensus that it violates any policy here. I don't like it, but I don't run the place, so not sure what we can do at ANI. If you suspect sockpuppeting (which admittedly, looks like an interesting possibility), WP:SPI would be the venue to connect those two via a Checkuser, and ask for a check for sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the articles are compliant with Wikipedia policies or the mercenary is actively seeking help making their articles compliant, there need be no action taken. If neither, the articles should be deleted and the mercenary dealt with. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well-written articles on subjects not previously covered? Oh noes! The Garbage Skow (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Aren't they required to disclose the COI? I'm fine with the person being paid, but my understanding is that they have to disclose this obvious conflict of interest. (Obviously, if he's also a sockpuppet, that's another matter entirely)JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• As far as I know editors are only encouraged to disclose a COI. Fair assessments. Appreciate the input. I will not post COI related issues here in the future. and based on Elance evidence, I will request a SPI. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ahhh, you are correct. It's just "advisable to disclose your employer on your userpage so that others will be aware that you may exhibit a bias."JoelWhy (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that what's happenning here is that an established editor is doing paid editing under alternative accounts. As I understand it, paid editing is currently allowed, but frowned on by many. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest is discouraged, but also allowed. Using multiple accounts is not necessarily either sock puppetry or forbidden. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry does not specifically settle the question of whether the use of multiple accounts to manage conflict of interest or paid editing counts as sock puppetry. The only relevant item under "inappropriate uses" is "avoiding scrutiny". One might assume that the established editor is using alternative accounts in order to avoid tarring their main account with the opprobrium of paid editing, and using separate accounts to prevent other editors from detecting a pattern in contributions. They might simply be using the alternative accounts to track the work done for different customers, but that in itself would not be a barrier to disclosure. Under "legitimate uses" (which "avoiding scrutiny" specifically defers to), the only applicable section is "privacy", which is aimed at preventing Wikipedia editing from having real-life consequences. Here, the hypothetical paid editor might be trying to prevent their real life employment from affecting their Wikipedia reputation.

In summary, while the information above does suggest that multiple accounts are being used, I think you need to establish that they're likely being used inappropriately before calling for an SPI. Bovlb (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think that this archived SPI involving the paid editor in question suggests inappropriate use of multiple accounts. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon

KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) recently started a handful of AFDs of list articles, which included Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful coups d'état and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of assassinated people (2nd nomination), which just stated as the rationale "Per WP:NOTDIR WIkipedia is not a list" [sic] and "Delete per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a directory" [sic]. Unsurprisingly, both AFDs received nothing but "keep" !votes, most of which criticized the nomination for being a WP:VAGUEWAVE and for not understanding what WP:NOTDIR itself says in its own introduction ("Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles...").

After eight unanimous keeps, all of which cited relevant guidelines and policy to explain why the nomination was incorrect in claiming NOTDIR forbade all lists, an admin closed the coups d'etat AFD as a WP:SNOW KEEP. KoshVorlon had not further participated in the discussion to rebut any of the comments or to elaborate his rationale. He nevertheless twice reverted that admin close,[19],[20], inexplicably claiming that it was "contrary to consensus" and so was invalid, and that the editor who reverted his improper undoing of the close was himself violating WP:TPO by, in the process, removing a comment KoshVorlon had added when it was "open" (which was only because KoshVorlon himself had opened it).[21]

In the other AFD, we again had nine keep !votes, and again criticism of the substanceless nom. When KoshVorlon finally responded,[22] it was to claim that NOTDIR forbade all lists, that this was policy and we had no ability to override it, and that our comments were inappropriately attacking his nomination. "As consensus has decreed Wikipedia articles can't be lists, you should all be showing consensus why it should stay or else it goes." Three commenters responded, explaining why he was misunderstanding NOTDIR, quoting the relevant intro that he somehow missed, and pointing to numerous guidelines regarding lists (not to mention WP:FL) that clearly would not exist if there was a consensus against lists.[23] KoshVorlon responded by claiming, well, okay, lists of links to articles are okay, but "This is not a list of links to articles, it's simply a list," which NOTDIR policy forbids.[24] Which is simply false anyway because every entry in the list has an article link, as was immediately pointed out.[25]

Most recently, he has been edit warring to hide critical comments in the open AFD by multiple editors in the assassination list AFD as "ad hominem" attacks,[26],[27],[28] still also claiming that his view of NOTDIR was correct and that no one in the AFD had shown cause to override that "consensus".[29] All of these have been criticizing his conduct and comments in that AFD and so are in my view appropriate; in any event, it is inappropriate for him to hide entire comments he does not like.

As I and a couple other commenters have observed, this is either trolling or an epic-level inability to read and understand policy, including that which he himself is citing, or an inability to even accurately read the content he is proposing for deletion. I've seen that many of his recent edits, at least, have been vandal reversions that I can find no fault with, but I can't help but wonder how the issues that have arisen in AFD must color his other contributions. Regardless of whatever he is thinking, the clear tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and completely selective quoting of policy is a problem regardless. We have a definite issue whenever an editor is unilaterally insisting upon his view of policy regardless of everyone else agreeing with him, and obviously his reversion of the deletion close rather than posting at DRV is contrary to policy. I think the pending AFD should be SNOW-closed as keep, a temporary ban on starting AFDs, and we should first see if he will consider mentoring and prior review of his posts in Wikipedia space before considering a broader ban there. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Did not read this all, but affirm the AFDs seemed misguided at the time. JJB 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't be here if that was the only problem. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Snow closed Afd, support Afd ban, and a minnow to OP for edit warring over {{hat}} -- putting a hat template on a subsection attracts attention to it per beans, so edit warring over it is just silly. Nobody Ent 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• KoshVorlon clearly has some misunderstandings with respect to WP:NOTDIR and WP:AFD in general, but I really don't think it has risen to the level where any action is necessary, whether it be topic bans or blocks. He has nominated a whopping total of 4 articles in the last 2 weeks, and before that it was a year since his last nomination. I think Kosh needs someone to explain some things to him on his talk page (which appears to be happening already), and then go about his day. This isn't an ANI situation yet. -Scottywong| confer _ 14:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• If you can't take the heat, don't take an article to AFD. The last comment he hatted was clearly nothing that should have been hatted (although none actually deserved hatting, just basic "pepper" in an AFD). I'm not sure that a ban is needed, but more than a minnow is required. I don't have a problem with bringing it here, although it is borderline, but someone needs to explain several things to him, including when to to revert a closing admin (ie: not when you are the nom), when to hat (not just when someone disagrees or offers a strong objection to the nom) as well as the obvious WP:BEFORE, which includes reading the policy on lists first. The hat warring was particularly WP:LAME. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I hatt'ed out the comments because the Afd was turning into ad hominem attacks which are inapropriate for any board.

C'mon, don't you think you're going a bit overboard here? We already have a policy that forbids lists, I submitted a list for deletion. The next step is showing cause for it to remain, rather than doing that, you and the other individual I hatted launched into ad hominen attacks on the nominator. In fact, you're still doing that now, referring to my AFD comments as "trolling". Check my contributions, I don't troll here. I remove vandalism and occasionally nominate articles for deletion.

BtW - that close you referred to up top where I stated TPO was violated, really did happen:

I was writing and at the same time, the NAC was being performed on it. So yes, my comments got removed while it was opened.

 KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Kosh, as Scotty points out, you don't submit a lot to AFD, so let us explain: I would suggest your threshold is a bit low when determining what is an attack and what is a peppered observation. While the comments were more incivil than they needed to be, you hatted the vote part, hatted one that wasn't an attack, and got into a lame revert war. Lists are not forbidden, or we wouldn't have a policy that covers them. Most people would agree (and have) that the AFDs were ill nominated. Then you reverted a close of an article you nominated at AFD, which is improper. I don't think you were trolling, but I do think you don't understand the guideline on lists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, but I do think Scottywong has got it right here, this isn't quite ANI level yet. Given that fact that Postdlf was also edit warring, I think he might do best by having a cup of tea and a little break from Kosh. Kosh, your recent nominations have been problematic, as was your edit war, for reasons I've explained on your talk page. Hopefully we can all move on without too much more fuss. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice to think, but I think the previous comment from Kosh points to a rather deep problem here, not simply an AFD-specific problem: he is still insisting that when a non-admin undid Kosh's own reversion of an admin's close of the first AFD, that this was itself a non-admin close, and that when this restoration of the close removed a comment that Kosh added only after he himself had reopened the AFD, that this violated WP:TPO. So he can find talk page guidelines and knows the phrase NAC, but cannot find or understand deletion policy that you do not revert admin closes but instead discuss first and then start a DRV. This demonstrates a pretty serious inability to understand and apply policy on the same order as his misinterpretation of NOTDIR in the face of unanimous disagreement, which he thought entitled him to revert the admin's close in the first place. I don't like conflict on WP, and I was hoping this would either go away or someone else would start an ANI, but we do the project a disservice when we just let things drop when they are clearly unresolved and there is clearly problem behavior that he is showing no sign of yet understanding is a problem. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis we do, WP:NOTDIR. This is policy and thus community consensus. The AFD never showed that this consensus must change. When a consensus exists, and anyone wants to change it, the onus is on them to show that it must be change. This didn't happen in either AFD. And yes, I know I submitt very few AFD's... so,yes, I'm not over-experienced in that area so I won't be submitting those articles again.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have advised KoshVorlon on three occasions in the last few days (here,here and here) that WP:NOTDIR does not forbid lists; other people have also done so. But he continues to insist that WP:NOTDIR represents a consensus by Wikipedians to forbid lists, despite the total consensus to the contrary of the Wikipedians who have discussed the issue with him. He has also made the bizarre assertion that List of assassinated people is "not a list of links to articles" (in that article's AfD discussion) when it manifestly is a list of links to articles. I am concerned by his total failure to listen to what people are saying to him and I cannot understand the assertion about the list of links, though I acknowledge that the behaviour does seem to be on a small scale at the moment and the user seems to also be making worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if any sanctions are appropriate. Dricherby (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's not IDHT.... Please note WP:NOTDIR says:
  
  

Wikipedia articles are not:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.

