Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Bluerim

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

---

Over the past few days, User:Bluerim returned from about a 20 day break from Wikipedia and reverted changes that I made to the article (List of God of War characters and reversion history) that were based on a discussion asking for outside opinions on what to do (as these issues have been going on for the past few months and I've had two RFCs and Third Opinions requested but none helped because Bluerim couldn't accept what they had to say). I had also corrected some sources on the page which he reverted and has done in every revert (for which he said "Sources can be corrected" but keeps reverting them). He claims he's making corrections or improvements but he's doing the same revert, with maybe small differences if there are any. There's been a discussion on the Talk page (titled Outside comments/opinions) for about a month. Bluerim's changes and reversions are contradicting some of the things brought up. Another editor (User:Sjones23) reverted him for the same reason I have: the discussion post. I today added a new section to the article (which has been long overdue) and added information to the lead because of it. Bluerim reverted back to his version before Sjone's revert (although he retained the new section) and hid his reversion by only claiming that he made corrections to the lead, the new section, and added "one word" to another section. I feel that Bluerim's reversions are disruptive and are making it hard to improve the article. There's a discussion on the Talk page but he either doesn't post or he leaves short comments and doesn't answer questions or doesn't fully explain himself which can be seen in his most recent post there. This is also not the first time I've had to report this user for similar conduct. --JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the talk page I'm not seeing inappropriate behavior by Bluerim. There's nothing wrong with short comments -- we actually have an essay Be concise encouraging them. NE Ent 12:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much for the short comments, it's the fact he avoided answering my posts, and his short comments don't really say much. If you see here, I left comments that I would have liked to have had answers to. Instead of answering or responding, Bluerim made this reversion to the article (which is what I was referring to about hiding his other revert) and made this post on the Talk page which did not answer any of my questions, nor did it provide or help with anything to solve the issues. Also, did you check the reversion history of the article itself? That's really where the disruption is. --JDC808 ♫ 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And he's reverted the page again, claiming I'm the only one who has issues, despite the fact another editor reverted him for the same reasons I have. The biggest problem with this user is that he is very hard to work with for consensus building because he keeps reverting and resists community input (as noted by the RFCs and Third Opinions on the Talk page, where practically all of the outside editors agreed with my points but Bluerim challenged their opinion which is why we're still having these issues). This has been an ongoing issue with this user for months and it's really ridiculous. As mentioned before, I've had to report this user for similar conduct as seen here which links the three previous reports prior to that one. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should contact an administrator about this matter, since edit warring can make things worse, which is why it is not tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), an uninvolved administrator, to take a look at this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 23:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, edit warring is not acceptable. However, a failure to accurately read the situation is also not good. Bluerim (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As per edit warring comment, then why did you keep reverting when you knew there was a discussion on those issues? As per other comment, that's why there are links provided. --JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The link JDC808 provides above as a "revert" is actually an edit. NE Ent 02:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This link. By the way, as Bbb23 does not have enough time to review this thread, I've asked another uninvolved administrator, PresN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), to give his thoughts on this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it was that one? If you look at the last three changes, I made a revert at 10:04 November 25th, then Bluerim reverted that at 12:01 November 26th, which is what you just linked (notice mine is +2,841 and his is -2,841). I believe NE Ent was talking about this one. It actually is a revert (technically a revert with an added edit). Look at the differences between this revert and this one (the one I believe NE Ent was referring). They're identical reversions with the exception of in the latter, Bluerim reverted my additions to the lead (which made the lead the same as the first reversion) and he made two minor edits to the new section. And so it's clear, there are three intermediate edits between those two: your first revert of Bluerim, me adding the new section, and then me editing the lead because I added new section. And okay about the admin. --JDC808 ♫ 05:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then, I apologize for my comment about the link above. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Just making sure everything's clear. --JDC808 ♫ 05:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, then. While we are still waiting for the administrator to respond, based on the relevant differences provided above, I think that Bluerim refuses to get the point. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am not going to have time to review this thread today. So, either another admin will have to, or given that this appears to be principally about edit-warring, the report could be taken to WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I "get the point" - my latest edits to the article do incorporate some suggestions. There are, however, some weaknesses with the other additions. In short, the article reads less like a piece of prose and more like a fan entry. The issue I have here is that one over-committed editor can't see the compromise, which was possibly not helped by another editor who may not have the experience to see the process. Yet another editor had no issue with my recent post on the Talk page, and stated brevity was fine. I can elaborate, but hope for some more flexibility. JD means well, but his writing does need work and he just needs to haul back a tad (a la the string of attempted complaints and comments on my Talk Page, such as "being left not choice"). Let's work together without melodrama. It can be done.

Bluerim (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, JDC808 is not overcommitted (I feel that this is unfounded) and the problem here is that you were edit warring while discussion was taking place, and please do not make unfounded assumptions about JDC808. Since your edits created controversy, a discussion was necessary according to the rules and common sense. Unfortunately, you also seem to have ignored good faith community concerns and consensus as relevant on the talk page of the God of War characters article. As visible in Talk:List of God of War characters, there are discussions such as an RFC, which led to community consensus amongst uninvolved editors. I also feel that Bluerim is being a little disruptive, which according to this policy, is valid, fulfilling 3 out of the 6 criteria that defines disruptive editing. Also, we should consider listen to outside opinions of others who have commented on the talk page and take these into account. I would like to quote the definition of WP:IDHT:

In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you, see if you can see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement.

Sometimes, even when editors act in good faith, their contributions may continue to be disruptive and time wasting, because they don't understand what the problem is. Although editors should be encouraged to be bold and just do things if they think they're right, sometimes a lack of competence can get in the way. If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed.

I am still waiting for administrator input about this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean well, and I applaud your efforts for peace, but you did err in reverting back to some inferior material. JD means well but many of his edits have needed tweaking. I have compromised on several points, but look for the same in him. Bluerim (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

As per "inferior material," please see my most recent post(s) at the Talk page. --JDC808 ♫ 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, as has been said before, this is a content dispute and belongs in discussion on the article talkpage or in WP:DR processes? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried. I've tried requesting opinions from outside editors. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've briefly looked at the history of the article. The only issue that would call for administrator intervention is edit-warring. As I see it, both Blue Rim and JDC808 have been edit-warring. However, the last edit to the article by Sjones (who has not been edit-warring) was over a day ago, so at least the edit-warring has calmed down for the moment. If I had looked at this earlier, I would have either blocked both Blue Rim and JDC808 or I would have locked the article. Hopefully, all of those things can be avoided if the involved editors behave and restrict their dispute (amicably) to the talk page. If they don't, then sanctions may be appropriate. And be careful about declaring consensus. I've too often seen one of the disputants say "Consensus has been reached" and then proceed to implement the alleged consensus. Best to have a clear consensus and an ininvolved editor implement it. As BWilkins said, there are dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving seemingly intractable content disputes. I'll leave this topic open for a bit in case anyone wants to say anything further.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to say I wasn't wrong when I made my reverts. To get to the point, the most problematic thing is that Bluerim does not understand consensus. This has been a big and ongoing issue with him. That's probably the root of this entire issue. I'm not just saying this because I think it's true, other uninvolved editors have pointed this out to him. As Sjones made aware, there's been discussions on the Talk page where I've requested RFCs and Third Opinions. Practically all uninvolved editors were in agreeance with my points (which is about 5 or 6 uninvolved editors), but Bluerim challenged their opinion (even questioned their writing abilities at one point) and to put it bluntly, he pretty much said they're wrong. --JDC808 ♫ 02:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Then you're well into WP:RFC/U territory. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor User:Escarlati

I have a dicussion with User talk:Enric Naval here and here.

User talk:Enric Naval calls for "support" of User:Escarlati here.

User:Escarlati, in spanish, make a personal attack over me, and say that he do not wants to talk by reason of language limitation here. Then User:Escarlati reverts all my editions (whatever article). I try to talk with he, here[1], but he not say nothing, and whatever article he say in diff 'statu quo ante' and only reverts my editions. He reverts me in many articles:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

--Santos30 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Disruptive editor is Santos30. Santos30 being carried out in several articles and editions massive edit wars to defend a non-neutral POVwarrior, editions which was blocked in Spanish Wikipedia. Now move your warrior Pov this by cross-wiki wikipedia. I request for measures against Santos30 for these actions disruptive and undermine the statu quo ante and viewpoint neutral. I'm sorry my English is not good, because I use a translator. Escarlati (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • No. This is totally false and another personal attack.--Santos30 (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The logs tell us that you have a SUL account and that as Santos30 (talk · contribs) you are indeed blocked indefinitely, for abuse of multiple accounts where the master account is Domenico (talk · contribs), on the Spanish Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• My mistake, the case is here, I was a retired User and I not inform of changes in my nick User. But what User:Escarlati say is false and is another personal attack, never I was blocked for " massive edit wars" or "POV warrior". User:Escarlati came here to make personal attacks and reverts me (User:Escarlati not talk and not give bibliography) as you can see in the diffs. User:Escarlati say that he can not talk in english, but quickly he came here to try to silence me with administrative actions similar as censure in Wikipedia spanish (you can read it in spanish).

If User:Escarlati does not want to talk or give bibliography, then he should not reverts me here in wikipedia english ( anything or whatever says or do in wikipedia español, wrong or right ). I do not want an administrative action for no user, I want to be free to make editions or talk in discussion.--Santos30 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User Santos30 is engaging in a reversion-war and trying to impose his point of view. He just placed a non-neutrality template in the article on the Crown of Aragón which should be removed because he is the only one claiming that it is not neutral. [11]--Maragm (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

False. The imposed point of view is in the last edition of User:Escarlati [12]. He delete my bibliography and not gives any other reference. Template is placed 24 hours after I explain in the talk my reason of the template here. Nobody answer the talk. No bibliography to clarify in the article. --Santos30 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, after this talk User:Eric Naval answer here. I keep waiting for User:Escarlati here--Santos30 (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30, you were given many sources at Spanish wikipedia and then here at English wikipedia. All users at Spanish wikipedia agreed to use the Cross of Burgundy for the Spanish Empire and its colonies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I had hopes that Santos30 was a reasonable editor. But his last edits and POV-pushing in talk pages have exhausted my patience. Santos30 is not here to write an encyclopedia, he is here to glorify Castile and remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy. He keeps modifying related articles to support his POV, which makes it even more difficult to detect the problems. He is a pseudohistoric troll, and he needs to be blocked and reverted. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You should see first for articles that must to be clarified. Why you not look for the missing bibliography here and stop your personal attacks and stop looking for my punishment?. Im not here to "glorify Castile" and "remove any mentions to the Cross of Burgundy". Im here understand and share my knowledge of Latin American independence. But I see those articles of colonial viceroyalty with mistaken or confused or POV information and I try to clarify.--Santos30 (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

We achieved some understanding in Treaty of Villafáfila and Council of Castile. Probably because there are sources that explicitly cite exact dates with meridian clarity. Which means that you can't push your preferred dates. But as soon as there is some ambiguity, or a way to twist sources into saying things that they don't say, we get lockdowns, edit warring and tendentious picking and interpretation of sources. I am not willing to spend hours and hours collecting sources and quotes, only to have you cherrypick a few sources that don't really support your changes, followed by a return to your original position and edit-warring to restore bad sources and remove good ones.

Some examples:

• this revert was specially annoying because it removed a couple of hours of solid work for no good reason.

• this revert introduced wholly incorrect flag and coat. He already edit-warred the similar changes in Spanish wikipedia as his alter ego Domenico [13][14][15][16]. Needless to say, the changes didn't stick. In the Spanish wikipedia he was less sophisticated and it's easier to see that one of his main motivations is the glorification of Castile (the other one is his hate towards the Cross of Burgundy flag)

• [17]. He replaces 2 contemporary books with a 1835 biased political pamphlet. In the talk page he refuses to acknowledge the problems with the source. He had already editwarred over those dates with an IP, causing the protection of the article. In a last attempt to compromise, I started a RfC, I expect a tsunami of wikilawyering over it. He demands an arbitrarily high sourcing standard for the date he doesn't like, refuses to compromise, refuses to acknowledge the flagrant logic flaws in his position, refuses to acknowledge all the sources that give a different date, etc. He neglected to mention that his attempts to put the same date in the Spanish wikidia were all reverted [18][19][20][21] and that he failed to provide any source that supported his position, and that he didn't address any of the obvious flaws with that position.

• [22][23][24][25][26] Changes Cross of Burgundy to push back the usage of the flag a few centuries and claim that it only had military usages. When I tried to fix it he tried to restore his POV with "clarifications"[27][28][29]. In Spanish wikipedia he removed historical references because they made clear that his POV was incorrect[30], this change stuck during months.

• [31][32][33][34] Repeated attempts to remove the historical relevance of the Cross of Burgundy in Flag of Florida. Now he has returned to his original position using a compilation of sources that don't really support his position, in Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag. Of course, he ignores the sources that directly and clearly contradict his position, which were given to him months ago.

• [35] Flag of Mexico was given an incorrect flag in order to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy. Another manipulation that went unnoticed for months.

