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

Bot gone wild

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bot is back to edit warring.[1] Can we please shut it down pending discussion? I'm not sure the question is whether it's functioning as approved, but whether it's operating without consensus. Bot approval is not the same as consensus, and this one seems to be doing a lot of high-speed damage. Plus, AFAIK bots are not allowed to edit war or create policy. Let's organize a wider discussion on what if anything this bot should be doing to tag articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I started with “Comment by uninformed amateur”, in fact I am impaired. But I try. I don’t know how to do diffs, so I am leaving page urls. I first tried this as “why is cable car guyblacklisted?”:[2]. No answer, not a problem, nobody goes to my stuff, anyway. So I tried this: [3]. Helpful? Who but a code person could get this? [4]. Then I came here. Lots more help. And despite this: “I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head.” Not one of you in any way tried to help me check this, or did it yourself. At 11:37 and 11:53 he defended the action of his program, then he posted this: [5]. At no time has he offered any real help, turn his program off, or in any way address the problem it was causing. Then he left with “Since I likely won't be able to think straight for a while”. As someone who deals with neurologists regularly, this doesn’t sound credible to me. But I am not a Doctor, I admit this. Now I read this (I’m repeating it, I know): “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot”. This sounds crazy to me, and believe me, I know crazy. Personal attack? Feel free to block me, I certainly don’t belong in the ivory tower.Sammy D III (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be honored to be the first.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sammy D III .. I think we are talking, inadvertently, on different wavelenghts, my apologies. The urgency to whitelist links which are in use, for proper reasons, while blacklisted has always been there: sometimes a little-bit-useful site gets blacklisted because of their owners/SEOs pushing just a bit too hard (and whitelisting is there to help that), sometimes a net is put a bit too wide (a site owner of hunrdeds of sites with similar names overlaps in regex with that one site that is not part of his scam), sometimes an owner/SEO of a very, very respectable site is just pushing too hard and the use was not properly researched (no, it is not just porn, in my experience, porn-spam problems are just minor in comparison to other sites, viagra and similar excepted, we do sometimes run into that). Is there now an urgency to tag all of them now: no, maybe not. But since it is now finally done, can we please get over it.

I don't know if the blacklist is really broken .. there may be some mistakes on it or accidental too wide nets .. that is hopefully now also being solved, so that new editors will not run into the blacklist for wrongly/accidentaly blocked links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Beetstra, but nothing is happening. Only today - for the first time in over two weeks - were some of the links at the whitelist request page dealt with. Admins need to go an clear the backlog, it is clearly unacceptable that requests routinely wait months for any action. Without adequate infrastructure in place to deal with the blacklist problems I don't see how even a fraction of the 5000 pages highlighted by the bot can be dealt with. If we, the lay editors, are to have faith in this process it must move quicker, if just a fraction of the effort given to this thread were directed to the whitelist requests the backlog wouldn't be there. Liamdavies (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dirk (I got it right this time).

My question is why was this program not immediately shut down, adjusted, and brought up slowly? Is it crucial to keep this up while the list problems still exist? Why hours, instead of days, or even weeks?

The list is absolutely a big problem, but it isn’t going to go away today, while good links may. Couldn’t the program create its own list, or at least go to the talk page? People have been begging for breathing room.

Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III, Liamdavies .. first my apologies, and I will keep my sarcasm and cynism at bay, and if I don't, it is aimed at the community at large, not at any of you two personally.

This problem has caused loss of good data for the whole time that the blacklisting existed, which is likely something like 10 years now. There have always been good links which have been blocked, there have always been good links (or even not so good links) still there on pages. That is, obvious from the many tags, still the case. Some of those links are bad, some of those links are good, some of the links are just accidentally caught. Is that an urgent problem - yes, I think so, if there are blacklisted links on a page then there will be situations where the link accidentally (or due to spam/vandalism) gets removed, ánd a subsequent edit is made unaware of the problem. Most editors, trying to repair that, will be unaware of blacklists and whitelists, and, at best, just disable/comment out the link, at worst remove the link. That has likely been causing damage to Wikipedia, likely for 10 years now (I do recall other whitelisting requests regarding this problem, but am not sure and they will be impossible to track down - finding cases where no whitelisting was requested will be even less obvious, however, most cases for whitelist request are there after an editor tried to save their (good) link and failed, there must also be cases where editors are trying to save a good link, and leave it because it is blacklisted - the basic issue is the same). Does it have to be solved NOW .. hmm .. no, but I would not let it linger for another year.

List problems are there, mainly accidentally, but most of these links were (well, IMH(somewhat POV)O) rightfully blacklisted as the sites were pushed, spammed or added with a promotional goal, often by large sockfarms whose only interest is to get people to their site. It is mostly not a problem of the list, and even if it is a problem of the list, it will need to be solved and the only way of finding out that something needs a solution is to flag that problem.

The whitelist procedure is slow. <rant>Yes, the community has always been good to slow down the RfA-process, editors don't want to go through that hell, and those editors who do have that urge of self-mutilation are generally not interested in spam (XfD's are much cooler!), and if you are as an editor not interested in XfD but only in spam and self-mutilation, then you will be grilled on both sides during your RfA for not being interested to help with the everlasting backlog of to-be-deleted pages (and plainly fail the RfA, but at least your self-mutilation-goal has been met). And when I ask an editor on RfA on his knowledge and capability to help with the spam blacklist (or the WikiMedia namespace in general where admins could cause havoc as well), I get complaints that the editor is not interested in helping there, the editor is more interested (or at least, should be) in XfD's, that is where the backlog is, and that is what they should be grilled over. I think that it has been years since an editor was made admin who immediately started helping out with the blacklist - the last case I know is someone who got the admin bit solely for keeping the list clean, not making any administrative decisions further. And you say, there is a backlog on the whitelist - there is an even bigger backlog on the blacklist (most of which actively spammed so the non-admins reporting it have a lot of work keeping mainspace clean while waiting), and there is a lot of rubbish being added, spammed, which should be removed and maybe blacklisted while admins are debating whether John Doe is notable enough for his own article on an AfD. Yes, it is absolutely unacceptable that requests routinely have to wait for months. It is also unacceptable that spam stays on Wikipedia for months, years (yeah, every now and then we run into a campaign where spam is being added for a long, long time and no-one notices). I totally agree. But that is not a problem of the tagging, that is not a problem of the bot, it is not a problem of me, it is not a problem of Cyberpower - we have a problem with our own admin corps, there are not enough volunteers there to help out, which results in damage to Wikipedia (more damage than an XfD, or even speedy, that has to wait another day to be deleted).</rant>

Now, we could spread this out - but in the meantime more links are added to the blacklist. And even if it is 10 pages on your watchlist, I don't think that you are the only person watching them, there will be enough other editors watching the page as well who could request the whitelisting for you. Also, I don't see why that tag is such an issue. It is a maintenance tag - just like the cleanup-tags (which are sometimes on pages for 2 1/2 year, or 2 years, and no-one is making an issue out of thát). Why exactly is this tag a problem, even if it stays for a year, and any other maintenance tag is not?

Is this an urgent issue to have the things whitelisted - well, I think there is some urgency, as people are, obviously, deleting blacklisted links (before and after the tagging) because otherwise they cannot save the page, so they (without wanting to!) damage Wikipedia (I had to emergency whitelist, otherwise I could either delete the link altogether, comment it out, or leave the spam). Is it a problem that the page is tagged for 3 months for that, well, I don't think so (and once the whitelisting is requested, Cyberpower's bot can ignore your page and the tag will be removed anyway). Is it a problem that we do this slow so we can spread it out: well, pages are being damaged so I would start the whitelisting process as soon as possible. Is it a problem that the whitelisting has to wait for 3 months, well, yes, but again, that is not a problem of Cyberpower, their bot, me, or the tags. The sooner they get tagged, the sooner one can ask for whitelisting, the sooner the whitelisting is done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't see why that tag is such an issue. It is a maintenance tag - just like the cleanup-tags (which are sometimes on pages for 2 1/2 year, or 2 years, and no-one is making an issue out of thát). Why exactly is this tag a problem, even if it stays for a year, and any other maintenance tag is not? Simple, as I have said over and over, this tag is a problem because good faith users remove the link and it cannot be replace. With all other tags if a good faith user makes a change that should be undone, it can; in this case if a user makes a good faith change that should be undone, it can't. You can, but you are an admin. I can't and must keep track of pages to fix while I wait the unacceptably long time to wait for a whitelist approval. Beetstra, how many whitelists could you have processed in the time it took to write that rant? How many whitelist requests have been processed since this bot started? Why should the lay user have to be put through this? What is the urgency to this bot starting? Admins need to go to the whitelist request page and start processing them, without that the bot should not be operating, we shouldn't be tagging pages with a problem that admins are refusing to fix. Liamdavies (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies, that would happen in any case, you would have to wait for whitelisting whether you were told today or next week or in 6 months.

Whitelisting a link is not a matter of adding it to the whitelist. Those are considered thoughts, need some research, discussion. I am sorry to say, but some of those links for which we have whitelist requests are simply complete rubbish to start with. They should simply not be used barring some exceptions. Links are cannot be blindly whitelisted. So as an answer, maybe 1 .. probably none.