It's here in black and white. Just so we're clear.... I will not submitt any afd on any article that's a list since we seem to disagree that policy says what it says. I will not comment on any afd that's submitted as a list as well. That sound good ?  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  15:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your signature is getting a bit out of hand again, as it spans multiple lines when you post. Can this be reined in a bit? Y'know we've been to ANI about this before as well. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• My concern in the AFDs was that somebody could so fundamentally misunderstand a policy which is right there in black & white, ignoring the fact that other editors, including myself, provided a number of examples which demonstrated that his policy interpretation was completely wrong. Anyone can screw an AFD nomination or misquote a policy by accident, I know I have. The fact that KoshVorlon's nomination was faulty is not an issue as it was obviously in good faith. But to repeatedly insist that the sky is green when other people are showing you that it's blue.... Competence is a requirement to edit Wikipedia and if an editor in unable to comprehend policies even after reading them and having them explained then perhaps it's better if they part ways with the project. I take no pleasure in saying that and I believe KoshVorlon means well with his editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • From your bolding, you're not reading it as intended: (Lists or repositories of) loosely associated topics ~. Wikipedia has list articles intentionally; what it is trying to avoid is lists of trivia. Dru of Id (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I explained the distinction between "(Lists) or (repositories of [stuff])" and "(lists or repositories) of [stuff]" when KV asked about it on my talk page. I'm reasonably sure he read what I wrote there because, after I made it, he made a minor edit to his own comment there (perfectly acceptable; just fixing a couple of broken links). But, still, he insists that his interpretation is correct and doesn't even acknowledge that other people (exactly the "consensus" that KV holds so high) have stated otherwise. Dricherby (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate the undertaking not to get involved with AfDs on lists (assuming this extends to WP:PRODs, as well). That allays my most significant concern. Dricherby (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought of that, but I'll add Prod's to that list too. Kosh ^{Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj} 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of comments from talk pages

• And now a separate issue, though related to the hatting in AfDs. In this edit to a talk page, KoshVorlon removed the (unsigned) comment of another user and a subsequent (signed) comment of a third user from a talk page with the edit summary "rm Garbage". However, the comment was certainly not garbage in the "patent nonsense" sense of WP:SD#G1; it was merely an implausible assertion. A further comment has been removed at [30].

  Also, abusive comments that VorlonKosh posted to an IP user's talk page (though he subsequently thought the better of it and deleted them). Dricherby (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

First, it's polemic, second it's using the talk page like a forum, third, it's an attack on a living individual, fourth, | it falls under General Sanctions, broadly construed . The original poster put it right back in and I advised I wouldn't touch it again.

The second item you mentioned is not recent, but yes, I admit that was harsh,that's why I redacted it. the "rm garbage" means just was it says, garbage was inserted into an article. I used "garbage" rather than "vandalism" as vandalism has a specific meaning, I tend to use this term except when it's unambiguous to avoid the drama above.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly was not the original poster [31]. I did respond to the comment here: [32]. The original post was over the top for sure, but calling my post 'garbage' is way out of line, again, unless I am missing something. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the next time you want to accuse me of violating WP:FORUM WP:BLP or any other policy here at ANI I would request a notification. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not "inserted into an article": I am specifically talking about your deletions from talk pages. I see nothing in the Obama article probation (my emphasis) GS that refers to deleting material from talk pages. Please read WP:TPO: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (emphasis in the original). Deleting prohibited material (libel, personal attacks, etc.) and removing harmful posts (personal attacks, trolling, vandalism) are usually fine but note the specific exclusion: "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial" (emphasis in original). Specifically, calling Obama a "f***ing liar" is simple invective, in my opinion; even if you disagree, it would suffice to have deleted those words, rather than the whole comment. It is not for you to decide what topics can be discussed on talk pages: whether or not Bin Laden died in 2006 is clearly relevant to the talk page on that article, regardless of your (and my) opinion that the claim lacks credibility. It is also not for you to decide the truth or otherwise of the comments you deleted from the other talk page I mentioned. If you believe that something in an article is wrong and it's unsourced then deleting it is usually reasonable; the same does not generally apply to talk pages. Dricherby (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

DBrodbeck --- Your correct, I was responding to Dricherby, but yes, I should have alerted you as well. Big-Ass Trout accepted for that.

Dricherby, calling Obama a "f*cking liar" is BLP. BLP applies everywhere, and rather than stir more drama about how I read policy (and believe me I get it, I read it more incorrect than correct) I 'll just leave it at this. I see a BLP, I'll remove BLP. BLP trumps TPO. I let it remain rather than stir more drama, and yes, I'll let someone else pull it from that article.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"BLP" means "Biographies of living persons". "F***ing liar" is not a biography. While I would not object to the removal of those words from the comment, I see no justification for removing the whole comment. Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically calling out someone as a "liar" is debatably a BLP vio, especially in the context of the comment. BLP applies everywhere. That said, the entire comment was inappropriate trolling. Deleting or archiving it was appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious editing of population figures by 46.19.99.6

The IP user 46.19.99.6 (talk · contribs) has been making a prodigious number of edits lately — mostly to population figures for ethnic Armenians and Georgians in various countries. None of these changes appear to be sourced, and I suspect they are simply random vandalism. I don't have time right now to fix the problem, but I'm reporting it here in hopes that someone else can. I've put an ANI-notice on the IP's talk page. — Richwales 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this, this and this change numbers from something matching the inline ref to a new number which I could charitably call "made up" or "impossible to reconcile with sources". Sometimes I wish we could semiprotect all demographics... meanwhile this change breaks an infobox whilst trying to reallocate Gao from Mali to Azawad. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They've been doing it for quite a while. This edit on 7 January sneakily changed a date from 1996 to 1976. The source says 1996. Is it practical to clean up all these errors? bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this something that could be nuked? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Their latest edits, today, seem to be a little odd but it's not actually inserting false numbers so I'm not going to demand a block or whatever. Instead of templating I've left a personal message on the talkpage.

I'm no admin, but... doesn't nuking deal with pages rather than edits? In this case they've generally made subtle tweaks to established pages. Clicking "undo" manually might work but in many cases it'll conflict with later changes by others. They've done under 200 edits. It may have to be a tedious manual job... bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Since nobody else is gullible enough to volunteer to go through the contribs list and fix any false numbers, I'll do it later today whenever I have spare time. bobrayner (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:VivaWikipedia

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

---

This user is not new as such, but has only recently become what I would call active, and seem to be focusing on a lot of I-P topics. The user is currently attempting to add Occupation 101 on Rachel Corrie as a reliably-sourced documentary (while the documentary's page itself says it particularly spoke to those critical of Israel), and is proceeding to argue with anyone who thinks otherwise without really supplying any sort of argument (see Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Occupation_101_RS as well as my talk. I also reverted some editorializing on Norman Finkelstein and From Time Immemorial from this user, as have others on other articles. I'd normally say this was a content dispute, but there's a 1RR restriction on Rachel Corrie per ArbCom, and there also seems to be a generalized issue of VW editing I-P topics from a POV perspective, or simply not understanding policies before editing those articles. See [33], [34], [35], and [36] for examples. There are several issues here, and thus I am unsure whether this is a guidance issue, uncorrectable tendentious editing, something for AE, or perhaps something else entirely. MSJapan (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I just found out about this right after I responded to the AN3 report. I've blocked VivaWikipedia for 24 hours after violating 1RR on Rachel Corrie and issued an ARBPIA notification. If other people think further sanctions are warranted, I'm fine with that as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly standard case of an inexperienced editor in the I-P topic area falling afoul of one policy or another and getting beaten around the head with the ARBPIA sanctions by experienced opposing editors and a willing Admin. If we really want to encourage new editors into the topic area we need to take time to explain the rules not just use honest mistakes to take them out of the picture before they have even had an opportunity to learn the ropes. Dlv999 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor is aware of guidelines but persists in editing in a tendentious manner. See this edit where he removes "controversial" and cites the Wiki manual of style. Yet a few days later, he adds this word in the exact manner that he previously objected to, this time the book being one that he disfavors. WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE is something that should be tacitly understood by all editors and "experience" should not be necessary to recognize this; nor should such tendentious editing be characterised as trivial inadvertent infringements.Ankh.Morpork 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Spare me the fake indignation, if you really believe this kind of edit is tendentious why don't you make a case against Ynhockey, an experienced editor who recently added the term to the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine article following removal by VivaWikipedia [37]. Or is it the case that this only constitutes "tendentious" editing when the editor happens to disagree with your POV? And considering after nearly 5,000 edits you still have a message on your user page claiming you are a "new editor and prone to mistakes", I would have thought you would be a bit more sympathetic to bona fida inexperienced editors with less than 175 live edits. Dlv999 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:E4024, again

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

---

Several days ago, E4024 (talk · contribs) received a "final warning" [38] regarding his disruptive and incivil behavior (previous ANI thread here [39]). Unfortunately, if predictably, he has resumed precisely the behavior he was warned against, namely edit-warring [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] and insulting other users in his edit summaries [45] (a jab aimed at me), [46], [47], [48]. He even has the gall to threaten me, if ever so politely, on my talkpage: [49]. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, however, this user seems unable or unwilling to discuss content issues in talkpage, immediately making things in a discussion personal. This can be seen here [50]: I open the thread, he replies, I reply, and then BAM! he forgets about content and goes on about my "problems" [[51]. There is nothing about content there, and he did this completely unprovoked. After seeing comments like these [52] [53] (and many others), it is my distinct impression that this user is too steeped in Turkish nationalist ideology and too aggressive a personality to participate in building a neutral, collaborative encyclopedia. He has been warned several times before (Qwyrxian's warning above is one of many), and while he makes all the right noises after being warned (lots of "please"s, "thank you"s and "all the best"s), he soon resumes his previous behavior when he thinks the storm has passed. Clearly warnings don't work, it is time for something more drastic. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks enforced vacation feels about right - so enforced. Moreschi (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely sounds right. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. After DeCausa enquired about the term "copin" which E4024 used in his reply to Moreschi to refer to you and other editors, a possible Gay slur from the French word "copain" for "boyfriend", E4024 corrected his misspelling to "copain" and erased DeCausa's edit. And he did this after DeCausa told him that "copain" was a possible gay slur. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If he's using slurs, I'd suggest the block either be reset or increased. And if he persists on continuing to use them, revoke his talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dr. K., I'm a bit lost. How is copain or copin a possible gay slur? I don't see either listed in the gay slur list. Also, copain doesn't mean boyfriend, it's a casual word for friend (more than an acquaintance but less than a friend, but not romantic in any event - the French don't use the word friend as much as English-speaking people).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak French but that's what DeCausa told E4024. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is a slur but either way he's probably allowed a bit of extra leeway rant-wise after being blocked. Personally I do not think he will return with an improved attitude, and if not an indef block is likely to be looming in his immediate future anyway. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I did raise this on Moreschi's Talk, but on reflection it's probably best ignored and put down as a "heat of the moment" thing. Arguably I'm culpable for "stirring it" with my post - but I was genuinely puzzled because it seemed pretty obscure, in the circumstances, to use quasi-French. (In answer to Bbb23: I do speak French and no it means boyfriend. Even if I'm incorrect, he changed it in response to my post, which shows his intent) DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nawr, probably nothing sinister there: Copains are just males one likes, quite similar to "mates" in the UK, and "pals" or "buddies" in the US. Copain can mean "boyfriend" too, of course, but without any other context to imply it, one shouldn't assume so. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, particularly in the context. But see my post above. Probably best ignored. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite? Suggest you go ask at fr.wikipedia and see what they have to say. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