Santos30 started in Talk:Spanish_Empire, when I tried to fix his POV pushing it propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Castile#abolishment_date, Talk:New_Spain#flag_was_the_.22estandarte_virreinal.22, Talk:Flag_of_Florida#Red_cross_with_white_flag and Cross of Burgundy, and now it's propagated to Talk:Crown_of_Aragon#Sovereignty_and_Independence. It also affects the flags and coats of arms in Spanish_Empire, Flag_of_Spain#Cross_of_Burgundy and several articles in Category:Viceroyalties of the Spanish Empire.

Santos30 opened this thread because his latest wave of tendentiously-sourced POV-pushing was reverted. Again. He already tried to make many of these changes in the Spanish wikipedia, where he failed to convince anyone and refused to acknowledge an expert opinion that he asked for himself. He doesn't want to be blocked for edit-warring for WP:3RR, so he comes to ANI to cry foul. I have a small hope that a good WP:BOOMERANG happens here. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Escarlati says another time in my discussion that he does not want to talk about article.[36]--Santos30 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• False: I say that I don't speak english and I explained he all in spanish wikipedia before. Escarlati (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• However your fingers are speaking in english. And suppose you are the expert, your "explained he all" in spanish was poor or null, without references, not one citation, no book. Nothing. Enric Naval cannot muzzle Wiki-enlish with omissions, WP:NPOV and mistakes decided by Wiki-español. And you Escarlati cannot came here to be a gunman of "status quo".--Santos30 (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• User:Edward321. This user follow my editions 28 and 29 november [[37]] and I believe that reversals are not explained. I want to ask if he is administrator, or what is the reason of their behavior, because I explain my editions:

• here
• here, here.
• here
• here here
• here
• here here

--Santos30 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, boy, now Santos30 is spreading his OR of sovereignty of Castile to other articles, and dragging editors to ANI when they revert his OR..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30 is making some good work in american independence articles so instead of a full ban I was thinking of a topic ban on:

• flags
• coats of arms
• anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted

Any thoughts before I propose it in AN? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA apparently promoting an author to which he/she is personally linked

I would like to get some administrative oversight a recurring problem I have been having with the user Tristan noir.

He/she has apparently had a Wikipedia account for over four years, but until very recently had only ever edited one article, Tanka prose which he/she had created and was the sole significant contributor for. (The sole exception was adding a spam-like link to the Haibun article.[38])

The article made ridiculous claims about Japanese literature, and was based almost exclusively on the works of the Lulu-published poet Jeffrey Woodward. The earliest version of the article was a carbon-copy of a Woodward article, and its bibliography included a book edited by Woodward that hadn't been published yet. Assuming good faith, when I first came across the article, I thought "tanka prose" was an inaccurate/fringe translation of the term uta monogatari, and so I moved the page there.[39]

He/she initially tried to blankly revert my edits, still refusing to cite reliable secondary sources[40], and I reverted back [41]. This led to a long dispute with the editor on the article's talk page. The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me.[42][43]

He/she appears to have also brought in a fellow SPA account to whom he/she is connected in the real world to form a tag team; it is difficult to believe that the latter user just happened across the dispute less than two days after it started.[44]

Eventually, I proposed a compromise with the user that he/she create an article on so-called "tanka prose" that didn't claim to be about classical Japanese.[45] The user agreed to this[46], but then went on and made an article that basically made the same ridiculous claims as before.[47] I removed the most offensive parts of the article, but the user continued to attack me and defend his/her right to post fringe theories about Japanese literature, as well as advertisements for Mr. Woodward's publications, on the article's talk page.[48][49][50][51][52][53][54]

Eventually I got tired of the dispute and I nominated the article for deletion. The user continued to rely almost exclusively on personal attacks in his/her comments in defense of the article there.[55] One other user, Stalwart111 expressed a similar view to me on that discussion, and was subsequently accused of being my sock-puppet.[56]

Consensus was ultimately reached that the subject was not notable enough to merit its own article, but some material may be merged into the article Tanka in English at a later date.

During the time in between my proposal of a compromise and the user's creation of the new article, he/she posted more promotional links/information for Woodward publications to the Haibun article.[57] I ultimately got into a lengthy dispute on that article's talk page over whether such links qualify under either WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE.

Since the effective deletion of the Tanka prose article, the user has been engaging in a campaign to undermine my edits on other pages, such as Index of literary terms[58][59] and Haiga[60][61], where he/she continued to try to promote fringe ideas propagated in the works of his/her favourite authors.

While the initial dispute over "tanka prose" was going on, I created a user-essay in my userspace under the title User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique, in which I questioned Woodward's reliability as a source for Wikipedia. It was misplaced, and really should have been put on WP:RSN, but at the time I was not aware of the noticeboard. Recently, the user made an attempt (without ever consulting me prior) to have the page speedily deleted on shoddy grounds of it being at "attack page" and "misleading"; the request was rejected, and the user was told to put it up for deletion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Elvenscout742/Jeffrey Woodward critique. There, the user basically posted the same flawed arguments against the page as before[62]; however, User:Uzma Gamal pointed out that the page should be deleted and if necessary Mr. Woodward should be put on WP:RSN.[63] In light of this, I posted a comment that I would not be opposed to deletion, since my page was by then out-of-date and no longer really needed to exist.[64] The page ultimately got deleted, of course, because I was the page's creator and was not opposed to deletion. However, the fact remains that the user in question clearly made the request for deletion in order to make a point and undermine me, and he/she should have discussed the page's content with me on my talk page or on the page's talk page (he/she never attempted such).

User:Stalwart111 there suggested posting a notice about Tristan noir's behaviour here[65], and so I have done so. I hope someone can provide some insight or assistance in dealing with this user, who has been posting spam on several Wikipedia articles over the past few months, and regularly attempting to undermine my edits.

elvenscout742 (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just noticed while re-reading the discussion that I actually proposed the "tanka prose" compromise only a few hours after the dispute started ([that tanka prose is a modern English genre] was not what your article claimed, and that is the only reason I saw fit to fix it ... [s]top claiming "tanka prose" dates back to ancient Japan ... and we will have no more problem[66]). Tristan noir and his tag team partner continued to openly argue that "tanka prose" was an ancient Japanese genre, and only later pretended to accept the terms of my initial compromise, which is the only reason the dispute continued beyond 13 September. elvenscout742 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I've said all I have to say about Tristan noir on the aforementioned MFD here. I maintain Tristan noir is simply not here to build WP and he has consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. Admins can make a judgement for themselves. Stalwart111 00:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Response - User Elvenscout ably summarized the AfD nomination that he made on Sept. 30 to delete an article on “Tanka prose”; the administrator’s decision on Oct. 13 was not to delete but to merge acceptable content with the article Tanka in English. What Elvenscout neglects in his summary above is to point out that his displeasure with the AfD decision led him, within a few hours on Oct. 13, to nominate the same article for deletion via this RfD. One of the participating editors in that discussion reflected that the nominator Elvenscout was engaging in forum shopping. The conduct and timing of this nomination, too, might readily be viewed as pointy. The administrator closed that RfD as a “keep” on Oct. 20.

It should be pointed out, also, that only a few days after the opening of the original AfD, Elvenscout, on Oct. 3, sought to broaden his attack and lobby for his POV with this tendentious post on the Tanka in English talk page. He there directs the reader to his user page, to a “critique” of the Woodward source from the article he’d nominated for deletion, although as of Oct. 3 neither the AfD discussion nor the contents of his user page had the slightest bearing upon the Tanka in English article. While the AfD discussion was still in its early stages, from Oct. 4-5, Elvenscout sought advice from User Stalwart111 on possible future actions against this editor; administrators can review their chummy discussion here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. And also here and here.

I tried to disengage myself earlier from controversies with Elvenscout with minor edits to the article Haibun here on Sept. 18 but Elvenscout, whose edit history shows no prior interest in this article, followed me there on Sept. 21 with an edit that introduced an error of fact concerning an EL to the article. This action, and his several repeated attempts to delete material or to slant the article to fit his POV, led to a lengthy dispute on the Haibun talk page that dragged on for three or four weeks, and was only “resolved” when the two editors other than Elvenscout who were involved simply stopped responding and let him have his way. The dispute is so lengthy that instead of offering diffs I’ll simply point to the sub-headings “In re External Links” and “Removal of external links” for the full context. Elvenscout’s conduct there, if it does not actually cross the line, verges closely upon WP:DISRUPTIVE.

I further attempted, on Oct. 6, to disengage myself from conflict with Elvenscout by editing the article Prosimetrum, another article that his edit history shows no previous engagement with. However, I was followed by Elvenscout within hours to that page as well. On Oct. 9, Elvenscout in the dispute on the talk page here, as he did with the Tanka in English talk page previously, inserted further references to the ongoing AfD, a matter wholly unrelated to the Prosimetrum discussion. Elvenscout again engaged not only this editor but the other contributing editors in a protracted and unproductive debate that might fairly be characterized as WP:DISRUPTIVE. The debate is so long that again I can only point the reader here to the relevant talk page sub-headings: “The Tale of Genji,” “Examples,” and “Alternative Definition.” The same arguments can be read in summary insofar as Elvenscout, unable to come to terms with fellow editors, then took his dispute to WP:Dispute Resolution on Oct. 14.

While the above disputes were being conducted simultaneously at RfD and WP:Dispute Resolution, Elvenscout employed my user talk page in a manner that violates WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:WIKIHOUND and WP:HUSH. Some of his offensive posts can be read here and here. He attached a warning template that I found confrontational and inaccurate. I therefore removed the template but Elvenscout promptly restored it while adding further offensive comments. During this same period or shortly before, I asked Elvenscout on three occasions, here, here and here, to refrain from lobbying against me and making personal attacks, but his WP:SOAP and WP:WIKIHOUND behavior continued, as alluded to above as regards his pursuit of me to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles.

Elvenscout makes the flimsy complaint that my MfD nomination for deletion of an attack article that he created in his user space on Sept 25 and maintained until Nov 17 was pointy. His complaint should be judged in the context of the nature and substance of his aforementioned AfD, RfD and Dispute resolution nominations. Elvenscout also offers the ridiculous accusation that this editor and another user (Kujakupoet) formed a tag team on the Uta monogatari talk page; User Kujakupoet, if one consults the talk page edit history, made one contribution only to the discussion. His frequent speculations about my possible relationship to one author (Woodward) that he has frequently dismissed as non-notable have often crossed the line from general accusations of a possible COI to speculation about my real-world identity and flimsy attempts to assert that I and the subject author may be one and the same. Such speculation is in direct conflict with policies on WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:WIKIHOUND. Perhaps the most remarkable accusation that Elvenscout lodges against me is this: The user refused to cite any secondary sources to back up his/her claims, and continually relied on ad hominem attacks and threats against me. I will ask Elvenscout to cite specific evidence of a threat and, should he be unable to do so, I will ask him to retract his false witness.Tristan noir (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In my above (vain) attempt to provide a brief summary of Tristan noir's history of harassing me and undermining my edits across several talk pages, I left out some minor details, but now I am forced to address them by the latter's LONG ad hominem argument above.

My misguidedly posting Tanka prose for RfD was on the direct advice of the AfD's closing admin.[67] If I knew then what I know now I would have withdrawn my own nomination.

My edits to the Tanka in English article and its talk page were never meant to be "attacks". The fact is that METPress is an unreliable "publisher" of information, with a demonstrable history of releasing fringe/nonsense/offensive material (see the introduction of The Tanka Prose Anthology, particularly p.13, for one example).

My removal of Tristan noir's spam/POV additions to the Haibun and Prosimetrum articles were justified. The latter user has been consistently trying to post fringe theories and Woodwardian gibberish, as well as specific promotion of Woodward himself, to several articles, and the reason TN has lost all the disputes he describes is that Wikipedia policy and the majority of reliable sources have been consistently against him.

My posting this notice, as well as all prior attempts to bring TN's attacks against me to the Wikipedia community, have been in an attempt to find consensus as to what to do with article content. TN, on the other hand, has consistently relied on attacks against my character.