So, we have to leave the problem stand, because there is no-one to solve the problem. What was the urgency of having this bot start? It has been discussed for months, doing a couple of trial runs, and I, for one, have been asking over and over to have more admins on the whitelist. Your suggestion is right, first get more admins to solve the problems, then tag the problem .. but that former does not get done without the latter (and even with the latter, it does not get done). So that postpones the problem into infinity, it will never be solved, it becomes a circular argument: without the tag there is not a huge backlog, so no interested admins preparing (and knowledgeable) to help, with the tag there will be informed requests, but no admins to handle them, just listing the links that are a problem does not help because we don't have the knowledgeable users who know whether a link is really necessary, should be deleted or is replaceable. Doing it slow .. it would not make the requests being handled faster (that slowness is a general problem, tagging or not), moreover, it would likely result in recurring cases and actually give more work. It is a loose-loose situation, resulting in just the damage that we are now trying to prevent. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually Beetstra, in my case it is a simple case of adding it to the whitelist, it has been stated three times that it is a miss catch. My whitelist request has been open longer than this AN, in that time over 10,000 words have been added, six admins have been involved (not one, including you, have process a single request), and nothing has been done. I have completely lost faith in any admin's (including your) ability to deal with this. It is completely unacceptable. Do what the community has trusted you to do, process the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, whether tagged or not, you will have to keep an eye on the 'destruction' of the links on those pages, as they, and likely have before tagging, can not be put back if the page gets edited in a 'bad' way (someone removes the ref with the blacklisted link and puts a {{cn}}, the cn-tag gets dated, and even I cannot put the original ref back (without administrative trick of emergency whitelisting)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel we are beating a dead horse, there is only Dirk left.

Same question over and over, why does this program need to run so urgently?

I have compromised myself, and should go. Long ago. Good luck Liamdavies, and thanks to everyone for their time answering me. Sammy D III (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my impression that this recent bot run was unusual for tagging a large number of links that had been here for a very long time, but went unnoticed. I was aware of the tagging of links to educationupdate.com because the bot tagged a reference citation that I added in June 2010 (5 months before it was blacklisted at Meta) -- and that had never previously been flagged as problematic. (If the links to that domain had been flagged back in November 2010, the blacklisting would have been amended a long time ago.) Apparently the bot screened for -- and tagged -- many other domains that had never previously been screened for on this wiki. The bot should not be blamed for the fact that these had been overlooked for so long. However, the mass-tagging of links like that one that I added in 2010 has created a need to examine a large number of blacklistings that need to be sorted out by humans. If users are removing templates from articles because they judge the links to be OK, that doesn't solve the problem with the blacklist, but having the bot go back and re-add the template the next day doesn't help either -- and is disruptive to the community. Let the dust settle on this "bot gone wild" collection before letting the bot re-tag the same articles all over again. (Is there a concise master list of the domains that the bot tagged in this run? Instead of waiting for individuals to figure out how to file whitelist requests, it would be useful to look over the list to identify blacklistings that need to be reviewed.) --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to turn on the bot and let it make one run. There are now 100s of tags that it wants to remove, and I applied an update that will identify the rule and blacklist is causing the link to be flagged as spam to make it easier to request whitelisting.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've turned it off. This ANI is still open. Liamdavies (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement on my part to wait for this ANI to close. This thread has become a dead horse at this point, and many here have defended the bot with few objecting to it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I want my objection to this action noted. There is a moral obligation (if nothing else) to not operate this bot until (real world) objections are dealt with. Liamdavies (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like it noted that I - unlike the bot - will not edit war this (bad) choice. Cyber, do the right thing and voluntarily turn the bot off. Liamdavies (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

More are in favor of this on, than off. Your pages, are not going to get tagged. I don't understand morality behind this. There is a process of getting rid of the tags quickly set up. The bot is making a run to add more information to the tags and remove hundreds of them that are no longer valid. Your objection has been noted. Please only disable the bot if there is a bug. This discussion has gone on for an entire week and has died off at this point, with several editors commenting and only 3 of them with objections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 October 2013‎

I think one run is okay for now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why I said I was compromised:

”I have been wondering how fast someone can learn to program. Could programming skills be learned faster than life experiences? If I am old and stupid, why couldn’t someone be young and smart? Maturity is so subjective, and easily offensive, but couldn’t it affect Wikipedia? It would be almost impossible to address there, but could be an issue, correct?

Now that I have contacted you outside, I have to stay away from you inside. Conspiracy/conflict of interest bothers me more than some. Besides, I only have one question, no matter how many times and ways I ask it."

I don’t know if this can even stay up. I have received no answer. And the programmers talk page is still active on this issue.Sammy D III (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible solution

I haven't had the time to follow all fine points of this discussion, but in the dozens of cases on my watchlist the tag is inapt and inappropriate most of the time so i'll simply remove it. In most cases, I think the link is a good link. In other cases, the link may or may not be questionable but tagging the top of the main article page to call a link into question is a disservice to the reader and should instead be some kind of comment or request on the talk page. That reflects my opinion on the article, and I don't think a bot editing thousands of articles per day establishes consensus otherwise. I trust that the bot will not edit war against me here, as it continues to do.[6] Again, bad memories of betabot, the notion that aggressively uncareful bot coding can create policy over the objections of human editors. If the bot persists, either the bot or I have to stop. I'd appreciate if the bot creator or someone else would call a halt to this, and create a script to simply remove them all. If anyone wants to suggest that articles have blacklisted links on them, they can put a notice on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The article you linked to contains a link on the blacklist, removing the tag is not a solution, whitelisting or removing the link is the only solution. Although I agree the bot should only tag a page once every two days or so, you shouldn't think that by removing the link the problem is solved. One of two possible scenarios arise, one is that the link is actually spam and should therefore be removed, the second is that the link is valuable and should be removed from the blacklist or whitelisted. I suggest you make a choice on what to do, removing the tag without further action is not an option.

My primary problem is that the whitelisting process is pathetically slow, and that to edit war an overly ambitious bot while awaiting action is absurd. Cyber has addressed to an extent this problem by having a temporary exemption list for the bot. But that does not remove the need for a link to be whitelisted, or for admins to go and process the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a solution to remove the tag. In these cases I don't believe the link is spam nor do I believe defacing the top of the article is an appropriate solution to an editing concern. It's up to the bot creator to respect consensus here, not up to me to chase behind the bot on the bot's schedule (one of the Betabot flaws) making dozens of whitelist requests whenever it happens to be active. I suspect it would revert past 3RR if it came to it, it's coded to edit war, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is to be patrolled by edit warring bots. Anyway, I've stumbled on a potential solution, I'll see if it works. Wikidemon (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. If the link is incorrectly being caught by the blacklist it should be whitelisted, not ignored. If you think the link is good go get a whitelist request and get Cyber to get the bot to ignore the link while the whitelist request is being processed. I agree that the bot shouldn't edit war, and should only ad the tag once every few days. But removing the tag and doing nothing else is not the solution. Liamdavies (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, I have mine, and we may each edit accordingly. I do not wish to participate in the whitelist process dozens of times to deal with inappropriate tagging of article pages by a bot. If I look at an article and think the tag shouldn't be there, there's no policy reason why I'm not allowed to do that, nor any reason I should be forced to work on the bot's schedule just because some users play with to bots and others like me do not. That was exactly Beta's problem, and you can see where that one ended. Bots should not be making disputed edits, period. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A placeholder for the record here. The original purpose if this AN/I report is stale, and it's likely this will expire with no action. Fine, but don't interpret the lack of actionable administrator response (other than shutting down the bot initially) to reflect policy or consensus on the matter. The more I look into this, the more clear it is that the bot operation is against procedure, policy and consensus. The history of comments, bug fixes, objections, and disputes over this bot make clear this is not wise or according to consensus. Disputed mass edits by bot are at a fundamental level antithetical to Wikipedia. I'll make sure this gets fixed one way or another. To Cyber—"ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?"—power, you have much to learn here. You can get with the program or fight it, but in the interest of maintaining the encyclopedia I strongly urge you to be less combative and a lot more collaborative about automating mass-edits. I'll try some simple approaches to minimize the damage if the bot keeps running amok. Best figure it out informally than keep digging the hole that got Beta banned. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the BRFA passed, consensus IS that the bot should run, and that remains so, since no clear consensus against it was established here. Also, how is tagging problems with articles antithetical to Wikipedia? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Nobody asked me or any of the other editors on these pages. Local consensus in one place, here an obscure bot approval page, does not make policy across the encyclopedia. It's pretty obvious that the community has not approved the notion that thousands (or more?) of articles containing old links that are later blacklisted, some of them highly rated prominent articles, should retroactively be tagged on top of the article page with an often-inaccurate claim that the article may contain a spam link. If there were consensus for such a thing, then approving the bot to carry it out would be a technicality. However, the burden is on people wanting those tags across the encyclopedia to establish that's something the editors agree to. If not, per BRD, the editors will remove, disable, or otherwise get rid of the links and then we can have a wider discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. The approval was to tag articles -- not edit war with human editors to keep applying the tag. Basic wikiquette is BRD -- if the tag is reverted the bot should be going to the talk page, not retagging. Even during the BRFA, the coder was argumentative; concerns were raised regarding the interaction with the community: [7]. Additionally, it's not working correctly -- tagging http://www.2ndchapterofacts.com/recordings/hymns-instrumental.htm [8] on Hymns Instrumental. This bot needs to stop. NE Ent 01:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Requested BRFA remove approval [9] NE Ent 01:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want the bot stopped. The articles I watch that have been tagged were all tagged correctly in my opinion - copyvio sites in particular. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just posted the following:::That is the first time that I have seen copyright violations mentioned.Sammy D III (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC). Why was it deleted?Sammy D III (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your post was removed through an edit conflict, surely a mistake. Liamdavies (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right, so sorry for the implication, thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