He spelt it "copins". I said to him, in terms, did you mean "boyfriends" because if so it's spelt "copains". In response he changed "copins" to "copains". (a) it's clear what he meant (b) I work for a French business and use "copains" all the time to refer to my female colleague's partners...and surprisingly they seem to know to whom I'm referring. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Google translates "copain" as "boyfriend". In any case I can follow Moreschi's logic, but it still seems to me that the context is clear: Calling Athenean and other editors "boyfriends" is a clear gay slur, IMO. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely the logic everyone here is using. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jeremy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a man. I have a male friend. He can properly be called my copain without any implication of romantic interest between the two of us. As OhioStandard would say, this other man and I are pals. As for DeCausa's comment, that's not been my experience in France, although I suppose it might be understood in context. If I wanted to refer to someone's romantic partner, I might say ami/e or petit/e ami/e.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FFS: the context is I said to him he's mis-spelled the word for boyfriend in French and he changed it to conform with the spelling I claimed meant boyfriend!!! Sheesh... DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What's FFS mean - for French sake? No need to get all tied up in a knot, I've read the diff, and it could be interpreted the way you interpret it, but it could be interpreted differently. What a surprise that editors interpret things differently, compounded by the fact that we are interpreting a mix of French and English.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity...for fuck's sake (maybe a British accro?). I think there's too many people around here tonight (myself included) with time on their hands...Good night all. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good night. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be disturbing is if he used the word copine, which is the female equivalent of copain, to refer to males.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This has turned into a French tutorial on human relations. Awesome. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Very WP in its tangentialness! DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be an encyclopaedia if it weren't also educational, even tangentially. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, Google translate translates the plural copains as "guys". WordReference, a more reliable and informative source than Google translate, gives three translations for copain: "friend", "crony", and "boyfriend". In the context in which it was used by E4024, "the accuser and his copains", the most likely intended meaning is "cronies". That is not a gay slur. The interpretation as "his boyfriends" in this context is far-fetched.  --Lambiam 02:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Putain putain, c'est vachement bien. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There you are. Under the nose of the civility police you are uttering all these profanities but since very few in the civility police corps are French speaking you get away with it. Maybe you're on to something. While you're at it perhaps you should inform a few of the chronic targets of the civility brigade about this new almost undetectable method of swearing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Daniel Case disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point

Van Cortlandt Park – 242nd Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) has been move warred several times because of a lack of consensus. User:Daniel Case is the most recent move warrior, but because of his assertions [54] [55] that "consensus doesn't matter", he has become a liability to Wikipedia. I warned him to undo his latest move war in violation of consensus, but he again asserted [56] that consensus doesn't matter. He seems to be operating under the misconception that Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy and the MOS is policy, but neither is the case. He should be blocked to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia until he can collaborate with other editors. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Background

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation and the station naming convention spells out the consensus of how the hundreds of article titles have been formed. The naming convention is the result of much discussion over how to handle these similarly named (and often ambiguously named) stations.

At issue is the spacing of the endashes in the titles. The station articles were developed beginning in 2006 and 2007, with the naming convention being developed in mid-2007. In 2009, it was pointed out to the project [57] that the MOS recommended spaced endashes, and a discussion was started to see if the naming convention should be changed. Consensus developed supporting this and several hundred articles were moved to new titles. Over the course of about two years, thousands of links were also updated.

Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed.

Now, TwinsMetsFan, Daniel Case and Dicklyon are all under the impression that because the MOS guideline has changed, they can ram an extremely disruptive arbitrary change through, without the consensus of those editors it affects. The project has considered this change for several months, but no new consensus formed. Therefore, the current status quo should remain.

One article was even renamed following the current consensus during this time. [58]

Can another administrator look at the naming convention, and recommend a non-disruptive and collaborative solution? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who has correctly interpreted this style question, move warring is inappropriate. I've protected the page. Please discuss further moves on the talk page. - jc37 19:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree the move warring is not the way to handle this, but it takes two to war, and the complainer is the other one here. The "consensus" he points to is from the days when the MOS recommended spaces around en dashes in such contexts. That all changed last year, in a large wide community effort to decide on what the guidelines for en dash should say. In the new scheme, the spaces are not recommended. There is generally not a consensus to allow local groups to make their own style recommendations, so it's time to update these titles. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things–there has to be more to this story so I await more input and — or – all I can say is, GEEZ, ANOTHER dispute over dashes and such? Unbelieveable how much people fight over these things, so let's just go file ANOTHER arbcase and settle the fights over MOS once and for all, if that's even possible. PumpkinSky talk 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant discussions are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/New_York_City_Subway/Station_naming_convention#Outdated_naming_convention and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation#Update_naming_convention.3F (the former article is where the guideline update is, and the latter is where Acps100 moved the discussion to get more eyes on it). Acps110 seems to be the only one objecting to updating the naming guidelines for the subway stuff to agree with the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the MOS was updated by a wider set of the community, I would support updating the article names to reflect the updated guidance on dashes. WP:CONLIMITED would seem to apply here, and the project (actually one member of the project) should yield to the wider consensus and remove the extraneous spaces around the dashes in the article titles. That's just my $0.02 on the matter, Imzadi 1979 → 19:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Full agreement here. As this is related to an arbitration case, ignoring the guideline can lead to some very serious consequences. --Rschen7754 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would declare invalid any vote if it may force millions of edits. Wikipedia is done by volunteers, their time is expensive. Vcohen (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This has WikiProject Ownership written all over it. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to call a certain line in the proposer's paragraph personal attacks. It is extremely rude from a personal standpoint to call someone a liability and be OMG BLOCK NOW without any justification, and that everyone should listen to your demands immediately. That's about the jist of the problem here, not the problem at hand. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, i like spaces around dashes. But the MOS decision was otherwise, and this is the sort of purely formal matter where settling upon a consistent style is better than having one's own way. there's no one right way, and to insist on doing something in a non-standard way when there is no real substantative reason to is disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• In principal, I've never objected to the use of endashes, whenever they're appropriate. If the MTA were to rename Sutphin Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line) station as Sutphin Boulevard – Hillside Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) station, I wouldn't object to the use of an endash for a second. Having said that, they're kind of hard to make, and a lot of editors get too uptight about them. While we're at it, somebody on the commons added one to Flushing Main Street (LIRR station) and that doesn't have a dash, hyphen or endash. Also for the record, the renaming of Atlantic Avenue – Pacific Street (New York City Subway) as Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway), as much as I hate the idea, has nothing to do with the subject. MTA just changed the name of the station. ----DanTD (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Response from Daniel Case

I appreciate all the support I've gotten from knowledgable and experienced editors like DGG and Mitchazenia (among others) who, it should be noted, are close personal friends through our shared active involvement in WM-NYC (in fact, one of them was going over this with me in the flesh yesterday while visiting my house).

I don't like edit warring of any kind, especially when, as in this case where the warring requires the administrative ability to move over redirects, it becomes wheel warring. We as administrators are supposed to be above that so that we may, with minimal hypocrisy, intervene in such disputes to protect the encyclopedia. I therefore deeply resent that Acps110 put me in the position where I had no choice but to do so.

So, I reiterate my previous accountings of this dispute, especially since PumpkinSky said there had to be more (There is):

• At the end of 2010 I finally began processing pictures I had taken during Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes the Subway almost two years earlier, with the intent of adding them to articles and improving them. I was especially interested in doing so for Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), as it's one of the stations listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As a member of WP:NRHP, I wanted to improve it and the nomination was available as an excellent source that had thus far not been used. I was able to develop it to the point that I (as with many other articles) successfully nominated it for DYK. It has reached a standard that I would like to see all our NYC subway station articles, indeed all our articles on mass-transit stations anywhere, reach.

• I participated in the en-dash RFC last summer, as did many other interested Wikipedians, including some of those who have contributed here. This is what Acps110 refers to when he says "Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed." He has been provided with a link to that discussion at least twice (his talk page two months ago, the article talk page two days ago) but apparently, judging by his initial refusal to acknowledge it and his subsequent dismissals of it, has not bothered to read it.

• Since I generally consider my main reason for being here to create and improve content, as well as those front-line administrative tasks that should be a regular responsibility of anyone with the tools, I had not kept track of its outcome and assumed that the requirement that en dashes between spaced elements themselves have spaces on either side had been kept. That impression was, as it turned out, incorrect. In March, TMF moved the article to unspaced. Fifteen minutes later he was reverted by Acps110. I was perplexed at first, but after briefly discussing this with TMF, I understood. I later reverted Acps110's move and left a note on his talk page. He did not respond, there or on my talk page, and I erroneously assumed the matter closed.

More later, I have to eat. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK ...

• A discussion was opened at the project's naming convention talk page. No one responded to TMF except for Dicklyon almost two months later, who announced he was changing the policy. Within hours, Acps110 removed the discussion to the main NYCPT talk page where, he said, it would attract more readers. It did, but they mostly discussed a side issue, and it petered out after two weeks.

• Two weeks later, Acps110 declared no consensus and moved the article back to the spaced dashes. He also reverted Dicklyon's change in NYCPT NC policy without, as far as I can tell, asking or even telling TMF or Dicklyon that he was doing so (an interesting tack to take for someone who claims (inaccurately) that consensus is one of the five pillars. But I digress ...) And ... you know the rest.

More later ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

In conclusion

While I generally try to avoid these sort of drama bursts, I admit that I have seen my name dragged out to AN/I before. When you take a very proactive role in fighting vandalism, reviewing unblock requests and other front-line tasks, it comes with the territory. But ... this is the first time someone's devoted several paragraphs at an AN/I to argue that I should be blocked (a decision that even the hardcores here know usually ought to be left to the participants).

I have to admit that, at first, rather than being disgusted, I'm amused by Acps110. With his Consensus über Alles position, he seems to be a living relic of Wikipedia circa 2003. Encountering an editor like him here and now is like stumbling across some old hippie organic-farm collective in 1985. Or going to a Dead show at that time, man! I didn't believe such people still existed here.

But, that glow of nostalgia cannot hide the fact that there's still a problem. Wikipedia, he wishes to remind me, is neither a battleground nor a bureaucracy. Fine, but he needs to remember that it isn't anarchy, either.

He is correct in one small thing: MOS is not policy, it's a guideline. I allow that I was mistaken in asserting the former. But it is still a guideline with wide acceptance by all editors, a guideline that we generally allow the kind of broad exception that Acps110 seeks only with consensus from a wide group of editors, not just those in a tiny band of the rainbow. If not we would not have had the lengthy discussion of how to amend the en dash section that we did.

Had I come across his recent history in a dispute between two other users, I would have the following concerns with Acps110's editing:

• I am having a great deal of difficulty trying to find a good-faith explanation for so many of Acps110's actions. Particularly the change to the NYCT naming conventions policy page. It seems he was waiting to close the discussion TMF started about changing the policy, a discussion in which what little that was mentioned was relevant went solidly against retaining the current naming convention in light of the MOS change many months prior; and as Dicklyon noted above no one had spoken in favor of retaining it. Acps110 claimed he was waiting for some sort of resolution that not only settled on changing policy and (ultimately) renaming all the non-compliant articles. If so, staying out of the discussion entirely and doing nothing to keep it going is a strange way to do it. Slinking back two weeks after the last post and declaring that no consensus was reached is thus a very thin reed to base your subsequent revert to a project policy page on.