I took the remark You set yourself up as the final arbiter of reputable sources, of Japanese scholarship, of contemporary English poetry, and you do so not in the public arena, where you might be challenged, but behind the safe and sterile mask of anonymity.[68] to be threatening. TN, whose edit history clearly indicates a very close link with the author he/she has constantly attempted to promote, here asked me to declare my identity so that he/she could "challenge" me.

elvenscout742 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(The above quotation was the very first thing TN said to me on a talk page, and, needless to say, has nothing whatsoever to do with what I had posted or what was in the article in question.elvenscout742 (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC))

Additionally, in response to TN's above accusation that I have been "following" him around Wikipedia rather than the other way around: I have edited hundreds of Wikipedia articles, and probably at least 50 since October; TN's entire edit history consists of edits to 33 pages (including talk pages), 10 of which are in the Wikipedia or User namespaces. 4 of the pages in the mainspace were on the subject of his made-up genre "tanka prose", 1 was simply to add a link to that article, 1 was to make pointy "citation needed" remarks to undermine me. Of the 17 left: 7 were first edited by me, and TN "followed" me there, 6 TN found by him/herself, and I have not touched them/am not interested in editing them (all of these latter edits were made in the last 5 days, apparently in order to distract attention from Stalwart's pointing out that TN has never made a valuable edit to Wikipedia). I have only "followed" TN to 4 pages, 2 articles and there talk pages. These articles are Haibun and Prosimetrum. In the case of Haibun, TN's edits to the article were limited to using spam links and peacock words to promote Jeffrey Woodward's publications; for Prosimetrum, TN was fervently trying to post fringe theories about what the term prosimetrum means and which Japanese works it covers. As for the pages TN edited after me: TN tried to post spam links and fringe theories to Haiga and posted irrelevant personal attacks against me on Talk:Tanka in English, Talk:Index of literary terms and Talk:Haiga. elvenscout742 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page

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

---

Diff: User:Doncram deleted my rather lengthy comments on a WikiProject talk page discussion about the use of images in a variety of articles. He made a long statement on his reasons for removing my comments; the salient point there seems to be that he "perceive[s] the wp:POINTY point to be an assertion of that editor's "right" to follow [his] edits and complicate". I don't believe that User:Doncram owns the WikiProject (of which I am also a listed member); he certainly does not have the right to bar me from engaging in a discussion of editing questions. I am way past being tired of his personal attacks on me -- and his insistence that I am engaged in wikihounding. I have not restored my comments to the page nor replied to Doncram. I think it best for someone else to intervene. --Orlady (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done User:Nyttend has responded to this incident. --Orlady (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

But not because I'd read this thread; I'm here only because I saw it while looking at ANI. Someone else pointed me to the discussion in question, and it was quite obvious that he'd removed something you said, so I restored it. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In response to pressure from other editors, Orlady ceased following and contending against my edits for a welcome respite of several months. I resent the return of this. Orlady has an outstanding completely bogus AFD open against an article that I created, and now has twice edited at my Talk page in direct defiance of my wishes. The editor has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors, and has been deeply uncivil over many years. I just want the editor to stop stalking me. It serves no good purpose for wikipedia that this editor follow and contend, in this case by causing complication. As I note at the Talk page, I did remove the comment, and said that i would not remove it again if anyone else restored it, though I wish no one will condone the behavior. I suggest that ANI frequentors leave it to local NRHP editors to make that choice. Nothing to do here. And I am sorry i cannot engage in extended discussion, may not be able to reply further. --doncram 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm starting to think that Doncram and Orlady and a host of other people aren't even interested in improving the encyclopedia in general, or the NRHP articles in particular, for the end user who might actually read these articles. It's just a game of protecting personal interests these days. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Crying out loud, indeed. I am well aware that Doncram doesn't like it when I post on his talk page, but where else was there for me to post to inform him when I started the AFD on this article and when I started this ANI discussion? --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This again? Time for the nuclear option of starting some sort of discretionary sanctions for NRHP. This comes up several times a year and always the same names. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

How about doncram stop removing people's comments on pages that arn't his talk page, to start with? Orlady acted appropriately by coming here, doncram should've done so earlier if he felt there was hounding. Close this with a trout for Doncram for removing comments that arn't his and lets move on.--v/r - TP 15:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Post on their talk page. When a user says "don't post on my talk page" that means you don't initiate any unnecessary posts or warnings or the like on their page. However, if a notification is required, an editor post one, preferably using a standardized template message if one exists. e.g. {{subst:ANI-notice}} NE Ent 15:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• I suggested Orlady on their talk page to get me involved next time they would need to communicate directly to Doncram, this could hopefully help.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

When I AFD an article, it automagically notifies the creator. If I was Orlady, I certainly would not start manually AFDing articles just to avoid notifying someone...if that happened, doncram would be back here in 2 seconds saying she was nominating his articles without notifying him. Ridiculous, really (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • If Doncram insists that even boilerplate notifications count as harassment, then that makes sense. As to the deletion of comments, Doncram should by this point be aware that his personal interpretation of what to do when he feels that a user is harassing him (i.e. whatever he wants) only leads to more drama (such as this). It's getting rather late in the day to be pointing this out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Next plc

I am concerned about the edits of User:Matt smith987 to the article on Next plc. He is insisting on refering to a profit forcast of around £630 million for the financial year 2012. I suspect he is an employee of the company. The company's latest official profit forecast as disclosed in the Telegraph of 1 August 2012 suggests profits of "between £575m and £620m". My concerns are:

• Wiki is an encyclopedia - its articles should be factual not predictions of financial performance
• If this new higher forecast is genuine insider information then its disclosure through wiki rather than through the London Stock Exchange is an offence
• If on the other hand the forecast is not genuine, then the comment is creating a false market in the company's shares which is also illegal

I have reverted the inclusion of the profit forecast and at least one other editor has done the same. I think the article needs some sort of protection. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see significant enough disruption that is not already being contained. The only type of "protection" for the article would be full-protect, which would prohibit everyone but admins from editing (by the way, page protection is usually done in this other location. Properly cited material wins - and that's according to WP:CONSENSUS (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution. I agree that properly cited material wins but the forecast of £630m is not cited - and its disclosure may be an offence. Dormskirk (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe that the edit in question constitutes a criminal offence then the appropriate party to contact is the local constabulary, not the administrators' noticeboard. In the absence of legal counsel, we typically do not assume that the editing of any information on Wikipedia to add or alter figures without an appropriate citation violates the law. To do so would be utterly impractical. There are certainly issues with Matt smith987's contributions to said article, but they should be pursued on the talk page first. Thus far, there is nothing on the article talk and only boilerplate warnings on the user talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for information, this third quarter interim management statement contains Next's most recent profit guidance, and it says "We now expect Group profit before tax to be in the range £590m to £620m". Since then, analysts have been forecasting between £605m and £618m. So the "£630m" claim looks unsourceable to me, and if it keeps being added without a good source then some admin action might be needed - but I'd suggest a discussion on the talk page should be the next port of call, stating what sources actually say. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, what really didn't help was people reverting all of his additions when it was only the profit forecast that was problematic - it was easy enough to just take that bit out, as someone has now done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin attention needed at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger

AnthonyMark00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AnthonyMark00 has done nothing but made combative posts, making bad-faith accusations ("your actions are malevolent!") about editors ("Or you can go sabo his page as well!") (even going as far as to imply that everyone involved in an article he just came across was a corporate shill) and sources ("none of them are Christian!"), ignoring any refutation of his arguments, and insulting other editors. He's also made patently false accusations about users. He's also screaming "LEAVE THE ARTICLE ALONE!" way too early in discussions, and "NOW I AM WATCHING YOU!".

He has been trying to push a pro-Chick Publications POV, as can be seen at Talk:John Todd (occultist) and Talk:Gail Riplinger.

When one of his edits to an article was reverted, instead of even trying to consider my reasons, he posted a bad-faith vandal report in an article (more than once), refusing to acknowledge that the report and it's placement were wrong.

He often treats his ignorance as to the existence of something as definitive proof that something does not exist.

WP:AGF and WP:NPA were pointed out to him repeatedly. WP:NPOV and WP:RS were explained repeatedly. He has no excuse for his behavior.

My initial treatment was civil though stern, but as his combative arrogance continued, I have not been able to react calmly. I don't care if I get a few day's block for my most recent reaction, as long as it it is made perfectly clear to him that his behavior is inappropriate.

I have contributed to this site for several years. I created Debtera, I overhauled Aetherius Society and Dybbuk, I have caught many of the sockpuppets of Josh24B, CentristFiasco, and Krizpo; I have contributed a fair amount to discussions at Talk:Asherah, Talk:Jesus, Talk:Indigo Children, and Talk:Number of the Beast; and I have removed plenty of vandalism at List of people claimed to be Jesus and Seven Princes of Hell.

He has contributed nothing positive, only grief and annoyance.

I cannot see how this can be allowed to continue. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that is a completly one sided view. And I imagine from the last few messages Ian sent to me he must have felt he needed to get this in first! But I find it quite sad especially the facts that he is leaving out, what ACTUALLY happened yesterday. Like people not bothering to leave the reason for revisions on the talk page and what I thought was people just ignoring obvious errors that had been made setting up the article. And refusing to even respond to me (which I'm sure he did) because I am new to the site.

Yes I got angry! And wrote some passionate things! But at no time was I disrespectful to anyone personally (until AFTER I was personally attacked). And I certainly did not use any foul language or Charracter assasinations. The previous disagreements can be found on the relevant pages. Which I will also point out is where you will find the resolution that was put in place by an administrator.

I respect this site.. But I respect myself more! So I am not going to allow this to be turned on me. Your decision is of course your own. But as you have noticed I had abided by the rules (dispite after the warnings they were being broken by others) And then today when I was working on a completly seperate article when I noticed some feedback left by him in regards to the changes I was suggesting.

I responded to him civily, to which he replied a direct statement on my charracter (assasination) by refferring to a passage in the bible. So I defended myself in the same manner! Which seemed to upset him. Until it eventually came to the point where I had to tell him I would refuse to respond as I felt he was targeting me regardless of whatever I do or write.

And the evidence of this is that he can be found attacking me for the edit I suggested on the John todd article, but elsewhere he can be found saying to others that he has no problem with the changes!?!

So not only has he started the SAME argument we were BOTH warned against yesterday, but because we know that it's not down to the content of my work, that then makes it a campaign of harassment!

Thank you AnthonyMark00 (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to provide any evidence? Just go to Special:Contributions/Ian.thomson, click "diff" next to my revisions, copy the link and place it between [single brackets like this]. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt know how to do that right now. I would tell you whats mine there. But I'm sure you will understand why I wont! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving all my descriptions of you. I explained how to provide diffs, you ignored my explanation, allowing you to pretend you've got an excuse to refuse to provide evidence for your accusations. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And I think the fact you are now hunting down my edits, speaks for itself! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That there's anything to hunt down doesn't speak louder? Presenting diffs of the editor's post in question is the standard means of presenting evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See what I mean? Not even here can you leave me alone! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Making accusations without evidence against the person that reported you here is not likely to win you any support. The case against you has been made with diffs that appear to support the claims being made. I very strongly suggest you reconsider your refusal to provide diffs to support your side of the argument. In addition, if I may comment on the substance of the dispute, you really should read and understand Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and also the policy on verifiability. The sources you appear to be using are not likely to meet these requirements, IMHO. Instead of hurling abuse around at those you disagree with, you would be better advised to chill out and try to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Continuing to abuse other editors here is likely to earn you a block. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, you need to stop. Period. Leave Ian (and Sean Hoyland, for that matter) alone. Leave those two articles alone. Go work on something else that's totally unlike those subjects. Better yet, go read some of the various policies that have been linked to you. The two Nick Thorne have linked would be a great start. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works; a lot of what's gone wrong here is because of that, and that's okay. But now, you need to stop editing until you do understand. I also don't think you're able to edit neutrally on this subject, and I think that continuing to try will only get you in deeper trouble. You started out this whole thing by claiming that there's some sort of corporate conspiracy at work, and things only went downhill from there. Ian got a little too heated in some of his replies with you, but nowhere, nowhere, has he made the kind of statements you're saying he did. He's not stalking you, either. You need to take a step back and look at what you're doing; right now, you're not seeing straight. If you can't stop, then blocks are the next step. (Indeed, I'd consider a block now, but I'm not gonna do it myself; I've entangled myself in this more than enough already, I think.)

Ian, FWIW, I think you might benefit from a break from these topics for a day or two; you seem to have gotten a bit emotionally invested in them. But that's totally up to you; I wouldn't consider anything like an official "reprimand" or whatever. I personally think your behavior has not been outstanding: probably should have left well enough alone at ANEW, for example, and calling people (NOT AnthonyMark, but the subject of the article) "charlatan" and "rapist" is not a good way to make your point, even though both those labels are supported by the article and the points you're trying to make are valid. But, I'd say you haven't behaved horribly either, given the vitriol. You started out a bit too snarky, perhaps (cf. the charlatan diff), and you lost your cool a bit at the end there, but it's understandable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Writ

Were back here again, same place we were yesterday! So nothing has changed for me! So again I will agree with you.

But below is the reply I just spent a couple of houts putting together. So you can ignore that and we can take it from here.

So my ability to defend myself is based on my technical capability to use the site? What I mean is everything I have mentioned can be found on ("this") page & the ("Gail Riplinger") page. And so if what I said is true, Would your not be interested unless I link to it correctly?

And what sources Nick? As stated this has actually been resolved. All this is about is if Ian is allowed to continue to harass me or not!, which I think has been more than established here.

Also this does not demonstrate my point if you look ("Here"). It does not show you what I was talking about. As before this point people were undoing the changes to the article and not putting that information on the talk page. But my own page.. which somehow got deleted.

But ("Here") is where I realised I hadnt been actually reading their responses.. But by that time things were already said and heated.

And then after that ("I realised what was going on!") But something is missing there as you can see Writ was responding to me. It was along the lines of "oh".. As I did read the guidlines but I thought as they are the sole printers & have been for over 10 years & that her book is also their biggest seller made it an obvious exception (that is also included in the guidelines).