---

See here [10] for part one - the extensive previous discussion on this matter. In brief, User:Czixhc has spent the best part of three months on Wikipedia doing very little beyond arguing that an image s/he created [11] based on one by architect and cartographer Jonathan Hagos [12] should be used to illustrate "skin color for modern populations" despite the fact that the creator of the original is neither qualified to compile such a map, nor claims to have done so. Having supposedly agreed at the previous ANI discussion to drop the matter (on September the 22nd), Czixhc then added his/her map image to the World map article (on Sept 27th), without any edit summary - and without giving the slightest indication that the map had been the subject of extensive debate, and was not considered a reliable source. [13] Needless to say, this attempt to smuggle the image back into Wikipedia did not go unnoticed - at which point, Czixhc again raised the matter on WP:RSN, under the thouroughly-misleading topic header Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is the University College London reliable?. Yet again, it has been explained by multiple contributors that the map is not a reliable source for what Czixhc claims it to be, but yet again, Czixhc refuses to accept this, with the same repetitive and circular arguments that have wasted so much time for so many people already. Accordingly, I think that there is no alternative than to call for an indefinite topic ban for Czixhc on any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. Enough is Enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Andythegrump again have brought an issue on which i'm involved, and again is unnecessary, actually more unnecessary than what it was the last time. As anybody can see here: [14] I already accepted the consensus of the comunity, which is that for now the sources aren't enough to make the file reliable, thing that i told to him here [15]. Right now i am discussing with another user the policies regarding reliable sources, because i don't want to be involved on a discussion like this one again, i have no intent to prove the file as reliable for now, that's something that i've left very clear I would sugest to close this discussion right now as a false alarm and to really check the behavoir of andythegrump, i mean, something who acts like him really is of not use on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I've never insulted anyone"? Demonstrably false, as was pointed out in the previous ANI discussion, where I linked this comment by Czixhc: "How come that after i fully explained wich was the contribution and flaws of every editor here and why most of them aren't experts you just pretend that nothing happened and keep repeating the same lies?" [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Czixhc's most recent comment where he states- "How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously" which I assume was directed at AndyTheGrump. Insulting and a personal attack.Camelbinky (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would Support the proposed topic ban, but not a community ban, as a way to stop these endless arguments. From time to time, most of us find some point on which we disagree with the rest of the community - push that point for too long and you end up flogging a dead horse. It doesn't help either side. I really think Czixhc should have a chance to contribute to the rest of the encyclopædia, and a topic ban could help accomplish this. if possible I would prefer a slightly narrower scope for the topic ban, ie. get rid of the "broadly construed" as I think the current issue is quite specific. bobrayner (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Czixhc continued to ignore explanations (such as being told a number of times that an academic's description of his interests on his personal page on a university site is not an endorsement of expertise in those fields), continued to argue after saying he accepted consensus and has not left me reassured that he won't be back on this or something similar sooner than he thinks. His statement "I've never insulted anyone, the further i've been to do so have been to call an user attitude inmature," doesn't square with him telling Andy earlier this morning "How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously". Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have a feeling that a topic ban may just be the first stop on a path to community ban as this editor has real difficulty with WP:HEAR, but we can hope for improvement. Topic ban is appropriate and measured. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Czixhc has made it clear from his numerous discussions that he is trying to weasel his words and arguments and threads to try to get the consensus he wants and he wont stop bringing up the topic until he gets the result he would like.Camelbinky (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some things are being ignored here. I called Andythegrump "clueless" because he brought an issue at ANI, his opening post, clearly states that I "refuse again to accept the consesus of the comunity" However, in this diff is clearly seen that I accepted the consensus of the comunity [17] and this happened two hours before Andy openned the case on this place, I notice that various users here think that i haven't accepted the consensus yet, when i clearly did it (not sure why this happens, they probably just read the post here). Not sure about what other people think, but in my opinion an editor that opens a case arguing that i refuse to accept a consensus when that person (me) actually accepted the consensus two hours before is something that makes the "clueless" adjetive very appropiate. If somebody wants to take part of a discussion on a noticeboard (any) the person must have a clue of what is going on, and that person on question have insulted me more times and with real insults before, just give a look to the archived ANI case or to his block log [18], there are blocks due personal attacks there. I also find that andy have "brought" evidence of previous personal attacks (even though he is the least likely person to complain about that), and his evidence is that i said that another editor said "lies" However, he takes it out of context, and if i recall correctly i said that the editor in question was lying because he keep repeating the same things over an over despite that i have explained everything to him before (similar at how that same editor said that the file on discussion was violating copyright yesterday, ignoring that the file has been proved twice to not violate any copyright). Finally i don't get the idea of calling a topic ban on an issue that i've said repeatedly to not have interest on discussing anymore. Czixhc (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, Czixhc is making false assertions. Two minutes before I started this thread, Czixhc was still arguing about the validity of the disputed map at WP:RSN: [19] Sure, Czixhc had said that he/she wasn't going to carry on arguing - and then did so anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the assertion that Czixhc makes regarding a diff which is supposed to illustrate "accept[ing] the consensus" is revealing too - what it actually says is " it's seetled for now (I say for now because the reputiation of Hagos or his work might change in the future, when more sources that favor him get published as one of much examples, and when that happens i'll try again)". [20] A clear statement that Czixhc had no intention whatsoever of dropping the matter, and was looking for an excuse to go through the whole business again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was clearly discussing the comunity's definition of "seminary", not if the file is reliable or not, I've said multiple times that i want to know wich are the definitions of the comunity about these topics, because i don't want to enter on a discussion like this again. And watch out, you accusing me of making false assertions is a personal attack according to your own criteria. On the another topic i already told you above that nothing can be permanent, what if the map or Hagos are featured on national geographic? or on an academic text by the University of Cambridge? If that happens then the document in question would be undeniabily reliable. Czixhc (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Providing verifiable evidence that you've made false assertions is not a personal attack. And yet again, after asserting that you have dropped the map issue, you start arguing about it once more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good, on that case i haven't attacked anybody either. And what part of "i was discussing the comunity's definitions of the policies" is not clear for you? Czixhc (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You weren't 'discussing definitions' in your last post - you were telling us that you intended to raise Hagos again at the first opportunity, while utterly ignoring everything that you have been told. I think that it will be clear to everyone that until you are obliged to do so, you will use any excuse to drag this ridiculous issue up again, regardless of any claim to have dropped the matter. Anyway, I've provided more than enough evidence, and it seems that my call for a topic ban has substantial support. Hopefully we can lay this matter to rest, and get on with doing something more useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• So you are saying that you know better than myself what I do? That's ridiculous and you are grasping at nothing at this point. And i don't get what's the point of a ban on a topic that i have no interest on discussing anymore, I'm really tired of all this bias, next time that i have a source i will contact an uninvolved administrator personally and ask his opinion, hopefully that way i will avoid having contact with you ever again. Czixhc (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please close this, either denying or enacting a ban, etc? Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Are you aware that this issue was already seetled and that if not for you commenting this would have been archived already? You commented when less than an hour was left. Just let it get archived. Czixhc (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Settled? 6 supports for a topic ban, no opposes. The ban hasn't been imposed yet and there's been a 7th support. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm looking at a topic ban and then a community ban if the subject's been pushing it. He clearly has nothing to contribute and when somebody calls him on his behavior, he rants all to hell. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Excuse me but I've never "ranted to hell" anything. What are you talking about? On first place if you follow the discussion from the beginning the reason for which this case was opened was because another editor thought that i was doing something that i wasn't even doing. This entire case is pointless. Czixhc (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh...if you didn't do anything why being so defensive? You'll have to do better than IDHT comebacks at me to save your skin, kid. and BTW, I read the entire thread so you can't use that argument on me. Nice one. Take a Wikibreak for a few weeks, eh?--Eaglestorm (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The forum shopping on WP:RSN is wasting volunteer time. Although several experienced users have explained why his self-produced world map of skin colour is not usable, Czixhc's response has been largely WP:IDHT combined with borderline personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This is a clear-cut case of WP:IDHT and an editor unable or unwilling to understand wikipedia's sourcing policies, despite voluminous discussion and ample feedback from multiple editors at WP:RSN. Czixhc's agreement to drop the issue "for now" isn't credible IMO given that the user made similar commitments (with similar loopholes) the last time the issue was at ANI, and then resumed tendentious editing and debates soon after that thread was archived. Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - Czixhc's gone well beyond wasting community time, and is simply being WP:POINTy, making personal attacks left, right, and centre, and simply is incapable of understanding/listening to anything said by an experienced user. The huge majority of their edits revolve around this subject - in fact, I'm struggling to find any major improvement they've made to Wikipedia in that time on other subjects. A few minor ones, but nothing that comes close to outweighing the sheer mess this user has caused, and is continuing to cause. I do support an indefinite topic ban as well, just to be clear, but I think the indef block is the better solution. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody close this? The user who opened the case wasn't paying attention to the RSN discussion at all