  Similarly, in this AN/I he opened it with a harsh, accusatory and inarticulate indictment of me, then followed the same drive-by pattern of eschewing the ensuing discussion.

  And then there's resuming the move war in spite of my attempt to discuss it with him almost two months earlier with no apparent reply. I do not see what justifies that. I really wonder if this stealth tactic (which I admit I have resorted to in some disputes in the past; that's how I can see it this way) is a way of gaming the system to ensure the preservation of the status quo.

• He clearly fails to assume good faith on my part. In my experience, when the other editor says they're following policy, it's worth it to stop, discuss and check out what they're justifying it with. They might just be right. And you can respect them in the morning, and they you.

  I provided him, as I have shown, multiple times with the relevant links, assuming he would want to inspect them. He completely ignored them then, and only recently has tried to desperately stab for reasons why it just doesn't matter, all rooted in higher, more abstract policies rather than the more nuts-and-bolts aspects of the MOS where a more productive discussion would have taken place.

• For all this heat, he has shed little direct light on why, exactly, he opposes the move. Gathering from the above and this, he does not seem to want to have to do the work. Vcohen seems to support him in this.

You're right, I want neither to do this work nor to have to do it. Vcohen (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're both wrong. After the adoption of the current fair-use criteria in 2006, a lot of people and a few bots did a lot of work finding and (often) deleting third-party copyright images that did not comply. I know ... even though I opposed that policy (and still do to some extent), I was one of them. It wasn't fun, but we got it done.

We do not refuse to implement policy changes the community has decided on just because it will be hard work.

• During the intervening weeks from when the March move war occurred and the present, Acps110 does not seem to have made any attempt to open a discussion at the appropriate MOS talk page about possibly creating an exception for NYC subway station names. I can see where you might be able to argue that. But that would have been the proper way to handle this. MOS:FLAG evolved from this sort of discussion, so it's not impossible to succeed.

• I also find this sentence very telling: "Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed." The level of disengagement this so indifferently reveals is disturbing. The guideline did not "change" by itself, as if it were some chameleon in the deep woods. It was changed by the community through a long discussion process which IIRC was advertised in the main watchlist notice for a while. Many editors took part. If you missed it or otherwise disregarded it, that's on you at this point and you forfeit the right forever to call it undemocratic.

  Acps makes it sound as if it were a random event somewhere, when in fact it's how the community does things.

• Lastly, there is the abusive, incivil tone, with some personal attacks scattered in: I don't know what you are smoking, but ... It really pisses me off" and the language above, as noted by Mitchazenia.

I would not presume to suggest what action should be taken. I have no issue with the page protection; I was considering the possibility of requesting it myself. I understand that there are possibly ArbCom sanctions that might apply, so I have set forth the above. I leave to those uninvolved in this dispute to discuss and come to whatever decision they see fit ... God knows I've been on the other side enough myself. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure

I have a somewhat complicated situation that I could use some help resolving. User:Notahelix, a new editor, contributed an article Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure, a topic which is of legitimate historical interest but would be considered a fringe theory today. The article has NPOV and COI issues which are extensive but fixable. However, when other editors and I began to edit the article to fix the NPOV issues, Notahelix responded on the article talk page with incivil remarks and personal attacks. Furthermore, he seems to have misunderstood Wikipedia's copyright policies on submissions, as he has tried to remove the article's text and is now making borderline legal threats. I have done my best to be civil and explain our policies to him, but this has not helped and I would like help from editors more experienced with this sort of situation. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't remotely know enough about the subject matter to really get involved, but I will say that Ohiostandard has left a very helpful comment on the editor's talk page, and suggest that we try to use the very same talk page to resolve this. The editor doesn't understand the policy here and is obviously livid at the moment. Dealing with it here is probably not the best solution (although bringing it here was fine). I would ask for one or two more to work with him on his talk page and try to resolve the issues, particularly of civility, in a calm, rational way. He has never been blocked, started here just a few days ago, so lets be careful to not WP:BITE the newcomer, yet we still need to address the incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I just removed a link from his userpage to the article in question. I also note that he redirects to User talk:Voice of 5-23 without providing a multiple account rational on either, which is problematic. It appears our friend has a great many misunderstandings of policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The editor was advised to change his username, on the ground that User:Notahelix was promotional, and he put through a request to do so. Perhaps due to a misunderstanding he re-created the User:Notahelix account later on 23 May and went on using that one. So now he is the owner of two accounts. So long as he remains logged in as Notahelix, he is probably not seeing messages left at User talk:Voice of 5-23. I have undone the talk page redirect so that messages can once again be left at User talk:Notahelix, and left a new notice for his other account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• He did reply to a comment here [59] so he was aware of at least some of the messages, and since his talk page redirected to that talk page, I'm guessing he did see the messages. Now what about the incivility? I guess we wait and see if your new message gets his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notahelix has clarified on the article talk page that he was somehow unaware that contributing to Wikipedia involved irrevocably granting Creative Commons/GFDL licenses for it. He's mad that his article is being changed and is demanding that it be removed. Is this an appropriate demand? To whom should he make his case? Should I advise him to start an AfD, or is one of the other noticeboards the appropriate venue? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not an appropriate demand. In between the edit window and the save page button is the clear statement: By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. It is literally impossible to miss. If he somehow did, there's no reasonable way it could be made any clearer; that's just how the cookie crumbles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We might be able to WP:CSD#G7 it, and honestly I don't think we'd be losing much. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The number of edits by User:Antony-22 make G7 inapplicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and AFD would likely keep it. I think we have answered the question regarding suitability if he is unwilling to contribute under CC, as he appears to have a great misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. I've also removed the redirect from the Voice user page to the article for cross space linking. 2nd time I've had to do this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is telling me to delete this (or stubify, whatever), and let Antony (or someone else) rebuild something neutral should they so wish. Notahelix doesn't seem like the type who can be easily reasoned with, and I think the article will need a complete rewrite from scratch if it's going to vaguely conform with policy. Per Notahelix's posts on the talkpage, such a rewrite is obviously going to cause huge drama, and he clearly regrets posting his little thesis here in the first place. I think the minimal-drama course of action is actually to delete, while making it clear to him that we retain the copyright should anyone wish to use parts of it later. None of the CSD criteria really apply, so this would be something of an IAR use of admin buttons, but if people are OK with this I'll go ahead and do it. Moreschi (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • We retain the license, not the copyright, but otherwise agreed. CSD or not, this whole thing is best treated with WP:TNT. T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedia won't explode if this article has to be sent to AfD instead of being speedily deleted. While the editor's attitude leaves much to be desired, the content of the article is not without interest. Somebody neutral could conceivably clean it up and include a few sentences about this issue somewhere in another article. An AfD might facilitate that. The discussion at Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure shows a hint of progress. If any of the material is rewritten and kept, there is a chance that this editor's work will not be mentioned in the result, but that's how content normally evolves. If he is the actual person whose work is prominently mentioned in the article, he is published but not cited a whole lot. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

He does seemed to have humbled himself a bit with his last comment, so I'd like to see how this plays out a little longer. It's possible that he won't want it deleted. I'm willing to edit it to bring it up to standard; I've already had a pass at the first half of the article, which is about the notable historical work, and the second half which focuses on the more recent fringe work is probably going to mostly disappear. If it is deleted, though, I'm unlikely to have the time to rewrite it from scratch anytime soon. I think the best course right now would be to explain to him what happens if his article stays up, and get a clear answer back on whether he wants it deleted (which may or may not happen, and may involve either AfD or IAR). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So much for humble. I've warned him on the article talk page about NPA. I'm afraid this is just going to devolve into another "specialist who insists they don't have to follow the rules" issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've given them a warning on their talk page, too. I was tempted to just go ahead and block becasue it's becoming more and more obvious he's WP:NOTHERE, but I want to give him one last chance to have Ohiostandard's latest commentary, maybe, just maybe, take root. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll see: I'm probably doing it again. It's looking like yet another demonstration of Valfontis' Law. I hope not. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad time to discover we lack a policy or essay named WP:POMPOUS... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable. I think by now we've given him enough chances. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:HassanLechkar

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

This nice fellow has just provided me with my monthly death threat via edit summary [60], which hardly bothers me. However, given the content of his userpage, some of his other edit summaries, and the fact that he created a rather elaborate page from scratch in a single edit, List of programmes broadcast by ETV Kids (Southeast Asia), I'm led to believe this is a kid who's been blocked and is now rather clumsily socking as his father, putting back the content he initially got in trouble for. I guess the article is a copyvio or improper cut-and-paste, but I can't figure out the specifics. Anybody recognize the user or article from the last go round, probably about two weeks ago? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked... regardless of the history, no one should have to put up with that. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oversight needed, erase personal information

| Revdel'ed. Nothing to see here. --Rschen7754 04:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)}}  New request added, but not for oversight, at 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

At Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, please make the following personal information invisible to non-admins:

• Revision as of 20:24, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227
• Revision as of 03:14, May 28, 2012, 209.6.69.227

And my own removal: [61]

Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Drawing further attention to it is not the best option. If it were me, I would take it to a trusted admin, behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're at the wrong place, bud. File an oversight request via email pbp 03:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Purplebackpack, don't be a fool. Binksternet is not a "bud" and he knows this shit well enough. Bink, I took care of it; please check to see if I got the right ones. And leave a note for the IP, if you haven't already, that this can't be done and will lead to a block for outing. Bugs, you're right, but we all know ANI is probably the quickest way. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Drmies. Your quick response gladdened me. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that. I've found using the oversight form to be very quick, and seeing as you're not on the list I'm wondering what the basis of your opinion is? Nobody Ent 12:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet is asking to Censor information that proves Binksternet provides FALSE information. The information Binksternet removed was with regard to a FAKE newspaper that B asserted was "(Credibility check okay on The Rochester Citizen news. Replace ALEC blog response with WaPo brief summary. Adding Cronon refs and text.) " I have no objection to personal information being removed, once it is agreed that it IS personal information. HOWEVER, information that the Rochester Citizen is in fact NOT a newspaper, but someone's personal attack blog run out of their attic, and thus cannot be used as a WP:RS involved proof, which is ample, that it is NOT a newspaper. I was not "outing" a WP editor, and logically I was only "outing" a person if everything that proves it is NOT a newspaper is accepted as fact. You cannot "out" a WP:RS newspaper. Everything that is being removed was information about an alleged newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. I am simply trying to clean up after you. You were putting personal information onto the talk page including the address where someone lives. This is not allowed, so don't do it again. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"Information" doesn't need to include address and number of bedrooms. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Address is the address of the Rochester Citizen, and on the website of that same blog you allege is a newspaper. The fact that it is a residential area that does not allow businesses, including newspapers, and that it is the host site of activism that you allege it is objectively and with editorial oversight (in a newspaper of one) reporting on as a WP:RS merely proves that it is not a WP:RS.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a line between evaluating the reliability of a source and conducting aggressively inappropriate opposition research. You crossed that line several miles ago. MastCell ^Talk 05:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the address of the "Rochester Citizen" is a private residence, then it (the Rochester Citizen) is not a reliable source unless the article is written by a recognized expert in the field, regardless of whether it is also the address of an editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the newspaper is indeed being run by a single person from their house, then posting the address here is utterly inappropriate. If posting the address is appropriate, that means it's a legitmate business, Q.E.D. You can't have it both ways. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A business being legitimate does not necessarily qualify it as a reliable source. Meanwhile, if the blog page stated its street address, it could be fair game. But it appears that it does not, and that the IP went fishing for it, which is not quite the same thing. As the street address was an individual's home rather than an office building, it's not appropriate to be posting it here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that "legitimate" is being used to mean different things. The Rochester Citizen is put forward as a significant newspaper by both the person that it is and the WP editors warring to get it used as a WP:RS. It is the name of a blog, but of a blog that claims NOT to be a blog, but a newspaper. Legitimate newspaper, no, legitimate corporate shell for the blog, with a published corporate address and phone that just happen to also be the address and phone of the unnamed blogger, yes. Posting of the address is appropriate because the address is the address that is SELF-identified as the address of a newspaper. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Where on the guy's website does he give his address? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-listed on the Rochester Citizen page is the address of the Rochester Citizen http://therochestercitizen.com/index0.htm?twindow=YellowPage&smenu=83&mad=No&sname=target_yellowpage.asp , the address, publicly posted on the website in question, that was posted on WP. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• New request: Three editors besides myself have commented about how hard the ALEC talk page is to follow. That's due almost entirely to our IP 209.x friend's apparent contempt for talk page norms, as documented in a section of that page. (link/snapshot) As long as this is here, I'd like to ask if someone would have a friendly chat with 209.6.69.227? There's really no reason he should be permitted to keep interfering with everyone else's ability to easily communicate with each other on the page, just for the hell of it. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it correct that they removed Binksternet's comments? If they do so on a fairly regular basis, or if they continue to do that, that's blockable. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I recommend not leaping in with both feet. Binksternet was removing the talkpage comments of the person without an account, citing BLP grounds before the accountless person started posting people's street addresses. It came up at the BLP noticeboard. The simple truth is that they've now both used the undo tool on each other's talk page edits, reverting rather than refactoring.

      The immediate problem is that the accountless person seems incapable of critiquing a source without lobbing personal insults in public at its author. Binksternet's response was to revert rather than refactor. For someone who is a party to the talk page dispute, it's possibly a wise course of action to pick reversion over refactoring the other party's contributions. However, refactoring to edit the thing that needs editing is usually far better than the blunt instrument of using the undo tool to remove entire comments of the other party just to (to pick an example) reinsert a talk page section heading.

      Lionelt trod that middle ground of refactoring the talk page to take out the insults, and the accountless person proceeded to negate any good that that might have done by getting even more personal in the next (now revision deleted) edit.

      Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, twice, and he's done so before.  ( ← please note these diffs present a different matter than Uncle G has responded to above. )

• 18:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• 19:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are details, though, and I know ANI hates details. Sorry for that, but it's hard to grasp exactly what these two diffs are about, just from reviewing the talk page (permalink) since it's so "choppy" because of the IP's shenanigans.

A field guide to the talk-page behaviour of the wild anon

As brief an explanation as possible: Because of a previous tangle over editing others' talk page contributions, 209.x decided he wouldn't respond in any talk page section I'd created to introduce a new topic, but would just create a new section himself whenever he wanted to reply to or rebut some point I'd made. In the instance that the two diffs above apply to, I'd first created a level 2 section labeled Leadership structure tables restored to explain that I'd restored a "bold" deletion of some tables that had been in the article for a couple of months. Then, before anyone else had replied there, 209.x created a competing level 2 section on the same topic, immediately beneath it, that he labelled, Long Tables, lists of names, instead of narrative ; delete or replace, and if so, with what? Binksternet thought that was pointy, deleted the redundant level 2 header, which effectively joined 209.x's comment back to the original section I'd created, and left a comment documenting what he'd done. That brings us up to the two diffs I presented initially: Those are 209.x restoring his competing level 2 heading, and deleting the comment Binksternet had left, twice, after Binksternet had twice removed 209's redundant heading. Sorry it's this complicated; I've actually left out a few details. If you're a masochist, this intro should allow you to make better sense of the mess in all its sordid splendour by looking at this talk page section, and comparing it to the competing section that 209.x created, immediately beneath it, and which he later re-named. I should also mention that he later restored Binksternet's comment, but retained his redundant heading/section. No one else ever responded there, btw; the section is just noise on the talk page, except for his own comments there, which actually apply to the preceding, original section. The details aren't really that important, imo, but the result is: The talk page has become unnecessarily hard to use and follow because of these kinds of petty disruptions, along with his steadfast refusal to indent, and a couple of other pleasantries. IP 209.x is a very experienced user ( he set up archiving on the page in a single edit ) and we generally expect better from experienced users.

I'm not asking anyone to block 209.6.69.227 over the preceding, or any of the rest of it that I haven't documented here. I'd just like the talk page to be able to be used for the purpose it was intended, without all the games. He hasn't listened to any other editor's polite requests to knock that off, but maybe he'll listen to an admin. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The 209.xx IP editor is going to end up blocked or otherwise restricted eventually, because s/he has made it virtually impossible to use the talkpage, to have a sane policy-based discussion, or to edit the article effectively. The question is how much time and editorial goodwill will be sapped before the inevitable comes to pass. In general, we expect limitless forbearance in dealing with this sort of combative, agenda-driven editing, and then we wonder why we have problems with burnout and retaining good editors. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My favorite internet experiences are ones in which a proactive administration acts on its own to limit access to bothersome participants. A few warnings for the cleverer ones and then the gate comes crashing down. The noise is not worth keeping—the signal is the thing. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with preventing the IP from editing there; unless someone can persuade me within the next several hours, I'm probably going to block the IP for disruption, and I have no problem with further sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Northern Lights. I do not see a case for disruption, though I do see a case for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. My edits have been scrupulously concerned with facts and arguments. There are an extreme number of posts that address or insult editors, instead of addressing facts and issues. I assure you that this is disruptive, but that my posts are not among that category. I have collected every post that attacks or mostly addresses an editor not an article, and provide them here for your convenience. Used the collapse template because the personal attack list of posts is long

Must also bear in mind the many outside calls to vandalize Wikipedia, as well, much like this one [[62]]; much partisan advocacy, from outside WP, to promote and disseminate info not on ALEC, with NPOV, but on people's pet boycott projects.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgot this one, where WP editor claiming to have searched and geolocated my IP to K Street, Washington, and thus proving I am a Lobbyist. "and it has since been deleted here here and here by some beltway person with an IP address of 209.6.69.227 "--209.6.69.227 (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To similarly ease the determination of an Administrator, I have taken the remainder of the Talk page, without the personal attacks, personal comments, personal disparagement, focus on editor not article, and posted it here. I have helpfully marked all my edits. Please find a single one that disparages a person, is not constructive, or deals with anything but the facts and the reliability of Wikipedia.

--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the IP's entire copy-pastes of content from the talk page, as it comprised more than a third of this page's content. IP editor, use diffs in the future rather than copying and pasting stuff right from the talk page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that wall of text was an excellent illustration of the problem. But thanks for removing it. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Would just add that we shouldn't take the bait re the IP's attempt to steer this into a broad debate about incivility on the talk page. Lord knows one can find loads of snarkiness there − with an abundance of the ridiculing comments coming from the IP, btw − but it's not about that. --OhioStandard (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ryulong; diffs aren't really applicable. I think the best way to demonstrate problems or lack thereof is to edit well and thereby provide the whole record in a way that any Admin can scan and immediately see where the problem is and is not. I believe (unless your removal of my edits was during the fix of markup and disrupted this) that my very cursory first pass achieved that. Very often, the first step in good edit is to organize like elements. I think it would be unreasonable to expect any Admin to sort out from the mess that is the Talk page, since it is poorly organised, and full of chaff, and a bit of a rambling mess. I merely sorted it into 1) antagonistic personal comments, personal attacks, addressing the editor not the article, 2) long single-source essays or major Google search dumps, which though not obviously antagonistic, seriously impair the readability of the page 3) edits that address an issue, even if badly (and was very tolerant in that regard toward other editors) The page as a whole is about one third of each category. I am not represented in category 2, almost not represented in category 1, and a precise, factual and to the point contributor to category 3. If you only read category 3, the category I contribute to, it doesn't read badly as a Talk page. I fail to see how that qualifies as disruptive.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's quite enough of that. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for various disruption, and should it resume I'll block for a week. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalker account

I'd appreciate it if someone would take care of Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which apparently exists largely or entirely for reverting my edits. User has been warned and removed the warning. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas has given him a final, final warning. If he does it again I'll block him indef pronto. Moreschi (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish, though, that Viriditas would have been more formal in their warning. This account has other problems, soapboxing not being the least of them. One wonders if their POV is not a kind of conversion therapy, given the user's user page, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about it being some sort of homebrew conversion therapy but it certainly is a textbook illustration of reaction formation. Fortunately for the rest of us, WP is not the place to be acting out the fundamental dysfunctions within one's psyche. Thanks Viriditas and Moreschi for addressing this with speed and strength. ~Autumnal Monk~ ^talk 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Having read the user page several times now, I'm having a hard time believing it. It really does sound like a role-playing account. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

User:222.181.161.248 's abuse

New user posting threats and accusations of what might be seen by some as racism on my talk page. May be a sock, may not be but a warning would seem to be in order. I am thick(albeit pale)-skinned enough not to be offended but I would think it a good idea if this editor was not permitted to launch his vitriol at editors who may be more sensitive than I am Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• a) Don't forget to sign your post on their talkpage, b) I don't yet see where you tried to resolve the issue directly with them, c) I don't see any "abuse" in their post - a little uncivil, but nothing to block about, d) you have full authority to warn them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Benetkaci