Looking over everything I see now it was the way I dealt with it & that I didnt try to reach any kind of understanding. But at that point I had found comments he was writing about me. Which only made things worse.

And I should also point out because I had not seen the responses just the work being undone I was upset as it seemed to me the rules say you have to make the notes in the talk page right? It seemed like no one was even bothering with that & just changing it back. I was writing why I'm changing it, then they were changing it back again without a word.

But you can see some people where responding to me on the talk page about YouTube videos?! When I was only talking about a YouTube video of a recording of JT affirming his faith. And how that is the last instance of him speaking in public about his faith which (and I was proven right) the evidence for is wrong!

Look I know about the Good faith guidelines. But Wiki is meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it! Which is why I am here! You guys cant expect everyone to agree with you.. Although I realise it must be a team effort.

But everything is ("here")

You can see that I had no problem with people treating me respectfully! And that should have been the end of it. But as you can see even when Writ asked him to stop he did not! Then I got a personal message that lead me too me to his page, with him saying all manner of things about me.

I didnt realise it's like facebook & that people can write whatever they liked about others on their page, is that right? (I can see he has now deleted it)And what made it worse was that I had been told if I was to respond to the abuse I was getting then I would be blocked. So I was in the twisted situation (as you can see where he was writing personal abuse towards me, and I was instructed to take it?!)

But even after that (and some ("advice")I left & walked away.

And now today, if you look under ("Sources") I find some very negative feedback from him on the changes I suggested about the main title of the article being still unchanged. I decided I would be best to inform him that I had already discussed this with someone, then I realised that he ("himself")had already agreed to the changes!

At that point I was confused & hoping that this had not turned to a personal vendetta. But you can see that after my very reasonable responses(which he and others had already agreed to). He made a passing comment on the article and then implied I was a ("bad Christian").. And as you would have seen by now it is not the first time.

After that I realised what was going on and tried again to ("end the conversation.") Until I had to refuse to respond to him.

And we have the twisted situation where having suffered abuse, it is ME defending myself. Against something that I have defended myself from already!?

Now I was looking for this as he is right something should be done. As you can see from the comments even on this thread! Whith him (asking nicley) what my changes are only to then reveal the true line of his questioning.

Now having written all of this I will say that looking back though the notes I admit I was a hard ass. But also that I did not come here with a preconception of bad faith in you all. But it was down to what I thought was people ignoring me and being egotistical, and the fact I was spending time to do research just to see it get taken down without a word to me that got me angry. As I explained before I felt that was unfair.. Which I already admitted was down to my own ignorance.

And after writing this essay I'm ready to finish with the site. So my life will go on. But what has happened since then & the way Ian has acted & disregarded direct instructions more than once.. Has been disgraceful!

If you allow him to act like this. After repeated warnings, flagrantly saying things like "I dont care if I get in trouble". Then you will letting yourselves down & literally lowering the website to the standards that you claim to be far away from! Such as sites like Twitter & YouTube! AnthonyMark00 (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

---

• NOTE As stated im done with this! I accept whatever judgement! Now it's 7am and I have to go to work :( And yes Wiki was worth it.. But I NEVER want to go through this again!

AnthonyMark00 (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It is highly disrespectful of other editors' time to expect them to wade through a lengthy discussion to try and work out just what statement(s) you are complaining about. The onus is on you to be clear and concise. This last post reads like a rambling rant and it is very hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say. Those who are experienced here have seen these types of replies to allegations before and that experience has shown that often the ones who indulge in such tactics do have a case to answer, regardless of what others may or may not have done or said. The best advice to you is, if you have a valid case to put, use diffs (instructions for this are at the top of this page) and be short and to the point. Oh, and recognise and admit the errors in your own conduct first.

BTW, you appear to be under some serious misaprehensions about how Wikipedia works. It is not "meant to be a site where if you see what you believe is an error that you can correct it". What we are meant to be doing is writing an encyclopaedia. That means that we are not conducting original research, what we "know" is irrelevant. What matters is what the reliable sources say and there are very strict rules about sources, especially in controversial topics or on biographies of living people. You really do need to take a step back and understand the principles here before you continue, otherwise you may find yourself on the receiving end of an enforced holiday from editing Wikipedia.

You will never have to go through this again if you simply follow the rules and be civil to to other editors, no matter what provocation you perceive. - Nick Thorne ^talk 07:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Nick on basically every point he makes. Personal beliefs are addressed at WP:POV, which I suggest Anthony read. We are primarily an encyclopedia, which is supposed to present information in accord with encyclopedic standards. It is possible that Jack Chick's works are considered reliable sources as per WP:RS by some Christian groups, and I think I have even, on admittedly rare occasions, even seen some of their statements endorsed by other Christians. However, even in those instances, there are certainly better sources to express the opinions of those groups, and as per wikipedia policies and guidelines those are the better sources to use.

I have to agree with Nick that the best thing for Anthony to do is to make a fairly thorough review of policies and guidelines, perhaps particularly WP:RS, WP:CIVILITY, WP:POV, WP:TPG, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:FRINGE before engaging in any further edits of this type. Speaking as one of the most obviously "Christian" editors around here, I have to say that however thoroughly any of us are convinced of our own views regarding subjects, our own views are simply our own views. We are all human beings, and it is clear at least some of us are wrong regarding matters of personal beliefs, giving how thoroughly and completely these beliefs can sometimes contradict each other. It is for that reason that we tend to rely primarily on independent sources which meet WP:RS standards, and most favor those which have been, in some way, peer reviewed. I urge him to thoroughly read the pages linked to above, and if he has any questions raise them on the talk pages of those pages, and conduct himself in accord with them, before engaging in conduct of this type again. I think if he does so he will be much more likely to be succeed. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiredbee

I received UTRS #5010 from Wiredbee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), in which he states that he is not a sockpuppet of RobertRosen. Looking through his contributions and the corresponding SPI for RobertRosen, I am inclined to believe this claim based on the fact that there was no IP match and considering his UTRS statement, and would have unblocked him if not for the fact that he has engaged in socking himself, with alternate accounts Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and FriendOfMorpheus. However, in our conversation in UTRS, he has agreed to use only one account. Please review this matter. (Note: I have modified his block specifically to allow him to edit his talk page as well as this page.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• The CU linked them to User:Wiredbee in the investigation. [69]. The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities. Even if this is completely true and he is "only" linked to these other accounts, there is overlap in accounts and there is abuse in multiple articles. Friend of Morpheus was just blocked. Normally the shortest block I would have given at SPI would be two weeks, so I would recommend against unblock before then regardless, but not convinced there isn't linkage. As User:Reaper Eternal made the blocks, I've notified him of this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I made the blocks. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would also add that there may be two sockmasters, yet meatpuppetry going on between them, further justifying scrutiny here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Guys, please go ahead and do the investigations. Just make sure that you do your investigation with enough reasoning and patience. I've said before that I have no acquaintance with RobertRosen and I repeat the same. It was a mere co-incidence that we shared the same point of view and expressed it strongly. I'm in no hurry to get my account unblocked. If you need 2 weeks to complete your investigations, please take 2 weeks. Wiredbee (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

i would oppose any unblock until the user can convincingly display that they understand and are willing to follow our WP:BLP policy. One of the many socks before they were blocked left a long tirade vowing to bring Bunker Roy down. I cannot find which one now to determine whether it was from the Wiredbee sock collection or the RobertRosen sock collection, but since even if they are not sock puppets they have been MEAT puppets, the BLP / WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS concerns are the same. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was expecting TheRedPenOfDoom to come to this forum and oppose the unblocking of my Wikipedia account. I haven't seen all contributions by TheRedPenOfDoom but looking at the earliest archive on his talk page, I can see that he has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2009. I'm sure TheRedPenOfDoom has contributed selflessly towards making Wikipedia as the greatest knowledge repository in the history of mankind. Compared to TheRedPenOfDoom, I have contributed nothing to Wikipedia. I have contributed to Wikipedia in donation, but what I have received from Wikipedia (knowledge) is priceless. In the current situation, I'm piqued with the Wikipedia team in general and TheRedPenOfDoom in particular because you've chosen to take a hardline stance against my genuine position. I have two points to contest and if we're unable to reach a consensus on these two points, then I would suggest that you keep my account locked forever. I will continue to use Wikipedia, I will continue to donate money to Wikipedia and I will also contribute to Wikipedia with my writing skills. However, I will never look at the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy wiki pages again, nor will I bad mouth Wikipedia. But I will certainly tell the world that Wikipedia is not telling the truth about Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. And people will believe me because I've worked in Barefoot College for 3 years.
  

My first point is that the reference to the Time magazine post by Greg Mortenson should not be used at all in the wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. There is no basis to include the data written by Greg Mortenson and this rationale has been logically explained by BlackMansBurden at the Barefoot_College talk page. If you ignore any other misdemeanors of BlackMansBurden and focus only on the issue about the Time magazine post, you will see my point. As BlackMansBurden has also explained in the talk page, Time is a reputed magazine but the writer Greg Mortenson is under a cloud for telling lies in order to achieve personal glory. Greg Mortenson's lies have been compiled into a book by Jon Krakauer. Recently Greg Mortenson was asked by the Montana state attorney general to step down from his own charity and return US$1 million in charity funds.

My second point is that TheRedPenOfDoom appears to be playing the Devil's Advocate by taking the spotlight away from a controversy in which Barefoot College / Bunker Roy were proved as plagiarists. It is responsibility of Wikipedia to provide links to reliable sources which explain the controversy in full detail. Although TheRedPenOfDoom has created a section "Returned Awards" that describes the controversy in brief, he deliberately chooses a source that only describes the controversy in passing. The Hindu newspaper and the Frontline magazine are published by the same publication house. Therefore, if source #1 is reliable, then source #2 is also reliable. It should not matter that because source #1 was published earlier, it alone should be used as a reference. Either we should use both the sources or we should use source #2. In addition, source #3 should also be given as reference. Also the section "Returned Awards" should be rephrased as "Controversy".

That is all I have to say. I will not make any further comments on this topic any more. Wiredbee (talk) 09:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

the above post does nothing but bolster my concern that the user is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather continue to pursue a POV campaign and is not above using this ANI board to continue BLP attacks rather than present evidence that they are going to be a productive member of the editing community. oppose unblock.

I will leave it to another party to redact any inappropriate BLP content from Wiredbee's screed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

based upon Wiredbee's answers to my two questions below rather than their initial response above, i withdraw my 'oppose' and wish to be considered as having "no opinion". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In terms of contributions Wiredbee and the three other sock accounts were editing the same two articles disruptively and indistinguishably to BlackMansBurden. In particular Wiredbee's objections to Time magazine as a source and his forum shopping concerning TRPOD are no different from the edits of BlackMansBurden. Whether these are the same person or just two closely coordinated users is irrelevant, since there are just too many common abnormal features in their editing. Wiredbee has given no reasonable explanation of his three other sockpuppet accounts, all editing with the same common purpose. The three accounts were discovered accidentally by a checkuser and, given Wiredbee's outburst above, should probably remain blocked. Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, I wasn't the blocking admin. I just tagged them and restored talkpage access for the socks, since Uncle G (talk · contribs) had blocked them without talkpage access.)

The lack of an IP match is meaningless given that RobertRosen freely admits to block evasion using tor and related anonymizing networks.

That said, however, I believe that this is sockpuppetry or blatant meatpuppetry. Both groups are obsessed with adding large amounts of negative material to the Barefoot college and Bunker Roy articles. For example:

• Wiredbee originally adds a "criticism" section.
• Northerncreek revises and expands that negative material with further poorly-sourced content.
• Norwichlass further appends to that section.
• Northerncreek expands the references.
• Wiredbee adds material accusing Barefoot College of plagiarism.
• Northerncreek adds more negative material
• Wiredbee expands the references.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts this massive addition, and Wiredbee restores it.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts it and adds a listing of an award received by the Barefoot College, but BlackMansBurden removes positive sourced content.
• TheRedPenOfDoom reverts.
• BlackMansBurden makes an edit that indicates the potential use of a misconfigured proxy. (Note the conversion of a pipe character to the HTML encoding.)
• BlackMansBurden reverts TheRedPenOfDoom again, removing positive content. (A revert war then ensues until I block BlackMansBurden indefinitely for sockpuppetry.) TheRedPenOfDoom and Annette46 then expand the article.
• Wiredbee returns and reverts the addition of a large amount of positive content, so Annette46 reverts Wiredbee's edits as vandalism.
• Northerncreek replaces a reference with www.architexturez.net, and is reverted.
• Northerncreek, Norwichlass, and Wiredbee are blocked by Uncle G for sockpuppetry.

On Bunker Roy:

• Northerncreek, Wiredbee, and Norwichlass insert a large amount of negative content over several months.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and Wiredbee revert this material back and forth.
• HotPepperSpray removes positive content and adds negative content. Again, note the conversion of characters to HTML encoding which indicates a misconfigured proxy.
• TheRedPenOfDoom and HotPepperSpray revert back and forth until Courcelles (talk · contribs) blocks HotPepperSpray with {{checkuserblock-account}}.
• Wiredbee randomly deletes a reference and is reverted by Qworty.
• BlackMansBurden accuses Bunker Roy of plagiarism, and is reverted by TheRedPenOfDoom. They then revert back and forth a couple times until I block BlackMansBurden.
• Wiredbee adds numerous tags, something BlackMansBurden oldid=524134275 also does.