• The thing here is that this entire discussion is a mistake, Andythegrump opened this case because he wasn't paying attention to the discussion, he though that i was trying to push the document in question as reliable, when in reality i already have accepted it as unreliable two hours before he oppened this case [21]. This case is pointless: He is requesting a ban on something that i wasn't doing. I notice that there are users that support it, but they do it probably because they read the opening paragraph and believe that the discussion has been like what he wrote, and i don't blame them, even my mother would believe that i am the worst person ever if she reads what Andythegrump wrote. Don't know if was because he just don't pays attention to the discussion or if it was plain bad faith,but what he wrote isn't what happened and that has been extensively proved through this discussion. This is why this case must be closed now: Is as if "X" user request a block on "Y" user for serious vandalism, but "Y" wasn't doing any of these things at all. Czixhc (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is unreasonable to claim that people only read AtG's statement and did not look at the past edits and context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Eaglestorm says that i keep pushing the file when i don't, and Mathsci says that i still in IDHT ground when i already accepted the consensus of the comunity various days ago. Czixhc (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD. I certainly have read all the threads in this discussion at the various forums. Every editor that has weighed in believes this editor needs a break at the very least. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The problem that i have with all this is that I, by myself, have already agreed to take a break of all this around two hours before Andythegrump opened this case without even checking what was going on in the RSN discussion and other users that have show support seem to not be aware of that, i'll cite Camelbinky for example: Czixhc has made it clear from his numerous discussions that he is trying to weasel his words and arguments and threads to try to get the consensus he wants and he wont stop bringing up the topic until he gets the result he would like... - I mean, this is not true and i've said many times that i accepted the consensus of the comunity of the file not being reliable. Czixhc (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• A simple question. If you have already decided to permanently drop the topic, what harm will a topic ban do you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is negative because is undeserved, you opened a case acusing me of doing something that i wasn't doing. What would be the point of a ban on a topic that i have no interst on discussing? If anything you should be baned from opening cases on ANI because you created this thing here lacking knowledge of the actual situation on the RSN or you just plain premeditely wrote false statements in bad faith. Czixhc (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have provided ample evidence regarding your behaviour. Even after stating that you had dropped the subject, you continued to argue about it in this very thread when you wrote "i already told you above that nothing can be permanent, what if the map or Hagos are featured on national geographic? or on an academic text by the University of Cambridge? If that happens then the document in question would be undeniabily reliable". AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is going on circles now, I already told you that if i ever have a doubt about "x" source i rather contact an administrator and ask him personally, hopefully that way i wont have contact with you again. Czixhc (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• So even after all this time, you still don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works - admins don't determine the reliability of sources. Anyway: will you give us a guarantee that 'x' will not include anything to do with your image and/or Hagos? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk)

• Again going on circles, you understand that at this point you are being the one legitimely making disruptive editing? Czixhc (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a discussion as to your behaviour. I am discussing your behaviour. That is not disruption. And I assume your refusal to give a straight answer to a simple question will be taken into account here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• And your behavoir is being disruptive here, more than mine, and you are asking the same thing for the third time. If there ever the file or the author of it in question appears on an academic or a highly recognized publication i'm in all my due right of try it again, as long as that don't happens i wont discuss this thing again, what is so consfusing? Czixhc (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Czixhc has now made it entirely clear that his/her assertions that he/she had dropped the subject are entirely worthless. On that basis, I repeat my request: that Czixhc be indefinitely topic banned concerning any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. I note that there has already been substantive support for this, and little evidence of any contrary opinions from uninvolved contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've completely dropped the issue with the existing sources, I also have no interest on jumping to one of these discussions again, what i am doing in no way is outside of wikipedia's guidelines or policies about adhering to academic sources, the support that other users have shown have been mostly because they've read your opening paragraph, the one you opened while you were misinformed about the situation at RSN, or you just lied premeditely. The reason for which you opened this case wasn't even real at all. If anything the one who must be banned must be you from openig cases here. All this time you've been acusing me of something that i haven't done, your request is unaplicable. Czixhc (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, given 10 supports for a topic ban/community ban/block with no opposes, we really need this closed one way or another. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Reporting User:Dogmaticeclectic

Hi.

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

I am not even sure what is the lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Dogmaticeclectic's statement (new as of October 6)

I would first like to apologize for any policies and/or guidelines that I may have violated in the past, particularly edit warring, which is what all of my blocks prior to this incident were for. I also admit that the extent of my anger may be unjustified at times, and therefore apologize for this as well.

That said, I am very concerned with the Wikipedia community's apparent willingness to impose such far-reaching bans, given that the statements that I was reported for violate no policy that I am aware of. Calling someone a liar may be a civility issue, but I provided evidence along with that statement - it wasn't a simple case of name-calling; threatening to report someone to administrators is definitely not a policy violation as far as I know.

In short, while I do admit I may have made some mistakes in the past, the community seems to be acting on impulse rather than good judgement. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Further statement

Given the level of support for the topic ban, I am now almost completely convinced that the Wikipedia community is extremely vindictive and has little concept of second chances. Since I have been blocked before, any report against me seems to be automatically treated as valid without proper analysis and with flimsy justification upon inquiry for reasoning.

Therefore, my options are quite limited. If I continue to contribute in any significant manner, the following is basically guaranteed: certain users who want me gone from the encyclopedia because I dare to challenge their ownership of articles will continue to report me over and over again, the community will continue to support them because of my block log compared to theirs, and my block log will grow longer and longer until I am indefinitely blocked. The only alternative is to cease making significant contributions, but this is basically identical to a self-imposed indefinite block.

I am not quite sure which option I will choose at this point, but either one is virtually guaranteed to mark the end of any significant editing of Wikipedia by me. This saddens me, but this seems to be what the Wikipedia community has decided. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: Topic ban

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

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

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

Really, Dogmaticeclectic, insulting Admins, as a group, is not going to help your case at all. And your arguments are not somehow more convincing when they are bold. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Support a topic ban at minimum. DE's behavior in the topic area has been clearly problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting - the material for opening a case against you per WP:INVOLVED is quite welcome indeed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if I were an involved admin here (which I don't think I am), one does not need to be uninvolved to support sanctions in an ANI discussion. You are free to try to open an Arbcom case against me though, if you feel I've abused my tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should wait in case that other administrator (you know who I mean, don't you?) comments here, though... oh, what fun that would be! Although I'm not quite sure whether that would fall under WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK, and which one of you is which... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

• Support: I'm surprised Dogmatic isn't blocked already for the outright personal attacks. Then there's the user's WP:BATTLE mentality evident in this thread. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You're back on my case? And here I thought I wouldn't get the chance to report you too... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider me reported. Now, back to your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• The users initial reply on this thread ("You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)") was pretty a clear sign that there will be troubles ahead unless something is done. And the remaining posts just confirm that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support anything from a indefinite topic ban to a full-on indefinite block. Is Codename Lisa perfect? No, she isn't; she's made mistakes. Dogmaticelectic's standard response is to abuse anyone who opposes them. Willful vandalism has occasionally, but rarely occurred; usually it's just edit-warring to keep their version in play, regardless of consensus. Anyone who opposes them must be a sock or meatpuppet in their mind. Anyone who opposes them gets abused; even in this very thread, their first comment starts as "You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)" which is even worse than it originally was (prior to the snarky addition)... There's one reason why Microsoft articles can be so depressing to be involved in, and that reason goes under the pseudonym of Dogmaticelectic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I prefer an indefinite topic ban, which would put the burden on Dogmatic to come back in six months and ask that it be lifted. I also think there's sufficient support for a lengthy to an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • An indefinite ban and/or block wouldn't provide me with any significant incentive to wait six months. (By the way, I suppose it doesn't really matter now, but you were the unnamed administrator who I essentially predicted may join this discussion.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm glad we solved that little mystery. Per WP:SO, it is normal to reconsider an indefinite ban or block after six months. The obvious incentive is to edit here again or to edit in that topic area again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps my biggest pet peeve in Wikipedia discussions is users linking to essays as if they were policy. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I can understand that, but some essays are cited so frequently that they are accepted in practice as more than just essays. The standard offer essay is one of those.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 months allows Dogmaticeclectic sometime to edit in other areas, and try and improve their behaviour. If after the 6 months Dogmaticeclectic returns to editing articles about Microsoft products and the editing continues to be disruptive I would have no issue supporting an indefinite topic ban or an indefinite block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Note for closing administrator: if this topic ban is imposed, can it apply only to articles? Applying the ban to talk pages as well seems not only excessive but counterproductive, since it would prevent me from even attempting reasonable discussion to form consensus for the entire duration of the ban. (I understand that the community has judged the ban as it was originally written, but I don't think too many users who provided an opinion have considered the point I just made.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Block for User:Codename Lisa

pointy discussion collapsed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This user has seemingly asserted superiority on several occasions on account of not being blocked as I have. A block seems to be the only fair way to deal with this and bring this user down a few notches to force discussion instead of reverts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I don't think that's a helpful suggestion. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC) As an alternative to a probably (I haven't looked in to the details) undeserved blocked to dis/prove that you both have equally problematic editing patterns, how about you prove your behaviour is problematic as shown by stuff other than your block log so most people won't even bother looking in to your complaints? That way perhaps finally you may learn that whatever problems others may have, it doesn't excuse poor behaviour on your part which may be shown by more than just your block log. And at least people don't have to look far for evidence of your problematic editing. To prove your poor behaviour, how about you do something silly like come to ANI and propose a block for such silly reasons guaranteeing a boomerang? Oh wait .... Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Comprehending this poorly-written paragraph is a bit difficult, but I can definitely say that I wasn't the one who came to WP:ANI. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC) You will note I never said you came here first. However you clearly did come to ANI otherwise I couldn't be responding to your response to my response to your comment (well unless someone copied them here without your permission). Nil Einne (talk) Oppose: This is a ridiculous and tendentious proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Ludicrous proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Speedy close/oppose - Obvious pointy proposal is obvious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed: Behavior ban