Benetkaci (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user is assuming ownership of an article he has created, Benet Kaci. All edits of 29 May 2012 involve blanking of biographical information and several summaries in which I have been accused of vandalism each time I have restored the details. Introducing foreign language text in place of English here (English name: Đakovica) and responding to invitations for discussion like this. He has provided no information as to why he is blanking the birthplace entities and I explained their importance in the text he removed from his talk page. This is a user impossible to work posiviley with. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Brief note for BWilkins, please be aware I have not accused the editor of vandalism, and I have avoided sending template messages (except for ANI) because they contain the term "vandalism" within. I know you have dealt with grievances like this in the past so I didn't wish to place myself in a wrongful position. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you directed that at me ... I never made any such suggestions :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evlekis distorts the informaiton and changes the naming of the city of my birth, alleging it is word for the English, while I've put the name of the city according to official data of the municipality where I live. He also states names that do not exist such as Yugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benetkaci (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. The editor claims to be the subject. It is possible, nothing preventing it but I don't think it makes a difference does it? Historical accuracy still applies as do English names for places. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I have Welcomed the user (using Welcome-coi as opposed to Welcome-auto). I have temporarily full-protected the article. We appear to have a new editor, who is the subject of an article they created (bad, bad, bad...but not blockable). The subject appears at first glance to be possibly slightly notable - but someone else can verify - so I have not tagged it for deletion, or even speedied. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be the best decision. Mind you, I shouldn't complain given that I was the last person to edit. I know from experience that a freeze on a page is not a sanctioning of that particular revision which is why I have asked the new editor to start afresh on the talk page of the article. I have made a short start to it anyhow. I wasn't so much seeking a block but I wanted to draw attention to something that was going on far longer than it should have done (I too was in the firing line for reverting). The editor however mentions the statistics per local authority publications but again, there is still this question of endonym vs exonym. In Germany there is München but in English it is Munich. There is a lot that can be said but I am really hoping the editor does not have a bad taste in his mouth and will join the discussion, I have some ideas that can prove amicable and favourable - especially if he is the subject. Thanks for sending him the welcome note. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

user:Archivesharer

Archivesharer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User is a WP:SPA and subject of a sockpuppet investigation [63]. Edits suggest conflict of interest; more importantly, user impugns actions and motives of editors with whom they disagree, accusing them of character assassination, and makes veiled threats of lawsuits, or at the least, encourages the article's subject to consider such actions. [64], [65], [66], [67]. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Editor is also guilty of crimes against English and logic. I looked at the diffs you provided and find them difficult to understand--probably because there are a few basic misunderstandings displayed in them of a complete failure to understand how this joint works. I am somewhat hesitant to block; I hope that CU evidence will have some bearing on the matter. Another admin may disagree and think that the edits by Archivesharer themselves are disruptive or threatening enough to block. Then again, if Michael de la Force is deleted the problem might go away, but there can be no SNOW keep now unless the lone dissenting vote is stricken for whatever reason. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Mostly it's WP:GRAPES--a prolonged rant of "if they take my article away then the whole place sucks." The AFD rationale is sensible, and the reaction to it is becoming more strident. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I am very close to blocking the account for the duration of the AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • See also the comment here, here is a team now looking at all of the remarks by editors and how things have been handled which are untrue that has been coming from the Wikipedia editors., which has not been redacted - this is clearly intended to produce a chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I have weighed in at the AfD and have tried to make the editor's layout conform to regular standards. I signed for them. I have tried to read all their comments, and strained both my Fowler muscles. They also removed some of my words at the AfD, which another editor reverted. In short, I guess I am a bit involved. Bushranger (et al.), any time you want to put a stop to this, that would be great--with a block or a premature SNOWy close of the AfD. I'd ask Moreschi, but their neutrality in closing AfDs was impugned on this very page. ;) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Heh. Well, I've looked things over, and I've gone ahead and closed the AfD as delete. No !votes to keep, combined with the apparent desire of the subject not to have a page, made that a fairly easy decision; I suspect the disruption from the user in question here will shortly vanish as they're an SPA. If they don't, of couse, more drastic action might need to be taken. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Well done, Ranger. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I go away for the evening to find DRAMA has unfolded. Thanks to all to helped deal with it. There was some seriously dubious activity (or plain trolling) coming from that account, hopefully the deletion of the article will prevent any further action being necessary. Cheers! Яehevkor ✉ 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles

This deletion debate seems (to me at least) to be getting out of hand. It seems that all the arguments one way or the other are already on the table and I would recommend an early closure. There are accusations of some pretty nasty gaming and I fear that leaving the debate to run its normal course will lead to more disruption, and further deterioration of otherwise good editors' behaviour, without adding anything of value to help the closing admin make a decision. WaggersTALK 15:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that was getting out of hand. Closed, although I am sure that this will wind up at DRV. Feelings and agendas seem to be running high. Moreschi (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the attacks on the keep voters are pretty bad in that discussion. And, yeah, it probably should go to DRV, 6 deletes to 5 keeps, with the closer's statement sounding like a vote itself? Consensus does not make. Silverseren^C 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The vote count is irrelevant, it doesn't mean it was close; Keep or delete is on the strength of the arguments and not the count, Moreschi is correct to weigh up the arguments per WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CLOSE: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrator's own views about what is the most appropriate policy...He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate...He is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."

As for the closer's closing statement: "Clearly such scholarship exists, but it does not seem extensive enough to support the burden this article would place on it." The extensiveness of the scholarship was not discussed by the voters, so that means this is his opinion. "I am sceptical this could be seriously improved, particularly given the inevitable drama involved in using the traditionally geographical term "British Isles" (itself rather loaded) in a political context." Again, opinion. This is not a neutral closing decision and it is very obviously not so. And, finally, a question, does Moreschi have any connection to the British Isles debate? Silverseren^C 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Scholarship was discussed in the AfD. The closer must weigh up to the other issues raised. IRWolfie- (talk)

Thank you for your neutral observation, Silver seren. I know little of this matter, but having read the AfD I can only thank Moreschi. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The article author and I are talking this over on my talkpage, and I think we're getting somewhere. I've expanded on my reasoning there somewhat, and we're talking about the best ways to recreate (since we both feel there is something here to be preserved and expanded upon). Based on the balance of the arguments presented I felt the ayes had the best of it, based on the very clear issues of bias and (more importantly) unclear scope that were raised. And no, I obviously have no connection to the politics of the British Isles debate, being neither an Irish nationalist (the people who really object to the term), nor an Ulster Unionist or whatever. Had I a dog in this fight, I would not have closed the AfD. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious

WP:DENY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. user:Starsgazing is an obvious sock, my money is on Nangparbat, though it may be user:I Am agent X either way block the him. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Feel free to do an investigation instead of trolling articles and hounding Starsgazing (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Editing via a proxy or webhost this time? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely. -- tariqabjotu 19:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem with IP 84.45.222.192, et al

I wish to get an admin opinion about on contributions by an IP editor (User:84.45.222.192) who is engaged in a slow edit war at Cardinal Langley Roman Catholic High School (page hist) and has now reached the stage of personal abuse (see here) (The editor in question has been informed of this notification). This editor, who has also apparently edited under the names User:Cobulator and User:Woodseats44 (see here), has a history of disruptive editing (contributions here and here), particularly at Lincoln Cathedral. I am questioning whether he will ever respond to persuasion, and am wondering if it’s time he was given a three-line whip. Failing that, I would request some page protections to give everyone concerned a bit of peace. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked editor 48 hours for this refactoring [68], among other reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Any admin that feels I was too generous, or find additional reasoning to extend this block, feel free. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PA by BozokluAdam

I consider this a clear violation of WP:PA by BozokluAdam (talk · contribs). He is insulting me on my own talk page and he calls it a "friendly advice". Beside the direct insults against me, his posting (like almost all of his edits) is filled with racist rants. --Lysozym (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please file at WP:WQA, as I believe this is a bit out of the range of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Let me just highlight a few direct quotes:

• Persian vandal
• you don't need to be so racist as you don't carry out a pure blood
• You might be afraid of 38-million Turkic people in Iran, but the assimilation zeals of Persian vandals can boomerang against your country

How is that not racist and a violation against PA?! Keeping in mind that I am not even Iranian. --Lysozym (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The first one, by adding an ethnicity in front of "vandal" could be. The second, by referencing non-"pure blood" might be. The third, not at all. Again, however, violations of WP:NPA are typically handled at WP:WQA as they do not generally end with blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding...although I have engaged the editor on their talkpage, I'm trying to find out where you attempted to resolve this directly with them in the first place... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not discussing with an editor who is not interested in improving this encyclopedia and who is telling other users to "fuck off". I made my points clear in the talk-page of Hazara people. BozokluAdam is a "man on a mission", driven by an ethnocentric agenda - against all scientific and scholarly works. Just go through his edits. He does not have reliable sources, does not have much knowledge or understanding of the subject he is claiming to be an "expert" in. And when confronted with justified criticism, he starts to insult and to repeat racist nonsense (such as "there are 38 million Turks in Iran", "Turkish blood", etc). He is even indirectly trying to justify the Armenian genocide, by claiming that the Armenians betrayed the Turks ("... Turkic dynasties and states have been tolerant and democratic against other people as far as they didn't betray ..."). So how do you want me to "resolve" this dispute with him?! How wwould you react to someone who is denying the Holocaust, who speaks of "German blood" and "German superiority" and that "Germans have been tolerant to those peoples who did not betray them"?! --Lysozym (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with Lysozym on this one. This is a garden-variety pan-Turkic chauvinist. We've had those coming out of our ears for years, and like all the rest, this one is just here to flame and revert-war. I've blocked him for two weeks for disruption (this one certainly merited it if nothing else) and will certainly block him indefinitely if he doesn't at least try to comply with policy upon return. Moreschi (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Me too. This editor was on my talk page trying to get one or two of his counterparts blocked (see the 3RR warning I put on their talk page). Of course, his IP opponent was pushing the same buttons, just on an opposite panel. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Liftshat and User:Liftcommie

WP:DENY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:Liftshat seem to be a vandalism only account.[69] Very threatening as well.[70] // Liftarn (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Indef'd for harassment, and attempted mimicry. Likely a sock of someone you're in the middle of some type of disagreement with - any ideas who? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I have no current disagreements, but whoever it is he/she is persistent. Back again with another sock.[71] Could you please remove it from history as well? // Liftarn (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Done and I semi-protected your talk page for a day to put a stop to the trolling for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks. // Liftarn (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block Review

A short time ago, I noticed an odd edit to to my Bot userpage marking it as "inactive". As I have (I believe) a positive history with User:Rcsprinter123, I left a rather glib comment before investigating further. While waiting for a response, I looked through their contributions, and noted a whack of similar edits using AWB to a whole bunch of Bot userpages. As this was using a semi-automated tool, I chose to block for '60 hours, in part due to the block log, but for the purpose of getting such edits to stop ASAP.

There has been no sign of an approved BRFA for these edits to bot pages, and I would be extremely willing to unblock with the condition they be reversed, and that more care is taken with future such edits (as a minimum, check both the bot AND the owner's recent contributions).

Again, I am willing to unblock with those conditions, and indeed, the editor themself has not even posted an unblock. However, extensive discussion has taken place on the editor's talkpage - and although I can agree with some points, I am not convinced that I have not done the right things to have prevented the disruption using a semi-automated tool. They are, after all, responsible for those edits.

