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

Independent review of Xenos2008's block and ultimatum

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

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: [1]

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.

the talk-page behaviour of the 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 [[2]]; 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)

Refusal to indent as intentional disruption

( Late clarification, please note timestamp: When I made my first edit in this section I was unaware that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline, and that such guidelines are subject to administrative enforcement, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. --Ohiostandard 08:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) )

Thanks, Blade. Let's hope the block gets IP 209.6.69.227's attention. But can I ask if there's an expectation that 209.x will stop posting by default at flush left, and conform to normal indentation practices, once his block expires? I know wp:indent isn't a policy, but I've always understood that was only because we don't want it to be used to bite newcomers who don't know any better. 209's refusal to indent is probably half of what makes the ALEC talk page so hard to use and follow where IP 209.x has touched it.

And as a corollary question to admins generally if you all won't mind: Are any of you willing to consider blocking experienced users (only) just for consistently refusing to indent, after being politely asked to, when it looks like they're just trying to be a dick? --OhioStandard (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Experienced users should know that there's more than one tool in the toolbox. Just as every article problem isn't fixed with the deletion tool and every content problem isn't fixed with the undo tool, every talk page problem isn't fixed with the blocking tool. Just WikiGnome the proper list markup in with the edit tool. This is a wiki, and we can refactor discussions for legibility, quietly and without fuss. Collect already pointed this out, a day ago, albeit in the middle of a paragraph. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course one tries refactoring. But an experienced editor who has already refused a polite request to start indenting always reverts such a refactor, in my experience. Our wp:refactor guide gives him the right to do so, without recourse, since it says, necessarily, "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." IP 209.x did revert, in fact, the one time I tried an indentation refactor, as I documented in the third paragraph of the section you refer me to.

Certain experienced editors do use this technique, in particular contexts, of always posting at flush left to either add prominence to their own posts, to disrupt discussion that might produce a result they don't want, or both. Or they do it just to troll, I suppose, too. I'm not just talking about the occasional mistake we all make from time to time. I'm talking about a deliberate flouting of the expected norm for threaded discussion, simply because someone can, and I want to know if there's any effective way to address that when it happens? --OhioStandard (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The refusal to indent is just a symptom, not the underlying problem. The problem is that the IP doesn't listen to anyone else, acknowledge or engage with anyone's concerns, or make any effort to facilitate a productive discussion. If he started indenting his posts perfectly (or if we did it for him), we'd have fixed one superficial manifestation of the problem, but the underlying issue would still remain. If an editor shows zero interest in or ability at productive discussion, then proper indenting is the least of the concerns. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree it's just a symptom, but its a real impediment to me and my ADD brethren. In neuropsych tests my tribe always has more difficulty ignoring salient but irrelevant visual stimuli than normals, and the same is almost certainly true here, re the constant left-margin posts. My own eyes saccade to flush left posts all the time, even though they're not the ones I'm trying to read.

Even for people whose brains don't work like that, though, constant flush left posts make it impossible, or very difficult, anyway, to choose or understand who a reply is intended to address. Each new flush left post effectively acts like a new, randomly located level 3 heading, if you stop and think about it, in its impact on thread continuity.--OhioStandard (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely anything would eventuate from an editor's refusal to indent, and any attempt to punish an editor for not indenting is something I would oppose on principle. Yes, indentation makes talk pages easier to read and I much prefer it, but it's not dictated anywhere that I can find in Wikipedia's policies. WP:INDENT is an essay, and WP:TPG merely suggests indentation would be 'good practice'. You can't punish someone for not doing something they're not required to do. Aside from that, you mentioned that you have trouble following conversations that don't indent as a reason why it should be indented. Did you consider that the editor in question is not using indent for the same reason, that they may have a much harder time following indented conversations? This issue specifically seems to be one of those 'live and let live' situations. You indent, he doesn't, and everyone focuses on the words being written instead of how much whitespace is to the left of those words. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that's an opinion. Just to note, though, neither I nor NULL are admins. And I was already aware, as I wrote above, that wp:indent isn't official policy at all, but only, as I believe, to keep it from being used to bite newcomers. I doubt you've ever had the experience of trying to communicate with other users on an extremely active talk page with four or five concurrent contributors, when one person, one of its most active contributors, always posts at flush left? I say that I doubt that because it's extremely rare; I've only seen a couple of users do it.

Stop and think about what happens: Every unnecessary flush left post acts like a new, randomly positioned level 3 heading, a "roadblock" or "fence" of sorts. You can't use indentation any more, even if you want to, since indentation can't "span" or "reach across" a flush left post. That is, one has to decide whether to post below it, and use an "@" symbol to address someone above it, or to post above it, with the result that it gets pushed down the page, farther and farther from the comment it was actually replying to, with each new "above it" post. Eventually the flush left post's temporal context is entirely lost, and you can't tell what it's intended to be a reply to. Lather, rinse, repeat 15 or 20 times on a long page, and the whole page becomes extremely hard to follow without examining each timestamp individually and comparing it to every other one in the mashup of posts that result.

It's not a matter taste, in other words, not an "I say potaato, and you say potawto" thing. It's more like, "if you say potawto then you effectively shout down all the other threaded conversations in the section and force them to reset after your post." No one will be able to tell who's talking to whom, on re-reading, either, without you go to the "@JoeBloggs" thing, which is pretty limited. But I really don't want to argue. I'd rather hear from other admins especially, and from Blade in particular. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I took the IP's refusal to indent into account, as I agree it was probably intended to be annoying. Although certainly not the biggest problem, it was an impediment to communication and pretty clearly calculated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Blade didn't outdent his preceding comment; I did, since my initial question had been primarily directed to him. -- Ohiostandard 09:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Indenting might not be required, but it is common courtesy, and as Blade points out continual refusal to do so is just point-making. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy, certainly, but I don't agree that it's a WP:POINT issue, calculated or not. Lack of indentation is not disruptive, it's extremely minor and WP:AGF dictates we assume it's not being done with a disruptive purpose. It should not be used in any justification for a block, that's something that should stand on far more unambiguous grounds. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 04:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bushranger; For those who don't know, btw, Bushranger is an admin. I understand that opinions differ, but I doubt there would be much difference of opinion if we'd all experienced what it's like to try to communicate on a talk page where a prolific contributor refuses to indent:

I wanted to join in on the discussion, but trying to read the talk page was so confusing that I kept putting it aside, never getting a clear idea of what was going on. So I'd say that if 209's goal is to keep new editors from joining into the discussion, he's been pretty successful. And of course, it is effing irritating too. After reading that several attempts had been made to get him to conform to the accepted manner of posting without success I decided to ignore his posts (as pointed out by OS above), though that's probably not the best way to go about trying to keep the talk page readable either.  --Gandydancer, at 21:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC) excerpt

Here's the context of the preceding. I'm all for individual liberty and live-and-let-live. But when one person's use of his liberty makes it hard to use a talk page to communicate with others, as five editors of the ALEC article have observed, then I say we need to constrain that one's liberty just a little. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope - if you wish to add colons, do so. I found no precedent for blocking a person for that horrid infraction of ... what? Collect (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Bushranger: I've just now discovered that the use of normal indentation is a behavioural guideline that editors are required to follow. Such guidelines are subject to administrative enforcement, especially when other editors have been unable to persuade an individual to abide by them. Our enforcement policy states, "If an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors can persuade the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, over time resorting to more forceful means, such as administrator and steward actions." That's exactly what's happened here, of course: Blade didn't block 209.x only for refusing to indent, but he, or you, or any other admin would have been fully justified in doing so. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:30, 1 June 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)

Or the editor could genuinely mean what he says, which is quite possible. That being said, I echo Drmies - it's not so much that you could have been more formal in your warning, it'd be tough to be less formal. I can't imagine anyone taking that to be an official warning from an admin so much as Roscelese calling in the thugs for an attempt at intimidation. Ravenswing 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I consider myself fairly proficient in recognizing user behavior on Wikipedia, and nothing about this user page rings true. I think it is obvious that this a throwaway account used to harass Roscelese. The user does not require a more formal warning, they require an indefinite block for disruption. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, please. This account is so obviously taking the mickey. Definitely calls for a WP:NOTHERE block without need for any other pleasantries at all. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The reverts were primarily two months ago - there is no sign of actively reverting one person - and the reverts were reasonably confined to one main topic arrea, which means that the number of reverts of Roscelese might be totally random in any event, and not aimed principally at annoying him. WP:BITE may apply here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the account indefinitely. This account was clearly created to follow and revert Roscelese and/or a small group of other editors. The last reverts were just a few days ago. This is a case of obvious trolling and should not require editors to fill out form 36(c), subsection 4 in triplicate. MastCell ^Talk 17:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Correction: I noticed that Ywreuv (talk · contribs) most recently followed Roscelese to the article Priscilla K. Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I've edited in the past few days. I'm not going to block the Ywreuv account myself, since that overlap raises the issue of involvement, but the rest of my comment stands. I would encourage us to deal expeditiously with what I think we all recognize as obvious trolling. (See [3] for an illustration of what I think is intuitively obvious, namely that this account is dedicated to following and reverting another editor's work). MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing

• samuraiantiqueworld (talk · contribs)

I noticed this user being quite rude ("Chedzilla go bye bye now, adults at work here.!!!!") 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)

Agree with Doc that there's been no outing. SAW does sound rather on the quackish side to me, as well, though. And although I'm unaware of the origin of the apparent antipathy, and might very well think differently if I were aware of it, my read of Doc's comment is pretty much the same as that of RexxS. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, FFS - so I alluded to the "Run To Mommy" concept. I'm hardly the first to do this. Was this some sort of "personal attack"? You want diffs? You think I'm "harassing" someone by making that comment? Unreal... Doc talk 09:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you're trolling me, Doc; I'm why you're in this thread ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt. This is AN/I. Welcome back to it. Doc talk 09:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bzzt, yourself; that's just more trolling in your part, given that I've used that for several recent edit summaries. It's gadflies such as you that make this board a cesspit. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Moar personal attacks, eh? Gee... that's not so nice. Do you treat your "wiki-friends" this way, too? I won't reciprocate. Cheers :> Doc talk 11:10, 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)

I offered SAW a bit of WP:CLUE (link), but their PA would seem to indicate they are not WP:HERE with the best of intentions. I'm content in having tried, but .... Chedzilla (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly, the username sounds like a magazine. I have no idea if it is, or isn't, but if you use the same username offsite for another purpose, well then, you can't complain when someone links the two, especially if the name sounds corporate. Is there really any issue here?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Having reviewed this at UAA and then come here ... clearly there's no outing issue where a possible conflict of interest or sockpuppetry is being identified; a long time ago I was part of a brief discussion of possibly amending the wording to allow for that. As it is the policy, if applied strictly, makes that very difficult.

But since this is "outing" an account as controlled by a business as opposed to a person, that policy doesn't apply. To me.

I am hesitant to block for a username vio for two reasons: no direct connection demonstrated between the site and this account, and the fact that they've edited since 2010 without anyone raising this issue (which could be what mistakenly led them to believe WP:OUTING applied). But their other behavior may make that irrelevant. Daniel Case (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Daniel, it only takes a few moments to look at the site http://www.samuraiantiqueworld.com/ to see that it's a business located in New Orleans which sells antique Japanese armour and weapons - and has a lot of images. An example of one of those images is on Wikipedia and Commons: File:Kusari katabira.JPG; source=samuraiantiqueworld.com; author, uploader and copyright holder = User:Samuraiantiqueworld. I am not sure what you are looking for to demonstrate a direct connection between the site and this account, but it seems rather clear-cut to me. Having said that, I must admit I'm less concerned about Samuraiantiqueworld advertising his business and more about him being so bloody rude to respected, good-faith editors like Ched. --RexxS (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the username is clearly a violation, though their account probably shouldn't be called purely promotional (but I haven't delved too deeply in their history). Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That image link does make the connection. But, upon further review, I'm still not going for a username block right away. I have often argued at UAA that a name identical with a business is not blockable per se; I like (well, actually, I don't like) to see edits that indicate an explicit intent to promote that business before I block (and this happens a lot more than you may realize if you're not a UAA regular). As I've always said, what if someone logs on with the name "Consolidated Amalgamated Widget Corp." or something of that sort and proceeds to make useful and productive edits, or at least edits that could be seen that way when assuming good faith, to our articles about, say, gardening or poker? Or even similar edits to our articles about widget making that do not even reference the named concern but simply reflect the account holder's expertise in that area (if an account with the name "HousesForSaleUK" were created and made sourced contributions to the articles on English property law and procedure, I would argue against blocking it). I would say that situation exists here, as many of the edits do relate to armor, sometimes Samurai armor, and equestrian equipment (granted, in what I've been able to review so far I haven't seen any evidence of explictly promotional edits, but I haven't delved into much so that's hardly the final word).

And since the name does not include the domain (under which, even famously username-lenient Rspeer agrees, promotional intent is unambiguous since the account name is itself a URL that can be copied and pasted, indicating an intent to use the username to drive traffic to that site), there is less ground for a block on sight.

Things are further complicated by the fact that this account, regardless of the circumstances under which it was created, has been editing apparently without other incident for over two years now. It's a little late for us to all suddenly decide to block on a username basis.

If we truly believe this username is problematic, assuming the account is not blocked for other reasons in the meantime, I suggest that we first ask SAW to consider changing it, then open a username RfC, weighing all these considerations. If the consensus there were to be "disallow", then and only then could we block if SAW insists on using it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• The issue of the username seems nailed down; it is a direct violation of the policy. This user has far more edits to Commons, and seems to have released a fair number of images of Samurai armour. They would all be tagged with the domain name of their business which will result in anyone searching the net for Samurai armour to be presented with links to their site. That's how Google works, how SEO works, why the policy proscribes domain names as usernames; it's /why/ they're using this username.
• I didn't suggest that they be blocked, I suggested that they could avoid being blocked by changing their username. Rather than reply in any way, they attacked me on one of the points I made in my initial post to them.
• "Them". The user page refers to the "owners" (plural) of "samuraiantiqueworld" which would seem to mean both the account and the website. Username policy also requires one person be operating an account, not multiple owners. This opens the possibility that all that image work has been delegated to an employee or contractor (which would mostly be a commons concern).
• User:ItsLassieTime; User:Samuraiantiqueworld knows something of "my history". I know that ILT has given equine topics shit for years. Spidey-sense suggested ILT, or door number three ;)
• Getting back to the /other/ issues, we have a user who was quite rude to User:Ched Davis and User:Montanabw, and has been the root of a lot of drama related to the articles Saddle, Stirrup, and New Forest pony. See the recent history of the first two, the now closed thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Forest pony/archive1. I had edited New Forest pony some days ago after seeing a comment by User:ThatPeskyCommoner and was watching the FAC, and I again saw this user mentioned on User talk:Montanabw, which I also have watched. Samuraiantiqueworld lit into Stirrup, Stirrup, and FAC:New Forest pony causing much agitation to Montanabw and on the RSN page, which resulted in User:Dana boomer being dragged in to defend some of the sources.
• The username is problematic, but the issue of attacking others is needful, as are the attacks on articles and their sources.
• Hope that helps, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you always this paranoid? All anyone has to do to find out your "history" is to go to your user page User:Br'er Rabbit and click on the Jack Merridew link...duhh (locked/This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.) as for your actions...I have NEVER had any interaction with you on Wikipedia, you attacked me because I was "rude" to your friends? How high school is that, cant they defend themselves without your involvement? I have a right to question the validity of any reference on the proper notice board, that is not considered to be an "attack", as for my editing and User:Montanabw, twice recently administrators have reverted Montanabw's edits in my favor and that is the root of the problem, some people just cant stand being wrong, its an "ownership" issue which has been notice by other editors.. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I put that link on User:Br'er Rabbit myself, you know; I linked to my 'jAck' account at the top of this thread, too. Ever read meatball:DefendEachOther? I was defending Ched and Montanabw from your attacks. Seems you attack articles and references a lot, too. I just did a bit of work on Hwacha, which was a mess (you do that?). And I looked at Sword and found this cut problematic; the first removed ref to etymonline.com seems an entirely inappropriate cut (others refs cut; other editors should review). And what's up with Talk:Kura (saddle)? You do an awful job on the references to that article (Kura (saddle)) and you threaten Montanabw with arbitration? FWIW, I'm pretty good with references and have worked /with/ Montanabw before. You should try a less caustic and more skilful approach. As for your username, you should see Daniel's comments above (and respond to them). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So what? Br'er Rabbit isn't disrupting anything, and Arbcom has permitted this account; he's not attempting to break any rules. Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The username is a clear violation that should have been blocked long ago and this highly inappropriate response by samurai to Ched's attempt to defuse the situation says it all about samurai's conduct.PumpkinSky talk 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well. That got my attention. Samuraiantiqueworld's comment above using words like "paranoid" to describe Jack/Br'er is point positive of Samurai's approach to editing: Attack others when they tell you "no, don't do that." He is particularly hung up on me because I apparently have been the one who most consistently tells him "no." Samuraiantiqueworld has been blocked for edit-warring on an article where I had NO involvement (Katana), he is currently engaging in a practice of removing links in multiple articles in a manner that makes fixing the problem even more difficult (even when he is right, he is making more work for others with his style), obviously has a POV to push his own product, and he routinely engages in tendentious editing wars over non-issues like this example at Talk:Kura (saddle) where there was a clear policy on naming and disambiguation. Samuraiantiqueworld's comments about "ownership" must really be taken in the context of his own addition of photos of his products, presumably for sale, his Tone when reverting (see reverts of Morinae's work in November 2011, including one stating "no edit summery (sic)"), his hostile reactions to legitimate comments about POV pushing such as this protection due to edit-warring, note hostile comment. Finally, when Samurai's attacks result in responses like this, it really is time for the user to look in the mirror. I really don't know what to do with Samurai, as the cluebat is a metaphorical device only, but he does have legitimate expertise in Japanese antique military topics and could be a valued editor if he could just learn to play properly with others and listen to good advice when it is given him. Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Another threat of arbitration. And I'm rather interested in Pesky's take on this given her comment to Ched that followed your link to her talk. The username issue pales in comparison to the belligerency and uncollegial approach. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• A quote from User:Montanabw, ("Well, not to put too fine a point on it, I am a horse expert.") this sums it all up, User:Montanabw is mad because two administrators recently reversed Montanabw's edits in my favor and my additions to horse related articles have proved to be valid, and as the resident "horse expert" in this neck of the woods User:Montanabw just cant stand that.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your "favor"? It's supposed to be about the encyclopaedia's favour. It's not about winning. And diffs, please; you're merely asserting that you're right about "something". FYI, the article I worked on with Montanabw previously was a horse article. She is rather expert on the topic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't said anything about the username issue, SAW. While, on the basis of lengthy experience enforcing the username policy, I disagree with other suggestions here that a block is the only solution, those issues are genuine. You need to state for the record whether you are the same person who operates the samuraiantiqueworld.com website and the real-world store. If so, it is strongly suggested that you put in for a username change and remove all promotional material related to that enterprise from your user page. If you continue to ignore this issue, I would feel comfortable with an indefinite block. Daniel Case (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think I now understand what's happened:

May 21 - SAW goes to RSN to question a source without mentioning any concerns on the talk page of Saddle.

May 22 - SAW removes the source he queried at RSN, but also takes out another half-dozen references without understanding that WP:LINKROT wants us to mark and salvage dead links, not throw them away.[4]

May 27 - Montanabw reverts the removal of the references

May 27 - SAW goes to User talk:Good Olfactory to complain about Montanabw, then repeats this with User talk:Joefromrandb, and only then goes to the talk page to argue that since he had two people agree with him at RSN, he has licence to remove any 'similar' references from the article without discussion.