I am proposing an alternative to topic ban. Mainly a topic ban is punitive and if we ban one topic, he just continues doing what he is doing in other topics. (I come here from this instance of his talk page; I suggest you guys check there too.) Our real problem with him is his behavior, including narcissistic edit warring, rudeness, lying and most importantly failure to understand when a person is extending him an olive branch and responding with "you didn't explain why you are doing this". (Again, his talk page!) With the objective of guiding him towards learning communication and teamwork skills, widely construed, I am proposing:

1. 6 month revocation of the right to revert (0RR, widely contrued) be it manually or via revert button, be it to revert vandalism, to contest a bold edit or to enact the outcome of a consensus in good accuracy
2. Six month revocation of the right to use uw- templates

Hopefully, this will leave him no choice but to talk to people and convince them; just as participants in WP:FA must do. And hopefully, this will make him see that commenting on the contribution only, politeness, teamwork, honesty, dispute resolution, negotiation, compromise and checking the sources carefully does magic. Fleet Command (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

*Support: There are numerous aspects of Dogmaticeclectic's behavior that are chronically and protractedly problematic. I support this as well. Toddst1 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• • This just keeps getting better and better! I must admit I didn't expect to see you here, but welcome (to this evidence-gathering section for a future report on all of the users who have tried to make my experience at Wikipedia miserable). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• comment given the free form comments in this discussion, I don't see that there is any chance that a ban from using uw-templates will increase the actual communication. (At least the with the use of templates there will not be WP:NPA and WP:CIV attacks.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• support I agree with TDPoD that I'm not sure how much a ban on uw will help although Dogmaticeclectic does seem to be very free with them so perhaps it will. Either way limiting Dogmaticeclectic further in some way can't be a bad thing. Frankly their continuing behaviour here doesn't give me much hope (seriously if all you can see is the hole, it's really time to stop digging), this could be put down to a bad day except having looked more closely at their talk page and interactions with editors elsewhere (e.g. Mark Arsten, Lisa) it seems it's not. So I'm no longer opposed to an indef block and I'm unsure that anything weill help or whether they will just continue to insult etc others. But we can only try. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Note for closing administrator: a WP:0RR restriction is essentially equivalent to a block, because editing Wikipedia without at least partially reverting others' edits, at least inadvertently, is virtually impossible. In other words, not only is there no real incentive to abide by such a restriction, abiding by it is basically impossible anyways. Furthermore, disallowing me from using user warning templates would severely inhibit my ability to fight vandalism. I would therefore ask that the closing administrator not impose the behaviour ban. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - although I understand that, as they imposed the block, Toddst1 had every right to remove it again, I'm highly concerned and disappointed that this occurred, given the clear and strong consensus the block had. And a 0RR restriction is not equivalent to a block either. As for user warning templates, that will have a very minor impact on any vandalism fighting (and your definition of vandalism has been clearly well out of consensus anyway) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • One other user in support does not fall under any definition of "strong consensus" that I'm aware of. In any case, although I'm obviously not supporting it, the topic ban would definitely be more constructive. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I count three separate users saying "Good block" (Liz, 28bytes, Stalwart111) in addition to myself. And that's not including the two who supported a full CBAN. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• This comment of mine was specifically in regards to the proposed behaviour ban. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Scratch that... I got confused as to what you were referring to since you basically posted in the wrong section. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• It was in response to you appearing here again, and the fact that this thread is all over the place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Although Dogmatic's equating this ban to a virtual block isn't quite right, it's enough right that I would prefer a proposal for a block to this proposal. It just seems more transparent as to what we would be doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would support 1RR on all pages (perhaps indefinitely) in addition to the topic ban to try and encourage discussion (forcing Dogmaticeclectic to engage with WP:BRD is a good thing). However I don't see how 0RR will fix the problem. I also reflect TRPoD's comment that banning from uw- probably won't help to the extent that Dogmaticeclectic can still make their own copy and paste warning which can be just as bad as what we've seen on this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic blocked

This is has gotten out of hand. I've blocked Dogmatic for 1 week for the highly confrontational, disruptive and tendentious editing that is patently evident on this page. Feel free to modify this block if consensus is other remedies would be more effective. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Reported to ANI for their behaviour, and their behaviour on ANI leads to a block. When will he understand that it's not the members of Wikipedia who are making his life here miserable, it's his treatment of others and bizarre interpretations of the rules that are making his life miserable here ES&L 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Toddst1's reasoning is spot on. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess DE got out early for time served, Toddst1? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DE sez he wants to discuss things calmly here. I assume that is regarding the sanction being discussed. Let's see what comes of it. He can be reblocked (per notes and block log) immediately if problems persist. A reblock for violating terms of unblock would almost certainly be for significantly longer. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• The block was spot on and the unblock was even better. Well done Toddst1 that's exactly how it should work! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

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

---

After re-reading this thread, I'm not convinced that my 1 week block or the proposed sanctions are enough to stop these problems. The sentence that jumps out at me really represents the root of the problem:

"I am about to open a separate case against both of you, as well as anyone else who decides to join you in supporting this"

This was in response to a reasonably well thought out proposal about how to deal with Dog's problematic behavior. What that tells me is that this user doesn't have the skills to engage in any type of a constructive disagreement. I don't think we have a place here for those who can't disagree without threatening to report, gathering evidence or otherwise bully those they disagree with. This is not new so I propose a community ban from editing Wikipedia for Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose extending it or changing it to an indef, but let's wait awhile before jumping to a ban. Will a week off give Dogmaticeclectic a chance to cool off and reconsider their approach to Wikipedia? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the realization that people are seriously considering a ban will be sufficient to encourage them to rethink things. I think it's worth a try. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• My experience with this user is they never cool off. The temperature variation is from hot to very hot. They are also extraordinarily stubborn.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I want to agree with 28bytes though I think Bbb23 is correcter. (I have the same experience with this editor.) But I think we should see what happens a week from now, per WP:ROPE. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I wasn't supporting a community ban. I was just reacting to 28bytes's comments and predicting what I think will happen. If I had to vote at this point, I would be opposed to a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I've seen quite enough above. Indef per WP:NOTHERE. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 28b NE Ent 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 28bytes. Dogmaticeclectic is capable of discussing, as I have done so with him on some articles a while back, and isn't at the point where I think he needs to be banned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I would not be against an indef until such a point as we actually see some assurances that this battlebullshit won't happen in the future, and any unblock being based on immediate re-indef should the behaviours recur, I'm not 100% to the community ban point ... yet. ES&L 00:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Seems reasonable, considering everything I've seen. 173.58.106.118 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jasper Deng and ESL. Dogmatic is not a "lost cause" yet, which is what we would be saying with a community ban. I sometimes find myself agreeing with their position on issues (I'm not referring to this particular one), whilst banging my head on the wall wishing they would cut out the battleground stuff and hostility towards anyone who fails to agree with them. I think it's appropriate to use some more of our precious ROPE here to see if they can conform to community norms enough to be productive. Maybe this block will be the impetus for that. The low cost of reblocks is often cited here, and one would surely be forthcoming very quickly if the kind of battleground display above were repeated. There would then, in that eventuality, be little doubt that a CBAN was appropriate. Begoon ^talk 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Good block but oppose ban - DE and I were recently part of a DRV discussion that from the start seemed way more heated than it needed to be. It ended up going the way he had proposed which I think helped to prevent further hostility but (as suggested above) he started angry and got angrier. I couldn't see any on-WP stuff that might have justified his getting that angry and I genuinely hope there isn't something off-WP causing him problems. I'd hope he could come back from a block refreshed, calm and ready to contribute to collegial discussion. If not, he'll likely find himself blocked again. But a ban seems slightly premature. Stalwart111 03:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Block okay but no ban - I think we should look at Dogmatic's conduct after a week off...I imagine that he'll either cool off or he'll get worse. But there is no way to tell before the block is lifted and I believe in second chances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Good block, no ban yet - CBAN is too soon. I support an indefinite block all the way... but a CBAN, no. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Ownership issue on Federal assault weapons ban page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have misrepresented my participation in the events of 30sep2013. Please remove the claim that I was in favor of the decision, which in fact I argued against. I see a pattern by this single-purpose advocacy account of claiming 'new editor mistake' when POV edits are made, yet showing a deep and well-versed understanding of even the most obscure wikipedia policies, completely out of character for a new editor. This appears to be a microcosm not only of the hyper-vocal pro gun-control lobby and its advocates, but also of the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia. I'd like to know the best place to report this as well. Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you. At 02:35 30 SEP 2013 (UTC) you wrote, "...I don't think there is a burning need to revert back to an earlier date," but at 18:29 (same date) you wrote: "I have no strong objection to a rollback...." It looked to me like you'd changed your mind and agreed to revert. I disagree with your assumption that mine is a single-purpose account. My only claim of new WP editor mistakes is on items #1 and #2, and since #3 happened when I'd been an active editor for less than one week, I think I could rightly be called a newbie then, too. After almost eight weeks now I'd rate myself an intermediate WP editor. And that is entirely from what I had to learn - on my own, with little help - responding to various comments made to or about me, often using uncited sources and WP jargon. (I have shared that I am a trained writer and editor outside WP, but WP has its own rules and jargon that is very complex, IMO.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The only "ownership issues" I see are on your end, Lightbreather. Just because you don't agree with what the 4-5 other editors have done at that article doesn't mean you should get your way. ROG5728 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Lightbreather has about 750 lifetime edits, and about 98% of those were about 730 edits on this ONE article (and its talk page and sandbox work for this article) in the last 7 weeks. My assessment is avalanches of gnome edits with some heavy POV editing mixed into them. I would LOVE an outside look at the article and the situation there, including the SPA aspect. We just put the article back 5 days (had about 100 edits in mainspace in 5 days) and now are saying the everybody should slow down and also go to talk with controversial edits, and definitely not bury them in avalanches of edits. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Could someone share with me please how to go about looking at the details of other editors' edit history? I assume, from context, that "gnome edits" are harmless or maybe even good edits? I was going to as ask what "SPA" is, but after replying to Anastrophe's comment above I think I've figured that out, but just to be sure, single-purpose advocacy, right? If so, I disagree. (Please refer to my reply to A.) As for the 100-edits-in-5-days comment, the link to the whole discussion is in #6 above. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