Furthermore, both groups add ANI complaints about TheRedPenOfDoom citing WP:NPOV and WP:NPA respectively (Northerncreek and BlackMansBurden) Even if they ultimately are not the same person, they are obviously colluding and both are socking to put down Bunker Roy and Barefoot College. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nice presentation. I found much of this when investigating last night, entirely too much overlap to be a coincidence and I completely agree with Reaper Eternal's conclusions. The blocks should stay, and the User:Wiredbee reblocked for an indef period for sockpuppetry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: regarding The SPI results were inconclusive, not "Not related" in regards to RobertRosen. This could mean that they geolocated in the same area but on a smart phone but not a PC like Roberts, or one of many other possibilities, please do not read that much into an  Inconclusive result — at least, as far as I'm concerned. When I close an investigation as "inconclusive", it means that the technical data I got do not allow me to make a determination one way or the other. If I believe that there is the possibility that two accounts are operated by the same person, then I usually close as  Possible. In this case, I could confirm that Wiredbee was operating three other accounts, but, as far as their connection to RobertRosen is concerned, it's something that will have to be determined based upon behavioural evidence, as I said earlier. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, thanks for compiling a detailed dossier of the events leading to my blocking. While everything in the event listing is true, it is also true that BlackMansBurden and me (Wiredbee) are not known to each other. If you check the Barefoot College revision history from Nov-17 onwards, you will find that I did not attempt to revert most of the critical material that I had written. I only challenged the Barefoot College claim of training 3 million people to be architects, engineers, doctors etc. and the x-reference to the Aga Khan Awards controversy. It was just a coincidence that BlackMansBurden and I (Wiredbee) stuck to this position. So while you may continue to block my account indefinitely, you should at least ask 3-4 other Wikipedia editors to review the material on Barefoot College's wiki page and take a decision. These editors should be known to be unbiased and preferably familiar with the workings of charitable organizations / NGOs in India and other developing countries. Wiredbee (talk) 00:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to expand upon 1) your understanding of how WP:BLP impacts your actions on wikipedia, and 2) what your intentions for editing are, should you get unblocked? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• TheRedPenOfDoom: My answer is as follows...

Point #1: I've visited Wikipedia only as a reader until the two Wikipedia pages of Bunker Roy and Barefoot College, which I edited using three Wikipedia accounts: Norwichlass, Northerncreek and Wiredbee. I agree that using multiple accounts to edit a WP:BLP implies an intention to drum up support for the edits. Multiple users contributing to a page could be seen as multiple people agreeing with the same point of view. Therefore, I'm guilty of this indiscretion although that was never my intention. The correct way for editing the WP:BLP would have been to collaborate with an experienced WP:BLP editor like yourself and then publish the material. I have seen critical material posted on several WP:BLP including that of Greg Mortenson. Therefore, there is surely a protocol for publishing WP:BLP which I did not adhere.

Point #:2 I would like to collaborate with you and possibly some other experienced WP:BLP editors to edit the Barefoot College and Bunker Roy Wiki pages. I would like to know from you if the Talk page is the correct medium to engage in the discussion or you would like to suggest some other medium of communication. Once we've got these pages out of the way, I would like to contribute towards building up other pages in Wikipedia. I would be able to spend a couple of hours every day towards contributing to Wikipedia. My interests are towards Science, Technology and Computers. Wiredbee (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy

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

---

Without contacting a specific admin, this AfD has gone over 7 days and now requires closure. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Close as keep or close as delete? Plenty of good arguments in there for both.--Shirt58 (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

There are 35 AfDs open from the same day, they will slowly be closed or relisted (not this one). No need to bring AfDs here which have only such a small delay and arepart of the normal backlog. If AfDs are forgotten somehow, or are really problematic (not just by being evenly split, but because of sockpuppetry, canvassing, speedy deletion aspects, ...), they can be brought here, but routine delays like this one are not an "incident". Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up AfD specific comments

• The AfD was started 03:42 UTC, 20 November 2012.
• ‎The standard 7 day period expired 03:42 UTC, 27 November 2012.
• I boldly re-listed the AfD at 08:02 UTC, 28 November 2012.
• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

As for the merits or otherwise of the article in question, I've said my piece at the AfD --Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous RfC/U

This user has had a RfC/U filed on him for the exact same issues we are seeing now. (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald)Curb Chain (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hasty WP:NAC

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

---

I've just carried out a non-admin closure of what looks like a fairly uncontroversial AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Grey of Chimay. The article had already been CSD'd by an admin, so I was trying to help. I've then realised that I was kind of WP:INVOLVED, since I had previously !voted in the AfD. I don't think this is the biggest cock-up in the world, but could someone tell me the correct course of action here before I really cock things up trying to revert myself? Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If it's already been speedy deleted by G7 at the request of the author, I see nothing contentious and no problem with your closure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It is generally acceptable for participants in an AfD to close it if: 1) the article has already been deleted by an administrator, or 2) the nominator has withdrawn the AfD, and there are no outstanding "delete" !votes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I occasionally non-admin close AfDs that have been CSDed or where the author has explicitly requested closure against a unanimous keep (example of mine here). I see no problem with what you've done. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I was just concerned that I had clearly contravened WP:NAC's point about inappropriate closures, but I'll stop worrying now. Thanks guys. — sparklism ^hey! 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely why bots are used to close some discussions at FFD — many images get speedy deleted by admins who don't close the discussions, and nobody's ever going to object to closure in such a case. They might object to the speedy deletion, but that's not a problem for the person who closed it. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

From WP:NACD: "If a page is speedy deleted, but the deleting administrator does not close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion." I imagine that line was written specifically for cases like this. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Urgent attention required - personal details posted

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

---

After an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of du Souich, User:Matt 800 posted a comment noting that an RFC had been started (here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sue Rangell). Matt 800 posted the same information in both but his commentary included another editor's full name, supposed private address and supposed IP address. This is clearly WP:HARASSMENT. Not being an admin, I can't remove the RFC so I have also not removed the corresponding comment from the AFD.

Could an admin remove both please? I have warned Matt 800 on his talk page but the whole lot really should be removed properly. Thanks, Stalwart111 12:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is a request for Oversight, which is handled at a more senior level than here. Please go to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight and follow the instructions there. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've deleted the RFC and rev-deleted the outing in the AfD as a stopgap, but it also needs to go for Oversight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks guys. Am on my iPad rather than PC, so am a bit limited. Thought attention here would be better than none at all. Suggestions? Stalwart111 12:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

When you edit this page, the edit notice says:

;Oversight & Revision Deletion If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs internally via this form or to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime.

Posting details here places it on one of the most looked at pages in the project - not the best way to deal with privacy concerns, really, but it happens fairly regularly. (just saying...) How do we stop this happening? Begoon ^talk 12:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, as I said above - on my iPad rather than PC. No email and that form doesn't work for non-emailed account. It was either post it here or not at all. Given the content, I thought it best to ask here rather than not at all. But thanks for your advice. Stalwart111 12:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I thought you hadn't seen the notice. It wasn't advice, it was a request for ideas about how to get the point across better. I didn't realise you'd done it despite the notice. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. I was also battling edit-conflicts - as you'll see in the history, and didn't see your "Suggestions?" question, although I should have done, sorry - so I'm asking the same question as you, really Begoon ^talk 12:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All good Begoon, no problem. Agree it might need to be looked at. For non-email-enabled accounts from tablets, phones, etc the option just isn't there. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I already upset the wife today, so I'd rather not upset people here too... Your experience says there also needs to be a way to do this when the options on offer are no good. Posting on an admin's talk page isn't much better, even if you know they are online you still need to make sure they see it, or find another admin if they don't. So if we're really serious about privacy we need better options, and a better way to let people know what they are - but I can't think of any offhand - hence the question. Begoon ^talk 13:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, one of those days! Ha ha. Yes, the question (perhaps under less urgent circumstances) is well worth discussing in detail. Maybe something for WP:VPP at some stage. Stalwart111 13:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not adopt a convention that the any person reading it here can delete the post, then post a notice to the OP letting them know how it should be handled. That would cut down the number of people who see it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't work well -- removals jump out as red negative numbers on the history which attract more attention than regular edits. I do think it would be appropriate for an admin to revdel (with an explanatory edit summary, of course -- something like refer to OTRS). NE Ent 13:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. My watch list has a sea of red, so a red entry doesn't jump out at me. (Plus, the problem exists because editors are ignoring the big red message, so I'm not convinced a small red number will be more obvious, and if it is, change the edit notice to a small red negative number) If you use an edit summary of "archiving" which is sort of accurate, I don't think it would bring as much attention as actually remaining. There may be better solutions, but I'm not looking for a perfect looking, I'm proposing an easy change which might help. Let me turn it around - it is generally considered bad form to remove someone else's post. Would anyone object to an exception for cases where someone has posted in violation of a request to handle it differently?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Side note - Matt 800 removed Boing!'s redact note at the AFD and replaced it with a new version of his commentary which still includes an IP and geo-locate details (state only). That seems borderline at best. The intention still seems to be to out the other editor in some way or at least draw attention to the editor's private details. Stalwart111 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - Well its not outing to list what an IP editor has done or where their IP geolocates to. They have provided that info by editing as an IP. Whats not on is accusing an editor here with a username from being that IP. Of course if an editor here is actually silly enough to start deleting stuff on fr-wp (in order to bolster an 'its not on fr so its not notable to the French' argument) as an IP, its got to be looked at somewhere/how. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify. Stalwart111 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/France2007, as evidence (particularly this edit) suggests Matt 800 is an alternate account of France2007. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Article deleted and AFD closed per user request. I am tempted to block the editor for socking in the AFD as an IP. They admit here to being the IP and they !voted here as France2007 and here 30 minutes later as the IP. But I've just let it go because I'm pretty sure France2007 gets the idea that he has done wrong.--v/r - TP 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That doesn't look like socking. Wikipedia's crap servers lose session data pretty often. As result people find themselves posting while logged out unless they are very careful. There is no attempt there by France2007 to appear as two different editors. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Posting two seperate keep !votes doesn't look like an intentional effort was made? I've never had a problem with losing session data. Two keep !votes, in succession, within 30 minutes of each other, by the same user and coincidently the mystical lose of session data that I've never seen pops up? Sorry, pretty lame excuse you have there.--v/r - TP 18:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It happened to me dozens if not hundreds of times. It was even the Signpost at some point [70]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • You pointed to a 6 month old signpost that said it was fixed.--v/r - TP 18:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
          • It happened to me today and most of this week as well. I've seen other claims of stuff being fixed on Wikipedia, but it wasn't really. [71]. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm still not buying it. Let's figure for a moment that you're right and I just have been unconventially lucky (might go buy a loto ticket tonight), how does it explain the user's deliberate action of leaving a second keep !vote?--v/r - TP 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
              • If you don't buy it, then block him. You're an admin. I for one am more interested in seeing how the SPI France2007 vs. Matt 800 tuns out. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
                • I already said, I think he gets the point and a block at this point wouldn't be preventative. His last edit to the AfD seems to show he is starting to understand.--v/r - TP 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • Just as an update, I've blocked France2007 (and a couple of IPs) for a month and indef blocked Matt 800 for sockpuppetry. They have also tag teamed on the fr.wikipedia.org, plus other technical details link these two as the same. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/France2007 Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Cleopatra Stratan

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

---

User 188.131.64.120 has removed all content from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Stratan, replacing it instead with a Romanian-language "article" on Caisîn Alexandru (the identity of this character is unknown, and might be the vandal himself) and how good a student he is. I have written to them, but I highly doubt they will see the message in their talk page. Still, if you are unable to block him/her for that act of vandalism, please at least change the article back to its original form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.93.5 (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:TheShadowCrow

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

---

The user was blocked for a month for edit-warring and indefinitely from the topics of Armenian-Azeri and related ethnic conflicts. [72]

Today, the block expired, and they immediately started a dispute on Talk:Arsen Galstyan, which, I believe, demonstrates that they misunderstand WP:Verifiability (they make a statement that Galstyan is an Armenian citizen, which is equivalent to the statement that he breaks the law, and insist that I should prove he is not).