And that's the problem. Samuraiantiqueworld didn't have the courtesy to talk with the other editors of the article before going off to RSN, and then assumed that he was the sole arbitor of what sources were appropriate for an article. SAW had less than 20 edits to Saddle at that point and Montanabw had well over 100. It must be particularly galling to put that much effort into an article; find somebody ripping references out of it; then be accused of "ownership" when they try to put the references back. Montanabw was not reverted by "two administrators" by the way, she made one revert which was reversed by User talk:Joefromrandb who is not an admin. SAW has a clear antipathy towards anyone he disagrees with, and it's that sort of battle attitude that makes the atmosphere too often toxic, where it should be collegial. I don't suppose that is sanctionable, per se, so I doubt that there's much more to be said here. It would be nice if SAW at least acknowledged that the original complaint of a false accusation of outing has merit, but I guess there's not much chance of that. --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to add much here. My only previous "history" with SAW was when they followed Montanabw over to my talk page, having never posted on my talk before, and I (being me) spent a lot of time looking over ancient history and interactions with various editors to try to get to the roots of everything. You guys on here probably know me well enough by now to be aware that I'm someone who's usually prepared to take WP:AGF to extremes. Nonetheless, I found no way in which I could constructively communicate with SAW, and I ended up having to ask them not to post on my talk again. In over 17K of edits, there have only been two editors that I've had to ask this of, and the other one has been reprieved. I have tried my darnedest to be as insightful, forgiving, patient and open-minded as is humanly possible, but having kept a distant eye on SAW's confrontations with other editors, and general approach, I don't seem to be able to AGF any more with this one. And that's saying something. The latest spat (the New Forest pony FAC) I can't see any motivation for other than point-scoring. I may be being blind. My personal suggestion would be to think about a topic ban for anything horse-related, broadly construed, as despite some excellent contributions, this particular editor is making editing stressful for the rest of the equine-expertise people, and particularly stressful for one or two. You guys know me; I'm prepared to work with almost any editor. But I'm not prepared to try with this one, it's just won't work, and I can do without the hassle. Pesky (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I noticed Daniel Case's remark (above) "has been editing apparently without other incident for over two years now." Sadly, that's not true. This editor's background is absolutely littered with confrontation, aggression, personal attacks, and real lack of collaboration. It's just that, for the most part, I think they've been dealing with editors with unusual levels of patience and tolerance, so it hasn't hit the dramah-boards. Pesky (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I meant that in the sense that he hadn't been blocked, which for someone this contentious is noteworthy. But of course you're right ... it depends on the interlocutors. And indeed there is evidence of other tendentious behavior on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support a block of the user behind samuraiantiqueworld per RexxS's and ThatPeskyCommoner's analysis, and not primarily because of the account name, either. The community has to have some way of dealing with editors who habitually make working here needlessly difficult for their fellows. Something is clearly needed to get his attention. I'd actually be in favour of an indef, myself, because he seems quite unlikely to change his stripes. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have no problem with a name change and I never said I did have a problem with that, I would not have picked the name if I was aware at the time that it was problematic. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk)

OK, thanks. Once you get it started, I'm done here. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• There are two sides to every story. There are a lot of misrepresentations of events going on here by a group of people who are "friends", I have had some conflicts with User:Montanabw ever since I first dared to edit one of the horse related articles, since then almost any edit I make on a horse related article gets reverted by User:Montanabw, here are a few examples of what I have had to deal with because I dared to edit a horse related article. I have done nothing wrong in my edits unless it was by accident, I have a right to edit articles just like anyone else does, no one owns these articles and if I was as bad as I am being portrayed I would certainly deserve some criticism but the truth is I refuse to be pushed around and stopped from editing articles that are "off limits".Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Facts I added sub categories to Category:Horse tack which user User:Montanabw immediately reverted, I then asked the opinion of administrator User:Good_Olfactory on the validity of just 2 of several reverts of my edits by User:Montanabw User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Category:Whips and User_talk:Good_Olfactory#Category:Stirrups, here is part of my statement "(I do not want to start another controversy with User:Montanabw over this and if you also feel that there is no need for the category I will just drop the matter, thanks Samuraiantiqueworld (talk))". After looking at User:Montanabw's reverts of my edits, User:Good_Olfactory restored my edits with these statements "(Well, regardless of what I think the value of the category to be, Montanabw should not have unilaterally emptied the category. If he thinks there is no need for it, he should nominate the category for deletion. I think it's usefulness if probably a debateable issue—one that should be discussed if we need to make a decision about it. So I am going to reverse the unilateral emptying and restore the contents. Good Ol’factory)" and "(Yup, same deal. If he doesn't like these categories, he should be nominating them for deletion or merging so they can be discussed. Good Ol’factory)", I have a right to make edits and to ask for the opinion if someone reverts my edits, I did nothing wrong here.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Facts. I removed invalid references from Saddle AFTER asking for an opinion on the validity of the type of references used in the article Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_123#saddle I then removed the references and left adequate comments including a link to the reliable sources noticeboard response, User:Montanabw immediately reverted my 7 edits as vandalism, User:Montanabw then contacted administrator User:Nyttend to complain about me User_talk:Nyttend, I then left User:Nyttend a message about Montanabw's revert and User:Nyttend took a look and found that the references were as I said (not valid), User:Nyttend then went to reverted the edits leaving this comment "(Are any of these reliable sources? They don't look like it)" but they had been reverted already by User:Joefromrandb so that User:Nyttend accidentally restored the edits, when User:Nyttend realized what had happened User:Nyttend removed the references again with this statement "(Oops, I restored links? I thought I was removing them)", you can see the history here. Saddle: Difference between revisions, I followed Wikipedia procedure properly, I asked for advice from the reliable references notice board and I ask the opinion of an administrator who agreed with my decision, can anyone tell me how this is wrong? Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Fact, After I noticed the reverting of my edits on Saddle by User:Montanabw as vandalism but before I noticed that User:Montanabw complained about me to administrator User:Nyttend I asked the opinion of administrator User:Good_Olfactory about the reverting of my edits [5] Here is what I said "(Good Olfactory, can you take a look at 7 edits I made on Saddle, User talk:Montanabw reverted these edits as "vandalism", I believe they are all valid edits, and at the least not "vandalism" in ANY way, here is the message left on my talk page ("Please do not remove sources as you did on the article saddle. In a longterm stable article such as this, it is more helpful to tag problematic links and allow them to be fixed. Please respect the process. Montanabw"). This has been on ongoing problem with many horse related articles and categories and it is having a negative effect on the development of this type of article as editors just give up on editing having been worn down from constant reverts. I am open to the possibility that I may be wrong and seek the input of someone with more knowledge of the Wikipedia process as far as this goes. saddle revision history, any help or advice would be appreciated, thanks.Samuraiantiqueworld)", Notice that I even stated that I was "(open to the possibility that I may be wrong)"!!!! User:Good_Olfactory made this statement "(I would bring up the specific issues about the links on the article talk page. It looks like there are some issues of page ownership possibly at play. Good Ol’factory)". User:Montanabw responded with these remarks "(Every time I am left to deal singlehandedly with yet another troll or bully with a POV to push)" and "(I really do not call people on their crap because I have nothing better to do.)" Notice the use of the words troll bully and crap". User:Good_Olfactory responded to User:Montanabw with this statement "(The other user is apparently making good faith edits, so it's out of bounds for you to refer to what he is doing as "crap", "nonsense", and so forth. If you can't work with other editors without characterizing their edits in this way, then it's not surprising that you get smacked-down by outside editors. Play nicely regardless of how others play and you won't get detention. Good Ol’factory)".Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fact I questioned the validity of a reference being used in New Forest pony which was under discussion as a featured article Featured_article_candidates/New_Forest_pony, I made no negative statements about the article or its creator, in fact I said it was a good article, but I had questions about the validity of a reference and I had a right as did all the other editors to ask questions. User:Montanabw left this statement "(Sorry this bled over here, people. I have been having some trouble with Samurai again over on the tack articles, and I guess he's after you guys because he's trolling my contribs. Note this and especially this behavior, which is not helping improve wikipedia. Montanabw)" and then User:ThatPeskyCommoner left this message "(I cannot for the life of me see your input here as anything other than unnecessarily confrontational and disruptive.)" Many other editors commented on different aspects and yet when I as do the same I was personally attacked, I challenge anyone to show were I said anything negative about the article or its creator.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Fact I asked the reliable references notice board for an opinion on the validity of a reference being used in New Forest pony which was up for discussion as a featured article, I did not edit the article in any way, and I certainly did not attack anyone, I was the one subject to person attacked by User:Montanabw who left this message in the discussion ("be aware that this user is doing some very troll-like behavior in the horse articles."), and User:Chedzilla left this message on the discussion ("If you personally want to subject any article to "harsh criticism", then I suggest you go create a blog or join one of the many "anti-wiki" sites available to you. If you want to be a part of this project - then dial it down and check your attitude at the door. People here will work with you - but not if you continue to be so confrontational"). I have a right to question the validity of reference being used on an article on the appropriate message board especially one that is under discussion as a featured article, I should not be attacked for doing so, I challenge anyone to show were I did any more than ask some questions about references, I used no personal names and said nothing negative or derogatory about the article or its creator.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You see what I meant? Meh. That was unworthy of me. I'm currently in the lull period between my mother's death and her funeral, and clearly not at my best. Pesky (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All users involved here, myself included, haven't exactly behaved perfectly. I don't know SAW; I assume good faith there. He could have toned it down a bit, I could have toned it down a bit, and those who responded to SAW could have toned it down a bit. I've had a nice chat with Montanabw in the interim; I consider myself uninvolved with this issue at this point. It may be a good idea if all users here just take a deep breath and try to move forward.

As an aside, my sincere condolences to Pesky for your loss. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the above proves my point too. Yes, SAW is a troll and a bully, certainly to me, as the attacks above illustrate. But whether he is right or wrong, he needs to learn how to work with MANY others. My god, he got thrown off of Pesky's talk page, that takes some doing! I guess if I were to suggest a solution, I'd ask that SAW change his user name, remove all references to his business from his user page, past and present, and for a while (30 days perhaps?) not directly edit any equine-related articles or categories. But if he wants to suggest (not demand) positive changes, or add content on Japanese horse equipment (where he has legitimate background), that he be allowed to post on the relevant article talk pages, so other editors may review the suggestion and see if it works for the article in question. If he can demonstrate an ability to collaborate in such manner for a set period of time (though note he does have long breaks from WP at times too), then the topic ban could be lifted. In his defense, he MIGHT be able to do so, as seen here, where, after he initially started off in his typical style, he came around to a mutually satisfactory solution. Of course, I did more or less agree with some of his points ... Montanabw^(talk) 17:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Pesky. Daniel's comments remain unaddressed, although it's is abuntantly clear that the ".com" is associated. Also unaddressed is the false claim of outing still sitting on my talk page.

What is clear is that SAW is being a Meta:Dick on equine topics. If they manage to skate by the username issue, I feel an indef topic ban from equine-related pages is in order. Relentlessly poking editors and cutting reasonable references is not on. While this is not "vandalism" it is disruptive and uncollegial.

@Joe. It would seem that many deep breathes have been taken and efforts to move on have led here. Since we're here, now is the time to seek to resolve this. Wiki often foolishly seeks to push-off problems into the future. This causes things to accumulate on the path forward instead of clearing the path forward.

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there some Wikiproject apart from Equine where SAW has been working collaboratively, without confrontation or conflict, and where he/she is more appreciated? If so, maybe moving focus away from Equine and over to the other area would be a very good move. In fact, it would be nice to hear from anyone who's had no problems with SAW, and would really enjoy working with them. (Not just on Wiki-work, but also on becoming less wossname with other editors. Someone who could mentor them on interpersonal skills, etc.? I can't do it; doesn't mean nobody else could. Pesky (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would have tried (oh wait .. I did) - but apparently I need to go play with my crayons instead. Chedzilla (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The connection between User:Samuraiantiqueworld and Samuraiantiqueworld.com was made on the user page for most of two years; from the initial creation of the page in February 2010 through this version in December 2011. The ".com" was dropped in this edit. FWIW, someone should bring some closure to this thread soon. I think we have enough input. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have never denied a connection, the owners have generously allowed me unlimited access to their collection of rare Japanese antiques and have also allowed me to post any images I obtain on Wikipedia commons with NO usage restrictions, in turn these images are used in numerous Wikipedia articles in many countries, many of the images I have uploaded are the only legally licensed images available for public use, I know of no other arrangement of this type. As I have said I have no problem with changing my name and if I had been aware that it was such a big issue I would not have used that name. I also upload legally liscensed images from other sources as can be seen here on my uploads from Wiki commons samuraianitqueworld uploads], other than this the rest of this discussion has shown nothing other than a difference in opinion on editing technique etc, as for requests that I be blocked here is what another user has to say about User:Montanabw's editing technique "( Thank you for the note. You are correct about the ownership issue with this user. Don't get me wrong; Montanabw is a good editor, and our horse-related articles are better off for her being here. But she also seems to think she has right-of-first-refusal on all horse-related edits. Ending an edit summary with "now leave it be" smacks of WP:OWN issues. Also, the "stewardship doesn't equal ownership" caveat on her user page is a good clue that others have had similar issues with her editing. Regards. Joefromrandb)" and here "(Mass-reverting good-faith edits as "vandalism" is completely unacceptable. I hope you follow through with this. Perhaps an RfC is in order. As I said above, she is a good editor, but her latest actions show her ownership issues are simply out of control. I'm beginning to think that a temporary topic-ban from horse-related articles may be a good idea. In any case, don't be pushed around! She can call it "quality control", "stewardship", "green cheese", "Randy in Boise"-whatever. The bottom line is these articles are as much yours as they are hers, mine, and everyone's. Joefromrandb)", as I have said, there are two sides to every story.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit of cherry-picking there. As I noted above, I have had cordial, productive interaction with Montanabw since I wrote that on my talk page. I do not want editors to think that that comment reflects my current opinions of her editing. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, SAW, do you think you could possibly be a bit less aggressive? The vitriol is affecting my computer screen .... Seriously, though, please just stop making life so blinkin' unpleasant for us equine-type people. We've had enough. Pesky (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding: Br'er Rabbit brought this up here, and for some unaccountable reason it seems to have been turned into yet another place for you to take swipes at Montanabw. That's out of order, really it is. I've never, ever had a problem working with MTBW; even when we have differences of opinion we do so collaboratively, and we laugh at ourselves and at each other, with never any offence given or taken. Joe, thanks for your comment above. Having read around those diffs, I could see the rest of the orchard. Pesky (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be two issues still remaining after SAW changed his username. A) SAW's edit seem to spark controversy among his fellow editors due to the nature of his name and the sources. B) SAW's disregard for other editors. Both issues seem to extend far back within SAW's editing here on Wikipedia. As for me, this is a tough decision. Although a block is in question, it is not on the nature of Samurai's editing nor his name that fully define the decision, but simply denies claims against him, and seems to be hostile. With no bad feelings to Sam, I must admit that a block would certainly be reasonable. One pier (Logbook) 21:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Saamuraiantiqueworld not only for violating our username policy, but for the additional harassment, incivility and general disruption this user has engaged in. Dreadstar ☥ 22:23, 1 June 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.[6] Could some third party administrator please explain to Iio that guideline and article talk places are inappropriate venues to make unsubstantiated comments such as:[7]

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:[8]

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,[9] 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.".[10]. This led 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)

Hi Philip, everyone
It's not a coincidence. Of course not. An editor was upset with my comments on the Talk page and I went and reviewed them, and I found out that I was in the wrong. I stand by restoring the removed diacritics section on April 24, but I don't stand by the comments I made yesterday. I had missed one very important thing - that after repeated requests to discuss the changes to MOSPN in relation to article reality at en.wikipedia.org, I selected Lech Wałęsa (due to the page's history), and Philip said some way up the page (May 14 I think) that he was in fact willing to discuss François Hollande as an example, but unfortunately I missed it and only saw Napoleon, which comes under monarchy.

Mea culpa. I hadn't been paying attention properly. The original removal of the diacritics section was back before 24 April when I restored it, and discussion didn't seem to be getting anywhere and what with other edits being made there, I had pretty well given up on it and was only dropping in and giving it half an eye, while noting further changes to MOSPN. And that's probably wrong. Rightly or wrong, perhaps wrongly, I drew the impression that the MOS pages are pretty much a sandbox and a lot easier to make changes there with little relation to en.wikipedia.org reality than in actual article space... so stopped giving the changes full attention, with the result of missing Philip's willingness signalled May 14 to actually discuss the changes in relation to real article space. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The topic (ie. diacritics in personal names) could probably use a widely-advertised RfC. The problem with MOS talk page discussions like that is that a few people with strong opinions end up aguing among themselves and generate huge walls of text that will drive away any outside editors who would otherwise be willing to participate in the discussion.

In ictu oculi, you should try to make sure to focus on the content of comments instead of the person making them. Using speculations of a user's language skills to question their competence is not very productive and the discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. Jafeluv (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Jafeluv, you're correct in both of those comments, certainly in the 2nd. However we have just had a form of RfC at WT:BLP which I initiated following a comment by Mike Cline on the no consensus close at BLP Talk:Stephane Huet, I invited all who had commented on BLP diacritics related RMs in the 30 days preceding (91 for, 10 against, of which 20 for and 8 against turned up for the discussion). It is partly because we had just had an exhaustive dicussion at WT:BLP that I was disheartened by removal of the content of diacritics section (since 2009) which had been one of the few clear bits of MOSPN guidance in the WT:BLP discussion.

Having said that, I'm sorry about what I know does appear like "using speculations of a user's language skills to question their competence" but was honestly not the intention, and I have apologised for it appearing that way several times now. I was stuck. On the one hand are editors who apparently do not recognise the reality of where en.wikipedia.org's 4,000,000 articles are (at least that section that touch on Europe and Latin America), and I was floundering around ineptly for ways to explain the gap between the way some editors apparently believe en.wp is, and the way the same Latin-alphabet zone articles appear to those editors active in that article space who can look in e.g. category:Polish politicians and immediately see the one article that sticks out like a sore thumb because it is "misspelled" (I put "misspelled" in quotation marks because I know that many editors do not view e.g. "Francois Mitterand" as a misspelling but as a valid alternative spelling.) My comment looks asenine, I know, but I was trying to identify a shared foreign language where we could focus.... I really don't know what else I can say. Yes I've been tetchy and short with PBS, more than he deserves. But underneath that is the feeling that MOSPN is fine as it has been since 2009, it would be better if it was just left alone, or, as I have invited PBS to do, do as I did and invite 100 editors to a RfC (for which I will take a break). Then make changes to MOSPN once there is a wider consensus. NB I'm not justifying my grumpiness to PBS. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Iio why is it that if your removal was no coincidence, then you knew that you postings were not constructive then why did you repeat you behaviour during the 24 hours after I complained and before I announced that I was going to post an ANI?

I read what you have written here and wonder how genuine you contrition is because you have again ignored some of my first posting to this ANI and repeated the same baseless accusation ("The original removal of the diacritics section was back before 24 April when I restored it") without a diff to back it up. What you mean is that you reverted edits to the section that several people had discussed on the talk page and made to the section:

My first edit to the guideline was made on the 22 April after I had announced on the talk page on the at 17:39 on 20 April that I was going to make this edit, and after no comment against the proposed edit was made on the guidelines talk page (diff).

Edits to the article:

• diff edit by PBS at 09:16 on 22 April
• diff edit by Kwamikagami on 22 April
• diff revert by Iio 02:33, 23 April 2012‎
• diff edit by PBS 23 April
• This was followed by edits by Kauffner (21:17, 23 April 2012‎) Boson (23:05, 23 April 2012‎) and Ohms law (04:03, 26 April 2012‎) making this diff
• diff edit by Iio on27 April 2012‎

So at no point was the section removed and you made your edit on the 23rd not the 24th as stated. Iio why is it that you persist in making inaccurate summaries events which if you were to back them up with diffs would be obvious to everyone including you. Is it deliberate strategy or just carelessness? Either way it makes building a consensus much more difficult and it causes conversations to balloon as people try to get you to correct your misinformation and irrelevant personal comments, presenting non involved editors with a tangle of comments, much of it from you that is just plain wrong or off topic.

It is really time that you corrected you behaviour before this escalates any further, because at the moment:

• the personal comments
• the creation of new sections about something that is already being discussed on the talk page. (Another example from the WP:AT talk page there was and is an active section called Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Questionable phrasing: Ambiguous or inaccurate but instead of placing your comments there you chose to start a new section which was disruptive because the arguments already presented had to be presented again and the conversation about the same sentence is now split over two sections resulting in more bloat and difficulty for editors new to the conversation to follow the thread).
• And comments containing false statements (because of the lack of diffs)

is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have indented the last comment by by Iio by one more as it was made after my posting to make it clear where Iio's comment ends and mine starts and to indicate it was made after my posting (which Iio has chosen to ignore). I have highlighted Iio's interaction with me because I am most familiar with that. However Iio interaction with me (the personal comments, the creation of new sections and false statements) is behaviour that Iio shows to many editors with whom Iio disagrees and I am willing to provide sample diffs if requested. Therefore the statement by Iio "I really don't know what else I can say. Yes I've been tetchy and short with PBS, more than he deserves" shows that Iio does not understand it is not just Iios behaviour towards me that I am highlighting but a general tendency to using the same tactics with other editors with whom Iio disagrees. -- PBS (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Philip

I did start a new section at the bottom of the page on Talk, but as requested above I moved up to the middle of the page.

The diacritics section of MOSPN (status quo since 2009) was removed 09:12, 22 April 2012, then I restored it 02:33, 23 April 2012. I have not added content to MOSPN, I have simply restored to status quo, as other visitors to the page have done. In fact I never touched the page before reverting the removal of the diacritics section. Further the diacritics section of MOSPN goes back further than 2009. The section "For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős" was already there in 2005 when you made your first edit to the diacritics section MOSPN. I'm not making any point there, simply that "For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős" has been in MOSPN since 2005 and has possibly had some influence on the fact that en.wikipedia.org articles are from around 2006 onwards effectively all but universally with full Latin-alphabet European spelling as editors have raised the MOS in articles they create or edit to the level of Britannica. As far as I can tell the tiny number of the 3.96 million articles that in 2012 don't follow the 2005 MOSPN are around 100~150 max, mainly ice-hockey stubs (i.e. 120~150 of 890,000 BLPs), but for the sake of argument let's say it is 396, or even 3,960, that's still only 1 in 1,000. If we wind that back and say "only 10% of the 3.96 million articles relate to non-Anglo modern Europe and LatAm in any way and can have diacritics, it's still 3,960 of 396,000, 1 in 100. The point I'm making is that at this stage MOSPN won't make any difference, en.wikipedia.org is already at "For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős" 2005-2012 whether in the future Paul Erdős is an example in MOSPN or not.

I'm repeat that I'm genuinely sorry to have been short, grumpy, tetchy, with you sorry to have made the language comment. If you want me to stay out of MOS talk I'll do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above. Your diffs do not show that the section was deleted, and the qualification in brackets is misleading. However that is by the by, and most of the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant as this is ANI it is not the place to discuss the content of the guidelines (it just muddies the waters in the opposite direction). This is a place to discuss editorial behaviour. It is no up to me (an involved editor) to dictate whether you should or should not "stay out of MOS talk" pages, it is up to you and editors not involved in the dispute to decide that. -- PBS (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Iio has been on my watchlist for several months. I have been involved on the Talk page on MOSPN. I started a new section there, to discuss some of the problems that Mike Cline had expressed very well here:[11]. Iio got involved, but from the very beginning his contributions consisted mainly of minor (and later not so minor) obstructions. He started an unnecesary new section [12], for which he was warned [13]. When it became clear that more editor input would be welcome, I put an "under discussion" tag on the section, which was promptly removed by Iio [14] and he offered this explanation on the Talk page: [15].

He makes edits like this one: [16], which inserts text in between earlier comments and thus almost impossible to see who has said what and when.

And he doesn't shy away from making accusation without offering diffs. Here he accuses me of edit-warring, without showing any diffs: [17]. When I posted a standard AGF warning template on his User Talk, he copied it right back in the MOSPN Talk page, once again creating unnecessary obstruction and repeating his accusations of edit-warring:[18]. Next he accused me and another editor of "disruptions" on another Talk page [19]. I asked him multiple times to show diffs or remove his accusations, to which he grudgingly agreed after trying to worm out of it in every possible way, also on my User Talk.

I could go on to cite diffs, but this is probably more than enough already. To put this in perspective I would like to end by pointing to this conversation he had with an admin a few weeks ago: [20]. He talks about 10 editors he considers disruptive and should be "closed down". The admin responded by explaining Iio that he was moving on shaky ground: [21].

This begs the question whether Iio's behaviour towards me and some other editors is nothing but his method of "closing down" editors he considers disruptive.

Nothing suggests to me that Iio is trying to find a concensus to improve that page, all he seems to be interested in is keeping it status quo (stonewalling).