re edit history - when you are on a user's page, over on the left you'll see an entry in the toolbox for 'User contributions'. There you'll find that user's complete edit history. As far as I know, that history is cast in stone, and cannot be changed either by the user or anyone else - but I can't say with absolute certainty, perhaps admin is able to elide. Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This SPA account should be considered for a topic ban. It is extremely disruptive, consistantly burying controversial/POV edits in avalanches of gnome edits, making it nearly impossible to fix. It is *NOT* a newbie account, as is apparent by it's extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, more extensive than my own, and I have 7 years experience, and advanced privileges. I was unaware of the existence of this article, until the this SPA canvassed me for support, as I was a supporter of the ban, and I am sure that whomever manages the account assumed that I would support them as well. I am certain that this SPA is a political advocacy vehicle of some kind, it's origin, timing, and efforts are very suspicious, and I hope that a neutral party will look into this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Sue here, and I saw this boomerang coming from a mile away. I closed an RfC in relation to this article at the beginning of last month, which has been my only involvement with this topic. I have observed the kind of discourse there happening since my close. Lightbreather frequently points to WP:BRD in defense on their edits (e.g. [22], [23]), but when reverted, they claim that editors are not assuming good faith ([24], [25]) or disagree with the notion that it is hard to deal with their substantial edits that change both uncontroversial and controversial things about article content, some of which was the subject of prior discussion and consensus ([26], [27]). It is not terribly surprising, given this editing behavior, that there has been a proposal to roll the article back a couple of days. I see some evidence that Lightbreather is getting better at interacting with other editors and using the talk page appropriately, but there is too much disruptive activity still, and I do not see their contributions, on the whole, to be very constructive. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If "SPA" means single-purpose account, then I absolutely disagree. As for the newbie thing, see my response to Anastrophe above.

I have been a Wikipedia user for many years. At some point, I set up an account to add links to some Beatles album pages. I also contributed a little to a local politician's page. The first time I edited a firearms related page was Oct. 2012 when I removed the word "cosmetic" from the article in question. At that time, I must've added it to my watchlist (a feature I'd never noticed before). I didn't edit on WP again until August of this year (2013) when I received three MediaWiki emails. The first two, on Aug. 8, said, "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been deleted," and "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been restored." The third, on Aug. 9, said, "The Wikipedia page Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been changed." Since I am interested in gun politics, I followed the link to see what was happening. When I saw that "cosmetic" was back in the article, I removed it again. From there, you can read #1 above for further info. I was a newbie WP editor then, and boy, did I pay the price.! Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is no-one going to even look into the issue I raised? Even the possibility that there could be WP:OOA going on? (I can give more examples, if necessary.) It wasn't easy for me to come here. Is bringing up an issue here only likely to draw attention to one's own history? Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of the editors who weighed in above have looked into the issue you raised, and so has yours truly. No one thinks you are correct. So I think that should be the end of your complaint. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North, Sue, and any others who are calling for an outside, neutral review of the article. I brought up the last one I could find, but was told that a six year old peer review "is as useful as tits on a boar." Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Lightbreather

Should this account (and the claim to be a newbie account making newbie mistakes stretches credibility by rational Anglophone humans) be topic-banned?

• Support as per Sue Rangell. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• involved complicated !vote Certainly lightbringer has been a source of disruption, but I am on the edge as to if this goes so far as to require a topic ban. They do show some signs of wanting to improve, but they have a lot to learn. Perhaps mentorship as an alternative, but certainly if things continue as they have been I would have to reluctantly supportGaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined above by Sue Rangell. ROG5728 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Mentorship would be preferred, as LB did some very good work when she had some direction and positive comments. It was only when a disruptive editor showed up that it went downhill again. If mentorship were to be declined or unsuccessful, then I would very reluctantly support a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Temporary topic ban IMHO this is a very wiki-saavy SPA who I think is feigning lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. They are expertly conducting warfare linking policies and guidelines and accusing editors of violating those. At quick glance it appears that sbout 730 of the about 750 lifetime edits by this account were on this one article (including talk and sandbox development for the article) in a less than a 2 month period, and the second half of the gnome edits have had a large amount of POV work blended into them. (a barrage of about 60 edits in the article space alone of that article Sept 26-29) and the large amount of gnome edits appear to be a means to that POV end. If they want to be a Wikipedia editor, then can spend a few months on the other 99.999% of articles to develop that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As noted below, I feel that a short (3 month) page ban would be a a middle-of-the-road solution. That leaves them the other 99.99998% of Wikipedia articles to work at. I think that the most important thing is that some relief from their relentless and overwhelming hammering of the article is needed. If that causes them to move the same assault elsewhere, that could be dealt with at that time. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• STRONG Support given this SPA's history and ongoing behavior. Scores of AGF attempts have not been useful. Even an Article ban would be useful as this SPA, for all intents and purposes, only edits the one page.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I only claimed to be a newbie in #1 and #2 above - because I was a newbie then. Also, I've only ever brought up newbie-ness in response to accusations from the first 3 or 4 weeks of my active participation on the page (which began Aug. 9). Also, if "SPA" means single-purpose account, I absolutely refute that. I have been actively involved for almost eight weeks and consider myself an intermediate-level WP editor now because I've spent so much time defending myself and my edits - which have ALL been made in good faith. Votes like this are one of my biggest complaints with the system. If you read the policies, votes aren't supposed to be The Final Word - participants are supposed to present civil discussion and sources - but my experience on this article has been, if you're bold, you're told to discuss first, and if you discuss first, you're dismissed quickly and told you're being disruptive if you ask for civil discussion and sources. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. And there better not be an "anti-gun" undercurrent agenda to this. Doc talk 01:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there are no idealogical lines here. Several of us supported the gun ban, and would likely be siding with the SPA account, were it not for the terrible behavior. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I intentionally left it vague on the agenda: either LB or anyone else. Clean block log - do we need to jump to a topic ban? I would have expected better precedence for the ban. Doc talk 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's it - LB and Sue are actually on the same side, politically speaking, IIRC. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, forget gun politics. LB has a clean block log. Disruptive editing necessitating a topic ban should have earned at least one block. A topic ban is so much easier to agree with when there's proof of prior disruption. Jus' sayin' Doc talk 02:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose banning every editor who shows up on ANI -- who's going to be left to edit the encyclopedia after we ban everyone? NE Ent 01:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! You! Writing content! S**t Ent, you knew it was going to happen one day. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • With, for example, a quarter million {{unreferenced}} tags currently present, the scope of the job is beyond my personal capacity; best to keep every editor we possibly can. NE Ent 09:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Reducio ad absurdum much? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - For obvious reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we normally go from no blocks for disruption to a full topic ban to prevent disruption? If this is a sock account, that's another ball of wax. How does one get to a topic ban with no concrete history of disruption to earn it? First block for disruption. If it continues, escalate the blocks. Going straight for a topic ban is overkill. Doc talk 04:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that a topic ban or page ban is milder than a block. They still leave the person free to edit the other 99.999% / 99.99998% of Wikipedia articles. And it leaves less of a "record" when it's over. Maybe a short (3 month?) page ban would be a middle-of-the-road solution? I think that the most important thing is that some relief from their relentless and overwhelming hammering of the article is needed. If that causes them to move the same assault elsewhere, that could be dealt with at that time. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that a topic ban was considered worse than a block, especially in cases like this one. A block deprives a user of the entirety of Wikipedia, while a topic ban only deprives a user of a small section, in this case that amounts to basically a single article. Given a choice, I would personally prefer a topic ban over a block, but thats me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• STRONG Support - This user has been nothing but disruptive and unwilling to work with anyone constructively on this article. Perhaps she could be useful in other areas on Wikipedia, but she is too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic banning without evidence of needing one is potentially unfair. Prior blocks for disruption/edit-warring/POV-pushing/etc. only strengthen the case for a topic ban. Since there hasn't been even a short block on this account, it's hard for me to agree that a topic ban is the next logical step. Others disagree, which is just fine with me. Doc talk 01:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally suggested a topic ban rather than a block because it seemed the lesser of the two punitives to me, because the problematic editor is not vandalizing random pages, but rather one specific article. However, if it is customary to do a temporary block rather than a ban, then I would support that. It just seems a bit overkill considering that the problem is limited to a single article out of the whole of Wikipedia. I just want to see the page stabilized. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As she only edits that one page, a page ban and a block are effectively the same. although a page/topic ban may give her the opportunity to spread her wings out into a wider set of pages. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I don't like the fact that some editors want to ban me, but of those who do, suggesting that another is unable to edit from an NPOV is an acceptable reason (though I disagree that I am). But "she is too emotional... to work with anything firearms related" is sexist, not civil. Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After reading the talk page archives, this is richly deserved. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose This 'topic ban' procedure has proven to be a useful tool for coalitions of users with long-term 'ownership' of articles to tactically freeze out opposing points of view. The encyclopedia suffers when this is allowed to happen. NPOV policy trumps here, as minority views should not be excluded by such a gambit. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course you would say that, SaltyBoatr, because you yourself are currently under a 6 month topic ban on the aforementioned article (for good reason). ROG5728 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Premature, Taking everything into account over the past couple of months, including recent (since the big rollback) apparent willingness to run past peers any edits that have the slightest scintilla of being controversial, rather than salting said edits in amongst a hundred (otherwise excellent) technical edits, making the BRD cycle cosmetic, rather than functional (couldn't resist). Would pay folding money to find out how editor saltyboatr would try to spin my vote. Anastrophe (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of mentorship. I've given this some thought over the last couple of days and reevaluated my opinion based on how others have looked at the situation, I have also noticed that Lightbreather is actively seeking a mentorship with StarryGrandma (talk · contribs) on different topics, which I find reassuring, but I would encourage Lightbreather to continue to be mindful of how they edit Federal Assault Weapons Ban and interact with others on the talk page moving forward. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per I, JethroBT's argument. Plus, boomeranging so many Editors who come to AN/I with questions has a chilling effect. I don't think it is warranted in this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What "Chilling Effect" would that be? To stop SPAs and (and various other forms of hattery) from attempting to claim that hard working editors have "ownership issues" and waste everyone's time? Mentoring has already been suggested and offered.