This is not any form of retribution for the edit to my Bot - that would be childish, and irresponsible - that edit merely drew my attention to a perceived wide swath of disruption.

I of course welcome a review. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your link to "glib comment" appears to point to a diff after you blocked the editor who had edited your bot page. Where did you attempt to discuss this with the other editor? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad ... fixed! Very sorry for that! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, as an AWB user myself, I know it's very easy to "ignore" an incoming talkpage message while AWB'ing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

3 minutes from "glib comment" (a WTF) to block, after he marked your bot inactive. NB, he did reply to your "glib comment", but that was ignored. No warning that the behaviour might lead to a block, no explicit request to stop the behaviour. I've stated my displeasure with this block on the talk page, as have 7 other editors. Bad block. Worm^TT(talk) 21:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

NB, Rcsprinter has been unblocked by The Earwig Worm^TT(talk) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A pretty bad unblock, considering this discussion is underway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I wasn't aware that a discussion was underway. I was writing a comment on his talkpage regarding the unblock and saved it just after this discussion started. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact that no one actually informed Rcsprinter that this was going on (looking at you Bwilkins), I don't think it's reasonable to assume The Earwig should have noticed this thread... Worm^TT(talk) 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So, he'll be happy to fix it then :-) The jurisprudence was rather loudly proclaimed on this very board some time ago that such unblocks should not occur (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and fantastic WP:AGF Worm. Bravo. Applause. The snotty prefix to the ANI notice there was oh so classy while I'm in the middle of typing a rather long, custom notification. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right. probably over the top. just going get a cup of tea. Worm^TT(talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think blocking 4 minutes after the comment you left on his page was a poor choice. I think if I was in this situation, I would have handled it a bit differently. Did you consider just asking him to stop edits like this first?--Rockfang (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, since they were being done using AWB, I know how easy it can be to ignore such talkpage messages while AWB'ing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bwilkins, chill. It's clear that you were/are upset by the marking of your bot, and I'm sure RCsprinter regrets that, but blocking him almost immediately and then defending the block the way you are here (which, at least to my eyes, is "rather pugnaciously") isn't helping. The block was questioned substantially on Rcsprinter's talk, and I think it's great that you're here for a block review rather than just looking away, but now is the time to back away a little and let uninvolved people actually discuss the block - and the subsequent unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice AGF on you too :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • This is how wheel wars happen, folks. First, it looks like the bot tagging was likely not the best. Next, I think Bwilkins got a bit quick to block, but finally, unblocking him without first talking to Bwilkins and allowing him to undo his own block was just as hasty. The whole room seems a bit trigger happy today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's highly discussed on the editor's talkpage, actually. I just disagreed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Honstly, having viewed this from the outside I think that both you and Worm are too emotionally involved in this one. Specifically, emotional involvement-which is causing the flareup between the two of you. You are highly involved because your bot was tagged, Worm is highly involved because Rcsprinter graduated from his adoption program. At this point, I believe that what was done is done, the issues have been stated, and Earwig has resolved it. Rcsprinter has been made fully aware of problems his editing has caused and will hopefully refrain from making similar ones in the future, or seek consensus/approval first. At this point, I think the best thing to do is to drop the issue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• He had been given plenty of chance to undo his own block already (as he's just acknowledged). At any rate, I Support the unblock for the reasons already given by others here, and at more length on the editor's talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wheel warring would be re-instating the block, which as far as I've seen, has not actually received any support despite the number of editors who have commented. I'm now sitting here with a cup of tea, realising that I even got my heckles up over the debacle, something I don't do very often. Worm^TT(talk) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw the talk on the page. Without laboring the point, my previous comments still apply. Only an hour had passed, more discussion, here or there, wouldn't have brought down Wikipedia before unblocking. I just think there was too much haste all around. Ryan seems to have the best solution: moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you're probably right. I'm certainly going to step back from the situation, I don't believe I'm doing any good here. Worm^TT(talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You know folks, I brought this here as a good faith review. Instead, I've been accused of being "emotionally involved" (over an edit to a user page? Seriously?) "pugnacious", otherwise insulted both here and elsewhere. Meanwhile, I've been trying to deal with other Wikipedia issues (and unrelated insults), including trying to get AWB to undo the previous edits to bot pages by the editor so that indeed, that aspect was properly dealt with. Nice good faith everyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I can't speak for anyone else, but I took your actions in the best of faith. That doesn't mean I would have done the same thing, on the same timetable, but I certainly didn't question your faith, or the faith of those that reverted your action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

    See also Assume the assumption of good faith (subsection: "What 'Bad Faith' Is NOT", "getting too emotionally involved in an article or discussion"). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I actually don't see much wrong with BWilkins' block, to be honest. It's usually the best way of getting the attention of someone making dubious edits using automation or semi-automation. Let's face it, it used to be a scramble to see who could wear the badge of "honour" for blocking Betacommand. Having said that, it's also obvious that Rcs understands the problem, so I don't think any more action is required here. Probably best to close now? Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  I would just like to make one final comment: while I can understand blocking to get someone's attention when they are not responding to your messages, this is not the case here; Rcsprinter replied just two minutes after the original message and two minutes before he was blocked. Personally, I would have asked him to stop (which I'm sure he would have complied with) before straight-out blocking him. The "block first, ask questions later" attitude only works with users who clearly aren't here to contribute positively, and any cleanup effort saved by blocking earlier is negated by these unnecessary drama-filled discussions. Regardless, what's done is done, and I hope we can move on from here. — The Earwig ^(talk) 00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone closes this...

...I'd be curious to know if Rcsprinter123 is planning to undo any of the erroneous automated edits. 'Cause I'm still waiting for him to undo erroneous automated edits I reported to him over a month ago. 28bytes (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Pope

There is an anonymous IP that is trying to argue that Nero was a Catholic Pope because both Nero and early Popes used the title Pontifex Maximus. The title Pontifex Maximus predates Jesus by several hundred years and was used to describe the Emperors before it was transferred in use to the early church. I would like somebody to take a look at the discussion and determine if this SPA and another [IP should be blocked/warned/etc... and the discussion closed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is merely a content dispute, and an insignificant one at that. The two SPA accounts have confined themselves entirely to the talk page and there is no disruption happening, so I think this can be safely ignored by administrators. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have closed the discussion as a clear waste of time, but I don't think blocks are needed for the moment. If he persists, then we have a lot of time to start brandishing our banhammers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Salvio did the right thing... it needed to be closed... by somebody uninvolved. The issue is a non-issue being spurned by a troll.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering Nero blamed the Christians for the fire, he wasn't much of a "Catholic Pope". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wowpedia vs. Template:Wowwiki

At some point various users went through Warcraft articles and either changed Template:Wowwiki to Template:Wowpedia links or added Template:Wowpedia links and removed Template:Wowwiki from external links and other sections. Although this was blatant vandalism, as with many topics that no admin really cares about at Wikipedia, nothing was done and restoring the WoWWiki links was either reverted or undid without any question as if that were okay. I'd like some admin to tell users to stop removing WoWWiki links.

Wowpedia was a fork of WoWWiki formed by a bunch of disgruntled (perhaps rightfully so) admins, but WoWWiki did not go away or get closed down. However, several Wowpedia users started vandalizing WoWWiki and probably going through Wikipedia and changing all the WoWWiki links to Wowpedia links.

I'd just like to see a ruling by a credible Wikipedia admin that removing Wowwiki links was not the right thing to do. If the ruling is that WoWWiki links aren't notable or whatever using the various bureaucratic mechanisms, I won't revisit this issue and just let all the WoWWiki links get removed, but until then, I will periodically start adding them back.

And no, I won't do this from a logged in account. If that makes a difference, then I please tell me why. --71.141.246.140 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wowpedia is generally regarded as the main Warcraft wiki these days. It's officially linked to by Blizzard on numerous pages and the reasons for the split to begin with, based on what I've read, were fairly well justified. It's true that wowwiki is still around but it's not nearly as active or up-to-date as wowpedia. This is all largely irrelevant to what is essentially a process decision, but I'd be in favour of replacing the wowwiki links with wowpedia if that question is asked at any point. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm against the adding of WoWWiki to articles, which this IP user did. I reverted him explaining in my edit summary "Blizzard links to Wowpedia so that's the only wiki that counts" but they then reverted me, and added them back in. [72] More input here please. Any possible reason to link to a less active less complete wiki? Anyone can produce a wiki on anything, that doesn't make it notable enough to link to. Does it provide any possible information the other one doesn't? And if you have to choose, wouldn't you choose the one that was the most complete AND had the company that makes these games linking to? Dream Focus 01:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to opine as I have been a member of both sites. The content fork was due to the fact that wowwiki was going to enable extra advertising and require a change of template. The powers that be for the site decided that they would rather content fork (as is their right) and stay with comfortable ways. It's been observed that with the leadership went the tallent for editing/writing. Wowwiki has atrophied and is now out of date. Wowpedia is fairly up to date and keeps decent integrety. I would endorse the removal of Wowwiki from articles as the content fork ensured that anything wiki had, pedia has. Hasteur (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• IP OP, It's usually a good thing to open a new discussion (not glom onto one that was over a year old) to see if a new consensus has been established. That you are choosing to stir up trouble deliberately on an IP address suggests that if you did this your registered account, it would be highly discouraged. This says to me that there's some sort of conflict of interest or you are wanting to avoid scrutiny. To help you I've proposed deprecating the template at Template talk:Wowwiki#Deprecating the template to see if there is a consensus to keep using this template as an authoritative external link. Hasteur (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm totally uninvolved with either WoW wiki, but a little bit of background info may be useful to people trying to sort this out. When Wikia switched over to their Oasis/New Wikia Look skin from the previous Monaco skin, there was an insurgence (this is not hyperbole) among Wikia users. A sizable number of them left Wikia and moved "their" wikis to non-Wikia hosting. However, Wikia kept the domains and desysopped the insurgent users. Now, because of Wikia's prominence, the first googlehits are usually going to be for the Wikia wikis, and many non-Wikia editors in turn have taken to "aggressive advertising". I don't know the specifics of WoWpedia/WoWwiki, but any Wikia-hosted wiki vs non-Wikia-hosted wiki dispute can be like stepping into a hornet's nest. McJEFF ^(talk) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I just read up on some more info on this at Wikia#Domain_and_skin_assimilation and...yeah, I definitely support the Anti-Wikia Alliance. Silverseren^C 04:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question When did WoW become primarily a Warcraft reference? When I saw the header, I figured it was this guy come back to life. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Um...many, many years ago. You're behind the times, man. :P Silverseren^C 04:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nyttend can't be serious, can he? I mean, it sounds like he's been living with wolves for the last decade... :-) Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ogdoadic Tradition