He seems to be operating solely from a strongly held belief that all names on wp should be changed to Chicago MOS spelling. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi MakeSense64,

Is it really necessary for ANI to review the entire history of your WP:TENNISNAMES proposal?

1. If we're going to start, we should start at the beginning. You'll note that I am a recent arrival. I don't have a long history of involvement on the subject of European names, going back to 2005 for some, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Tennis July 2008 for others. The recent round of tennis names disruption kicked off on January 15th. I only noticed the subject on 13 March, and then inputted on your WP:TENNISNAMES proposal at what is now moved to RfC Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?. The result of that RfC was an overwhelming rejection, by non-tennis editors and tennis editors of the WP:TENNISNAMES proposal.

2. I do not have "a strongly held belief that all [Latin-alphabet] names on wp should be changed to Chicago MOS spelling" as I have expressed before. Firstly of 890,000 BLPs all but 20-30 tennis names and 100 or so ice-hockey names already are as MOSPN expresses - and that 120-130 are at tennis names or hockey names deliberately. That leaves only occasional random pockets of BLP stub creations that haven't been sourced and edited. Otherwise there are many exceptions: (i) Historical names and monarch names like Napoleon, (ii) people who are primarily notable outside their country or have changed nationality like Martina Navratilova (iii) WP:STAGENAME like Yana Yanezic (real name Slovenian Jana Janežič). However I do think that examples like Frédéric Vitoux (writer) vs Frederic Vitoux (tennis) (lede Frédéric Vitoux (born Versailles, 30 October 1970) and known professionally as Frederic Vitoux [dubious – discuss]..) go against MOS "consistent with related articles", WP:OPENPARA and RfC Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names, based on an organisation's rule or commonness in English press?, what is not an exception are names like e.g. Björn Borg → "Bjorn Borg" or René Lacoste → "Rene Lacoste" because the International Tennis Federation does not allow players to register with accents or umlauts and most sports websites/papers do not have ö and é.

3. As regards Talk on MOS:PN, again, if we go back a step, you also removed the whole previous content of MOSPN diacritics guidance on 3 May (in MOSPN since 2009), including "For example, Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős" (in MOSPN since 2005), basically the same edit as PBS. At the same time as the discussion at WT BLP diacritics discussion 20 April was ongoing in which you were actively involved. Neither PBS (removed MOSPN diacritics whole existing content 22 April) nor yourself (removed same MOSPN diacritics section whole standing content 3 May) made any comment to the ongoing WT BLP diacritics discussion. You could see it didn't have consensus since FkpCascais commented there "Wow, what? In ictu oculi had to restore the line refering to diacritics at WP:MOSPN.." 25 April and then you yourself removed same. Instead of making an issue of PBS' "warning" to me about having started a new Talk section on Talk, some editors might consider the removal of MOSPN diacritics content from 2005 subsequent to FkpCascais' "Wow, what?" as more of an issue.

4. This is already way too long. I didn't realise that your interest with diacritics only goes back to Saša Hiršzon RM. That I think was what brought my attention into this area, later the WP:TENNISNAMES issue. This problem would diminish greatly if the way en.wikipedia.org is would be recognised:

• Is there a single Latin-alphabet language subcategory in category:Living persons which doesn't follow MOSPN Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős, or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies "François Mitterand" style lede?
• Is there any article which has gone Paul Erdős → "Paul Erdos", or François Mitterand → "Francois Mitterand" for other than a nationality/green card notability issue.

I asked you many times to address how en.wikipedia.org's 3.96 million articles actually are as relates to the diacritics section of MOSPN before making edits to diacritics MOSPN to reflect how you think en.wikipedia.org's articles should be.

But at this point you'll have noticed that I stopped bothering to revert to status quo on MOSPN 21 May. Your and PBS' edits are on the top. As far as I'm concerned you can carry on and rewrite as you see fit. Regards.

Apologies to Admins, the above is way too long. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply @IIO. You start by asking me: "Is it really necessary for ANI to review the entire history of your WP:TENNISNAMES proposal?"

Shouldn't we ask that question to you? I didn't mention WP:TENNISNAMES anywhere in my comment, so why are you bringing it up here, create a whole stink about it, and then apologizes to the admins for being too long?

This illustrates your typical style of participation on Talk pages very well. It is full of non-sequitur and long walls of text that do not address the question or the topic. Then other editors have extra work to bring it back on topic.

We are not here to discuss TENNISNAMES or MOSPN or 4 million articles on wp, we are here to look into "your editing behaviour". Look at your reply above and you will see that it doesn't address any of the problems that have been brought up. You are trying to put this away as just a bout of grumpiness?

If you want another example of what we are talking about, here is an even more recent case where you unnecessarily started a new section while there was an ongoing and well developed discussion already. The ongoing discussion is here Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Questionable_phrasing:_Ambiguous_or_inaccurate, and on May 24th you started a new section below several other topics with this diff [22]. Now the discussion is continuing in two places. Why do you continue to do this, even after you have been warned multiples times for this on other Talk pages? I have noticed you know how to create subsections in other discussions. But when a discussion develops in a section that I have started, you somehow miraculously forget how to make subsections. This looks like deliberate disruption. If you were a new editor you would be easily forgiven for making that kind of errors, but you are not a new editor. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said above this is not the place to discuss article, policy or guideline content. Iio from the content of your reply to MakeSense64 it appears that you really do not know how to moderate your style. It would be useful if some other uninvolved editors would comment in this section. -- PBS (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose uninvolved editors who have seen IIO in action could be invited (with a neutrally worded template), from places like Talk:Jelena_Dokić#Requested_move_2 and Talk:Ana_Ivanovic#Requested_move_2012_x2. There have been votes on both sides there, and IIO's style of participation is on display. Uninvolved editors may also click on the "Page moves" link in the start of this ANI section and have a look. That is lots and lots of articles he has been moving. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to respond by making my own selection of who-said-what on Talk pages. I have apologised (and sincerely so whether that is believed or not) for the specific insensitivity of my languages question. As to everything else, these edits 22 April PBS 3 May MakeSense64 are the background. I restored what has been in MOSPN since 2005 in one form, 2009 in current form. I wish everyone well, again whether that is believed or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Btw, MakeSense64, my edits (including European name spellings) in article space are sourced. If anyone sees one they don't like they are welcome to revert. Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@IIO. Nobody has contended that your edits in article space are not sourced. Why are you responding to complaints that are not on the table, while not addressing any of those that are on the table? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have had similar problems with IIO; One of the diffs above is one of my replies, and MakeSense64 rightly sent me a heads-up to inform me of this. IIO is highly intelligent, and passionate that Wikipedia should adopt Serbian spellings for names that were originally Serbian. And this may happen in time, I can see a gradual shift in Wikipedia policy over the years in this general direction. Perhaps, as IIO has said more than once and in several different ways, we are even there already. There are lots of issues.

But the particular issue here is the style of discussion along the way. See this diff and surrounding discussions for another of my attempts to explore this, and User talk:Andrewa#Slavic and Scandinavian languages for another relevant and ongoing conversation initiated by IIO. Andrewa (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

1. Re. indenting text in Talk replies, as I said yesterday when you made this comment, if you can please point me to a better model then I'm very happy to adopt it.

2. Actually I am not "passionate that Wikipedia should adopt Serbian spellings for names that were originally Serbian" - the opposite: I said twice in that RM that if the argument used is [primary current] nationality then we should distinguish BLP Jelena Dokić from her father Damir Dokić and give an "Australian" version of her name. Wheras if the argument is WP:IRS then academic sources are using category:Serbian female tennis players consistent "Jelena Dokić." Normally if someone emigrates then it is not unusual to strip their European native spelling from the BLP. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is about issues that don't directly concern us here, nor do I think this is the place for another dialogue between myself and IIO. I hope some uninvolved admins will look at it. Andrewa (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the nationalistic overtones in his comments are a concern, especially since he is moving so many articles. It has been pointed out repeatedly to him that our diacritics-neutral AT policy was confirmed in recent community wide RfC, for example here: [23], but then he responds with something like this: [24]. An editor is free to have that kind of strong opinions, but when they start editing wp on the basis of it, or go on repeating it as an argument in article or policy Talk pages, then it becomes a problem. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User Gwern disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point

Further information: [[:../IncidentArchive752#Vandalism experiment|../IncidentArchive752 § Vandalism experiment]], [[:../IncidentArchive752#Vandalism experiment 2|../IncidentArchive752 § Vandalism experiment 2]], and mailarchive:wikien-l/2012-May/110185.html

See Gwern (talk · contribs) 's experiment here http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#sins-of-omission-experiment-2

While working anonymously, eg. 140.142.16.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Gwern has been randomly deleting external links, then waiting a month to see if they are put back. When the randomly chosen external links are not put back, the "editors of a page" are told they "failed": "rv test of editors for this page; you failed. see http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#sins-of-omission-experiment-2)". The point of all this nonsense is that WP:EL is wrong or evil or something.

Editors should be banned from this type of behavior, per Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The last edit from that IP was a month ago, and I believe this was discussed previously here. Are there any more recent edits which show the removal of external links? -Scottywong| speak _ 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

_{'recent' as mentioned in pol and g/l would have no meaning when the action is deliberately protracted in this manner} Penyulap ☏ 00:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the prior discussion in the archives. What was the result? Telling a few hundred or more editors they "failed" is rather uncivil. I would have thought an apology would have been more appropriate rather than self-satisfied snark. It makes it seem like Gwen intends more of this kind of thing --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find any previous discussion of this either; I thought I had seen something along these lines recently, but I could be wrong. I have to admit that this is somewhat concerning to me. It could be reasonably argued that it is intentional vandalism, as well as running an unapproved bot. Both of these are potentially blockable offenses. I'd be interested to know if any other similar "experiments" have been run by Gwern since May 1. -Scottywong| speak _ 19:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwern's block log seems to indicate that something similar took place in 2007. This is probably why Gwern decided to remove the links anonymously this time. -Scottywong| talk _ 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here it is. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_105#Blocked_or_Banned --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwern repeatedly referred to the edits as "vandalism", both on Jimbo's talk page and on the WikiEN-l mailing list (where Gwern mocked others' input and ignored multiple requests to terminate the unauthorized experiment). —David Levy 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was previously discussed, yes. To be clear: The experiment is over. All the test edits have been reverted. I have no ongoing experiments (except I plan to check in a month how many of my cleanup reversions were themselves reverted, since it would be quite ironic if my cleanup was reverted at a higher rate than the original vandalism/test edits!). I currently have no plans for future experiments since these 3 were quite time-consuming and I feel I have made my point beyond a reasonable doubt. No bots have been involved at any point, Scottywong to the contrary, just tabbed browsing; and even if a bot had been involved, it would only be an issue if it were a fully automated bot - unless policy has changed yet again. (My 2007 blocks involved no experiments but ill-considered editing projects.) Finally, as a former admin, I would remind current admins that blocking is "preventive, not punitive".

As for my edit summaries, they are correct. The edits were designed in advance to be a test of whether page maintainers could discern quality edits from random deletions. And only 3% could. --Gwern (contribs) 19:27 30 May 2012 (GMT)

This is insulting because, at the moment, there are exactly three (3) active editors watching over at least 4,000 articles in WikiProject Motorcycling. Insulting them, particularly the third who only was just recruited in the last few weeks and might not stick around if things get any more uncivil, is not helpful. This deletion removed a reliable source that could have been used to improve an article that could sorely need some improvement. Making it harder to expand and improve articles is vandalism.

A block is called for here unless plausible assurance can be given that nothing even remotely like this will never happen again. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO an indefinite block would be entirely justified as a preventive measure. Gwern's assurances that they "currently have no plans for future experiments" is entirely unreassuring, as plans can change. If Gwern would make a cast-iron commitment never to do anything similar again I would reconsider my view about a block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bad for that Wikiproject. But I wonder how a subject as popular and well-documented in the real world as motorcycles could have just 3 editors? Perhaps you should focus on that instead of what possible impact my edit summary might have on their tender feelings.

As for your assurance: no such reliable assurance could possibly be given or received in a pseudonymous unenforceable medium like the Internet, my upholding it or breaking it would be impossible to verify, you are either foolish for thinking that it is possible or posturing for moral high ground, and your threatened alternative would do absolutely nothing to stop me if I were hypothetically to decide to break an assurance. Give me a break. I'm reminded of a dialogue I read somewhere - "did you do X?" "No." "Really?" "Err, if I lied to you the first time, what makes you think I would tell the truth the second time?"

This goes for Dent-Brown as well - what is a cast-iron commitment? Don't give me adjectives, tell me what would actually work. You can't, because such a thing has never existed on Wikipedia, and never will, or else Arbcom would use it all the time. --Gwern (contribs) 19:53 30 May 2012 (GMT)

There are a bunch of code samples on your external website which suggest that this might have been automated editing, but I haven't reviewed them enough to be sure. For the time being, I'll AGF that it was not automated. I personally believe that your experiment was terrifically short-sighted, and only proves that there are a lot of articles out there that aren't on any active editors' watchlists. I could have told you that without going through with the experiment. If I believed that you intend to perform a similar experiment in the future, you would already be blocked (and it would be preventative).

To be crystal clear: Do not intentionally remove legitimate content or otherwise vandalize Wikipedia articles (even temporarily) for any purpose (even for a good faith experiment) without discussing it first and getting permission. Any evidence that you're continuing similar experiments will likely result in an immediate block. I'm currently searching through the toolserver database to ensure that similar edits were not made by other accounts or IP's. -Scottywong| gab _ 19:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My answer to Gwern's question is very simple. I assume good faith on your part and that you are a man (great assumption there) of your word. I ask you to say, here and now, that you won't ever conduct an experiment like that again. If you won't make that commitment I'll respect you for your honesty, and stand by my recommendation to block. If you do make that commitment I shall trust you. Are you saying you are not as good as your word? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is perfect. I'm willing to bet an indefinite block would do the trick. Yes, you could try to evade it with sockpuppets, but that's been tried many times before, and sooner or later the sockmasters give up and we win. Clearly your lack of any remorse indicates that a block is what policy demands. "Don't block me because I'll evade with sockupppets" is not a reason not to block you. It only compounds the need for an indefinite block. (And don't lecture me on how I ought to be spending my limited time maintaining 4,000+ awful stubs created by rabid inclusionists. I work from a list of priorities and let the rest wait until things get better.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't bring up the motorcycles, you did. Maybe you should be spending your time maintaining stubs and not lecturing on ANI, since obviously no one else is maintaining the stubs.

As for socks - you are comparing apples and oranges. Socks are caught because they edit in the same way, attack the same users or articles, and otherwise trip such flags. If I were to hypothetically engage in future destructive experiments, targets would, like the past ones, have nothing to do with users, pick random articles, and be small. They weren't noticed this time, why would you think they would be noticed in the future? Apples and oranges. --Gwern (contribs) 14:08 31 May 2012 (GMT)

Firstly, your rude "you failed" edit summary and above comments erase any doubt that your goal was to manufacture a specific outcome reflecting your personal biases, not to gather useful data. Given the criticisms your "experiment" drew when it was ongoing, I agree with Dennis Bratland that "an apology would have been more appropriate rather than self-satisfied snark".

That blocking is "preventive, not punitive" doesn't mean that we mustn't block an account simply because its owner isn't currently engaged in misconduct. You "currently have no plans for future experiments", but you could change your mind tomorrow.

Do you agree not to perform such experiments without prior authorization from either the Wikipedia editing community or the Wikimedia Foundation? If not, I would support an indefinite block (intended to prevent further disruption) until you do. Responses to the effect of "it doesn't matter, as I might be lying" constitute an acknowledgement that the community has no reason to trust you. (I'd like to believe otherwise, but you're practically begging us not to.)

Also note that your use of an anonymous proxy IP address is irrelevant (contrary to comments that you made when a block was proposed during the experiment). "You won't stop me anyway" isn't a valid argument; we don't accommodate or reward such evasion. —David Levy 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point out where I manufactured the outcome, besides the link selection criteria which I laid out in advance and clearly discussed & justified before presenting my results. --Gwern (contribs) 14:08 31 May 2012 (GMT)

You devised parameters specifically for the purpose of generating a particular result (one appearing to bolster your arguments about Wikipedia). Anyone could have anticipated such an outcome (the purported relevance of which is spurious, as Scottywong explained below), so no useful data were collected. This was nothing more than an exhibition. —David Levy 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sheerest hindsight bias! The result was not 'anticipated' even by me, much less any of the editors I discussed it with. --Gwern (contribs) 21:39 31 May 2012 (GMT)

I'm not referring to a specific percentage. You knew perfectly well — as any knowledgeable Wikipedian would have — that a vast majority of the vandalism would go unnoticed, thereby enabling you to belittle the articles' editors with your "you failed" summary and cite the outcome as [highly questionable] evidence supporting conclusions that you've long since drawn. —David Levy 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. Either give a good-faith assurance that this behavior will not be repeated, or be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I've confirmed that no other experiment edits were made outside of the two IP's used in the experiment, or later than May 1st. However, I'd certainly feel a lot more comfortable if Gwern gave assurances that this will not happen again. -Scottywong| comment _ 21:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I too think an indefinate block is likely warranted if Gwern is unwilling to give assurances they won't do similar violations or really any experiment without approval again, rather then just saying they currently have no current plans. I was even more concerned about the block history mentioned above but looking at the history, in particular [25] (read the whole discussion and perhaps the two ones before it) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive212#Cleanup help requested; it seems that what happened there wasn't some sort of breaching experiment but good faith creation of redirect using bots or otherwise mass-editing that were not considered beneficial to the project and later attempting to continue when they'd been asked to stop. (I would say it's somewhat concerning a user who's been editing as long as them still doesn't apparently understand the concept of 'good faith' and how wikipedia operates on it but it isn't something that merits a block in itself.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I regret the bot incidents, and I learned my lesson there - I've been careful to go light on bot-editing and stick to semi-automatic bots in the past 5 years. --Gwern (contribs) 14:08 31 May 2012 (GMT)

I am disappointed in the discussion here, particularly the claims the results are bogus because I said what I think and not because of any actual errors in my data or procedure. But there's nothing I can do about that. I agree to David Levy's stipulation: I will not engage in future breaching experiments without WMF consultation. --Gwern (contribs) 14:08 31 May 2012 (GMT)

Thanks for the statement. And I don't think your results are bogus, but the conclusions you draw from those results certainly are bogus. Claiming that "external links are highly vulnerable to deletionism" (whatever that means) after an experiment involving a random sampling of 0.00000025% of Wikipedia articles is... well... bogus. If you wanted your experiment to be accurate within ±2% and a 95% confidence level, you would have had to remove external links from 2,400 articles. You removed external links from 100 articles. And I'm not sure what problem you're even trying to point out with this experiment. External links are highly vulnerable to deletionism? Are you suggesting that there is an epidemic of users who go around deleting legitimate external links? Did you test whether adding inappropriate external links to articles would receive the same response rate of 3% (i.e. test whether "external link inclusionism" happens at the same rate)? If not, then how do you know if you tested for "external link deletionism" or if you tested for how many articles are on the watchlists of active users (or how effective our recent change patrollers are)? Sorry, but this experiment was laughable. -Scottywong| communicate _ 15:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Finally, some actual on-topic criticism.

Your calculation is interesting, but I would point out that a small sample size is still a sample which shrinks our uncertainty; there is nothing magic about your particular values which makes such data suddenly flip from meaningless to meaningful. 2500 links is rhetorically quite a lot, but aside from the likelihood I would already be banned if I had gone that far, let me ask you: what sort of uncertainty and confidence interval does 100 links buy one? Why didn't you give that information instead of your hypothetical? I don't know how much 100 links buys, but as long as my experiment excludes naive Pollyannaish estimates like 70% or 90% ("oh, it's not a problem at all!"), I am satisfied. Whether it's actually 0%, 5%, or 10% - those are all unacceptable!

EDIT: I see you've edited since I left this comment, but no reply. So I will elaborate: I find your rhetoric especially suspicious since in independent trials, 100 samples is plenty when you check the binomal confidence interval for 3/100 - a 99% CI that the true reversion rate is <7%! To narrow it down further requires more datapoints, yes, but as I said - diminishing returns. (This should come as no surprise to anyone who notices that election forecasts for nations with hundreds of millions of people in them can be done by polling just a few hundred people.)

To go in order:

1. Yes
2. Yes, and I named names as examples of a long-term phenomenon that bugged me into finally testing my beliefs
3. No, and I obviously can't do it now, and you know that
4. Any of those results indicate the community is not as healthy as it should be, and of them, external link deletionism is the most plausible explanation.