This is NOT A NEWBIE ACCOUNT, this is a years-old Wikipedia Saavy SPA, that has done everything within it's power to disrupt the process and push heavy POV, and has promised never to stop it's efforts. If there was ever a call for a temporary topic ban (or even a page ban) THIS IS IT. Mentoring will do nothing here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell: I have a mentor. Also, PLEASE STOP with the WP:PA - repeatedly shouting "this is not a newbie account" and calling it an SPA account. Even though I have explained myself repeatedly and asked you to stop, I shall do both again now.

First, my only claim of WP newbie-ness was on items #1 and #2 in the "Ownership issue on Federal assault weapons ban page" discussion from four days ago (Oct. 1, 2013). After eight weeks now I'd rate myself an intermediate WP editor. (If anyone believes that it's impossible to gain extensive knowledge of Wikipedia in less than eight weeks, I am here as living proof that it is possible if you cross the editors on the Federal assault weapons ban page.)

I have been a Wikipedia user for many years, but I didn't register until March 2007, to add links to some Beatles album pages. I also contributed to a politician's page in 2010. The first time I edited a firearms related page was Oct. 2012 when I removed the word "cosmetic" from the article in question. I didn't edit on WP again until August of this year (2013) when I received MediaWiki emails saying 1. that the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act page had been moved, and that the Federal assault weapons ban page had been 2. deleted, 3. restored, and 4. changed. Since I am interested in gun politics, I followed the link to see what was happening. When I saw that "cosmetic" was back in the article, I removed it again. From there, you can read #1 in the "Ownership issue" discussion referenced earlier.

One has only to look at my early contribution history and the Federal assault weapons ban history page around Aug. 8 to see this is true. Please post a link to where I promised "never to stop" my efforts, because if I have said that, you're taking it out of context.

I asked you on Oct. 2 on the Federal assault weapons ban talk page to please stop - so PLEASE STOP. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, your "if you cross the editors on the Federal assault weapons ban page" in this post (and the things that it falsely implies ....that they are monolithic, that what started it is problem is "crossing" them rather than your over-the-top behavior) shows that you are still sparring and that the situation is problematic. I think that a 3 month rest from just this one article would be a mild "middle of the road" resolution. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Community WP:Discretionary sanctions

Should the article be put under community Discretionary sanctions?

• Support - Article is becoming a battleground. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support Oppose I have no idea why there is a sudden interest in this article from a few editors; while I feel like discretionary sanctions could be helpful, I'm not entirely confident that they are necessary if the concerns are just with Lightbreather and another recent editor. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the only current issue there seems to be with one editor and that is being discussed above. ROG5728 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, there has been nothing that has not been able to be handled through the normal processes. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The only problem is that two editors were barraging this article (Lightbreather and SaltyBoatr). SaltyBoatr was continuously nasty and continuously hurling accusations. Lightbreather has not been very nasty, but has been relentless/dominating of the article and problematic. (see above) Everybody else seems reasonable, ready to discuss any matter, proceed carefully and wanting of an objective, informative article. A look at the discussion on the talk page bears this out. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Defer, but I think I know why it became an article of interest recently. If you look at its history, you will see that it was part of another article and then moved to this article on Aug. 8 - which is when I got involved, because I received a MediaWiki email. (Please see my comment about this above.) Also, I think I've only made a "nasty" (rather, hasty) comment once - and I apologized. Also, because the topic is closed, so I can't comment on it there re banning SaltyBoatr: GregJackP said, "Every editor that has commented is in support of the topic ban." I commented, and I didn't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I think the source of the trouble is being taken care of, but I would be in favor in the future should more disruptive elements suddenly pop in out of nowhere in the future. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

*Support This matter needs attention from uninvolved editors or administrators. Notice that a coalition of editors, some with a multi-year pattern of 'ownership' in this topic area, are attempting to exert control over an article by cleansing it of editors with opposing viewpoints. On the principle that this encyclopedia is best served by following a NPOV policy, it is to the detriment of the encyclopedia to allow coalitions to railroad the minority viewpoint. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course you would say that, SaltyBoatr, because you yourself are currently under a 6 month topic ban on the aforementioned article (for good reason). ROG5728 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Hasteur, AFC, and "I didn't hear that"