I request the administrators to estimate (i) whether this is a topic ban violation (I am not 100% sure this is a related dispute - this is clearly a topic which is Armenian, but not Armenian-Azeri);; (ii) whether this is a proper application of WP:Verifiability. If I am wrong on both counts, I will treat it as a usual content dispute and proceed via usual avenues. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

User:CTCooper says it's ok to edit sports articles with no political controversy. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're continuing an Armenian-Azeri conflict, only moving it to sports articles. As such, it falls under the same rules ... obviously nationaility has possible political controversy, and you know that already (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Bwilkins. If you had been updating points or neutral facts, that would be one thing, but you instantly went in and started arguing Armenian ethnicity issues, which is certainly in violation of the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. There was no political controversy in that article until you started participating. That is the entire reason the ban was enacted, to prevent this type of disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What I actually said was Editing articles of people which happen to be Armenian or Azerbaijani is tolerable if there is no ethnic/nationalistic related content, which covers a lot of sports' BLPs, but anything beyond that is not. This is clearly an ethnic issue, and I therefore believe it to be in violation of the ban. TheShadowCrow has also been warned multiple times that editing on the edges of a topic ban is frowned upon, so my sympathy is limited here. It is also difficult to ignore the same pattern of behaviour here when it comes to learning and respecting policy. That said, I would be opposed to a block in this instance unless TheShadowCrow refuses to disengage. CT Cooper · talk 16:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't refuse. I'll stop. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

AIV

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

---

AIV is backlogged. Would deal with it myself, but have to run to work. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 17:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Not by me, but it's not backlogged anymore. --Jayron32 18:01, 28 November 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.

---

Looks like | this is a legal threat. Perhaps a short break is needed ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like. a13ean (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

After taking the time to consider this, I don't think WP:DOLT applies and I've issued the block.--v/r - TP 19:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary block. After being warned [73] for the legal threat KoshVorlon linked, the edited posted twice more, saying they would proceed to your disputre resolution and we will proceed to dispute resolution. As they seemed to have gotten the message a legal threat wasn't gonna fly, there was no pointing in blocking. NE Ent 21:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did the editor recant and disavow his legal threat? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, his "taking it to dispute resolution" looks like it refers again to the court system, not to wikipedia's version of dispute resolution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Ohmygodohmylord alleging defamation

User:Ohmygodohmylord claims to be Leonard Oprea and has removed a sourced section about domestic violence charges from the article. There seems to be WP:COI and WP:NLT issues here, but this should probably be handled delicately. I'm at work at the moment and wont be able to contribute much to this area until tomorrow. --Daniel 19:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a case for "don't overlook legal threats", perhaps. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The blanked section is sourced solely to the "Lewiston Sun Journal", so there is no problem with the person removing it. He may indeed be correct that it's defamatory. I've watchlisted the article and dropped a cautious welcome on his talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've also left a message on his talk page. I don't think we need to block anyone, he is understandably upset and it seems obvious he is acting in good faith. The best solution is to engage and calmly discuss with him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That info from Sun Journal (Lewiston) was posted by an IP. It might be undue weight, but if it were to be included, it would only be fair to include "the rest of the story".[74][75] If that paper is the only one covering it, I wonder about the notability of the article's subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • To comment on the content issue, in my view, reasonable weight would be to say no more then "In May 2009 He was charged with several offenses, including domestic violence assault, He was only found guilty of reckless conduct." (using the old source, and the one identified by Baseball Bugs as citations) More then that about the charge would be undue, and the 2012 charge does not seem serious enough for inclusion. Monty₈₄₅ 20:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm out for a while, but moving this to the talk page of the article is likely worthwhile. He gave a docket number in his comment, but not sure how to look that up, and of course, that isn't a good source, but perhaps other sources are out there that can be cross referenced with it. He hasn't replied since making that one edit, but we need to do what you guys are already doing, reviewing and making sure it is within WP:BLP, preferably on the talk page of the article. I just now noticed that no one has notified him of this discussion, but templating him now doesn't seem wise, no reason to antagonize the situation with a new user trying to protect his own name in good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Moving to the article talk page seems fair. My guess is that the guy wrote the original article about himself and is basically defending it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Looking at the talk page of the original creator [76] makes your guess very likely. It looks like TheRedPenOfDoom is cleaning it up a bit, and I would trust his judgement in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Assistance requested Would like an admin to look at the email he posted on my talk page (after his five dollar donation) that seems to be a legal threat to Sue Gardner. I've tried to politely get him to not do this (see his talk page) but I can't help but to thing for him to have posted this after my polite warning, that he may have crossed the line. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The only thing holding me back from a block is the fact that the info is out of the article. Not sure what else he wants. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Under WP:DOLT, I don't think the content of the article matters. What he posted on my page was a copy of the email he sent to the foundation. It has a pretty clear legal threat. I'm trying to be sensitive to the matter since it is an article about him, but I had previously warned him about this. He started this article and has edited it under different accounts (based on an examination of the grammar of previous contributions), so he isn't above throwing away accounts. My gut says to block, but the sensitive nature says I should get other opinions first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We are unfortunately now in unambiguous WP:NLT territory, and if not withdrawn it requires a block. As for the WP:DOLT angle, he has not provided any information that would justify removing reliably sourced information (which I don't think is even in the current version). That a person was subsequently found guilty of only a lesser charge, or even a totally different charge does not change the fact that they were originally charged. Given the burden of proof for conviction, a person may well have committed acts even if found not guilty by a court of law. Absent information that the Newspaper was in error about the charges at the time of publication, it sounds like the paper reported a matter of public record, and us passing along that information is permissible. That doesn't mean we must include the information, but it does mean the decision to include or exclude the information is a normal content decision. Monty₈₄₅ 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I doubt he wants anything more (to WK). I don't think I'd block him for the legal threat as the information shouldn't be in the article. I think the material posted to your talk page should be removed unless youo wants to keep it there for some reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We generally don't report charges per WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine if we decide that in this case the charges should not be mentioned, my point is only that it is a matter for normal policy, and that we need not consider the legal threat in making the decision. I'm not sure if the application of WP:BLPCRIME is as clear as you imply, but I also don't think there is any compelling reason the information needs to be included either. Monty₈₄₅ 01:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP who originally posted the charges, 72.12.75.231 (talk · contribs), is from Maine (no surprise) and it's hard telling whether he was innocently posting it or if he was trying to smear the subject via undue weight. But either way, he didn't post the resolution of the charges, which amounted to not much, and being cautious under BLP would indicate keeping that information out. But the editor needs to be issue a final warning, that he must retract the legal threats or he'll be blocked as per the rules. Only arguing for a smidgen of leniency because his complaint seems justified. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the one source because it was improper and undue for what it was citing. I'm still talking with Leonard on my talk page. I don't think he fully understands, but we are trying. I hate being in this position where policy says I should block now, but I get the feeling that will only make things worse, so not for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If he fails the notability test, then the article could be zapped. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think he gets it now, hopefully we can just close up and deal with the content outside of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Mandriva

I am following the article Mandriva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and I must complain about the behavior of:

• Hopefloat007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Russia101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mdvcorpfr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mdvcorp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

in November 2012 as well as October/November 2011. The three users might be the same person and act similarly on the French Wikipedia. Please see [77] and [78].

The behavior consists in replacing the content of the article, which is correctly sourced, with what they call "accurate" or "updated" content without sources (or recently with only one source). I suspect that some people working for this company want to control what is said about it. The username "Mdvcorpfr" makes me think of a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I don't personally have enough time to deal with this problem for the moment, so, I prefer explaining it here and I hope some administrator can keep a look at this.

Thanks a lot in advance. Best regards. Peter17 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked Mdvcorp and Mdvcorpfr as username blocks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, Peter17, your repeated edits over the last year and a bit include text that talk about March 2011 in the future tense. A word to the wise: If you spent some of the energy, that you've spent on reverting to little more than the 2010 version of the article, on updating it so that it wasn't so blatantly dated, there might well be less of a problem here with inept corporate people who don't know the difference between wikitext and the rendered article and keep using the latter for the former. March 2011 is in the past. And the recapitalization of last Summer, and the existence of Pulse2 (which you and others are so assiduously keeping any mention of out of the article) are in the past and documented (Thomes 2012, for starters) too.
  • Thommes, Ferdinand (2012-11-05). "Mandriva stellt CloudPulse vor". Pro-Linux (in German). {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

LibStar

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

---

This user is persistently removing my and another user's comments regarding an ongoing controversial deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy. Another user and I have been discussing, successfully, how the article may be better focused in such a way to potentially resolve the dispute, and this user has randomly come along, unilaterally deleted it, and used his rollback tools to remove any attempt to re-add it. I think this is really poor form. I rarely get involved in deletion discussions, and I'm trying to work on an amicable outcome here, and to have my comments deleted and then rollbacked as if they're vandalism is not cool. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

the comments have not been deleted but moved to the talk page because the discussion was getting excessively large when 99.9% of people will skip over it. removal (and moving) of content is not vandalism. Drover's wife motivation for coming to ANI is simply because she didn't like me moving excessive content to a more appropriate space. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a more appropriate space - you unilaterally dumped an ongoing discussion that actually got to the heart of the notability dispute and attempted to reach a less acrimonious result on an empty and unread talk page, and then abused your rollback permissions to edit war and keep it removed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

discussion can easily continue on the talk page. and a note appears on the main AfD page to tell people it's there if they wish to continue. talk pages are empty until content is there, that is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

this is a one off incorrect use of rollback for which I apologise. I don't see how this should be an ANI issue. talk pages of AfDs have been used in the past eg Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rude to move multiple editor's comments from the main page to the talk page. They can be easily skimmed over by a reviewer, so they don't really disrupt very much as long as they're indented appropriately. An alternative would be to {{hat}} the section with a brief description of the contents of the section. NE Ent 01:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

you may think it's rude but where it is a breach of WP policy that necessitates reporting to a ANI for admin intervention? LibStar (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You should not be moving other editors' comments from an AfD. It's not your place to do so. Let the closing admin deal with it. AfD discussions are often contentious and sometimes go into long threaded battles. Not only did you move it, but when it was restored, you removed it again. And you have it backwards; there needs to be a policy violation for you to remove content from a discussion page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

again, content was not deleted, it was moved to a different location with a note placed directing editors to it. it did not disappear and never to be found again. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPO does support moving off-topic comments to the talk page, so I'm not concerned LibStar did it once. (Obviously off-topic is subjective.) But that's the type of thing if someone objects it's better to just leave it alone (or hat it, instead). NE Ent 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:TPO. Ideally, this could be resolved without' official admin action -- personally if LibStar were to agree not to move Drover's wife comments again, instead collapsing them if they stray off topic, I'd consider that an amicable solution. NE Ent 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've restored discussion in main space and collapsed. I consider the issue resolved. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

RevDel

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

---

Clean up, aisle 3... Patrick Crofton, edit date 13 December 2009‎ + my edit. The offending comments are repeated on the article's talk page, too. Keri (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Scrubbed, for whatever good it does at this point. Speaking of which, how the hell does a blatant BLP violation sit there like that for three years? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Its unfortunate, but once vandalism slips by the automated vandalism detection systems, RC patrollers, and random watchlists it may appear on, it can stick around for a long time before someone comes along and notices. As far as I know, there is no systematic system that attempts to find such vandal edits that have slipped through those main lines of defense. Monty₈₄₅ 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was more an expression of frustration than a question. But thanks :) Looking at article traffic, that page is looked at by ~2 people a day, so at least not many saw it. And I wouldn't be surprised if one of the two people were bots and crawlers. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken and Yworo

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Yworo (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Just read his recent edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Any reason you are edit warring over image sizes, instead of having a discussion? WP:BRD and all that... Fram (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram: To answer your quite reasonable question: yes, there is a reason, but you might have to be inside my skin to understand it. I've been the victim of Yworo's campaigns before, and in the past I eventually decided to be a good Wikipedian and retreat without making a fuss. He went away after that, and I thought it was over, but he appeared again recently, coming across a formatting edit of mine that he disagreed with, and then went back through my recent contribs, deleting formatting changes in about a dozen articles. Even then, I held back, but I decided last night that I wasn't going to take his b.s. anymore, that it wasn't right for him to walk all over me, that I had to take a stand against his bullying. In reponse, I probably over-reacted, I'm sure -- it's hard to know exactly when to stop, once you get going -- and I'm sorry if I went too far, but I don't apologize for fighting back against an unimaginative and authoritarian bully, who, if he isn't stopped, is bound to do it again to other editors less able to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Are there any traces (AN/ANI discussions, RfCs, ...) about these earlier campaigns, or is this the first time that it has lead to the dramah boards? Fram (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the discussions took place on my talk page (I can look back through the history if you like) - I don't recall it coming here, but I could be mistaken (my middle-aged brain being what it is). Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Visual disabilities. The Image Use Policy is quite clear that images should be manually sized only if there is a good reason to do so. Manually sizing the images prevents the visually disabled from adjusting image sizes as needed using their preferences. I've had the discussion with many editors over many years. I had it with BMK in 2010. He is the only editor who, even after understanding the issue, refuses to allow anyone to change "his" articles from "his" personal preferred image style. Yworo (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Yworo, Forum shop much? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Yworo (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To quote the relevant part of the policy: "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens or need to configure their systems to display large text; "forced" large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult. In addition, forcing a "larger" image size at say 260px will actually make it smaller for those with a larger size set as preference unless you use upright with a scaling factor, so the use of upright is preferred wherever sensible." Yworo (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Then start an RfC or similar venue for dispute resolution, don't edit war on multiple articles. Things like [79] don't look good on either of you, and the fact that you are specifically targetting articles by Beyond My Ken for this treatment is worrying. Remember that 3RR is not a right, you can be blocked for edit warring without ever crossing 3RR. Fram (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to note that I stopped mostly after one revert, then tagged the articles. BMK reverted both the change and the tag and has two or three reverts on each article, as well as multiple personal attacks in the edit summaries. Yworo (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It worthwhile to note that only people with accounts can set their thumbnail size in preferences. That means that everyone that Yworo pretends to be concerned about who does not have an account -- i.e. the majority of the world -- only sees what is in the article. What that means (and what Yworo seems not to understand -- although he only brought up the accessibility issue recently, he's been doing the same thing without regard to that for quite a while -- is that the question of accessibility for the visually impaired is a browser issue and not a Wikipedia one. We set up the articles so they look good, and specialized browsers are responsible for making them accessible for the visually impaired. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And we have a policy that is a compromise taking into account the visually impaired and the many types of devices, phones, tablets, etc. which our readers use. We take into account that the residents of the third world don't have 1920 x 1200 monitors: if they are lucky enough to have access to a computer, it is likely 800 x 480. Our policy and default thumbnail sizes are the way they are for multiple reasons, and you have been willfully ignoring this for years. If you think the defaults should be changed, the proper place to go about it is on the talk pages of the policies concerned, not in article space and through edit warring. Yworo (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Edit summaries like "you're soo special", "kicks the legally blind into the gutter"? Oh wait, those are yours. Yworo, you are trying to blame this on Beyond My Ken, but as far as I can tell, this is a typical situation where both parties should step back and change their approach. Stop reverting, stop tagging, and go for outside opinions on the actual dispute, not on behavioral aspects, which look bad for both of you. Fram (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Fram: (Sorry, I had a response to you, but I had to revert when Yworo took my response to your earlier comment and moved it down here) Yes, I will step back immediately. I would ask that Yworo stop culling my contributions for things to delete. I may not be the epitome of the perfect Wikipedian, but I've contributed a fair amount in my time, and I would appreciate receiving that consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Looking at what lies behing this section, the image size debate, it seems that the policy is way out of line with what actually happens in our articles, and Beyond My Ken isn't the exception with his fixed sizes at all. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2012:

• Fixed size for (at least some of) the files: Folding@home, Singapore strategy, Kingdom of Mysore, Gabriel Fauré, Thomas Percy (Gunpowder Plot), Abuwtiyuw, William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896, ...
• No fixed size for files: Carlson's patrol, Banksia ilicifolia, William Warelwast, History of Sesame Street, Edmund Sharpe, ...

This seems to be one of those policies that is not really in line with what actually happens in our articles, even in the best of them. Singling out one editor and focusing on his articles (articles he made a lot of edits in, and where you had no prior or other involvement in most cases) seems to be an unproductive way of enforcing a policy most people don't care about anyway. Fram (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks a lot like a WP:HOUNDING case here. Is Yworo crawling through BMK's articles to find problems? I can't imagine he stumbles on BMKs randomly.--v/r - TP 15:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If an editor persistently edits in a manner which reduces the quality of our articles in a particular manner, then it does not constitute hounding to periodically use said editor's contributions list as a guide to remedying that, especially if the user has had it patiently explained to him why he is in the wrong. I've done the same in the past with BMK's (thankfully now historical) insistence in inserting superfluous whitespace above and below article bodies. As for the thumbnail policy itself, I'd say it's nearly universally respected these days, and that a small sample of FAs is hardly indicative (two seconds' examination of Folding@Home, for instance, shows that its images are almost all charts or screenshots which may be difficult to read if arbitrarily scaled, and that it is therefore a valid exception). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say edit summaries like "kicks the legally blind into the gutter" takes it out of the realm of engaging a problematic user on failing to address policy and into the realm of a personal vendetta. Just my personal opinion. Yworo should have asked someone else to engage with BMK sooner.--v/r - TP 18:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That is unacceptable, but so is spreading a diatribe against another editor across 18 edit summaries attached to edits on different articles. (Some of the edits, like this one, are mildly negative, but the edit summaries are worse.) Kanguole 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've not said anything excusing BMK.--v/r - TP 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Protected

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_Yworo_.28talk.29_.28Result:_.29

I've protected the page. as I noted in the link above, I chose protection over blocking in the hopes that you two will talk this out instead of continuing edit warring. But if it continues, further sanction may occur as necessary. - jc37 08:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not. Fourth revert on another article. Yworo (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One wonders who User:Westeastis here, an account created just today, really is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer: troll sock, now CU-blocked by Salvio. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we ec'd as I was reporting that. Glad that's cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Even without an account, I'm annoyed by explicit sizing and I sometimes remove the explicit sizes when I come across them, but these days a lot of them are in protected templates so are impervious to normal editing. The default sizes presented to me as an unenrolled user are usually preferable to (smaller than) the big sizes people set manually because they want to sell more of whatever the image depicts. I'm not a believer in the manual of style controlling anyone's editing, though in this case I agree that what it says is right for the encyclopedia and also conflicts with observed (unfortunate) practice. One of these days I'll get it together to install my own personal snapshot of Wikipedia on my home computer, so I can (among other things) set the defaults the way I like them. At that point the manually set sizes will be even more annoying. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Using hidden comments to make a space by User:Beyond My Ken

I have come to an impasse with Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) with my attempts at discussion with him and his insistence on pushing his own formatting.

The issue is his using the wikimarkup <!--spacing--> into articles right after the last entry in ==External links== and above the footer navbox.

He has edit warred over this issue and was reported here for it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Disruptive Editing by User:Beyond My Ken on Reach for the Sky.

He was warned here and here by an admin.

After the report, later, I started a discussion on the MoS project page: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Spacing and Using the hidden comment function to create space between a template and text above it. I invited User:Beyond My Ken to participate: [80]. He warned me not to post on his talk page again unless "required to by Wikipedia policy": [81].

He has repeated the issue here now: [82]. I discussed the issue with him on its talk page.

I apologize for posting here at this forum but I have exhausted my options. Regards.Curb Chain (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, this is a lot of to-do over a white space. What is it, exactly, that you want to come from this discussion? How will it end differently than the prior discussion? Personally, I would just let it go. It's a line of white space, could you please explain why you're so invested in this? WP:LETITGO seems to apply. Go Phightins! 03:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) A discussion in an obscure corner of Wikipedia does not a consensus make.

The spacing comment is a simple device which solves a simple problem: when there are navboxes below a "External links" section, the navboxes can be visually too close to the text, making it difficult to read and unpleasant to look at. In the rendering of an article page, space is provided before every primary section header, so that it is set apart from the end of the section above it. This is to help visually separate one section from the other, which helps make it easier to scroll through the page. Unfortunatley, navboxes are an afterthought, and do not have any in-built way to provide the same separation. Doing so internally would be difficult, I understand, because any space built in on top of a navbox would have to go away when more then navbox is stacked, as they often are. The spacing comment simply provides the visual breathing space afforded to the rest of the page by the software. It hurts nothing, and does not add appreciable "white space" to the article. (Many of my edits do, indeed, work to eliminate big blocks of white space which also make reading an article more annoying.) That CurbChain and a small handful of people continue to consider this as a major problem – serious enough to bring to AN/I (!?) – is inexplicable to me. The issue has been discussed a number of times, with the result that the edits have been judged not to be a problem, but the handful continue to pick at the scab. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Incidentally, CurbChain's summary of the AN/I report he links above is hardly accurate. I would say that the comments which best characterize the community's reaction to it are

• "Sheesh! All this over adding a nice bit of white space at the arse end of an article???",
• "About the lamest thing I have ever seen here" and
• "I admit I cannot discern a good faith reason for this huge dispute over something that is not an issue. This ANI section should be closed."

I think that would be appropriate here as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain that you can add extra spacing for your own personal viewing pleasure by just modifying your own personal Special:MyPage/skin.css or Special:MyPage/skin.js file? Almost all navboxes use the navbox class, so it would seem trivial to add extra padding at the top of the navboxes if that's what you like. I'm sure someone at WP:VPT could help you do it. I, personally, don't see the point in adding it to the wikitext, when there is a perfectly suitable CSS solution. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? Seriously?

My reaction now is the same reaction I had when I trouted BMK for this in the diff above: who the hell cares? Except even more so now. I admit that I like BMK's version better. I don't really understand why he cares so much about it, but I definitely don't understand why anyone would care enough to revert it. This is, again, a single line of whitespace. This shouldn't even warrant a discussion on a talk page, much less a thread on ANI, even less the three threads on ANI that I think this makes. This is the dumbest thing ever. We need to drop this and never speak of it again. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Or it's maybe possible to make it a user preference. Adding it to some articles and not all articles leaves a non-uniform spacing at bottom, and that can mess with someone who did have that set up in CSS/JS. I think it should be left to CSS/JS/prefs not adding it manually in WT at bottom of page. On the other hand, I think this is honestly inappropriate for AN/I, as it's little more than a disagreement on how the article spacing should be created. Just my two cents. Yeah, this really shouldn't be hashed out here. Ever. Again. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's disruptive, aggravating and pointless. He's been asked not to do it for years now. My preferred solution would be a week-long block on the next occasion, doubled for every future infraction. Unfortunately BMK will always have interference run for him by the sort of well-meaning but naive enablers evident above. In the end, BMK is but one man, and so ultimately his idiosyncrasies will be ironed out of articles despite his efforts. In the meantime, editors should simply revert his more common problematic edits on sight. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

His last block in 2010 for a 3RR violation was for 24 hours. According the theory of escalating blocks, any perceived infraction of any sort should be for 48 hours, not a week. Long term editor. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 04:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly Chris. User:gwickwire when you say, "... WT ...", what do you mean? (Do you mean Wikipedia talk pages?) The issue is that User:Beyond My Ken adds this formatting to only the pages he edits. I started a discussion at the appropriate venue, per the admin who closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Additional discussion about BMK.27s behavior to determine if all pages should be formatted per User:Beyond My Ken's reasoning and he choose not to participate in the discussion. As mentioned by User:Thumperward, an administator (in the same section): "The only real harm is the minor annoyance of having to manually verify every one of BMK's edits to ensure he hasn't snuck any whitespace in.". Germane to the topic, he is reverting people who are removing the whitespace. Yes it is disruptive because many editors have told him to stop, and as pointed out by Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward), this has been going on for years.Curb Chain (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also find these "comments" to be annoying and unnecessary. Articles should present the same and not have idiosyncratic formatting inserted. If BMK believes extras spacing is needed, he should work with the folks who design the way text is laid out in mediawiki and those who create the skins used by Wikipedia, not take it upon himself to "fix" it in this idiosyncratic manner. I can attest that he does revert this crap back in when other editors remove it and even edit wars to maintain it in articles that he imagines that he owns. He needs to stop this. Yworo (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This is not a new thing for User:Beyond My Ken. I multiple unrelated and separate editors complainingMultiple, unrelated and separate editors complain about these formatting style edits that he makes. I see above that he continues to issue with other editors about formatting and reverts and engages in edit wars as indicated in the section above. I concur with your statement: "He is the only editor who, even after understanding the issue, refuses to allow anyone to change "his" articles from "his" personal preferred image style.".Curb Chain (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nearly 68,000 edits for BMK, nearly 74% of them in article space, since 2009.[83] Three blocks, 2 of them reversed, all in 2010 (two years ago). He can't be that bad, folks. RfC/U, maybe? Doc talk 05:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You suggested this the last time. Should we go ahead with it this time?Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I would not recommend it if were for a blocking thing, to tell you the truth. I am not familiar enough with the whitespacing issue to comment on it, but I've known BMK for some time and firmly believe him not to be a disruptive editor that needs an advanced block schedule to prevent further disruption. Doc talk 05:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I like BMK's white space, which should actually be the default in this now footer-happy encyclopedia. I also hate Manual of Style thuggery, which reverting BMK on this matter smacks of... Carrite (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If this was the case, then the MoS should be changed to standardize ALL articles to this formatting. As mentioned already, we have CSS/JS/prefs to handle this and that is where it should be handled. Personal preferences are technical issues which are resolved the software.Curb Chain (talk) 05:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any blocks per Writ Keeper. Interested parties should start a RfC on the topic at hand (insertion of blank line before navboxes.) MOS stuff can be highly contentious... Tijfo098 (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A pertinent discussion was started on the pertinent page where he did not participate. So a RfC needs to be started?Curb Chain (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• A question, or two: can I see two diffs, of the same article with and without this blank line? Because I have to admit, I don't have a fucking clue what you all are talking about with CSS/JS and all that. Second, Chris, this lexicon of "enablers" is not productive. Writ Keeper is no one's pussy (that's what you meant, I suppose), as far as I know, and painting with that brush is unwarranted. But let me see those diffs: I gladly admit that I'm a moron when it comes to all this stuff about rendering, but I reckon I know about as much as a lot of our readers (not writers and coders), and how the page appears to non-geeks (sorry Writ Keeper and gwickwire...) is what matters a great deal to me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