--Gwern (contribs) 21:39 31 May 2012 (GMT)

Thank you. —David Levy 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I too find the discussion here 'disappointing' -- though apparently the opposite half of it than Gwern has in mind. Having come here from Scala (programming language), my experience mirrors those of other editors. (I wasn't actively editing the page at the time of the original vandalism, so I shall construe myself not included in the "page maintainers" than Gwern deems to have "failed", slippery a concept as those are.) Gwern has conducted vandalism, sockpuppetry, and in "repairing" his original actions has used uncivil and inaccurate edit summaries. On this page he seeks to defend the experiment, and gives the narrowest possible "undertakings" as to his future behaviour, all the while conducting a "defence" against proposed sanctions that smacks of premeditated wikilawyering. (Ha-ha, look, I've already stopped!) Yet he is "disappointed" that the discussion is on his conduct, rather than, one can only assume, gasps of awe and spontaneous applause as he presents the "results" of his "experiment". But this is neither the place to discuss that, nor unfortunately, on the narrow issue of sanctioning Gwern, as a block is not strictly appropriate. 84.203.39.16 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for indefinite block of User Gwern for vandalism

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

---

This just seems obvious to me. The edits were vandalism, regardless if they were reverted a month later. Telling users they failed is also incredibly uncivil to a number of people and violates WP:POINT to the nth degree. I propose that User Gwern is indefinitely blocked until they acknowledge the issues of what they have done and swear to not perform any further vandalism experiments like this again. Once that is promised, we can let Gwern back in, on penalty of a more or less permanent block afterward if they try to do this again. (If anyone feels like this proposal should be stricter or more lenient, please let me know. We can always change the boundaries of the proposal that makes the most people happy with the outcome.) Silverseren^C 09:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Given the above attitude, I'd be extremely surprised if any such acknowledgement were forthcoming. I'd have no hesitation in supporting a site ban. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Of course an indef ban is in order -- systematic vandalism and personal attacks. Nobody Ent 10:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a very useful experiment (I am not surprised by the outcome), but I see no good reason to depart from our wise policy of not dealing out punitive blocks here (that would do nothing to prevent similar things happening in the future). —Kusma (t·c) 11:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • How exactly does indefinitely blocking the responsible party "do nothing to prevent similar things happening in the future"? How does not blocking do anything but encourage people to do similar things in the future, what with the message being that breaching experiments will not result in repercussions? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, for starters, blocking the account of someone who performed a breaching experiment whilst not using that account seems to be rather missing the fact that it doesn't in any way stop such experiments being repeated by that person. Uncle G (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It may do little in a technical sense to limit the person-behind-the-account's activities (though an autoblock would at least catch the IPs under which said user had logged in), but in a social sense it obviously sends out the right message both to the editor and to any potential copycats. That is, after all, why we can block the main accounts of more obviously socky editors on discretion even if the master account hasn't misbehaved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • The autoblock wouldn't catch anything, then. Notice that the IP address used in the experiment belongs to the University of Washington. Uncle G (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've already decided that I'm going to block Gwern if he decides to ignore this thread when he returns to editing (he hasn't edited since around the time he posted his last reply above), or if another day or two passes and he hasn't returned to editing. So, this proposal may not be needed. -Scottywong| babble _ 13:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Scotty, I would support your block. Actually I don't think we need a string of support or oppose contributions to agree a block, as any admin can apply one if s/he feels the need. We'd only need to agree a consensus position if we were proposing a ban which we are not. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I will support it also. 'Currently' just isn't good enough and leaves me with the definite impression that Gwern hasn't ruled out the possiblity of trying something similar in the future, something that we won't know about until after it's too late. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would oppose any sanction. Gwern removed some external links and he has restored them. He has also said he won't engage in any more experiments of this kind without consulting the Foundation, so it's over. He's written a helpful and thoughtful essay here about how deletionist and exclusive we're becoming as a community, and how it's probably driving people away. Adding Gwern to the list of lost editors would not be a good response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the statement made by Gwern a few moments ago (above this section) is sufficient to prevent a block. In my experience, "inclusionism" and "deletionism" are used with respect to the deletion of articles, not external links. That's a new usage for me. In any case, I will be keeping an eye out for similar "experiments". -Scottywong| spout _ 16:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose I know I'm going to be in the minority about this, but, I actually see a net benefit to breaching experiments.

It shows us were we're weak and need to improve. That and breaching experiments are not unheard of as a security precaution. So,no block

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:TonyTheTiger closing merge discussions

This concerns TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), who has taking it upon himself to close merge discussions on Barack Obama on Twitter, Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, and Rihanna on Twitter. The first two articles are his, the Rihanna one is one he is involved with. There is a backstory at the DYK nominations for the first two, Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama on Twitter and Template:Did you know nominations/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, where he's been trying to bully me: I don't want these articles on the front page, since I think they make a mockery of the (encyclo-)pedia part in Wikipedia, and says I should bring them to AfD. I don't wish to bring them to AfD, and proposed that the Obama and Kutcher articles be merged into their respective main articles (Dr. Blofeld proposed that the Rihanna one, now also at AfD, be merged into List of Twitter users). Tony thinks it's quite alright to deny me a merge discussion and has, on Talk:Barack Obama, struck out the discussion, and on Talk:Ashton Kutcher removed it altogether (I have reverted that one, not the Obama discussion, where he didn't have the heart, I suppose, to delete other editors' comments). What I find puzzling is the statement he made on Talk:Barack Obama, "There is nothing in Barack Obama on Twitter that belongs at Barack Obama." Does that not mean that the Obama on Twitter account has nothing to do with Obama?

I do not see how it is his place to strike out, remove, and close such discussions. They are made in good faith, and Tony is obviously involved with them, since he proposed them at DYK. In fact, I don't see how anyone should remove them since they are not intended to disrupt Wikipedia. His dictum, that they should all be proposed at AfD, is without merit: not all these X on Twitter articles are the same (see the Afd for the Rihanna one), and an earlier AfD for Justin Bieber on Twitter (yes, it exists) ended in keep. I have asked him on his talk page to undo himself or I would take it to ANI, which he hasn't responded to, but from his subsequent comment on my talk page I gather he has not changed his mind. Tony is not listening to me and I find his insults to my intelligence on the two DYK nominations and his attempts to bully me and a few other editors to be distasteful. Moreover, his trying to find an "out of process" argument and his actions are out of line. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm about to go offline for a nap and a beer tasting event. Please tweet me if my presence is required. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There are 5 Foo on Twitter pages on WP. If we want to set a policy regarding whether they should exist a discussion on deleting, merging, keeping or redirecting these needs to be held in one location. WP:AFD is the proper location. In order to keep 5 different agreements from being reached, I am trying to encourage a single discussion at WP:AFD. Starting 5 discussions in five locations (three were already started when I started taking action) is not proper process. It is really simple there is a new type of article that we need to determine if we want. In order to come to a proper resolution we need to consolidate discussion. I am doing my best to achieve a proper consensus on obviously related topics. P.S. I am not trying to Bully, I am trying to encourage the proper discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • P.S. I was unaware that there have already been AFDs on these with articles being kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't find the Bieber AFD. Where is it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I was wrong; it was a merger discussion. It's on the talk page. Now please explain why a merge discussion can't take place here. You keep talking about policy; I am not interested in a policy discussion since such a thing won't happen and if it does, it won't lead anywhere. "Should we have X on Twitter?" "Depends on the sources for X on Twitter"--that stands to reason. And if a merge discussion cannot take place, please cite chapter and verse of the rules that says it can't. You have yet to cite policy for your statement, in bold, "THIS Discussion is closed as incorrect process". Drmies (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Insisting that a Merge discussion take place at AFD is absurd. I will happily close an article at AFD as "speedy keep" any nomination that requests a merge in the actual nomination as an improper use of venue. We try to avoid AFD by improving articles, or if there is a larger issue that makes a stand alone article not in the best interest, by discussing merging them. If we can't logically merge them, then AFD is the last resort, not the first. We should always try the least destructive and disruptive method first. Regardless of how involved an editor is, I don't see any policy based reason to slam the door shut on a reasonable request to discuss a merge. The policies at WP:AFD clearly say that a merge discussion should take place instead of AFD if it is possible. This seems highly irregular and improper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Invalid close(s), should be reverted. Nobody Ent 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. I did not know we were suppose to discuss merge before AFD. However, a merge is not going to happen. Feel free to Open at Obama and Kutcher (I don't think the content at either is important enough to be in the main bio).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I await your apology. In the meantime, what does not "important enough" mean? If you believe that this isn't important enough to be included in a legitimate encyclopedic article, then explain why the information is important enough to be a standalone article, in the DYK section, and please explain what the hierarchy of importance is and who establishes it. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• P.S. Justin Bieber on Twitter and Lady Gaga on Twitter are at WP:GAC now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the venue, if the first two articles are his, as the OP states, by no means should he be closing discussions about them... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Would it be better to RFC the idea of Foo on Twitter as a larger merge consideration, rather than have all these different discussions? I know we need a merge discussion, just not sure of the proper venue. And yes, Bushranger, you are spot on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We should have one discussion of whether RSed Foo on Twitter articles should exist on WP and then if an individual article can achieve WP:GNG it should be kept, IMO. Personally, I believe it should be at AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, there is no room for any moar content at Barack Obama. I had to go there on the 18th and strip out half a dozen citation templates as the page was busted at the bottom again. Right now it is 7500 bytes away from the transclusion limit. -- Dianna (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't get that at all. A paragraph couldn't be added to that article? If his Twitter activity is so notable, perhaps we should spin off his personal life, or trim his legislative career. I just don't buy these "the article is full" suggestions; I've heard them before. No one seemed to care when Fanny Crosby was at almost 300k, except a few websites that were making fun of us. And now the size of Obama should be an argument to keep a standalone article on his tweets? But I was hoping that you would address the issue at hand, not the aside about size, though I'm sure that matters to some. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether there's a technical limit or not, that particular article really doesn't have room for every last thing about Obama. There are a number of hyper-notable subjects that have content spilling out over hundreds of articles, and the best we can do in the master article is to choose the most important and most illustrative information to give the reader a summary view. Barack Obama isn't as complex as, say, the English Language, but his biography is a very big subject. There are 158 articles and counting with Obama in the title, and if we assume that say 125 of them are truly notable and about Obama, there's definitely not room for a paragraph or even a link or mention of every single one of them. A few of these articles are two clicks away from the main one. That's not to say that Obama's twitter account is notable, I think not. Just that lack of room and a disparity of importance levels are reasonable arguments to put forth in a merge discussion. Anyway, as I say below, one of those 158 articles is probably a better candidate for this twitter stuff than the main bio. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• @Tony, As I explained, AFD is an improper venue if you are initiating for the purpose of merge. The D in AFD is deletion. Merge discussions must be on talk pages of some kind, either of individual articles or via RFC or similar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wow. I can't wait for Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook. Or perhaps Monty Python on Youtube? It should be trivial to find a handful of worthless online media reports about these to satisfy our WP:GNG criteria. Oh joy.. --Conti|✉ 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going ahead and closing the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama per WP:SNOW. Whatever happens to the content there's zero chance that it will be accepted as part of the Obama article. We have enough drama on that page as it is without silly process stuff spilling over from elsewhere. There are a number of other articles specifically about Obama's public image, his campaign strategy, etc., that would be far better candidates for discussing his social media presence. Incidentally, I have no dog in this fight but it seems reasonable to carry on a centralized discussion about [person] on [social network] articles so as to come up with some consistent standards for notability. On the other hand, it's also within the bounds of reason to carry on 5 separate discussions when there are only 5 articles in question. Both approaches work so choosing one or another looks like a matter of respecting process and consensus. No need to get all worked up about this! Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, when someone removes my talk page comments, and strikes out mine and some other editors' comments, and removes merge tags claiming some nonsense process violation, then I do feel the need to get fucking worked up, yes. And only after the editor's feet are put to the fire does he bother to find out how he was wrong--well, I will start being less worked up when he writes me a big, fat apology, and when someone else has the gumption to actually slap him on the wrist. We're not talking about someone saying a bad word here or mislabeling an edit as vandalism: we're talking about someone with a user page full of stars closing a discussion and removing talk page comments claiming "out of process"--I know he's wrong (and so does he), but there are lots of editors who may lend credibility to his words because of what they think he stands for. That's bullying. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. You have a point, but I still say it's best not to worry too much. It's pretty clear that TTT shouldn't have done it that way, particularly because he's involved, and everyone seems to agree on that. If I had a dollar for every dumb misguided thing that happens on Wikipedia I'd have lots of dollars. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks. But if I had a dollar for every time someone who should know better steps on my dick like that, I'd have one dollar--just one, but I'd frame it. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        •  :) - Wikidemon (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wow :O All of these look like inappropriate spinout articles. They should be reincorporated into the main subject articles or deleted. As for the subject of this topic, Tony is clearly involved here and should not be closing those discussions. ThemFromSpace 22:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If anything further results from this, please contact me. I am no longer watching this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• What should come from this is your apology, on my talk page, at the least. I think the consensus on your actions here is clear. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what policy that is covered in, but good taste does indicate that at a minimum, an apology is in order. He has been here long enough that surely he must have known that his actions were improper on many fronts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I stil don't understand why such articles exist. We are an encyclopedia, not an entertainment news website to have all that "X on Twitter" articles, which, apart from looking out-of-place from the name itself, seem to be promoting ar even advertising Twitter (directly or indirectly). This is one of those cases in where reliaboe sources doesn't secure an article on Wikipedia, as what i think. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Sadly, i'm 200% sure TTT won't handle an apology that easy. I've had problems with him before when i was reviewing one of his articles at GAC and i falied it. He regret of his comments about the way i reviewed articles when he realized i was a Veteran reviewer and i demonstrated with pure facts that he was out of point. After that, he seemed to regert his actions, but never apologized. So Drmies, i'm sorry to say maybe you'll never see those apologies on your TP :( --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Man. If I say I am not following a page, it does not give you license to re-write history about me. You started your review by making up stuff about my nomination like that it was sourced 100% from YouTube when 3 of 20 refs were from YouTube and those were all sourcing pageview counts. Remember that. Next time don't make stuff up so you can fail an article and your feelings might not get so hurt.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
          • If you thought i wrote that because you weren't following the page, you're wrong. I don't need to do the thing hidden from you. I know i went a little far with the YouTube thing. You must also agree that my overwhelming reasons to fail the article were very clear from the beginning. Also, my feelins are not hurt. I'm not a person driven by its feelings. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think n obviously strongly contested merge might as well go directly to AfD , though it is better to use some wording like Delete if it can't be merged. In actual practice, the choice is sometimes between having a modest section of an article, or nothing, and there's no other practical way of handling it. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

KenThomas

For a reason KenThomas (talk · contribs) insists to add the template Template:Active politician to the article Andrés Manuel López Obrador. As I told him, the template belongs to the talk page. Even when he was told why the template goes in the talk page, he decided to revert me with an extraneous summary. Before this last revert, he asked me to take it to AMLO's talk page. I saw no reason to take it to the talk page as the template itself states that it belongs to talk page I answered this. He perfomed his revert, and then I want to assume, he logged out and made this gentile commentary. This is not the first time somebody calls me an ass, so there is a constant. Considering that the IP is from Mexico, the IP talked as he were Ken, that Thomas's editing from May has been only related to Mexican topics, and that he "is ... currently living in Mexico City [and many other countries]", this behaivour is not correct. Can somebody tell him why this is bad and worst than bad. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This report is inappropriate. I called Tbhotch an ass; I was a jerk to him because he was fragrantly violating the revert policy and refusing to "take it to talk;" but I did not come near the kind of behavior indicated in the abuse policy (see its history).

I did not log out (wouldn't that be silly?) -- I used an instance of Chrome that I had not logged in from, but it was clearly me (^^ he could check IP history). Talk page and communication are the correct way to resolve issues, not starting a hot-headed edit war, which is exactly what Tbhotch & his temper wanted. In the face of an editor escalating an edit war and refusing to take it to talk pages (== courtesy already violated), strong language is strong language for effect, not "personal attack" in the sense of the policy's intent to prevent negative lack of courtesy. Most other points above are irrelevant; what does it matter where I live today? Tbhotch needs to step back and reconsider his position, and stop being a jerk :). KenThomas (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Recipe for a pair of fools:
  • Take two otherwise sane adults
  • Add internet
  • Stir

--Floquenbeam (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck ever. If Tbhotch (age: 20) had bothered to go to the talk page before shooting off his guns, his questions would have been answered. Talk is the proper venue; he didn't use it; he came here and started this flame war. Thanks for playing, though. KenThomas (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Ken, yes I am a jerk, an idiot and a motherfucking bitch, now, would you move on with the real problem? Why you insist to add a template that doesn't belong to an article, even after you were told why it is incorrect? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Y blah blah blah. Y did I mention, tu madre comer nopales con ketchup de McDonalds :). Cual-what-ever. KenThomas (talk)

"Your mother eats cactus with catsup from McDonald's"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds tasty to me, but the king's ketchup is better. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you'd gone to the talk page, you'd have seen why. Jeez, I bothered to explain in advance; you were LAZY. KenThomas (talk) 03:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I commented on the talk page, but really, I think Floquenbeam's comment is much better. Night. -92.6.202.54 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "a pair" of fools; I'm seeing one. This is beyond the usual childishness I see here. Insulting the OP's mother? Seriously?? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, it's a joke; you guys take yourselves far too seriously. If you can't bother to look at the history of the dispute-- posting a complaint here, when there was no actual violation of the abuse policy, was entirely inappropriate-- then why should I care? And I don't. KenThomas (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on KenThomas's talk page. Please re-post here if the behavior resumes, or put a note on my talk page. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on. Exactly what is the inappropriate behavior? What's your warning for? Cbhotch started an edit war, refused to take it to the talk page (even though there was existing discussion), and came over here because I called him out on being an ass for doing so. There was no bright-line violation of the abuse policy; I didn't threaten to kill him, I just called him a jerk for jerky behavior, instread of engaging in hour-on-end of tedious "discussion." If that's "inappropriate," then the problem is with WikiPedia. KenThomas (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for continued refusal to abide by our civility guidelines. -- Dianna (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And on his talk page he still refuses to understand that there was any incivility on his part...at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And quite the rant that flatly rejects the relevant policy on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#As stated, this policy is overdone liberal touchy-feely "safe space" crap..olala. I suspect that we're not done here. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't actually block him for calling me an annoying schoolmarm (I do work at the library, after all, so it's not that far off the mark :-p ). I blocked him because of his abiding failure to understand that following the civility guidelines is not optional. Thanks to all the editors who helped review the block. -- Dianna (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:ConcernedVancouverite

Hello admins and concerned members. I am posting this in order to bring your attention towards the recent activities of fellow user User:ConcernedVancouverite. I don't know whether he is too obsessed with his attachment with Wikipedia or not, but there are few things about him which are hurting my sentiments of expanding and contributing to Wikipedia.

• He is an active user, with good edits and works great as recent changes patroller. However, he seems to be is very much hurry to find and nominate articles for speedy deletion, without issuing a notice to the creator of the article to improve upon the concerned issues, or rather do those himself. But No. All he wishes to have, is to have them removed as soon as possible. Although this might sound as a responsible task to himself, it becomes a pain to those to who wished to work upon those articles. Give some time people. Let them rectify mistakes.
  

This is frustating, since they'll have to write it all over just because they copied some copyrighted text directly and did not languify it. Patience is a good thing to keep on Wikipedia.

• He made an un necessary sockpuppetry case against me, without undergoing a personal recce of the my contributions.

Kindly suggest me some ways, so that I can work and contribute avoiding him as much as possible (Though I respect him much as my senior and there is no personal offence meant here). Because it's easy to erase things than to create them.

• I myself know of 100's of articles which could be deleted easily on many grounds. But then even I try to secure and wikify them rather them nominate for deletion and show that I'm very responsible at my work.

Please try to understand the real motive of mine. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting stuff that editors would ultimately have to rewrite "because they copied some copyrighted text directly" is actually a good thing. Doc talk 08:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the reporter's talk page and contributions, the reporter appears to be a serial copyright violator, and has persisted in this behaviour long after being warned about it. I just found and tagged several recent pages of his, but don't have time to go through the full list (which admittedly contains a lot of useful contributions as well). Could someone please help in tagging or deleting the rest? I don't know whether a block is in order; he seems communicative but perhaps incapable of distinguishing between plagiarism and original contributions. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There were copyvio problems at Commons too: Commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_28#Suspect_uploads_may_need_attention. I'll take a look in a while at the contributions here. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG incoming! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I had just started editing then and wsn't familiar of all these things. I was gradually made to learn by some good people here. So please don't take any account of the past.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I checked three articles and all of them were copypastes from the sources. In a couple of cases he copy pasted phrases intermixed with each other, but no original content. Deleted those three. If anyone else wishes to check the others, feel free to do so. Eitherways, I'm not sure it's worth wasting time over to check everything. —SpacemanSpiff 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me a thing. How do I get to know whether a website hosts a content within Public domain or not? I do not know where to find it.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If the material was published within the last hundred years or so, and there is no message explicitly placing it into the public domain, then it almost certainly isn't, and you can't copy and paste it into Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• • P.S. I think the section needs renaming, it doesn't have anything to do with the Vancouverite anymore. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Probable copyright violations are always worth "wasting time" to check, since they expose Wikipedia to legal liability and bring the project into disrepute. As this editor is known to often copy and paste text verbatim from websites, I think we should consider all of his non-minor contributions suspect and examine them accordingly, or else just delete them en masse. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No. You don't need to be tensed to work upon those. Now that you have brought to my attention the issues with them, I'll work over them since I created them. You don't need to worry.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess I wasn't clear, I meant we shouldn't bother wasting our time to check, just go directly to the step of deleting or reverting any content contributions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said above, you don't need to go into rampage mode for back to back deletion of the articles. I'll do it. Just paste a message with the issue and I'll try resolving it. Assume some good faith over me. Deleting all, would take much labour and energy and motivation out of me.VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  08:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • When a COPYVIO is discovered, it must be immediately removed. There's no grace period whatsoever that allows us to keep them up until they can be made "right". Just to be crystal clear on that point. Doc talk 08:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • There's no making right, either. A derivative work is no more permitted here than the original. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • actually, only if it is an undoubted copyvio that the copyvio must be immediate removed or the article fixed. There are many ways to handle this problem without deleting articles. when it isn't absolutely obvious, only consensus or the WMF can decide what is copyvio. Derivative works are a father complicated matter, as the article just cited shows, if you read it all the way through. A transformative use of a copyrighted work is not a copyvio. (What does in fact count count as such use is of course subject to interpretation in any case, and consensus is the way we interpret things like this, especially as many things that are not legally copyvios are prohibited on WP by the self-imposed limitations in our own fair use policy.) DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

* There are some kinds of information, facts which cannot be altered. Suppose a text illustrates the structure of building as - " The building is constructed in a L shape. When you enter through the main gate, you see two fire proof water fountains .... " . Now, How am I supposed to present this content in the article without having a close paraphrasing. VIVEK RAI :  Friend?  06:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The building has an L-shaped design. Two water fountains are visible from the front gate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing should really be a guideline. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Danceking5 and personal attacks. Again.