Requesting review of my decline of the speedy tag on Ogdoadic Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article had been tagged with {{db-spam}}. I removed the tag as my view is that the article does not meet the WP:CSD#G11 criteria - it is not overtly promotional and is written from a NPOV. The user who had tagged it then appropriately proceeded to tag it with {{prod}}. I have taken no stance on the content of the article beyond stating that I do not believe it meets G11 criteria. However, on my talk page, the user has also disputed my interpretation of the article as not meeting the speedy criteria. Their view is that the article is "pure promotional fluff for a tiny group's pseudohistory."[73]

I have no issue with the article being deleted if consensus is that I misinterpreted the limited scope of G11. The user has also claimed that the article also meets WP:CSD#G3 criteria. I have no comment on that criteria at this time; if consensus supports deleting under that criteria, feel free to delete it (although I believe at this point, that discussion would be better served by going through AfD). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• The article appears to be well written, using encyclopedic language and quite a few citations, which appear, at first glance, to be from reliable sources. If this is a "promotional fluff" piece, the author went to quite a lot of trouble to make it appear otherwise. Clearly, it was not a valid candidate for speedy. Ya done good. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know about that. It's promoting the Ordo Aurum Solis organization, and many of the statements are questionable. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I had glanced at the CSD, but lacked the time to think about it much. Looking more closely, I can't see how it is a hoax, either. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow how this place has changed since I last bothered to be more active. God help Wikipedia if you people can't identify an article so obviously based on involved sources and misused primary sources. I'm not about to be disruptive to make a point as I know better, but if THAT is good sourcing and clearly not promotional by consensus I could have a field day making fluff pieces for my pet interests..... which means tons of other people can AND WILL. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC) @JoeSperrazza: G3 is more than hoaxes. It is blatant and obvious misinformation as well. If you don't think an article whose sole purpose is to support the claim of a fringe esoteric group being the true transmission of an ancient occult religious lineage fits that bill... --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that it's "obviously"? Being unfamiliar with this field of study, I am not sufficiently aware of the sources to say that it's obviously misinformation, and the only reason we speedy delete something as misinformation is if it's so blatant that anyone (even people unfamiliar with the topic) can see that it's a hoax. We also don't speedy delete something as spam when it's either straight history or a non-blatant hoax. You're free to go with the PROD, and I'm definitely not going to remove it, but I see no reason to delete this article under either of the criteria you cite or under any of the other criteria. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said. I just don't understand what's so obvious about the "hoax". JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am dumbstruck at how things have changed since I last bothered with deletion. I can also hardly believe that no one here is able to see the problem with the topic and sourcing but for that it's been made clear. Let me break it down:

• The article is a telling of supposed history capstoned with the claim that a fringe esoteric group is its modern surviving heir
• Most of the article is uncited
• Most of the cites are to a tiny fringe group's website and occult books by its members
• The only 2 outside sources are used to support limited claims that say nothing about the main topic
• The writings of a 3rd century philosopher are used to support text about 14th Century activities, including extraordinary claims about the first Medici ruler

If putting it out there like that doesn't make it clear as crystal then nothing will. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Having only had a minute to look at this, I am leaning towards agreement with the IP. There does appear to be some funny business going on here with the sources and the topic as a coatrack for an organization. Unfortunately, neither this noticeboard nor the prod tag are an appropriate way to deal with the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that "hoax" is not a helpful label with fringey stuff like this; it's very hard for us to distinguish between (a) outlandish fringey things made up by the editor, and (b) outlandish fringey things which an editor actually believes in - only the former is truly a hoax, but both are content problems which we need to get rid of. Anyway, apart from the hoaxiness, the text has a rather promotional feel (which is often a hallmark of an editor who came here to spread The Truth). Llewellyn Worldwide looks a little promotional too. bobrayner (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The User:203.17.156.240 (blocked), Peter Carl Fabergé, homophobic vandalism and blocking duration.

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

Peter Carl Fabergé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The edits [74], [75], [76] and [77], by the User:203.17.156.240 (blocked), at Peter Carl Fabergé, all being homophobic vandalism, may require deletion. (and are mere 31 hours of blocking sufficiently enough?) I thank you. — KC9TV 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the page was under attack, courtesy of Google. There's more gay comments in the history, but since this isn't a BLP, there's no great harm done except to my view of humanity. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tell me about it! A lot of IPs, I say! I am still trying to go through them, myself, but I am not an administrator. Well, don't you nerds use Google any more? — KC9TV 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

99.231.172.215 - disruptive edits related to Asia

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 2 months by The Blade of the Northern Lights

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

This IP was blocked for a month by Elockid for disruptive editing and as the returning ip sock of an (unidentified) banned editor. He has now resumed editing making edits similar to those that precipitated the first block. He left this message on Jimbo's talk page [78] and had this to say about Elockid on his own talk page.[79] The Blade of the Northern Lights already commented on Jimbo's talk page about his disruptive editing.[80] Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be quite right. Apart from the minor matter that the first diff should be [this, the IP in question was blocked by Elockid for "block evasion", although I can see no reason to suspect that and no message was left on the IP talk page. I presume Elockid wrote the wrong reason into the block log -- perhaps like Northern lights and Mathsci he disagreed with some of the editor's contributions. Mathsci also seems confused about the difference between blocked and banned, there is no reason to believe that the IP is a banned user either. Perhaps Mathsci should take the usual route to deal with his content dispute with this editor -- the instructions at the top of this page may help him. Caderousse (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a legitimate content dispute and an obvious attempt to foist an Indian hagiography onto us. Accordingly, I'm blocking the IP for 2 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account created in April 2009, was unused until 2012, when it created a stub on the church where I've already said on WP that I play the organ. It is now trolling here. Elockid is an experienced checkuser and often blocks without listing the puppetmaster. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My suspicions that this is Echigo mole are confirmed by these edits[81][82] to Beyond Vaudeville which just repeat edits that the community banned editor Echigo mole made as an ipsock [83] 94.197.232.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) having trolled about me on an arbitrator's page with this edit.[84] Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus (film)

Edit war going on over at Prometheus (film), an article about a new film set to hit theaters this weekend. Edit war seems to be over the inclusion of a nearly 1,000-word plot summary (WP:FILMPLOT sets limits of 400–700 words). The summary has been inserted & removed about 4 times today. I'm uninvolved (not from the article entirely, but from this dispute) & intentionally not reading it since I plan to see the film this weekend & don't want to spoil the story for myself. In my opinion, however, the constant reverting seems disruptive to the article. In my experience, when articles about new-release films like this one experience edit-warring over plot summaries, semi-protection is often invoked. Full protection is sometimes applied if the involved parties are auto-confirmed. In any case, some action should be taken to reduce the disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing

• samuraiantiqueworld (talk · contribs)

I noticed this user being quite rude to another and left them this note which included my pointing them at the username policy, as their user page clearly identifies them as "The owners of samuraiantiqueworld", which would be

• http://www.samuraiantiqueworld.com/

They promptly reverted my note, citing WP:OUTING, which it is not. I also called it absurd and left them a formal warning, which they also removed stating "With your history you should know better. Better read it WP:OUTING". I'm fka User:Jack Merridew. I have never before seen this user, yet in a matter of minutes they know my history. This leads me to believe that this is someone I have encountered before under some other name. Given the issues in play in that thread and in their recent editing, I'm thinking this is User:ItsLassieTime. They've also just warned me on my talk page and seem to have pasted the whole outing policy there ;)

• Diff of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
• Diff of User talk:Br'er Rabbit

Bumping this to ANI since I've been accused of OUTING. Will notify the user next. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified them, and they removed that, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Running To Mommy" without a SPI, and yet with an identical thread on UAA? It happens to the best of us, I guess. Any decent diffs to tie this account to ILT or one of their many socks? Behaviorally, of course, since the CU evidence is wicked stale... Doc talk 07:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Been expecting you Doc ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, Doc, the UAA thread is about the username and is a valid issue there. The complaint here is of false accusations of outing and we all know that ANI is a proper place for that issue to be raised. I was hoping you'd be able to comment on the issues Jack raises without the personalisations such as "Running To Mommy" which is clearly designed to insult, and diminishes your argument. You can interact better than that and we both know it. As we all accept that any CU evidence will be stale, there would be no point in asking for an SPI; the administrators here are being asked to consider the possibility that Samuraiantiqueworld may be a ban-evading account on the basis of their recent editing. No doubt that suggestion could be elaborated upon, but why not just ask without wrapping it up in baggage? --RexxS (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you want to interpret what I wrote that way, that's your business. Stick to the topic at hand. These things are bigger than individual editors. Doc talk 09:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This statement by Br'er Rabbit clearly shows an attempt to identify me in violation of WP:OUTING: "The text of your userpage makes it quite clear that you 'are' http://www.samuraiantiqueworld.com/" As per WP:OUTING:

text of wp:outing that was pasted here by SAW collapsed by Ohiostandard at 09:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by Oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information. Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you simply regurgitating the entire OUTING policy here? Note the "unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information" part; and your choice of username seems pretty suspect. He did not "out" you according to the policy. Doc talk 08:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding personal comments into guideline talk pages

In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Yesterday I posted a comment to the In ictu oculi's talk page requesting that User:In ictu oculi ("Iio") stop creating new inappropriate sections and to stop placing personal comments on inappropriate talk pages (such as the talk pages of articles and guidelines). This was in response to this edit.

As can be seen Iio did not respond in a positive way to my request, but continued to make similar comments in similar places.[85] Could some third party administrator please explain to Iio that guideline and article talk places are inappropriate venues to make unsubstantiated comments such as:[86]

It suddenly occurs to me this morning that PBS and MakeSense64 are not refusing to do this out of stubborness or game-playing but simply because they can't. They don't know any language with diacritics, so I might as well be demanding they give an opinion on cuneiform or heiroglyphics.

And then after my request to stop:[87]

Please, don't take this question "personal", you deleted the diacritics section here, but do you speak/read any language which has diacritics? Which one(s)?

As an aside: I did not "deleted the diacritics section" I changed the content. Iio often makes summary statements like this about my actions and others without providing diffs, that in my case are often falsehoods and as Iio does this to me, I suspect Iio makes similar false summary statements about others (but I have not checked) and this is another form of malicious personal attack.

Since I posted my last message to Iio's talk page stating that I would be bringing this issue to an ANI,[88] Iio modified the section somewhat. In response another editor has pointed out that Iio "IIO. You are continuing your pattern of starting new sections (below other topics), in what is an ongoing discussion. Please stop doing that.".[89]. This lead Iio to delete the whole section (before moving it). So that means that the only way to see the section is through the history of the article!

A major problem, which Iio's modus operandi, is that it takes lots of effort to respond to these types of snide asides and creation of new sections about the same topic and these tactics distracts from building a consensus on the talk pages of articles and guidelines about the content of the article or guideline under discussion.

The fact that Iio has made changes removing the specific section I complained about since I posted a statement that I would bring this ANI, may be seen as a coincidence or it can be seen as an admission of wrong doing, either way I think that an uninvolved administrator should warn Iio that recent posts have been out of bounds. --PBS (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)