scroll downscroll downCurb Chain (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken at all, I do know a little more than the average user probably. All I was saying (rather, agreeing) was that if he doesn't like whitespace it would be much better for all if he sets up a CSS/JS code that would take the code before a navbox class code and ass (typo) add whitespace before it for only his viewing, instead of doing it on some pages for everybody. I think then, he should apply for that to become a preference/gadget in MediaWiki, so other editors can enable it as they wish. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with no whitespace, but I can see both sides of the argument. Therefore, I proposed that he use his own CSS/JS to workaround it for himself and himself alone. Also, I apologize for anything weirdly worded or techy in this, it's 1 in the morning for goodness sakes. gwickwire | Leave a message 06:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this view. I propose if BMK reverts, wars, or adds whitespace to be an immediate block.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any blocks against BMK; I don't see grounds for blocking Curb Chain but I wouldn't be upset if it happened anyway. Based on looking at the MOS talk page, nobody seemed to have any real problem with BMK's formatting changes, though there was a suggestion to find a cleaner technical mechanism, and a procedural concern about not having prior consensus for the edits. So yeah, this looks like another example of what Carrite calls "MOS thuggery". Attempts by MOS zealots to WP:OWN the whole encyclopedia have been one of the project's long running sources of pointless conflict, still ongoing despite multiple arb cases, bot wars, and everything else. They should just be told to back off instead. Suggestions to adjust presentation formats by individual user options are inappropriate since the vast majority of readers don't log in or have accounts, which is as it should be. In principle BMK should propose standardizing his style change on the appropriate MOS talkpage, but I can at least sympathize if he's disgusted with the MOS cesspit. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Unproductive comment: As mentioned: a pertinent discussion was started on the pertinent page where he did not participate. User was invited to comment.Curb Chain (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked at that talkpage and I think BMK is right that you have an "idée fixe". I didn't see any substantive opposition to BMK's whitespace, just bureaucratic objections which should get stuffed, by deleting the MOS if it comes to that. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe you should look at WP:MOS as this is also an unproductive comment.Curb Chain (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:MOS and I don't agree with the premise of its more zealous contributors, that slight stylistic inconsistencies between Wikipedia articles are intolerable. I see many criticisms of Wikipedia in the real world about its biases, inaccuracies, trivia bloat, or whatever; nobody ever complains about how some word is capitalized in one article but not in another, but that's what the MOSsies fight about. I'll walk back the "get stuffed" comment above a bit, but I think WP has a recurring problem with would-be MOS enforcers using the MOS as a vehicle to treat the project as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. IMHO you are also engaged in this battleground editing, and as such if there is administrative intervention, it should be against you rather than BMK. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about his edit warring over it? Blockable offence and he repeatedly and consistently wars over these MOS "trivialities".Curb Chain (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In at least that article, you were also edit warring, and it also looks to me like you were hounding him. Why don't you leave him alone going forward, and if someone else takes issue with the whitespace, then maybe there's something to talk about. The previous ANI concluded that you were being WP:LAME, so you should accept that and find some other way to contribute. I'm not moved by the purely MOS-based objections since the fix for that is to downgrade the MOS from "enforceable" to "suggestion". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that certain people can effectively own articles, simply by edit-warring in such a way as to also make other editors appear to be edit-warring. But the question here is, if a single editor (BMK), is warring with multiple other editors, who typically do not edit war with other regular editors, then what is really going on here? Yworo (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it was User:79.223.4.134 who was in an edit war with BMK. That subsection was the discussion I started.Curb Chain (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Much ado about nothing. This is an issue to work out on the talk page of the article, just like any other issue, and definitely not something that warrants any administrative action. There are multiple ways of introducing clearing space, and this is simply one of them. Apteva (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There are editors who disagree with this layout. There are alternatives which User:Beyond My Ken has not tried such as the CSS/JS but instead, he is belligerent in his actions when people oppose his layout which is a type of ownership behaviour.Curb Chain (talk) 07:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a diff of somebody disagreeing with BMK's layout? Handling it with user javascript or preferences is the wrong approach for reasons I described. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736#User:Beyond My Ken, [84], [85]. Did you want specific removal of <!--spacing-->?Curb Chain (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what reasons did you describe? And what is your registered name?Curb Chain (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Previous RfC/U on same editor

We been taken for fools for quite some time: Under User:Beyond My Ken's first username, User:Ed Fitzgerald, a RfC/U had already been filed for the exact same disruption he has been perputratingperpetrating for years. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald. Germane to the topic? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald#Evidence of disputed behavior #3: "Edit warring and specifying image size against consensus".

According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald#Outside view by Baseball Bugs, there was no edit warring taking place, but there sure is now.

I propose a ban from the project as this is long term abuse and his behaviour has obviously not changed.Curb Chain (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a formal ban proposal? You need to cross your "t"s and dot your "i"s for that, you know. Doc talk 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know! I have never done this. All I know is that this disruption has to stop. And how would I do that!Curb Chain (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The RfC/U dates from 2008 and had minimal participation. (I had almost forgotten about Ncmvocalist.) At the risk of being called an enabler, a community ban—this seems to be what Curb Chain is calling for—is unlikely to have any success at all. However, discussions about community bans should take place on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit that I like some of BMK's edits. But there are certain edits that are quite out of line with our policies and guidelines. His belligerent attitude with his own idiosyncratic formatting is disruptive to other editors and he does not drop the issue when multiple people ask him to stop. The only way I see this is a restriction and immediate block when he makes the edits which have been outlined here.Curb Chain (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly indifferent to the whitespace thing and disagree with his image size changes, but I think you're being much more belligerent than BMK, who is at least doing some work on the affected articles. And if you're saying you like what he's doing but he should stop anyway because of guidelines, that's the essence of bureaucracy. The guidelines come into play if someone has a substantive problem with what he's doing. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Put things in perspective: He uses a "WP:BATTLEGROUND" attitude when editors revert the formatting/style changes that he uncompromising with. I see no reason why he should be exempt from edit warring blocks when he clearly and stealthy disrupts the project and cannot work, cooperate, or compromise with other editors.Curb Chain (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban of BMK. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Much ado about nothing. NE Ent 12:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So User:Beyond My Ken continues to push the idisyncraticidiosyncratic formatting that is in contravention of WP:COMMENT, then, editors goes and removes it, then he reverts it without an edit summary. Are we supposed to engage in an edit war for every article he edits?Curb Chain (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything on WP:COMMENT that says whatever he's been doing isn't allowed. It simply seems to be a description of uses of the invisible comment tags.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain seems to misinterpret many Wikipedia policies and pursue his own pet agendas. See below. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Check that your invisible comment does not change the formatting, for example by introducing white space in read mode" is a rather drawn-out way of saying "don't use invisible comments to introduce whitespace to articles". At one time BMK edited said guideline to include the word "inadvertently" in an attempt to create an exception-to-prove-the-rule which would explicitly permit deliberate use of this tactic; that edit didn't take, because there is no support for it in the wider community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: ban of Curb Chain

• Support ban of Curb Chain per demonstrated battleground mentality for wanting to ban another editor for simply disagreeing with him. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously going this route? Bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 08:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. He was quite clear that the motivation for the ban is not the disagreement, but rather the edit-warring behaviour used against multiple editors by BMK. Yworo (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous is the call to block (and now to ban) an editor for inserting any whitespace; see the proposals of Curb Chain at 07:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC) and 05:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC) above. Battleground mentality at its peak. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous. This is long term tendentious behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken when an editor reverts his style to what guidelines say. Intimidatory tactics like these allow his abuse to continue.Curb Chain (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Worth looking into Curb Chain's very first edit[86] (April 2011) was MOS-based (and a bad edit in my opinion), suggesting a reincarnated editor from possible previous conflicts. Some other edits[87] seem reasonable (not 100% MOS battleground editor) but I haven't looked at enough diffs (too tedious) to speak to large patterns. If there's an RFC/U I might try to do that. Possible alternatives: interaction ban with BMK, site-wide topic ban on MOS enforcement. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • More recent edits of Curb Chain remind me of the indef-blocked troll User:Shaz0t, although not quite as egregious. [88] [89] [90] [91] [92]. Deleting largish amounts of material, much of it sourced, mostly on spurious grounds, but with edit summaries peppered with invocations of Wikipeda policies. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This edit by Curb Chain is borderline vandalism for the source says: "In the Hall of the Mountain King was famously used in the 1931 film M, in which Peter Lorre's character, a serial killer who preys on children, whistles it." I suspect much his other edits are similar. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Which in no way supports the removed text "This well-known piece has seen extensive use in movies and commercials, usually in accordance with a dramatic and fantastic or ominous event" (emphasis mine) That's not vandalism, that's removal of wp:or. Note the section is pretty horrible, a mish-mash of factoids, criticizing an editor for any improvement is ridiculous. NE Ent 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Clear vandalism with misleading edit summary: the passage deleted is a quote and it is found in the source! Tijfo098 (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have stated Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Curb Chain. And found an interesting piece of wikihistory there: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bernolákovčina/Archive. Curb Chain might be returning editor who was already banned once before. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Nice catch. I added some Bernolákovčina diffs (page overlaps) but have examined only a few of them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Indiscriminately deleting both sourced and unsourced materials with misleading edit summaries was the signature of Shaz0t. And Curb Chain does not disappoint [93] in that regard. It just shows how easy is to actually vandalize Wikipedia as long as (1) you intermix vandalism with some, mostly irrelevant, gnomish/formatting edits and (2) do it for so long that OMG one becomes a "trusted" long-term editor and (3) use some plausible edit summaries. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
      • His reasons for deleting material vary as the wind blows, but are always spurious. In October he deleted stuff because he personally did not have access to some science journals e.g. [94] (there are more like that) in violation of WP:PAYWALL. Also he deemed Quest Diagnostics unreliable about drug testing, which is a highly questionable judgement. Note the obsession of Shaz0t with drugs as well [95]. The amusing part about this is that Curb Chain's erratic behavior gives the impression he is editing under the influence of some stuff like that, unless it's deliberate pure trolling and vandalism... It looks after he is banned (again) a massive clean-up effort will be required to undo all his vandalism. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Spot check of diffs presented doesn't support. NE Ent 12:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least based on the reasoning provided in the ban statement above - it's a tit-for-tat concept. Block for socking if proven are fine, but not based on this tenuous grasp of policy being used as the reason for a WP:BAN (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Oppose Even if sanctions are warranted, a CB goes way, way, way to far. We ban to protect the pedia, not satisfy WP:BLOODLUST. Curb Chain has a clean block log, so a CB is like using a sledgehammer when a peach switch might work as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose A community ban of a hitherto unblocked editor for a single ANI comment? Absolutely ridiculous. If the SPI proves sockpuppetry, then an appropriate sockblock is called for, but even then a ban would be overkill. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not for a single comment. For serial vandalism and trolling. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism and trolling are not a part of your WP:BAN argument. Tijfo, I've found your reasonably sane here at ANI in the past ... this train of thought is souring those findings (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That wasn't the reason you gave when you requested a ban. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain and WP:SELFREF

He repeatedly misunderstands WP:SELFREF, which does not prohibit articles from referring to part of one another or to pictures/diagrams on the page. [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]. Another example was found by 67 above [104]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Whether the text at WP:SELFREF explicitly refers to "see below" self-reference or not, they should be avoided because they have a tendency to break as pages are edited, and "below" means nothing in the context or spoken or screen-read articles. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain's deletion of sourced material

none of this belongs here - file an RFC/U if you think something else needs to be done (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since some examples above were challenged by some !voters, let's discuss them in this section. I'll make subseciton for each example so they can be discussed independently. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Example 1 [105] The first sentence is arguably a stretch, but the rest is well supported by the sources. The Forbes sources says "Sex symbol status and all, Miller wants [...]" The German source says: "Heidi Klum, die vor knapp 17 Jahren für die Kamera entdeckt und vor fast elf Jahren auf einem "Sports Illustrated"-Titelblatt zum Sexsymbol erkoren wurde". Tijfo098 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Example 2 [106] Material based on a journal paper deleted because Curb Chain doesn't seem to understand WP:PAYWALL. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC) In the same article, more sourced material deleted based on the same claim [107]. No explanation why it might violate NPOV. Furthermore, after deleting the source (Sexton and Zilz), he deletes the rest of the material based on that as unsourced [108]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary at Konrad Henlein

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

---

Hello, despite good faith assumption I am dropping a notice here because I do not have time to look in depth at the issue. The edit in question which was perhaps a failed undo attempt did completely change the meaning of the article text in a verifiably false and misleading way. Richiez (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd be better off posting this on the article talk page, where your comment would be more likely to attract the attention of someone with access to the sources and could identify what the passage should say. -- Dianna (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) That sounds like a content dispute. As a first port of call, discuss this on the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And, the edit linked above appears to be a direct revert of this edit. I don't understand what the problem is here. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 15:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since the point involves a revert I made, I can tell you that what I did was revert the ip edit back to the prior cited text, which someone else did. Further, I checked the linked page of: President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, as to the matter. I would agree that the talk page is the place for discussion of this prior cited point. Kierzek (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User "No More Mr Nice Guy"

He does not exist yet he is actively undoing edits!