Danceking5 (talk · contribs)

See this edit summary, in which he calls me a stalker. Again. Something which he has been told in the past, in terms which were entirely unambiguous, not to do. → ROUX ₪ 09:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a message on the article talk page. If he stops, this should be sufficient. If not, others will likely consider other actions. I do note he was blocked at his last ANI for editwarring and personal attacks [26] although this event doesn't nearly approach that level. I would try to overlook this one comment, assuming he will move forward in a more civil manner, until shown otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously, nobody is going to do anything about this? He has been told in the past not to accuse me of stalking, and was blocked for doing so before. WTF. → ROUX ₪ 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not inclined to block over a single use of the word "stalk", even if he has been blocked for before for doing similar acts multiple times. If another admin wants to take stronger action, I will not interfere or complain. All I can do is what I feel appropriate for a singular breach, which was to notify the editor, and put them on notice [27]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Both editors need to be civil - the conversations are riddled with personal attacks. No need for a block - as both parties have simply reacted to each-others personal attacks. Both have been blocked in the past for the same type of behavior, thus I dont see how a block now would help the situation. The archive and current talk page show no progress at all on the subject at hand, best both parties agree to simply start fresh and move on from this almost year long problem. Get more people involved if you are at an impasse - dont just keep kicking each-other in the nuts. Dispute resolution requests details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions. Moxy (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You need to learn to pay attention. Danceking5 removed cited fact from the article, and called me a stalker when I reverted the removal. I made no personal attacks, nor was I incivil, so please if you are going to insist on commenting please do so accurately. → ROUX ₪ 07:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If your not aware of your actions your going to repeat them (See Talk:Trance music) like "Pay attention, kiddo, 'cuz papa's gonna take you to school. ". Best look over the conversation and see how many times both of you have insulted each other. As has been stated to you many many many times (and now the new editor)- try and be mature in your post - don't call people names or imply they are stupid and you may get a better response. Dont you think its odd your always in this situation with editor after editor? Best to move on and seek help to resolve the problem(s) that neither of you seem to be able to do alone.Moxy (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is so much nonsense in this paragraph, as well as such a total disconnect from reality, that I cannot be bothered responding to it. → ROUX ₪ 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed this exchange too which felt a bit sour. I'm not sure exactly what he's trying to accuse Semitransgenic of, "pushing an original research agenda" but then criticises him because "all of his information comes from books and magazines", in any case this clearly isn't just a problem with Roux. - filelakeshoe 14:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Danceking has definitely crossed the line now in this edit with the 1) continued insistence that Roux is a stalker based on events that occurred a year or more ago, and 2) much worse, saying of Roux, "This kid has a history of mental illness I think". I'm WP:INVOLVED (and I'm not currently utilizing my block button anyway), but Danceking5 really doesn't seem to get what's appropriate behavior and what isn't. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Nor does he understand basic logic. 'Progressive' is an adjective used of certain styles of music, indicating a structure which 'progresses' or evolves from one phrase to the next. 'Fugue' would be the best analogue in classical music, near as I can tell.

I want a fucking block to extend until this guy 1) apologizes for calling me a stalker, 2) apologizes for attacking my mental fitness, 3) retracts all accusations. → ROUX ₪ 10:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Two points First, Roux, I am not a bloody jukebox whose buttons you push to do your bidding. Your comment on my talk page is highly inappropriate in tone and should be struck. This point isn't up for debate. Second, I have blocked Danceking5 for 1 week for his ongoing personal attacks. We all seem to agree his actions are over the line. His last block was some time ago, 1 week, so I chose to match the time. If another admin feels I have been too generous, they have my blessing in adjusting the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly care if you find my tone inappropriate. I am fucking furious that this nonsense was allowed to continue in the first place. We all know it's perfectly okay for other users to attack me repeatedly, but for fuck's sake, someone could at least pretend to understand why I am so fucking angry about it. → ROUX ₪ 11:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I do understand why you are frustrated. What I don't understand is why you are verbally commanding me and being rude now both here and on my talk page. In the end, you have gotten what you wanted but it isn't good enough. It is one thing to get angry, we all do. It is another to overreact and attack those that are trying to help you. You seriously need to go have a cup of tea and relax. Before I could even have my first cup of coffee, I went and examined and blocked, making it a priority. It if this isn't good enough, then I can't help you and perhaps you should have contacted someone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If you actually understand why I am frustrated, you therefore must understand why I am speaking the way I am. I am fucking furious that nobody here had anything to say other than mealy-mouthed "well don't do it again" nonsense, ignoring the fact that he has made and been blocked for the exact same accusation before. So when he does it again in eight days, I'm expecting more of the same, and another useless short-term block that will not actually change anything. And yet, of course, if I had made a stalking allegation against anyone, I would have been blocked immediately. That is the source of my frustration. → ROUX ₪ 11:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown has blocked Danceking5 for a week for the outrageous attacks. This isn't long enough, but whatever; I'll see you in eight days when he does it again. → ROUX ₪ 11:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

MMA AfD's

Now I know this is going to have most runing for cover, and it is usaly me nominating UFC articles for deletion, however Portillo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just nominated a whole stack of them :

I suspect given comments made here that this may be POINTY. Mtking ^(edits) 11:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly pointy, but given that I clicked on three of the articles randomly and none were more than a page of sports results with no in-depth third party coverage, I'd let them run. I do wonder if most of these could have been wrapped up into a single AfD, but that's moot now. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ah... the "Pointy beans" defense. Nominator has been on the keep side for the longest time, and suddenly tries preemptive AfDs to get a initial test on the books. Prepare for a hurricane of SPAs and personal attacks in these AfDs. And now to start evaluating each of these AfDs Hasteur (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Portillo is just saving us time. MtKing has had great success of deleting UFC articles. More often than not, his AfD's passes. The result usually ends up with a redirect (to The Omnibus) either way, with the expection of UFC 27 that was deleted and information was lost. Since there is no UFC in 2000s or similar page, many of these AfD's will result in deletion. Mazter00 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't mean that we couldn't create a UFC in YEAR article? In fact that would be the optimal solution. Hasteur (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • UFC in YEAR is a decent compromise in contrast to get them deleted (and not merged). I don't see it as an optimal solution, though. Mazter00 (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The above two comments pretty much sum up the entire MMA debate. Except you forgot to call each other names, drone on for pages and pages, or question each other's faith. At least it is at ANI. ;) But seriously, all this pointy behavior is getting tiresome, and seeing the MMA discussion dragged into WP:SS, VPP, AN, ANI, RFC/U has resulted in nothing but more AFDs and more contention. At some point, someone has to either go to ArbCom or find some other solution that will end this debate over a sport. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Can you clarify your "end this debate over a sport" comment at the end of that? In particular, what about this being related to a sport differentiates this debate from others? Ypsi.peter (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I suspect it's because it's silly. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Surely I can, my new friend. In any one area of Wikipedia, when the amount of text generated by debate is at least one factor greater (10x) than the amount of text within the articles, that is a problem. I'm being generous in saying 1 factor, as it is likely much higher than that. It is time for decisions to be made (or imposed) so people can spend less time debating and more time writing articles, as that is our primary goal at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• • As far as anyone can tell, the omnibus solution is well and alive. I supposed the reception to it was less than stellar, but there's nothing one (even Arbcom) can "impose" on others in a volunteer org to force them to contribute to anything or enjoy doing it. Those who opposed in internal processes all seem to have voted with their feet; not unreasonable given the aggressive sanctions being thrown. My last suggestion in that space some days ago was for the nominator (Mtking at the time) to combine all relevant noms both to trivially save years across hundreds of AfDs and at least give other subject contributors an idea of what's safe or not, but really I couldn't care less at this point if MMA regulars choose to escalate drama from reasonable suggestions. Agent00f (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Less than stellar is an understatement. The reaction towards it was downright hostile. This omnibus is a disgrace imposed upon the MMA community. Evenfiel (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Even though I'm 100% against the omnibus that was created, I agree with Portillo here. There is no point in dragging this debate on and on. Since all these article will get deleted, let's just kill them dead in one shot instead of torturing the MMA community during the whole year. Evenfiel (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Since this fact has been alluded to twice recently at ANI, I would like to warn Portillo that I was banned for a year for exactly the same behavior. My own bulk deletions were fewer in number, better advertised, and after clearer consensus I think, but they were found banworthy. (Editors are free to form their own conclusions over whether the bulk deletions, or the other charges that accompanied them, were in fact proper or banworthy, but such conclusions are inappropriate for this thread.) My attempts to reach a consensus, previously discussed at this page, were partly directed at preventing the event Portillo has precipitated. While I do not believe that such a single event is sanctionable myself (for obvious reasons), (warning:) others who have the authority to do so may disagree with me. The fact that WP's current model generally protects those who take precipitous action without discussion (whether AFD or AFC for that matter) leads to drama of this nature, and (as a general observation) it is always easier to get outside discussers to discuss inside nondiscussers than it is to get nondiscussers discussing. The solution is not AFDs (whether they run their course or not), but general agreement on how to proceed. We had an attempt at such in the "omnibus" compromise, but Portillo's action disrespects that compromise on the deletion side even as some actions have dissed it on the inclusion side. At minimum, this thread should consider whether the AFDs should be bulked, or converted into a merge proposal as consistent with former consensus. JJB 18:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Since the decisions at the last couple AfDs (by ANI requester, btw) have been to merge to omnibus regardless, I don't see how potentially speeding up the glacial pace (handfuls of noms in months) disrespects that solution any more than doing it first does. Seems more like a hipster complaint to me. Agent00f (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Two points: since it is entirely possible than one such event may be more notable than others, an omnibus nomination would not have been a good idea—in most sports, at least a few individual events are worth separate articles. But merging or redirecting does not lose content if the prior material is not deleted first: it remains visible in the history for expansion. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• The first point was noted and quantitatively answered when the idea was first brought up (discussion starts at "COMMENT. There seems be a large number"). For the second, part of the point of the first was to establish conditions for expansion, though there always remains the problem of motivated parties left to do work in a volunteer org once the decisions are made. Agent00f (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Disruption has now spread to other projects. The (currently being AFD'd) non-standard article 2012 in WWE events was created by a relatively-inexperienced editor who apparently intended to redirect all 2012 wrestling PPV articles to it, with no discussion with the related Wikiproject. This was apparently ([28] [29]) done to preemptively protect information due to fear that Mtking will extend his deletion crusade.
  I have absolutely zero involvement in this ongoing MMA furore but the purpose of the deletion process is to improve Wikipedia by removing unsuitable content, not to stir up a huge shitstorm resulting in RFCs, ANIs, arguments, DRAMAZ, blocks and wider disruption.
  Now, I'm no stranger to AFDs and have !voted for deletion far more often than not and believe me, there are reams of articles which could be AFD'd with virtually no opposition whatsoever. So, if you're reading this and have a massive hard-on for deletion then go nail some of those sumbitches. But if it's the excitement of conflict you crave, then I advise a change in attitude before the eventual, inevitable block. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I honestly feel this is being done with bad intentions to UFC fans for the pure fact that it is only happening to the UFC organization and not Affliction Entertainment or any other MMA organization Paul "The Wall" (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• You may want to check the link to Affliction. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you I have made the change. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply hilarious that the one user called the reaction "less than stellar". He or she should work for a politician making propagandized press releases. Just look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2012_in_UFC_events It's the Great Wall of China of wiki talk pages. What few people seem to realize is the 2 or 3 admins/editors who actually want this garbage will have to maintain it themselves. We have decided not to make any more edits on the omnibus as it is a disgrace to this site, the sport and the concept of fairness. As these admins/editors are admittedly not MMA fans, I hope they can console themselves with the infantile gratification that they "won".NerdNinja9 (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Whether or not the intentions of the AfD nominations were good or not, the result has become problematic, to say the least. And while the response of the MMA community hasn't always been appropriate in form, it doesn't mean that they're wrong. In fact, it's downright frustrating to witness these changes and dislike them severely, but yet not know how to help resolve the situation. When you're not experienced in Wikipedia policies, it's difficult to make a good argument against these changes since you pretty much have to source your reasons with policies.

• But I'd really like to take a step back and look at the initial issue. For the longest time, the UFC articles have been created with a template, but often without adding a lot of prose beyond what fits into the default spaces. And for quite a while, everyone was seemingly okay with this. However, lately some editors have been demanding that more information be added to these articles with independant, verifiable sources. And I get it. That in itself isn't wrong at all.

• And it's not a case of there NOT being enough information out there (unless referring to a future event more than a week or two away), but perhaps MMA editors aren't in the habit of adding certain elements or are even unsure of what to add specifically. As an example, I've seen the delete/merge supporters point to 2012_Malaysian_Grand_Prix as a reference of what is considered "well-written" and such, while the nominated UFC articles didn't contain any summary of fights or a lot of background information. But, again, that information is definitely out there and readily available if Wikipedia wants to see MMA editors add a brief recap of the main/co-main events on the page rather than just the results, that's entirely possible to add.

• However, the real problem is this- what do you do if nothing else is added to the article? To remove the information altogether would be tragedy, and even the editors fighting for a merge don't want this. But as for the merging...it's got too many issues. First off, it's entirely too much information to throw a year's worth of UFC cards into a single article. It really hits readers in the WP:SIZE and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK areas, not to mention the drama involved with the WP:MMANOT discussions as the notability of top-tier competition is being questioned. So I'd say that the omnibus isn't a good solution either.

• The best solution that I can see is for all the editors to work together to improve these articles. I believe that once a number of current UFC event articles have been sufficiently improved to be up to code, the efforts will naturally flow into future articles as well to make them conform with the pattern. But in order to achieve this, we all need to work together to enhance Wikipedia, not attack and try to force opinions and practices down each others' throats. Zeekfox (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Early UFC events are the ones that should have been deleted or merged to begin with. Many of them barely have two sources. Post-100 events have reliable sources and in-depth coverage from major media outlets. Portillo (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

CPI-RUS moving pages

Resolved

 – Bad block by Fred, but he has unblocked and apologized/explained so I don't think there's anything else to do here. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

CPI-RUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is moving pages related to the attempted coup by the KGB in the Soviet Union. I have blocked him for 3 hours at this point. There may be other editors working with him such as Marina Petrova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose editing activity alerted me. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Which pages? I see only two moves today, one of which (Gang of Eight (Soviet Union) to State Committee on the State of Emergency) seems like entirely uncontroversial housekeeping. The other one may be advancing a POV but a single POV edit isn't grounds for a block. I don't see any warnings on his talk page before the block either. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

His posts to the talk pages of the articles were ignored. His 3 hour block will run out in a bit, or can be reversed. Discussion, for now at User talk:CPI-RUS. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If we had to get explicit agreement from contributors every time we wanted to move a page, a lot of uncontroversial moves on very low-traffic pages would never get done. If it were me, I would have just gone ahead and moved the aforementioned article without asking on the talk page first. For whatever reason he decided to propose the move there first, and got no response after two weeks, so went ahead and moved the page. In light of the absolute silence from other editors I don't think it's fair to assume the move was controversial. On the contrary; he exercised more than due diligence in soliciting discussion on the matter, and hearing no opposition, proceeded with his proposal. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Grandmaster

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

---

User:Grandmaster is currently engaged in an editwarring ([30][31]) over Armenians in Azerbaijan (while the article is under AA2, Grandmaster never explained his dubious reverts at talk [32]). After I left a note on his talk [33], he answered to a user with whom he is discussing with attacking "Gazifikator is not a good example to follow, he has recently been blocked for sockpuppetry, and is on indefinite 1RR" [34]. An administrator's attention is required. Gazifikator (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified them for you. - SudoGhost 14:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake, that is not a personal attack. Moreschi (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If I say you're not a good example to follow, is it ok for you? Gazifikator (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm...well, you could say that, and I wouldn't be offended...but it wouldn't make much sense. Moreschi (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I am missing something, I see that Grandmaster has made 3 edits recently, and no others for a year back. Two were reverts, that is all. He probably should have gone to the talk page via WP:BRD, but no one has used the talk page in 3 years, at all. I see you talked with him on his talk page, which is the right thing to do, but he is staying on topic enough and in a rational way. The comment you link isn't a personal attack, since you were blocked for using multiple accounts. I note that User:Kuru says you are on on 1RR for articles [35], so while Grandmaster might have been a little pointy, he wasn't inaccurate in his statements. I can't see "pointing out the obvious", even if it isn't good debate form, as being a personal attack. This doesn't belong at ANI, and probably should be closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have, however, notified both TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) and Saguamundi (talk · contribs) of discretionary sanctions for their part in this edit war, and left a note on the article talkpage telling people to freakin use it rather than brainlessly revert each other while "communicating" through edit summaries. Grandmaster, that includes you too - and you do know better. Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this the talkpage of Grandmaster? What's going on? Why you're notifying him here? Gazifikator (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure he will see this thread. Now stop stirring the pot. Moreschi (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so sure? Are you on contact with him? Gazifikator (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Because SudoGhost has notified him of this thread, which you should have done, but couldn't be bothered to do. Now stop looking for conspiracy under every rock. This is ridiculous. Nothing further is going to happen here without new developments. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision probably should have been linked earlier, although it is quite old in parts. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the comment was not a personal attack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, nothing to see here now. Moreschi (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my two cents. I should have probably taken this to WP:AE, but I decided to give TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) a proper warning in case he was not notified about AA2 sanctions. What happened was that I saw TheShadowCrow reverting time after time different users on the same article Armenians in Azerbaijan: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] 7 rvs in total since 6 May, removing a source he did not like, without trying to discuss. I explained him in edit summaries and on my talk that he was wrong, and provided an additional source, the US State Department. Removing verifiable info and edit warring, as well as making personal attacks, assuming bad faith because of my ethnic origin, calling me a hypocrite: [43] are all not a proper way of conduct. Also of note that this user has recently been blocked for edit warring and personal attacks: [44] Btw, TheShadowCrow wages in parallel the same kind of edit war on Azerbaijanis in Armenia, check the article's history. As for the substance of this report, I don't think I made any personal attacks, I only advised them to mind WP:NPA, pointed out verifiable facts with regard to Gazifikator (with whom I also had recently a dispute on another page, which was not resolved in his favor [45]), and provided an additional source. I think this report is frivolous and baseless. Grandmaster 17:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Iban violation

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

---

This[46] is an Iban violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• it is always helpful if you link the iban decision, saves us old folks some time, since you seem familiar enough with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've notified TopGun and left him a message about the AFD vote and how it looks improper, we will see how he responds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry am posting from my phone as am traveling. Regents park has said this is a blatant violation, I will also point out that I have been blocked by Magog for making a violation even though I had self reverted within seconds of making the vio. I expect nothing less here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've not violated IBAN, as an IBAN does not mean first come first serve as clarified here [47] at the event of this nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pak Watan - (actually DS never commented on the topic when I did even though he created the article). I posted there indiscriminately; I regularly comment on most of the debates listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Pakistan which can be verified from that history. I don't think commenting on any content related discussion that comes up on my watchlist is any kind of vio - that is just normal. I don't see the point of this report. RFCs are often started directly on the content that one adds and those are not considered as such. A few are at Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment right now. It would be wrong to clarify something as allowed first and later consider it as an IBAN vio. I've not commented on any of DS's edits rather purely on content which is allowed. This is a second report which has uselessly dragged me to this venue after a previous warning of a bad report pulling the definition of IBAN to a breaking point. [48]. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also notified Regents park of the clarification he was unaware of. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I also think it is important to note that I've been ignoring blatant hounding by DS which violates the spirit of the ban coming up on even obscure articles that I edit right after I add content to them; see for example I Protest. I find it ironic that he makes a report on something which is not a vio while he follows me around for which there's visible evidence. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• • The fourth line in WP:IBAN says undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)., and voting to delete an article that someone else created recently could be construed as being in technical violation. This is why I told you on your talk page. At the very least, it puts him in a awkward position. Would it been seen that he violated the iban if he went and voted to keep? Under any other circumstance, it could be. You have effectively cut him off of participating in the AFD of the article he created. Personally, I would have struck my vote, came here and said "Sorry, I messed up but I fixed it" so we could all just move on, have some tea and edit articles. Instead we get to debate minutia. Well, I'm not big on minutia, and prefer common sense, and common sense says this was a clear violation of the spirit, if not the letter, and I'm not likely to get wikilawyered into thinking differently. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I could do that, but do you mean to say all the RFCs at Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment and many other articles to remove the content added by me should be cancelled too? I would find it double standards. I am not wikilawyering... I've been under this ban since some time now and I've never been blocked for a vio. I was simply following precedence. It would not be a vio on his part either if he voted keep. RFCs and AFDs have never been treated like that in our case, that's why I was surprised at this report. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would welcome the input of my fellow uninvolved editors, but this seems the very stuff that an iban would be created for, avoiding confrontation at the most contentious venues. I would not lump RfCs with AFDs in the way that you do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've also given an example of him nominating an article that I was editing heavily. See also for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism. This article was created by DS and I was involved in a content dispute on a main article. I commented on that AFD too.. I was never warned or anything. After that we've both commented openly on AFDs without issues... How come this one suddenly be a vio is what I don't understand. Hope you get my point now. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleemiyah Institute of Islamic Studies. I hope I've justified precedence now. DS even directly asked for my edits to be removed at an RFC (even if we don't lump it with the AFD) [49]... that wasn't considered a vio too even by Regents Park... either people have ignored precedence or they are unaware of previous clarifications. I am an experienced user, why would I risk a block with a blatant violation if it was not clarified before. It is to my understanding per all these and admin clarifications that as far as we do not revert directly or discuss each other or each other's edits, we can comment on pure content matters. Signing off for now. Will see this in the morning. It is at the very best a misunderstanding of the scope of the ban, though I don't think that is true either because no actions or reports were taken in presence of many experience editors and admins on the above listed discussions - can't expect to treat (and even call - as TP quoted in the first clarification I've linked that IBAN is not first come first serve) something as ok and later call it a vio. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your arguments hold water TG. Neither of the two articles you cite as precedence, Pak Watan and the Aleemiyah Institute ones, were created by either of you. This is a completely different situation since DS created the Rape in Rawalpindi article. --regentspark (comment) 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is different. I would also like clarification on participating in AFDs where neither party is the creator or even major contributors. While unrelated to this particular case, common sense would say that AFDs are one place they should be avoiding each other anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. All the above comments regarding my edits are also Iban violations as those edits have nothing to do with this report. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  I see people are trying to get advantage of this situation where some admins are new to this case. Even an outsider like me know when an IBAN was violated between the two of you and when was it not and clarified by admins to both of you. --SMS ^Talk 17:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  DS, they were used to support his (weak) argument, I think that should be allowed. Let's not push the issue back into minutia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• What bothers me most is that TopGun still has not opted to simply remove his !vote, as a sign of good faith due to the concerns expressed here. It is as if that singular vote, the point of it, is more important than any other consideration. Perhaps I am just a very different person in the face of well reasoned opposition. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. He has had multiple opportunities starting with when I asked him to consider undoing his !vote, and then again when this came to ANI, and again when you pointed out that his arguments were merely technical in nature. But, he seems to prefer to wikilawyer his way through this. Unfortunately, that's the modus operandi of most parties (on both sides) of these Indian-Pakistani wars. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  The two articles you said were not created by either me or DS but then again, what is the limit? That's something that was defined in a clarification before... that is the reason I've not withdrawn my comment yet. Secondly, you've still failed to address the third AFD cited by me (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism) which was for an article actually created by DS. That wasn't considered as a vio. That makes precedent. There's been no reply to asking on RFC right after my reverts to remove the exact content added by me... that was considered as defacto "ok", that is why if I redact my comment from the AFD, I'll be actually letting the precedence based on previous clarifications change just because the issue was arbitrarily brought to this board. This would be the height of double standards to ask me not to comment on an AFD just because DS has created the article. The IBAN does not prevent me from participating in the consensus discussions. I did not even address or talk anything related to DS's edits. This very report is an attempt to keep me from participating in consensus forming on a page that I watchlist and regularly comment on (the delsort in this case). DS has very recently appeared on a page that I just edited and that is unambiguous hounding [50] which now he terms as an IBAN vio... it seems easy now... report the guy for something that didn't happen and say he just violated the ban now because he tried to give a counter argument. I'll quote an admin's clarification to make my point more visible as that has been completely ignored: "They are under an interaction ban. That doesn't mean they get "First come first serve" privillages because the other is already involved. They are not to address each other directly or indirectly nor comment on each other's behavior or actions" - TP [51]. I see this as an attempt to blockshop against me given a magnitude of previous attempts to pull the definition of the IBAN to a breaking point. At first I would have removed my comment to avoid this drama, but now this has been turned into something that will prevent me from freely commenting in debates that occur on my watchlist even in future out side the IBAN's scope as defined before. This is not remotely wikilawyering or violating the spirit of the ban. The ban was to prevent DS from hounding me for which I gave a huge load of diffs. It failed to do so as DS freely follows me around to articles I edit (which he never edited before) and makes POV edits there - and no this is not a vio too as it is about the IBAN's functionality - and now it is being used as a tool for WP:OWNERSHIP. That's just not right. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  @RP! I have been following this issue for long so thought to comment. I was going through DS and TG's past interaction at RFCs, AfDs, IBAN vio reports and some other places after the imposition of IBAN where I observed that at some places you have also commented but didn't raise the issue of IBAN, which troubles me that how and why now? (Sorry I am confused) While I also believe that all of these should be IBAN vio but thats not how the community (majority) reacted to them when they were raised previously. So I think what is better now if community agrees to it, clarify to both the parties that leave the past and it should no more be done. If I remember correctly once Salvio rightly mentioned to one of them (DS) that there are plenty of other editors there to comment or discuss issues with the other party so leave it to them. --SMS ^Talk 21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, another Iban violation committed with the diff presented above. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Do yourself a favor....take my previous point to heart. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I'll just note that my counter reporting for IBAN vios or actions of the like is not a violation anymore than this report itself. The way I'm being first reported and then baited in this report is ridiculous as I explained above. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at what is on my plate, as I can't persuade history to change. I can't persuade you to reconsider your actions either, however. It is my opinion that today's actions are a clear violation, and this seems to be a popular theme throughout this report. I will leave to more experienced hands to determine the proper course of action, if any, and simply support them.. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • User restrictions prevent disruption, the only thing that has so far disrupted and caused drama, on a harmless standalone comment at an AFD not any different than previously done, is this report. DS should be banned from the ANI for misusing the IBAN as a tool for harassment. I was last told not to come to ANI reporting vios every day, I stopped even when there were vios and hounding... but I still keep getting dragged here every other week and it turns out to be nothing in the end. Popular themes are followed by mobs, normal people use common sense. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Disclaimer: I've been asked to take a look on my talk page as I'm rather familiar with the interaction ban between these two editors. Now, that said, I believe this was a violation; and a rather blatant one at that. It's true that the IBAN does not prevent TG from editing the same page as DS, even if the page happens to be an AfD, provided they do not interact; however, it's quite a different matter when the article being discussed was started by the other editor. In this case, in keeping with my personal tradition, I'd rather give TopGun enough time to revert his edit. Failure to comply will result in a block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • As an involved editor, I agree with Salvio.--TParis-alt (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • TG clearly has had sufficient opportunity to fix the violation. I suggested he undo his !vote (here). Dennis Brown indicated that the !vote was a violation of the spirit of the iban (see above). However, he chose not to revert but to wikilawyer instead. I think he should be blocked immediately for one week for violating the IBAN and for not fixing it as soon as two separate admins pretty much told him it was a violation. We might as well forget about having an interaction ban in place if editors know that they can blatantly violate the ban but need only revert if there is certain threat of a block. --regentspark (comment) 02:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• An observation at the turn of events While Darkness Shines was blocked instantly last time when TG had reported an alleged IBAN violation, which later turned out to be incorrect as an admin later accepted that it was not an IBAN violation. Also in the last case of British Pakistanis at ANI Darkness Shines was blocked for personal attack while the other party who was also responsible, was let go after he did intense wikilawyering. I can clearly observe a bias here against Darkness Shines which earns him an instant block, but provides the other party ample time for wikilawyering. Seems like Wikilawyering indeed, works well here at ANI. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 05:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

True observation. Though this has also to do with how different admins handle the situation. Salvio has generally tried to give some time to people to rethink. However, many admins don't do that, and they would probably be long here if this was about DS. JCAla (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• So 18hrs after reporting this nothing is to be done. Admins wold have been queuing up to slap a block on me instantly were the boot on the other foot, what a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Both editors are admonished to stay away from each other. Both of you have been gaming the system, trying to push the ban to its very limit without getting in trouble. Darkness Shines has been following TopGun's contributions (as he pointed out above), and TopGun should not be !voting to delete an article created by Darkness Shines. Both editors are on notice that any further gaming of the system will result in a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree with this administrative closing since it wasn't fully resolved and was in the middle of process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Reopened. I respect Magog's judgement, but, in this case, I must admit I believe he was wrong. This issue has not been solved yet. I still intend to block TopGun, if he doesn't remove his !vote, but have refrained from doing so, because he stopped editing before I pointed this out here, so, in my opinion, it would have been unfair to block him in the meantime. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I came here to retract my previous statement, as it looks like Magog has handled the situation on TopGun's page, and that TopGun has agreed to retract his AFD comment. I would also add that I have started a discussion on the talk page of WP:IBAN, as I find the vagueness of the policy to be unworkable and unfair to the parties. Regardless of what the community consensus is on whether or not two editors should be participating in AFDs, it is obvious that the policy is unnecessarily unclear on this point, and it made this whole event possible. Would love to see some other experienced eyes on that talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Dennis Brown and Sal, the parties were already perfectly aware of the warnings in the closing statements (and had been warned numerous times. Besides the comments of the involved parties above and in the past cases shows that not only full awareness to the IBAN is present but also strong likeness to game the system has been shown with wikilayering. Closing this particular thread in the middle of the discussion without properly resolving the dispute only invites grudge and an advance booking for the next ANI report. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• On a side note i would like to duly report a Threat received from TopGun about commenting at ANI on my talk page just now--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I came online some time ago, I've removed the !vote per discussion here with further reference at my talk page in reply to Magog. Also note that I've warned DBigXray for coming up at every conduct dispute discussion accusing me of one thing or the other while he's never involved in those disputes. He was previously asked not to hound me in an ANI report. This warning was reverted as vandalism (vandalism?!?) by the user [52]. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

196.25.207.14 made a legal threat here and I reverted the page blanking. I'm not sure of the procedure for this sort of stuff so I'm letting the admins sort it. Rcsprinter (orate) 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Addendum

It should be noted that the phrase Please do not replace this page. It contains legally actionable material' is a direct quotation from WP:DOLT. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ooh, I haven't come across that page before. I wonder how the IP found it and the line for the edit summary. So what is the procedure if they make an edit like that? Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 16:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The IP geolocates to South Africa, where he's from; he's also based in the Isle of Man, apparently. The IP may or may not be the subject or his representative. I see five mins after your reversion he visited your userpage to replace it all with Xs using the edit summary "Vandalism", Rcsprinter. The block was at least in part due to that.

    I didn't see any content that immediately looked "problematic" just now. The subject could see it differently of course. I've not edited the bio myself. The theoretical idea behind blocks like that is so they can instead pursue the right avenues for legal discussion, that is speak with WMF or go through OTRS; when they act on that, they're often unblocked in order to continue working with them. With edits like this, particularly where it isn't immediately obvious what specific content is a concern, you can refer them to WP:BLPEDIT which covers Legal issues in the same section. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    • Actually, the idea behind WP:NLT is to keep editors from bullying other editors with baseless cartooney threats. The idea behind WP:DOLT is to point out that sometimes a legal threat comes from a BLP subject with a legitimate gripe. It's up to us to use common sense to know which is the case here. I took a quick look at the IP's contribs and up to the time he blanked Mark Shuttleworth, he was making what looked like good faith edits. Since the IP geolocates to Cape Town SA, it's possible he's associated with the subject. However, he also vandalized Rcsprinter's user page which tells me that he's either using WP:DOLT to make a point or it's just plain and simple "trollz and lulz" (ie HA HA Rcsprinter you've been pwn3d). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, that's one of the ideas behind WP:NLT. The main one. The other is to prevent continuation of offwiki conflicts onwiki, as well as protect the WMF, as long as legal action is either threatened or undertaken. In the case of real legal cases or clear legal threats, it's neither prudent nor desirable for them to edit until the legal matter has been resolved. Blocks accomplish that, irrespective of if a threat is made to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Examples of unblocks once threats are retracted or otherwise confirmed resolved (e.g. through OTRS) are in Stifle's block log. In some circumstances people use {{Uw-legal}}, too. I did mention he retaliatively vandalised Rcsprinter's user page. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't make the oft-made mistake of thinking that people without accounts cannot read Wikipedia. One doesn't need an account, or ever to have edited, to read Wikipedia and its various project-space pages.

    And the procedure is to think and act carefully. Sometimes the blanking is valid; sometimes it isn't. There specifically is not a set of rules and procedures that one can robotically follow. If you cannot make the judgement call about the biographical content yourself, then here or the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard are good places to point out the edit and raise the question to other editors.

    Uncle G (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

Kjmc28 (talk · contribs), active only on London Metropolitan University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), has ignored advice to desist from adding copyrighted material to that article. Warning here, and then yesterday we got this, which is found at the university's own website here. The problem extends to photographs as well, as evident here. I'd request an indefinite block -- the editor's contributions consist only of promotional material for the university and it's clear that this is not someone who wants to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've revoked the account's editing privileges. By the way, it's not promotional material per se. It's actually a modified extract from a history book. LMU cites the book on the WWW page. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've also cited the book in University of North London#Further reading. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Trolls at WQA

User:Bryonmorrigan and User:Writegeist appear to be trolling WQA: Wikipedia:WQA#User:Bryonmorrigan_being_combative_and_uncivil_towards_User:Collect. sequence: Writegeist: I'm sorry if I accidentally gave the impression that I thought a comment of yours was important, or in any way a "major edit." Beers. [53], my response [54], Bryon Morrigan's comment: 10 points to Gryffindor! [55]. The comment was re-iterated by Writegeist on Bryon Morrigan's user talkpage: [56]. More attempted trolling by Writegeist at WQA: [57]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculing and vehemently opposing "Trolls" is not the same thing as "Trolling." Nor is thinking one user's insult is funny an example of "Trolling." In fact, IIRC, accusing someone of "Trolling" is actually forbidden on WP? Either way, you don't seem to understand the definition of "Trolling." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering I was one of the individuals being trolled and I have never had any involvement with your or writegeist I fail to see how that applies. I also suggest someone looks at Bryonmorrigan's userpage: [58] IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "Troll" you, and my userpage is probably the most "Anti-Troll" userpage on Wikipedia, for the record. Also, I've never interacted with either you OR Writegeist prior to this instance. Writegeist made a funny comment, and I thought it was funny...so I posted a quote from Harry Potter showing that I thought it was funny. This does not fit the definition of "Trolling" in any way that I've heard. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Perhaps it's my failing eyesight but I don't seem to be able to locate the discussion on my UTP or Bryon Morrigan's. Or is it that reading the headers is just too much for the dramaboard users these days? In which case shouldn't they be deleted? (The headers, not the users. Well, usually.) Writegeist (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We both received notices...but I don't see any discussions. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This ANI discussion is about your trolling of me and others at WQA. Someone posting a discussion at WQA prematurely doesn't give you permission to troll uninvolved editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Writegeist (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear. Q: Before posting your grievances here about me and Bryon Morrigon, did you discuss the issue with us on our talk pages? If yes, pls supply diffs. If no, would you like to do so now? In other words, which turns you on most: dramah or resolution? Writegeist (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When someone is disrupting WQA immediate action is required. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see how posting to a WQA about oneself is trolling. It seems there is a legitimate reason to respond. Nothing in this complaint is actionable and no action has been recommended. It should be closed. TFD (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this [59] anything but being disruptive? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist was not the topic at WQA. He did, in fact, "troll" if making asides about a peron accidentally using a semicolon is to be considered "off topic" in any WQA, among his other contributions to that discussion. And I expected you here, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Pot [60]. Kettle [61]. Writegeist (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect that Writegeist has been disruptive, I addressed the problems of Bryonmorrigan and Collect as a third party who noticed it was getting out of hand. Other WQA volunteers have sought to resolve the issue, but the WQA volunteer Writegeist is just being cynical, condescending, and insulting to others, now he is using obscenities against me - the F-bomb and demonstrating his completely cynical nature and that he does not genuinely want to help resolve the problems between them when he said: "Like you seriously think two experienced editors who know exactly what they're doing will take to heart any advice from WQA? The very idea is absurd." [62]. Just look at this patronizing sarcastic response to the WQA volunteer IRWolfie, after IRWolfie told Writegeist to be more civil towards Collect [63]. That's fighting betweeen volunteers who are supposed to assist the users who address problems of uncivil behaviour! Writegeist's behaviour is disruptive, he does not genuinely want to resolve the issues I addressed and that others have commented on - he is just bitter and cynical about even being there, and if it is not trolling then it should be readdressed in a new section as violation of WP:DISRUPT. However I do not support Bryonmorrigan being charged with this here, he only said one remark that wasn't really offensive at all - his problems with Collect can be resolved at WQA.--R-41 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Although there are pages on trolling or griefing between here & meta or even within Raul's laws at #267 - Kaldari's Law: Only trolls feel the need to define the word "troll", this isn't the place to make definitions or give detailed analyses of whether identified problem behaviours/editing conform to a specific technical name.

IRWolfie suggested you--Bryonmorrigan and Writegeist--are engaged in trolling-behaviours; whether that's the perfect term to summarise the conduct being talked about is neither nor there. If a user is acting in violation of our behavioural policies, guidelines and norms to an extent that causes disruption, then the appropriate thing for them to do is stop. Not argue about what to call it.

The point of posting notices on a user talk page is to bring a matter to a user's attention; you're posting here so you're clearly aware of the thread. The point of discussing on the user talk page is to attempt to solve the issue between you, without needing to elevate it to ANI; the user had already tried to resolve the matter with you in one venue or another--specifically at WQA. We're here now. Wikipedia may have rules and principles, that doesn't mean it's a courtroom where you can get things thrown out on technicalities.

So Bryonmorrigan is brought up at WQA for alleged unconstructive, combative, derogatory interactions (with Collect). Writegeist joins the thread and posts several remarks that match those descriptions, along with /elements/ of tag teaming (and no, I won't be debating whether it passes an objective test to meet all or some parts of that page). The remarks were unconstructive or snide, and yes they should stop. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You have made a mistake, I do not agree with IRWolfie- that Bryonmorrigan was involved in any serious trolling, he made a comment that was not constructive, but it was not that disrupting, but I agree with IRWolfie- that Writegeist's comments to Collect and IRWolfie- were uncivil, unhelpful, and disruptive. I do not think that Bryonmorrigan and Whitegeist are tag teaming, I don't see any evidence for it, unless someone can present evidence for that.--R-41 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your cmt on tag teaming, I did carefully say '/elements/' of what comes under it, and was referring to them alternately making similar comments & the mutual backslapping. I wouldn't object to striking that part of my cmt from 'along' to the end of that sentence. --92.6.202.54 01:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bah I thought I removed that in preview mode, don't know how it got back in. Yes it should've just said IRWolfie. I've amended my original comment. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you though, that if Writegeist can't abide by Wikipedia's behavioural policies and since he has caused disruption, I really think he should be advised not to provide such cynical and uncivil comments to a board that is designed to assist users with etiquette on Wikipedia. I suggested to Writegeist, that if he doesn't like what he calls "dramaboards" and is so cynical about them, that he should quit volunteering for them, because it doesn't seem to be fulfilling, only a pain to him. WQA volunteers with a more positive attitude to help people sort out problems there, may help Bryonmorrigan and Collect find a better way to sort out their differences in a more constructive manner.--R-41 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Upon review, I also agree with IRWolfie- that Bryonmorrigan's user page is really, REALLY combative and shows disregard for "Wikipedia is not a battleground" policy. Bryonmorrigan is entitled to write whatever he wants on his user page on his opinions - but if it appears to endorse threats, harassment, or show that he intends to engage in disruptive behaviour that is a problem for the Wikipedia community. The trouble is that his user page clearly demonstrates that he is here for a fight - to fight against conservative users, and that he wants a fight, and that is completely against "Wikipedia is not a battleground" policy. I am talking with Bryonmorrigan about the userpage issue. But that issue needs to be addressed elsewhere though, Writegeist's behaviour needs to be addressed here.--R-41 (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I disagree that any of it was a "bad" thing, I deleted all of the remarks off my userpage. I kept the quotes by famous people, because they're very applicable, and I often refer people to them. (i.e., someone who thinks MLKjr was a "Conservative" should read what he said about Conservatives...) I still think it's much better to have EVERYONE expose his/her biases and personal opinions out in the open, rather than having people "guess" from your edits what they are..as EVERYONE has them. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 12:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Writegeist's incivility is still continuing here at WP:ANI: [64]. His comments have also disrupted the WQA section about Bryon Morrigan completely off topic: Wikipedia:WQA#User:Bryonmorrigan_being_combative_and_uncivil_towards_User:Collect. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

My advice to User:Writegeist is that he walk away from this unpleasant incident. His dry humor and sharp wit, once misunderstood, can lead other editors astray into reading them as attacks. In actuaity, the only constructive input at The WP:WQA was provided by Editor:Writegeist. Any sanctions against him would be pernicious: not toward User:Writegeist but toward Wikipedia ```Buster Seven Talk 12:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is total nonsense, plus your history shows that you have stated that you are a "Wikifriend" of Writegeist and you have negative views of Collect as demonstrated in these posts in 2009 on Writegeist's talkpage here [65] and here [66]. Since you clearly have a bias against Collect - one of the parties here - and have had long-term relations with Writegeist including cooperation on editing an article in which you two opposed Collect, your perspective is slanted on this. Plus that evidence shows that Writegeist has had previous uncivil conflicts with Collect that demonstrate that Writegeist should not have stepped in as a WQA volunteer into a dispute if he clearly has held a grudge against one of the users, because intervening as a volunteer with a grudge against one of the users is either irresponsible and perhaps downright devious.--R-41 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint any prurient readers out there: pro-LGBT though I am, and magnetically attractive though B7 might well be, R-41's latest charge---that Buster and I "have had long-term relations"---is just some weird fantasy. Really. R-41's fantasy I mean, not mine or Buster's. Eew! Writegeist (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia editors don't hold corrections as positives: they hold them as criticisms. We dont see the helping hand: we only see the finger pointing. My comment was an attempt to bring peace, not to create an additional adversary. I’m disappointed, though not surprised, by User:R-41's response. However, there is some satisfaction in knowing that I have responded courteously and supportively for a friend and that I need not expend any further energy on the exercise. I don't have any more to say on this topic. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Cold cover art

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

---

I've got an inquiry: which cover would be appropriate for "Cold" by Kanye West? The most recent one officially released on his site per [67], or the one here with the white bottle released on iTunes and other music outlets? Jizzy30 has added an outdated version of the newer cover (I know, sounds like an oxymoron) in good faith but we cannot agree on which cover should be used on the site. Ellomate (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: if you look at his user talk + contributions he has a track record of removing other users covers and substituting his preferred version (if any), using iTunes as his primary source of reference. I am not certain that iTunes allows for revision regarding artwork so I'm leaving it up to you guys to decide. Ellomate (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a primarily a content dispute that should be resolved on the article talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring on Murzyn

• Hi there, Murzyn (about a Polish word for "black person/negro") is currently in the middle of a rather strange edit war at the moment involving myself and (mainly) one other user. It chiefly concerns this kind of edit, about the existence of a Polish cake called "Cycki murzynki" ("tits of a black woman"). I know content disputes aren't really for this page, but the argumentation of the other editor, Volunteer Marek, seems intended to be disruptive and prove a WP:POINT. The text involved merely states that such a cake exists; it gives no viewpoints or interpretations, controversial or otherwise. Yet Marek repeatedly deletes it claiming the refs given are somehow not reliable and also has started citing WP:UNDUE (which is actually about viewpoints, not statements of fact). In my view, WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that a simple google search revealing 174,000 hits for "cycki murzynki" ciasto -sex (the cake's name, the Polish word for cake, and ignoring anything with "sex" in (hey, it's called "tits of a blackwoman")) should be enough to show that the cake is notable. RS is always nice, but some languages don't always write scholarly articles about their cakes. Yet thousands of blogs and photos proves the existence of the cake, and its popularity, beyond all doubt.
• For the record, a history of run-ins between Marek and I may be contributing to this issue. For the record as well, Marek has a history of blocks and bans (the most recent a month or so ago), while in 5 years of editing here I have none.
• Finally, Marek's last edit even reverted my own revertion of this worryingly racist assertion by user Altenmann that "an african musician is surely no expert in Polish linguistics". In fact, the musician in question is actually frequently interviewed about race issues in Poland, having published possibly the first children's book on the subject. Quite why Marek thought this edit needed to be defended defeats me. Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh nonsense. Malick keeps inserting this text into the article and sourcing it to some recipe he found on some personal webpage. If he could come up with a single reliable source which talks about this cake, I'd be perfectly happy to include it in there. But he can't. His "but there are xxx xxx # of google hits" is nonsense for several reasons, and adding "-sex" is unlikely to address even the most obvious one.

During the discussion Malick has kept misrepresenting the issue in a way which is frankly dishonest. He keeps pretending that I am saying "this cake does not exist", which is obviously not the issue (it exists, someone out there made a cake and called it that). What I am saying is that it is not notable, not covered in reliable sources and not related to the main purpose of the article.

Yes, there is a history of argument between myself and Malick, including Malick78's stalking and harassment, which began sometime ago when I dared to criticize a different article of his (for similar reasons as here - the text he was adding was sourced to "stuff I found on the internetz" rather than to actual reliable sources. More general issue here is that the editor simply does not comprehend WP:RS). After that Malick began showing up on articles I have created and trying to find something wrong with them. More or less disruptively bugging me with "ahh! But you didn't put in a reliable source for these two words in this one sentence in this one article you created four years ago! So it's okay for me to not use reliable sources at all!" kind of stuff [68]. Along the way:

• He has made noxious personal attacks and taunts "I see you have a PhD, where did you get it? I want one from there too" [69] [70] "No I will not notify you in the future when I talk about you to third parties. There is absolutely no reason for me to do so."
• I've had to repeatedly ask him to stay off my talk page.[71] [72]Which he refused to do going so far as to say "I'll post wherever I want"[73]. He has disregarded my request as recently as few days ago.[74] And this after being told by several other people to leave it alone. He has even edit warred to keep his nasty comments on my talk page, against other editors (warning about this from User Philip Baird Shearer.)
• He has tried to torpedo a DYK nomination of mine (Feeder of lice) by basically showing up and claiming that there was nothing interesting about the article (really? read it yourself), that the English was bad (I'm pretty sure my command of English is just dandy) and other nonsense (some of these comments were made on the article's talk page itself rather than the DYK nom). Again, he was told to leave it alone by others.
• Has shown up to disputes which did not involve him at all to pursue his grudges.
• Made his talk page a platform for several anon-ips who were engaged in an active campaign of harassment (including, most likely, off-Wiki) against me, including people who were posting my personal information (though they did not do this on his talk page but at another one) against me and egged them on. [75] [76] (same editor that Malick welcomed on his talk page)

Furthermore, it's obvious that on this particular article I'm not the only one who has a problem with Malick's text, right now or in the past.VolunteerMarek 21:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never heard anything about that IP who took a liking to posting stuff on my talk page harrassing you. For all I know you've made it up. And I didn't "make my talk page a platform" - the guy posted a few times uninvited. I didn't tell him to go away, because there was nothing bad in what he wrote.

I posted on your talk page to avoid an edit war - I hoped communication would work. You chose not to respond or collaborate.

Our first encounter was when you, as part of the EEML, ganged up with other nationalist Polish editors on an article I created and had it deleted. It was reinstated when the EEML was uncovered. Did you forget that?

You like accusing me of stalking... but then turn up on pages I create all the time. Even today you appeared at Racism in Poland's talk page, created a mere two days ago by me. Were you trying to avoid me?

WP:COMMONSENSE clearly states that it's the overriding rule on WP. Here, thousands of pages show this cake is popular and well-known. Yet you want more than that. The sentence in the article is a single line, stating the cake exists. Do you disagree with that statement? If not, why demand more RS? Use common sense and focus on something important. It's not a controversial statement in the slightest. WP:Verifiability says: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"; surely the opposite is that anything that's not an exceptional claim, i.e. that a cake exists, should be treated with common sense and that the two sources I offer are good enough. Malick78 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm, you do realize that the talk page of Racism in Poland, which given that I'm part of WikiProject Poland is obviously going to be on my watchlist, is only a quick one click away [77]. And there people can see for themselves that my comment was not addressing you, I was responding to User:Maunus, provided a source he (sort of) asked for, and he responded by saying it was an "excellent source". It really doesn't pay to try and be deceitful when people can easily verify your claims.VolunteerMarek 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone truly fearing stalking wouldn't come so close to the stalker. Let's give others space and time to comment now shall we? Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious with that statement? Let's repeat it here again for everyone's benefit: "Someone truly fearing stalking wouldn't come so close to the stalker.". As in "I'm not really a stalker because you still happen to live in the same neighborhood as me, therefore since you are clearly not afraid of me enough, I am not really a stalker".VolunteerMarek 22:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No 3RR, but I am worried that this will get worse before it gets better. I'd heartily recommend WP:MEDIATION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this guy just can't help himself. Shortly before making this bogus report he showed up on yet another article that he has NEVER edited but that I have edited recently just to revert me [78]. He has done this every. single. time. we've gotten into a dispute. It's some kind of "if you dare to edit an article I'm active on I'm gonna fuck with you!" kind of mentality. It needs to stop. It actually needed to stop long time ago.VolunteerMarek 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know from Malick how he got to the UEFA article, because it actually seems he was following you around — and that it doesn't appear to have been the first time. At the moment, I believe some kind of action against him is warranted, though I don't know if it should be a short block or an interaction ban. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, VM advertising the article's controversy 5 hours prior to my edit might well have caught my attention. Alternatively, the BBC Panorama programme on racism in Polish football has been the big thing in the Polish media this week and everyone I meet here has talked to me about it (every Brit is responsible for the BBC's behaviour, apparently, in the eyes of the majority of the Poles I work with). So, whichever it was (my wife's heavily pregnant and this was 24 hours ago, so I don't remember which - my mind is on other things, I hope you understand), it's natural for me to have checked what was being mentioned on WP. Perhaps you should be slower to suspect the worst, Salvio? Just because one editor (VM) leaves something (highly selective) on your talk page, doesn't mean that's the truth. Moreover, if I'd really been stalking him, why wouldn't he have reported me before? He knows the system like the back of his hand, having been the perpetrator on so many occasions. And once again I'll repeat it - no one has ever reported me for anything, ever.

Oh, and I don't know if I reverted VM, I just know the tags were OTT. I deleted 2 out of 3 tags, so whatever it was, it was not exactly a classic "revert". Furthermore, I didn't check who put them there. But perhaps VM should be honest: he advertised the article on the Polish notice board, and then was surprised that someone interested in Poland turned up there. Shock, horror, yawn.

Lastly, VM and I had no run-ins for a month or two, and then he came to the murzyn article to revert ME. Has that escaped your notice, Silvio? If he thinks I'm stalking him, it's a strange way to avoid interaction. We weren't interacting! Malick78 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"might well have caught my attention" - or you might have noticed it just now. And the BBC Panorama programme's been out for awhile but somehow it only motivated you to edit the UEFA article after I was there. Of course there's a million bullshit excuses one can come up with, but the question is WHY did you come to this talk page, as soon as the dispute between us started on another article.

And you're... um, being creative with the truth again. This present dispute started when *you* reverted (May 30) an edit I had made almost a month ago May 4.VolunteerMarek 17:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I watch the Poland noticeboard: I even left a note there 2 days before your UEFA note, a mere one page scroll above you. Again, you're making wild accusations to see what will stick. As for the Murzyn edit, you reverted me in the middle of a quick bunch of 7 edits by me (those on 4 May), so I didn't notice for a while. My late noticing of it doesn't negate the fact that you intentionally came to that page to revert me and restart our interaction.Malick78 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack/specious accusation of racism against another user

Putting aside the dispute between Malick78 and myself for a moment, in the above statement, Malick78 makes a pretty blatant and straight up accusation of racism against another user by saying that the other user made "this worryingly racist assertion by user Altenmann".

What Altenmann actually said was an african musician is surely no expert in Polish linguistics - which may be incorrect (I have no idea) but it is certainly not racist. Unfounded accusations of racism are very much personal attacks. Unless the above is quickly retracted I suggest a block or a general topic ban for Malick78 on anything related to these matters, either Eastern Europe or Poland in particular.VolunteerMarek 22:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I said the comment was racist, not the user. Looking at VM's comments, they typically include such gems as: This particular piece is so brazenly stupid however I'm going to remove it. Now, if me calling an edit racist is a personal attack on the editor, how can VM think it ok to call an edit "brazenly stupid" - it was added by an editor who thought it ok, so does he mean the editor is "brazenly stupid" too? I think this is what is called double standards, as I've often pointed out to him.Malick78 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying that a piece of text found in a Wikipedia article is "brazenly stupid" is very different from accusing another user of making "racist edits", without basis. If you can't understand that difference, perhaps you should just refrain from making these kinds of personal attacks in the first place.

And you don't seem to realize that, since the UEFA dispute has nothing to do with you, you are just providing more evidence of the fact that you're stalking my edits.VolunteerMarek 17:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

it wasn't a good thing to say. Is it impossible for a person coming from Africa whose primary interest is music to become an expert on an European language? Since in any case we do not rely on expertise here, it was a highly inappropriate remark. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes we rely on proven expertise in wikipedia. We don't cite even Barack Obama on linguistics (unless it is a blooper <sigh> unfortunately). - Altenmann >t 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line is that making a baseless accusation of racism against another user with nothing to back it up is a very odious kind of personal attack.VolunteerMarek 23:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, making an assertation on someone's competency based solely on their ethnicity/nationality is racist. You can argue that it wasnt intended to be, but it will certainly be perceived as racist, and justifiably so. 'A musician is surely no expert in linguistics' would be a non-racial statement. Albeit an uninformed sweeping statement.Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Making an assertations on a viciously twisted interpretation of what was said is an improper way to discuss article content in wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Come, now - If he'd said "a European musician is surely no expert on African linguistics" would anyone accuse him of racism? I very much doubt it. The point being made is that the person is culturally and professionally unconnected to the topic. Whether or not ths is true in this case, I don't know, but to assume that the reference to "African" is automatically racial and also automatically implies that his alleged incompetence is because of his race is unwarranted. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

well, I've just seen the diff [79]. While I stand by what I said about the wording of the edit summary in the abstract, it appears that the person in question is Polish, not African (he's of African descent - i.e. African-Polish), so the reference to his being African does seem to be specifically racial. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If an African person said a European wasnt qualified due to their nationality? Yes I am sure plenty of Europeans would fight to be first in line to cry racism. If you want to make an argument that someone isnt qualified, you point to examples where they have got something wrong/incorrect, this may actually be a result of being far removed (Africa > Poland), but you dont say 'they are not qualified because they are <insert race/nationality>' with nothing to back it up.Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt you are right about what the reaction would be to the hypothetical "European musician". But that's unanswerable. BTW, I've looked up the person in question (Mamadou Diouf (musician)). He's actually Senegalese, living in Poland, so Polish is not even his first language. It appears that his only academic qualification is as a vet. According to to the Murzyn article, the etymology is the same as the English "Moorish", so Mr Diouf's comment about etymology does not appear to be intelligable. It appears that he is, after all, an "African musician" in the geographical sense and that the edit summary is perfectly correct. Would it have been less 'racist' if he'd said "Sengalese"? Paul B (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

He's lived "almost 3 decades in Warsaw". Let's assume he kno/font>]]ws Polish well. He even cowrote a book (same link) called: "How to talk to Polish children about children from Africa" ("Jak mówić polskim dzieciom o dzieciach z Afryki"). I think he is an expert on things, isn't he? Malick78 (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh don't be absurd. I've lived three decades in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. That doesn't make me an expert on it. Writing a book for kids that tells them "Demeaning Black People Is Bad, Boys and Girls" does not make one an expert on anything whatever. Paul B (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If he had phrased it as you have above yes. However thats not what he did. He made a firm statement using only nationality as backup. If he had said 'he is unqualified due to being a musician and polish isnt his first language' it would hold more weight. 'Not a linguist' would have sufficed for most people. There was no need to bring race into it. RE Maunus below - saying someone has made a racist remark/assertation is not the same as calling them a racist. But only republicans are fooled by 'It wasnt racist, it was racially charged/insensitive' ;) (That was a joke, I dont think republicans were fooled either) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What was written was in an edit summary. You can't expand in detail. There are only a few words available. We have give people a bit of leeway for clumsy phrasing, surely. Anyway, "African" is not a race. It can mean that, but in this case I see no evidence that it did. However, I've changed my own mind about this the more I've learned aboutr the context, so I think we should be giving leeway to Malick78 too. It was really a case of misinterpretation. Paul B (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object your false accusations based on false statements. - Altenmann >t 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Musicians are not experts in linguistics unless they are also linguists. The statement was Altenmann was perhaps insentively phrased but it was not racism, and in anycase he shouldn't be characterized as a racist for making it even if it were because that doesn't do anybody any good. What works if someone says something that unintentionally has a prejudicial tone or draws on stereotypes is to note that that particular statement was racially insensitive, or perhaps ask them to elaborate on what they meant and see where they go from there. Throwing around accusations doesn't help anyone.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, how I love these polite indirect personal attacks. - Altenmann >t 16:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought I was defending you... It is quite easy to make statements that unintentionally come across as borderline racist, I know I have done so inadvertently. The trick is to recognize it, and to react sensibly if it is pointed out to one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I said what I said and what intended to say, within the space allocated for edit summary. And as I see, everybody understood this: a person "twice removed" from the subject (non-linguist and non-native speaker) cannot be a judge in wikipedia of the subtleties of a non-mother toungue. The person is described as "black musician" in the article (so in fact my edit summary is "politically corrected", by the way) These sole qualifications were the basis of my edit summary. Suppose I was wrong and this African musician in fact holds B.S. in Polish ethnography. Then his remarks can be swiftly reinstated without much fuss. But since the only response was a massive multi-pronged personal attack, I conclude that my edit was correct. Poor discussion skills (or intentional demagoguery) of certain editors are duly noted, but ignored.

By the way, I did not remove the opinion of this African musician completely. I left intact the part which demonstrates a perception of an African musician of the word which means "Person of African descent" in Polish (despite being "primary source" and hence original research: you cannot draw concusions from a single opinion). This discussion is a perfect example what is going on in the article "murzyn". Some people just love to read what is not written. - Altenmann >t 16:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"In 2007 Diouf set up the "Africa Another Way Foundation"[1 to increase "knowledge sharing and communication" regarding African issues in Poland." And in "2011 Diouf published his first book, A Little Book about Racism ("Mała książka o rasizmie")". I guess, having been in Poland since the 1990s, having set up an Afro-centric organisation in the country, having written books on racism published in Polish, he can be thought of as an expert on racism in Poland. Or does a black man need a PhD in linguistics to be able to talk intelligently about how it feels when someone uses a racial word such as (murzyn) in relation to him? To reiterate, the text removed by Altenmann was this (in italics): "Diouf criticised Godson for his use of the word, saying that it has only had "negative connotations" and that Godson does not know the etymology of the word". How does one need to be an "expert in Polish linguistics" to have a notable opinion on connotations? If newspapers quote him, it's RS and notable according to our standards. Alternmann was removing info because he simply disagreed/disliked it, I'd say. The edit summary really was inappropriate, as was the edit itself.

But that's not even the issue - VM is misdirecting us. He readded Alternmann's edit, presumably without even thinking about it, just because he wanted to revert me. That's what I complained about; the fact that a racist edit was redone by VM underlined VM's intention to simply revert me for anything, no matter what the edit if he thought he could get away with it.Malick78 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're not even gonna back off and continue to call that a 'racist edit' when it was nothing of a kind? I think this is a pretty good example of your IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude.VolunteerMarek 17:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a children's book, not a scholarly study. Being an activist does not make you an expert on the usage-history of words. It might make his opinion notable, but it does not make it expert. Paul B (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

He was quoted by RS, so, sorry, his opinion is pretty notable. Why are you insisting on him being an "expert"? Doesn't a black person know when a word is offensive?Malick78 (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And this is typical Malick78 completely changing what someone else said. Obviously whether Diouf finds the word offensive or not is not the issue (note, btw, that another black person mentioned in the article does not find the word "murzyn" offensive). In fact Altenmann specifically points out above I did not remove the opinion of this African musician completely. I left intact the part which demonstrates a perception of an African musician of the word which means "Person of African descent" in Polish. The issue is that Malick78 completely refuses to listen to other people's arguments and has no problem throwing around specious accusations of racism as a way of trying to bully his way through.VolunteerMarek 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One might also conclude that your accusation here of personal attacks and bullying is also specious. Few people above see it as being so. You seem to be making wild accusations to see what might stick. Malick78 (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You accused another editor of making a 'racist edit'. That's not a wild accusation but exactly what you did - there's a diff which shows it. You are now also refusing to retract that comment.VolunteerMarek 21:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fragments of Jade sock puppets

The banned user Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been causing some problems with the Silent Hill: Downpour article, this time under the possible IPs 116.212.106.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 77.43.174.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). She has repeatedly added original research since the protection expired, and has sent numerous insults towards me and another user. I think it's safe to say that the user has already exhausted my patience and a possible block should be warranted. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Anurag toby

These are not the droids you're looking for
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think we might have another one of those too much personal information issues. Check his user page. It will probably need to be oversighted too. SilverserenC 09:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC) But they're 19 years old...Why oversight? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I assumed that fell under the Oversight Policy, unless we don't do that because the user himself was the one to release the information. Of course, we can't know that he is the person in question and isn't giving out someone else's information and phone number. SilverserenC 10:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict):Starting a discussion on their talk page would be vastly preferable to posting a note about TMI on a noticeboard with 5433 watchers. Nobody Ent 10:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It certainly does appear to be someone talking about themself. In the process of notifying them about this discussion (which SS knows they needed to do), I have indeed begun the discussion on their talkpage as recommended by the Ent. SS also knows to never post oversight requests here :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Sorry, it's late (5 AM...sleep now), I forgot the notification part. And I came here specifically because I felt the page needed to be oversighted and just having the user remove the information wouldn't be good enough. SilverserenC 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC) And, no, I didn't know that. Might be the tiredness again. Was I supposed to go to AN or some Oversighting specific noticeboard? If the latter, I don't think i've ever used it before or know offhand where it is. SilverserenC 10:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Psstt...look at the edit notice when you edit this page :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) As far as I'm aware, the appropriate way to request oversight is by emailing the Oversight Committee (see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight). Yunshui 雲‍水 10:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Bluh, sorry, definitely my fault. Apologies. :/ I'm gonna get to bed now. Should we just delete this thread for now or what? (If yes, please do so, i'm off now) SilverserenC 10:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User 236TruthTeller reported by North8000

This concerns the article USS Silversides (SS-236). User 236TruthTeller is an SPA (and possibly could be called an "attack-only" account) who's only edits have been regarding this article, consisting mostly of zero-sourcing criticisms and accusations against the management of the submarine. Some of these have been borderlne libel/slander. For example, they said that the management was accused of stealing and selling donated teak wood. Somebody (maybe me) tagged that for sourcing and 236TruthTeller inserted a name of somebody who supposedly made that accusation, and removed the tag. Diff [80] I have been removing only the most egregious violations; there are many other accusatory & critical statements which they have inserted which I've not touched. They've been reverting me on even on those those few changes that I made. And I've been trying to guide/work with them on this. Please see their brief talk page for a brief informative overview on this. Also a quick look at the article's edit history is very informative.

Despite all attempts and warnings, for the 3rd or 4th time they just put back in the statement "and has been poorly managed since" into the sentence "Silversides became a part of the Combined Great Lakes Navy Association in Chicago, Illinois, behind Chicago's Naval Armory on 24 May 1973 and has been poorly managed since" diff: [81].

I really am not heavily involved on this article, nor do I want to be (including having to start fighting the same user under new identities) but this is pretty bad to leave be. May I suggest:

• Block user for 1 week from editing this article (or just block the user for 1 week, same thing for a SPA) with a stern warning of a long block if they continue
• Protect article for editing only by auto-confirmed users for a couple months.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It was actually worse. I've just removed a large chunk of unsourced material containing potential BLP violations. And some very pov wording. Clearly someone trying to attack the management. I did a news search first to see if I culd source any of it. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Their username has "truth" in it, that pretty much says it all. Blackmane (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Various actions were taken. And now it was just vandalized by a brand new account User talk:Silversider. Suggest autocinfirmed only protection for a bit. North8000 (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Lottery111 reported by Electriccatfish2

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

---

This user has recently vandalized a page 3 times by putting in profanities (those edits won't show up in his contributions because they were disallowed by ClueBot NG). After I issued him a level 3 warning, he put a level 4 warning on my page titled "Vandalism Warning". It was immediately reverted by another editor, who warned him with a level 4 warning. I see in his contributions that he is misusing warning templates as personal attacks against other editors. I have warned him with another level 4 warning for misusing warning templates, but he still doesn't comply. Thank You! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to believe that this is the same user as Ninjatsudude (talk · contribs), looking at their respective edit histories.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 14:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked both Ninjatsudude (talk · contribs) and Lottery111 (talk · contribs) as vandalism/disruption-only accounts. Any editor who's first article edit is this is not welcome here. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:101.161.38.174 making unnecessary or bad changes

This User:101.161.38.174 has been making a lot of unnecessary changes and he also has created Simple English articles in his own wordings without any verification. This user seems insistent on having formatting in their ways like categorization without consensus, has a pattern of submitting wrong or unhelpful information, had a lot of changes reverted without evidence such as labeling certain people for being gay or bisexual, and another changes which I've found unnecessary. After some investigation, I also find this user originated on 101.161.205.189 and 101.161.144.135. I'm currently investigating all the changes that this user has made and reverting when necessary. ViriiK (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you give some diff'd examples please? I clicked on 4 random edits and they didn't seem wildly unreasonable.
- Dick Cheney - asked on the talkpage to add category:American hunters. I wondered why, but article has a section "Hunting incident" where it talks about him hunting quail.
- Harriet Harman - added 'Acting' to the Infobox which matched the article body.
- Template:Bill Clinton - added a birthdate to the header, matching Clinton's article.
- John Prescott - added a navbox about the newspaper hacking affair, Prescott was a very high-profile victim and got a £40,000 compensation payout; and two categories at least one of which makes sense in line with the article.

Maybe those I happened to click on were the best of the bunch, I don't know. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I clicked your contribs and saw your last two reverts of his changes. I don't understand what's wrong with this [82]. Adding navbox {{Mitt Romney}} to an article called Governorship of Mitt Romney seems just fine to me. And this [83] where you wrote "This is not acceptable." I honestly can't see why. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, you need to inform editors when you open ANI threads about them. I'll go tell him now. --92.6.202.54 15:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The birthdates aren't necessary and other users have reverted the same thing which isn't really that useful anyways. Following that standard implies we must follow the standard for ALL biographies. This user has been putting in alot of categories which are extremely redudant and not helpful. For example IMF Directors, he editted in the "acting" Managing Directors which wasn't necessary at all because they were never confirmed for that position hence acting people do not need mentions at all. There's also useless categorizations such as this [84] which is completely inaccurate. Then there's this that is completely unhelpful [85] [86]. I don't have access to the tool that shows all the reverts made by other users as well against this IP address. ViriiK (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The birthdates look helpful to me. As for "necessary", it depends what you mean. Either way I don't know that it warrants ANI; I've seen no sign of anybody speaking to him about it. I hadn't seen any "extremely redundant and not helpful category" so far. That's why I asked.
Your example of "useless categorization which is completely inaccurate" was addition of Category:Prime Ministers of Greece to Petros Mavromichalis. He was a C19th Head of government in Greece, or Head of State. The category may not be a perfect fit but having a separate historic Heads of State of Greece cat that'd only ever have a few members is probably pointless with the one he added sufficiently close.
I don't immediately see how your example of him adding Category:Gay men to John Galliano qualifies as "completely unhelpful"? The article states - sourced - "He has appeared on The Independent on Sunday's 2007 "pink list" for being one of "the most influential gay people in Britain."[31]". Another of your popups reverts was of his helpfully (in my view) adding a caption to some Ford building picture. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about the birthdates and other people have reverted those birthdates as well. Almost all biographies do not have this information in the template. I'm just noticing a behavior of changing small details but extremely misleading. Also for categorizations, it's a case of overcategorization. Like this one here [87] or [88] which he adds those ancestry backgrounds but are they really relevant to the point of the article? The Mitt Romney change was because there's already enough categories as it is and it is already properly linked in a series here [89] hence there was no need for another category of the same nature. There was one of the user's changes adding a bisexual description to some biography which I can't remember but no where in the article mentioned it so it was reverted. One was an Adolf Hitler change in German federal elections where he changed the date of when Hitler was the Chairman of the NSDAP [90]. It's not only me that's doing the reverting. Prior to me yesterday, it has been bad, improper, inaccurate, unhelpful, or unnecessary changes that's been slipping by under the radar. ViriiK (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You keep mentioning stuff like extremely misleading small changes or bad, improper, inaccurate, unhelpful, or unnecessary edits, but every time I look at diffs you provide or click on your reverting contribs I only ever find what're at least reasonable edits. Take your latest examples of ancestry background cat additions, you ask are these really relevant. Well, they're pretty much all in the articles for their fathers, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush respectively (and those are GAs as well as semi'd for years so the IP certainly didn't add them), so it appears yes they probably are. On your overcategorization point, going by his talk page, he's been doing the exact opposite at times, correctly assigning more specific cats. As for the Gov'ship of Mitt Romney article, it was a navigation template (footer navbox) not category, and the page only has one other navbox listing all Governors of MA & a succession (footer) box. The sidebar series template goes at the top of the page & has fewer links; and really, a Romney navbox in a Romney article is logical. The date change of when Adolf Hitler became NSDAP leader is obscure, you wrote in the summary "became party chairman July 28, not 29. He acquired Fuhrer title on July 29". I'm not an expert. At the very least, there are book sources ([91], [92], [93]) that seem reliable on the face of it which indicate he did become leader on the 29th. Maybe others are reverting his changes because you are? Look, an edit can be reverted (or corrected) if it's "bad". It's just that scant evidence seems to've been brought that his are. If any of your reverts are mistaken then I'm sure you'd agree the right thing to do is restore the edit, and I'd hope others would do the same with their own. Anyway others can weigh in on this from here. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I do keep mentioning them for good reasons. But right now since I am still reviewing those changes. 1. The ancestral backgrounds were added recently and they seem to be bad changes. He has a majority of adding more categories than removing contrary to your claim. 2. The Mitt Romney change is redundant and irrelevant because there is already the template dedicated to it and plastered at the top. Adding another one is just pointless. Besides, directories should be going down, not up with Romney being the root of it all. 3. He's consistently been reverted by other users.

Other people's reverts

[94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]

Liberalism? He repeated this as well in other places. [100] [101]

Because the Lincoln Automobile definitely has to be in the Abraham Lincoln navbox. [102] [103]

[104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111]

George Bush is not a German American but he adds it nonetheless which was removed anyways. Also no evidence was provided for adding George W. Bush. 8 years of Bush and we don't hear any mention of his German American background if any? Especially Presidents are not allowed to serve if they hold dual citizenships. [112]

[113] [114]

Removing mass amounts of text and was reverted [115]

Not necessary at all especially in the opening paragraph of her personal life. [116]

Adding a category that did nothing and has no purpose whatsoever. [117]

Active page of his to frequent which there's two other reverts that are not mine. [118]

Changing the category to French sex offender? That's not good faith at all. [119]

My reverts

Change without evidence to support this and reverted [120]

Inaccurate assessment and reverted [121]

Breaks consistency in comparsion to all the First Ladies. [122]

"Acting" Managing Directors do not get mentions because they are only there in the unofficial capacity until the new Managing Director is confirmed. Also breaks consistency. [123]

Same thing here. [124]

He not only changed the term that this person served but added in a President that he supposedly served under when he never did. Richard Cheney was the only confirmed Secretary of Defense in that capacity in the George H. W. Bush Administration. Contrast this to Robert Gates who was intentionally carried over from the George W. Bush Administration over to the Barack Obama Administration. [125]

Removed and corrected [126]

Him adding to the cabinet list of the George H. W. Bush Administration which was removed and corrected. [127]

Pointless [128] [129]

Bad change [130]

No reason for changing to "business" / s-bus rather than s-civ "civic" which goes against the consistency of other people in that same post. [131] [132]

As for the "class" tags regarding a person's birthdate, it's not how it was designed in the first place. [133]

It isn't to be substituted for birth & death dates.

This is more of an accurate example [134]

I'm tired of digging up his history. ViriiK (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor spamming my talk page re square pyramidal number original research

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

---

Hi — the anonymous editor at 86.24.46.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), thwarted and repeatedly blocked for adding original research to square pyramidal number, has taken to spamming big blocks of text to my user talk page [135] [136] [137] [138] and has vowed to keep it up forever unless blocked [139]. I would prefer to keep my talk page unprotected from others, and as an involved party I would prefer not to do the blocking myself. Help, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month for harassment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I suspect it won't be long enough (the same editor has come back after month-long blocks before) but I'll wait until something more happens before coming back with this. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure - give me a shout if he comes back and I'll be happy to escalate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Ihate greece

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

---

Ihate greece (talk · contribs)

Self-explanatory. Would someone be so kind to deal with this, preferably with an indef? Thanks, Athenean (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked, but in the future the appropriate place for this is WP:UAA. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MohammedBinAbdullah

MohammedBinAbdullah (talk · contribs · count)

This user is being a complete nuisance. He loves moving pages against consensus, and instead of engaging with other editors just blanks his talk page (an unblanked version would show countless warnings).

It is time for him to be given a lengthy (by which I mean over a day) block in my view. Egg Centric 17:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I went through his contributions, and in the past month alone he has moved at least 9 pages against consensus, all of which were moved back or to some other name shortly there after. Jeancey (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)ly

I am only changing the title to meet the wikipedia convention. In most of the above cases, the year is required for disambiguation. Also I have been talking to administrators at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not even properly moving them in some cases, such as Islamic Calendar and War on Terror. This is a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE, sorry. Egg Centric 18:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

However, you also are not capitalizing properly, against convention, and in several of them, there either WAS disambiguation with a year (Syrian uprising (2011-present)) or none was needed (War on Terror). Jeancey (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, even on the article titles talk page, they told you that what you were proposing wasn't needed, and that the page names were fine. Jeancey (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed, you might want to take the weekend off and read the Manual of Style and all linked policies before editing anything else - we would not want to make that an enforced weekend off (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

2007–2012 global financial crisis is not capitalized so what should be the right title for 2007–2012 global financial crisis. Please explain. I am kind of confused now. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It's already explained in that article. Use "sentence case", not "title case"; that is, the initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects). The War on Terror should always be capitalized with the 'on' being lower cased. Nor are dating conventions needed for every wars out there in the title because it is unnecessary. Is there another War on Terror we don't know about? You'd have a point if it was like 2001 War on Terror 2003 War on Terror but it doesn't exist. Instead it's the same continuing War on Terror that still occurs to this date. Should we detail the period of when the Napoleonic Wars were? It's unnecessary. ViriiK (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

From the page about article capitalization "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." In this case, it mentions in the Global Financial Crisis page, in fact immediately after the page name, that it is also known as Global Financial Crisis (GFC) which indicates that it SHOULD be capitalized. Jeancey (talk)

I won't make the change to 2007–2012 global financial crisis. Can somebody do it so I would know what is the right way. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are not certain, an excellent strategy would be to do nothing. Unwarranted moving of pages is near the top of a list of disruptive behaviors. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

63.152.117.46/63.152.98.3

Hi. I would like to lay the groundwork for a complaint against the IP user using the IP addresses 63.152.117.46 and 63.152.98.3 (he may have others as well) for edit warring. He/she engages in immature, disrespectful and disruptive edit warring. His contempt for other editors is plain from his comments, including ([140]), [141]):

• "of course it's Ckalja, the picture isn't gonna be of Mike Tyson. removed -- stating the obvious"
• "everyone knows that Chicago and New York City are in America. people in Boogie Wonderland know that. everyone knows that. no sense in adding U.S."

He/she has already been warned three times by three different editors at IP address 63.152.117.46. ANI notification tag added. Quis separabit? 23:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The other IP has one warning but as I am positive this editor is not heeding and will not heed other editors' advice and I may be offwiki tomorrow I would like to bring this to the community's attention here. Perhaps a brief, instructive (palliative if you will) block may help the editor see the error of his/her ways. Respectfully submitted, Quis separabit? 22:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I really can't see the need for a block. I've only looked at the first IP (.46)'s edits, and I agree that some of his edit summaries are flip, but I wouldn't block him for it. Perhaps if you tackled the substantive problems you're having with their edits, rather than focus on the silly edit summaries, things might go better. I've also looked at the edits themselves, and in some instances his edits are contrary to Wikepedia practice or MOS (and not major problems), but some of them actually make sense to me, or at least they're quite defensible. For example, he prefers a birth place in the infobox to be New York City, New York, as opposed to New York City, New York, U.S. I pretty much agree with him. The U.S. is unnecessary, particularly as the New York stuff is wikilinked. I don't usually fight with editors on this kind of issue, although I do draw the line at spelling out United States. As for edit-warring, if you believe he's doing that, then issue the appropriate warnings, talk to him about it, and then take him to WP:3RRNB if he persists. I see no need for action here, although I suppose someone else could add another note to him about collaborating rather than pushing forward all on his own. It is sometimes hard for IPs to understand some of these things as they feel ganged-up on by more experienced editors. I haven't looked at the possibility of IP hopping.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Irvi Hyka

User:Irvi Hyka has taken the liberty of boldly moving Bojana (river) from its creation page to its Albanian name for no other reason than the river features in Albania too[142]. He has cited common English usage but there is no evidence of this. This type of move in controversial and requires consensus, I ask that the page be restored and the matter discussed with sources provided.This is pro-Albania POV pushing from an editor who is known for such behaviour. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You had me interested in acting until your last sentence. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I retract it. I was only trying to draw attention to the user's history which includes a block for similar themes. No offence was intended. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion Talk:Buna_(river)#Requested_move. User "Vinie007" and "Zjarrirrethues" find something very interesting. In Google the people search for Buna 118.000.000 and Bojana 7.550.000. This is the face the the river is more commune Buna also is used by Venetian in Middle Ages. Irvi Hyka (argue) 20:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not just that! User renamed several articles within WP:ARBMAC scope without any agreement or discussion, and did that several times in a row! --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It is far too late to start justifying reasoning here. That discussion was not a consensus, it was a DISSENSUS. Put simply, a number of Albanian-language editors approved the move and the rest of the contributors disagreed with them. It is not about the number of voters for each suggestion but the quality of the arguments, and those presented were poor. There are other River Bunas, such as one in the Neretva region of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Were the sources pruned to only include references to the Montenegrin/Albanian river and from reliable sources? Or were they simply random results for Buna vs Bojana with no regard for language of text? The point is that the object is poorly sourced with most English language information originating from the host nations. There needs to be other factors for which we use. What is it called where it rises? Which entity sees more of the river? Questions like those for example. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the matter was closed 12 months ago with no move as the outcome[143]. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that User:Irvi Hyka has of late made several unilateral, highly POV page moves without any discussion and oftentimes absurd rationales in the edit-summaries. In addition to the one presented above, we have: [144] [145] [146], and especially [147]. This is really starting to become a problem. Athenean (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I smell WP:ARBMAC warnings for a few people :-) I've already given and registered one this afternoon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Related discretionary sanctions

While tracking issues surrounding the above editor, I found they they had reverted the move of Black Drim today as well. The article was apparently originally moved in April, was moved earlier today, and that move reverted. I returned to the article to the title it was at as of this morning, protected it and move-protected it. I then provide an WP:ARBMAC warning to User:ZjarriRrethues, who appears to have been the prime move-warrior today.

I have just been notified on my talkpage that not only has User:ZjarriRrethues been previously ARBMAC-warned, but had sanctions applied - those sanctions are unrelated to today's violation. I'm hoping to have some discussion here about such sanction in order to obtain some rough consensus on sanctions for User:ZjarriRrethues. (Note:ARBMAC warnings and possibly sanctions will also be due to User:Irvi Hyka (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling ZjarriRrethues the "prime move-warrior today" is just breathtakingly wrong. Of the four users who moved the page recently (including the first, undiscussed, move on 25 April), ZjarriRrethues was clearly the least deserving of sanctions – he was the only one who actually offered a reasoned argument on the talkpage, before making the move. Why is Bwilkins considering sanctions only for the two editors on the one side of the issue, and is seemingly unwilling to consider the two others? Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I try to avoid ARBMAC issues, but honestly, ZjarriRrethues was not misbehaving here. DS (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I don't understand this warning. Article was created in 2005 with the name Black Drin. It remained with that name for 7 years up to 25 April 2012 when user Antid moved it to Black Drim. This was a controversial move since its common name is Black Drin not Black Drim. Zjarri explained this situation in talk page before making any move and returned the previous title. This return to previous name was supported by admin Futper and even from user Antid which made the first controversial move on April 2012, user Antid admitting he made a mistake when he firstly moved the page on 25 April 2012. Now, how is ZjarriRrethues the "prime move warrior" with his single revert, (that apparently was correct as shown on the article's talkpage where everyone admits he did the right thing)? I really don't see how any sanctions are necessary. Even the warning was way too extravagant. Regards Aigest (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Timeline:

• article move to "drim" back in April.
• article moved to "drin" (I'd call this the "Bold" part of BRD)
• article moved back to "drim" moments after (I'd call this the "Revert" part of BRD)
• ZR moved it back to "drin" not long after, with a mere post on the talkpage (which was NOT a "Discuss")

Whether ZR has the right name or not, it's a move-war, period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Whether my single edit was the R part or a continuation of B is highly debatable as FutureP and other users pointed out. However, that's not the core of the issue. Warnings and sanctions are issued to stop any ongoing disruption. You labeled me the prime move-warrior, although I made 1 edit as the rest of the involved users and was the only one to actually offer a source-based rationale, which was accepted by all of them meaning that there was no disruption at all by any user since nobody clung to any non-reference-based position.

• Users were making edits without verifying their validity and after I checked and posted the relevant results a consensus was instantly reached. That being said I don't deal with truthisms. I posted the results of the academic use of the terms and there is a consensus. As admins FutureP and DS as well as user Aigest have mentioned the chronological details and other parts of this issue, I won't repeat them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Community ban of Antony1821

Kostas45 (talk · contribs), sockpuppet of Antony1821 (talk · contribs), has said on their talkpage that "the more unblocking time the more accounts i will create" i.e. intends to continue socking. They are incredibly disruptive, and obviously have no intention to reform or contribute constructively. I therefore propose a community ban. Note - I am going on holiday tomorrow for 8 days, not back till Tuesday 12th, so would appreciate somebody advising me of the outcome of this discussion, either way. GiantSnowman 18:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've just removed Kostas45's talk page access for another threat to create more socks. They've only created 5 accounts so far but they are clearly behaving disruptively and have no intention of stopping, so I support a ban, if only as a formality. Hut 8.5 18:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support ban based on editor's clear statements of intention to violate wikipedia policy. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Had a read of their SPI earlier today. Their obsessive need to edit Olympiakos FC and Greek football related articles should make them fairly easy to hunt down. Blackmane (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Ban. Threats to create sockpuppets in response to a block is unacceptable behavior. FurrySings (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Support ban (obviously) as I've been dealing with his socks for a long time and they've all shown signs of zero understanding towards Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For your consideration, I believe his threats became reality, as there is a big possibility James1453 (talk · contribs) is the newest sockpuppet of his. (already reported at SPI) – Kosm1fent 10:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaguar

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

This bit was archived ages ago. Restoring as reference to thread.

User TheElderDarkStar and his annonymous IP address removing delete tags.

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

---

I submitted a PROD request for the Ninja (Puppet Master) page (it's just a "character" from a B-horror movie; clearly no notability.) User:TheElderDarkStar removed the tag here. I restored it and then User:82.28.142.91 deleted the tag here and here and here and...well, you get the idea.

TheElderDarkStar also made pages for a bunch of other "characters" from the same movie. I've put PROD delete tags on all of them (e.g. Torch (Puppet Master), Blade (Puppet Master), etc.) He hasn't deleted the tags on those (yet) but I suspect they're coming. JoelWhy? talk 21:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

JoelWhy, anyone can removed a PROD tag from the article and the PROD instructions are clear that if it is removed it is not to be restored (see WP:DEPROD). If you believe the article should be deleted you need to take it to AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake! Thanks for the info! JoelWhy? talk 21:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

revealing personal information?

This edit appears to reveal personal information about someone. Should it be removed from the history? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Zapped them with revdel, heading to oversight. Seems like somebody hasn't the slightest WP:CLUE what Wikipedia is... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! OK, now that it can't be found in the history, that was one of the weirdest ones I have ever seen. Some business deal goes bad [Someone gets scammed] in India, and the reaction is...post someone's [probably fake] address and cell phone numbers to some random page on Wikipedia?? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No, International Courts – Nuremberg, The Hague, and now the Court of Public Opinion. Seems inevitable. Dru of Id (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Business deal my foot. Sounds like the poor guy fell for one of those too-good-to-be-true money transfer spam-mails. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 03:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight is the preferred venue for requests like this. Nobody Ent 12:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

MMA, part 1287

See also Wikipedia:ANI#MMA_AfD.27s above. I have just closed another disruptive AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination). I have also noted at least one WP:POINT nominations for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19) of articles edited by the few editors who are trying to uphold Wikipedia policy in the MMA area. I'd would suggest that after such a persistent campaign of WP:IDHT by a number of SPAs to turn the encyclopedia into an MMA results service it is probably time to say "enough". Black Kite (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As an editor who has passively observed the MMA disputes that flare up on the boards every other day (it seems), I'm also of the mind that some unified solution should be adopted—it really has been quite "enough" at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible return of long-term vandal

78.40.233.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit to the userpage of long-term sockpuppeteer Tile join, claiming no connection between said account and GoldenGlory84 (despite the latter's page clearly stating "An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Tile joinAn editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Tile join"). Note that this IP has been blocked for vandalism/sockpuppeting in the past - it's fairly implausible that such an edit could be in good faith. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruption allegedly by sockpuppet of community banned User:Echigo mole

• Vurrgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

In the past 24 hours 2 sockpuppets of Echigo mole have been indefinitely blocked:

• Thrapostulator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rita Mordio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They interrupted an SPI report triggered by a series of hoax articles listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guozbongleur. All of the articles have now been deleted. The latest deleted article was created by Silver starfish who also created stubs on the street in which I live and the small quartier in which it is situtated.

Silver starfish was the main subject of the SPI report, hijacked by the two blocked sockpuppets above. I found out about the hoaxes quite accidentally because of edits of yet another sockpuppet Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of Echigo mole, but as I later noticed had also created a stub on Aix. All of the articles created by these editors related to the street in Aix-en-Provence in which I live and the church in which I play the organ. That is completely in line with the long term stalking by the community banned user Echigo mole, which goes back to 2009 and which has on occasion spilled over to off-wiki sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia Review (although that means almost nothing :) ).

Now through the sleeper sock account Vurggh, Echigo mole is not only continuing the previous conduct of the blocked socks Thrapostulaor and Rita Mordio but is in addition now editing the stubs on Aix-en-Provence created by Silver starfish.

That would seem to confirm the equation:

Echigo mole = Vurggh = Silver starfish,

which implies in particular that

Silver starfish = Echigo mole.

Part of the previous evidence came from the fact that Echigo mole had previously invented a sockpuppet named Zarboublian (CU-blocked by Shell Kinney) as well as a hoax article about Aix and Gustave de Zarbouble. Something was badly wrong and, with two fictitious names, could not be explained by coincidence. The account Vurrgh seems in the latest SPI report to have admitted more or less that he is the same person. I hope that somebody will indefinitely block this sockpuppet of Echigo mole before he causes any further disruption. The sleeper account has at least served the purpose of identifying Silver starfish as another sockpuppet of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I just noticed the sock mentioned above from messages at User talk:Drmies which I have followed to here. Would a couple of admins please monitor the situation and help repel the disruption as requiring SPI investigations with stale data for the sock pool is pointless, and serves only to feed the troll. Just indef block each duck sock that pops up and revert all their edits, since WP:DENY is the best procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

edits reverted Nobody Ent 12:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impressed; this issue caused you to come out of a three-year-long retirement to comment at a low-profile AFD and then to come here, citing tons of policies that you're likely never to have seen when editing pages about early Melbourne. Nyttend (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister

User:Brandmeister, who was recently topic-banned for one year from Armenia and Azerbaijan articles [148], again deleted a whole subsection on Khojaly Massacre without any explanations at article's talk and with an editsummary that the naming (only) of subsection is dubious for him [149]. The second time he removed it again without any discussions and with an editsummary with a completely different claim that he thinks one of the sources is irrelevant [150]. He also deleted sourced information from another AA article [151] while a discussion is going on at talk and he even does not participate there [152]. Gazifikator (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)