User:Hasteur has thrice reverted the undoing of his closure at two AFCs, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections. After being told that his closes were not based on Wikipedia guidelines (see edit summaries here and here), s/he has replied with a very WP:OWNy response: "Are you a contributor to AfC? I think not. Please do not mess with AfC project space pages". When invited to discuss, her/his reply was exactly the same, with a bit of ABF included: "You're not a project member of AfC, you're not familiar with the levels necessary for AfC. DO NOT remove the reviews or I will take you to AN3 for edit warring. The submissions are in AfC space and under the auspices of AfC. They're not the property of DYK." (note that a related article is currently at DYK, though I was checking the closes under the IP writer's request). Hasteur then reverted my reply; obviously discussion is pointless. Do we really want editors like this interacting with newbies? No wonder there is a retention problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a further note: Hasteur has since avoided reverts by providing an alternately worded refusal which is likewise not based in policy or guideline. There is no "ratio" of references to content; if a published list has all the winners in an extant list, we can use that list, as shown in several Featured Lists like List of works by Amir Hamzah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And what's different with your cherry picked example? There's a WP:LEAD which gives a synopsis of what makes the list up and some idea of how it's connected to it's parent article. Please let me know if you would like me to poke more holes in your argument. Hasteur (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your rationale was "insufficient content/reference ratio". I was addressing that. You are moving the goalposts, and implying that you had made such an argument regarding the article in question that you actually didn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• One last note: the IP editor who asked me to check this out also complained that edit summaries such as "An IP knows better than a Editor... NO" are overly rude. In the context of AFC, I tend to agree, as a lot of good editors get their start as IPs (or choose to edit continuously as IPs). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Get the Facts straight: For both pages the sequence was: Declined once, Undid by IP address, Undid by me, Re-undid by you, Re-re-declined by me, Re-re-re-undid by you missing the point AGAIN. So what did I do. I re-reviewed it citing exactly what problems there were were (No lead on the winners page explaining the connection, grossly under sourced for the amount of content on the "Selection members" page). Each Project is given general controll over articles in it's perview. I was exercising the rights granted to AfC. I dropped a notice on the DYK nomination page because the IP editor cited the DYK nomination as justification for overriding the AfC evaluation. No wonder we're loosing volunteers from the project when we have disruptive editors like you trying to protect editors who are patently not newbies and deserve to have a candid review of their submission. Would you rather the AfC submission process go around for 6 months while we string along the user with non-critical language only to finally decline the submission because of something that was patently obvious during the first review of the submission? Hasteur (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Last time I looked, submissions at WP:AFC (a place where unregistered users and other newbies are encouraged to create articles) were supposed to be judged against Wikipedia's generally applicable article guidelines and could be reviewed by any autoconfirmed user. There are no special qualifications for AFC submissions to be accepted and no rites of initiation or secret handshakes required to enter a secret fraternity of users who can review AFC submissions. Since User:Crisco 1492 is an administrator who has created many articles and has contributed to FAs and GAs, it appears to me that he is amply qualified to review AFCs. Maybe the late hour has clouded my judgment, and maybe the childish squabbling in the US Congress has reduced my patience for other squabbling, but Hasteur's insinuations that Crisco can't possibly understand how to review an AFC submission look to me like nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I may be somewhat out of touch, but I seem to recall certain wiki projects being given carte blanche with respect to pages in their purview (WP:USROADS and WP:NRHP). As such I would have assumed that the same yielding of acceptance would have been extended to the page in AfC space and wouldn't have editors outside of the project interfering with the operations of the project. I would have assumed that when a less experienced editor would go to an admin, that the admin would take all aspects of the situation in and review the applicable policies before taking a hostile action. I would have assumed that an admin would be more scrupulous in following WP:BRD and would have reached out to the AfC project. But I guess all these assumptions are what I get for trying to assume the best in people and having to apply clue-bat to others repeatedly. Crisco 1492 is invited to reach out via appropriate DR mechanisms (such as WP:DRN, opening a discussion at WT:AFC, or talking to annother editor involved with AfC), but running to ANI without trying other less agressive and disruptive forms of DR only serves to make me further question my involvment and commitment with Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's completely out-of-touch, and has never been formal. Unfortunately, some projects have taken that idea as a mantra, which goes against the goals of Wikipedia as a whole. Please don't try to use a failed idea of ownership-by-project as a defense - you're brighter than that Hasteur ES&L 12:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is no policy supporting a complete blacklist of non-project members editing any article or Wikipedia page, and if someone were to try and make one they would rightfully be scorned. If AFC does truly believe, as both a first line of defense and introduction to the community rolled into one, that it is to be outside of the purview of editors who are not members (I note that membership does not require any proof of qualification), then an RFC should be conducted.

"Try the proper mechanisms". I did try: your talk page. I posted, if I'm not mistaken, after your first revert of my edit. You unceremoniously booted me from said talk page. If your seventh trip to ANI shines a bad light on you, it is your own fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a question: if you were trying to discuss content, why would you go to their page directly? Content discussions should always take place on the article talkpage so that all interested parties may partake in the discussion. I typically remove content discussions from my talkpage too ES&L 12:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Crisco's initial post on Hasteur's talk page was not about content. It was about communication: diff. Moreover, none of the subsequent discussion on that talk page was about content: Hasteur diff, Crisco diff. --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In fairness, since this is an AFC draft, the content is on the talk page and it can be confusing as to where discussions about it should go. However, with that being said, an administrator like Crisco should know how to use the opposing space of the draft as a talk page and I'm fairly certain that Hasteur knows this., yet Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections still show as redlinks for me. I say trout you both! Now, what I'm really curious about is why these non-article draft submissions have anything to do with DYK, I've seen it mentioned a few times in various pages and am baffled because I wouldn't call any AfC submission "stable" enough for any kind of DYK line... Also, if there is a mainspace article that there is a DYK for, and it has been spun out into AfC, then I wouldn't consider that article stable enough for DYK either as it has important information in an unstable location. Finally, why was an article spun out into AfC, as this doesn't seem like normal protocol to me. Technical 13 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical13: If you're curious, you could do some research into what actually happened, instead of guessing.

Another article initially created at AFC by the same IP user is at DYK as a nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival. The two articles in question here (which are actually at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners) are prominent red links in the nominated article. As you can read from the DYK nomination page, the nomination has been on hold for a month waiting for resolution of the situation with the two articles at AFC. Crisco 1492 was trying to resolve that situation. Hasteur says Crisco doesn't have any right to get involved with the AFC review process. You will find some discussion history at both the AFC pages and the DYK nomination page. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Essentially the same as Orlady has already replied. As for "using the other space", please show me where that is in the documentation, exactly. You're saying what you think should be instinctive, yet I don't see such an alternative presented at the AFC documentation. There being no way to discuss nominations was exactly why DYK's nomination templates were moved to Template (from Template talk), so "post on the other page" obviously isn't as instinctive or intuitive as you claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC) - Edit23:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now that I've had ample time to cogitate on this in the light of day, it's time to recommend some solutions. Both parties to this dispute are good and productive contributors to Wikipedia, who shouldn't be warring.

As I see it, User:Crisco 1492 wants to help an IP user get a couple of pages moved into article space so they will no longer be redlinks. He became concerned that the pages were rejected at AFC for reasons that didn't provide useful advice to the contributor, and he reverted the rejections. Meanwhile, User:Hasteur is concerned with maintaining the proper operation of the process that has been established at WP:AFC, and got upset because Crisco's edits violated the protocols there. Specifically, the standard protocol at AFC is for "rejected" pages to be "resubmitted" for review by the submitter (and placed at the end of the review queue) after being revised, but Crisco's reverts short-circuited that standard protocol, messing up the queue. Crisco's error in not following protocol deserved a response in the form of friendly communication about the AFC protocol, the response it received ("You're not a project member of AfC, you're not familiar with the levels necessary for AfC. DO NOT remove the reviews or I will take you to AN3 for edit warring.") was entirely unwarranted.

Hasteur is hereby WP:TROUTed (with a particularly large, wet trout) for failing to assume good faith, failing to communicate effectively with the IP user regarding the concerns about the articles, failing to communicate effectively with Crisco about the protocols at AFC, for asserting ownership of the AFC process that is supposed to serve Wikipedia as a whole (not just the active volunteers), and for overall incivility. Crisco is hereby advised to study up on the AFC process so he doesn't mess up its queue again by reverting AFC rejections.

Next step is for the parties to figure out how to help this IP user improve the pages so they will be acceptable in main space (or fix the issues yourself) and get them moved to main space. With cleanup, the pages would be credible candidates for article space (they would not qualify for speedy deletion), but if Hasteur thinks the pages should be deleted, take them to AFD after the move to main space. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Orlady I accept the trouting, however turn the scenario around. If a member of an outside project had gone into DYK and started undoing declines (or petitions for more information) would the players involved have reacted the same way? I sincerely doubt that it would, however I would hope that the IP address and Crisco now have a greater appreciation for the work that AfC volunteers do. I would also point out that it's not just one rogue editor who is on a vendetta, as Zach Vega has endorsed the decline reason (as indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Hasteur) Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, an argument over an AFC decline. Anyways, the reason I supported Hasteur's decline was because nearly all of the sources were primary, and that doesn't go well here in AFC. Hasteur was rather ostracizing after his edits were reverted, and didn't act in a very civil manner. We could've resolved this easily if he had actually attempted to converse with his (current) adversaries, for lack of a better term. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "nearly all of the sources were primary," - Again, that is not what Hasteur was saying in his closes (love how everyone is putting words in his/her mouth... the diffs are right there, people, and "primary sources" was not mentioned in the refusing rationale). I didn't disagree with his rejection, but his rationale. You're not going to help make new editors by giving them rejections not based in policy or guidelines. A simple close like "Rejected: the article depends too heavily on primary sources, and thus its notability cannot be adequately established. Please add more reliable, independent sources."

@Orlady: I will read up more on their processes, but again please note I did not disagree with it being rejected, just the (non-policy or guideline) rationale given. "The source/content ratio is too low" is most certainly not policy based. A close such as the one I've written above would have been much more helpful and avoided the "drama", as it is clearly both based in policy and guidelines and points to the appropriate ones.

I also feel heavily that AFC closers have to be prepared to discuss, just like an admin who closes an AFD. If another editor (registered or not) contests the closure or the closing rationale, the AFC closer should be ready to discuss, defend, and if necessary amend their rationale. It's common courtesy, and it's a lot more of an effective way to get new contributors to stick than just "close, revert, revert, ignore". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Useddenim

Perhaps this should have gone on the dispute resolution page, since User:Useddenim and I have disagreed about page content, but I feel that Useddenim has had a disruptive editing pattern, ignoring the voices of other users (primarily me), and has made edits without garnering consensus, and ignoring requests to participate in the related discussions. On 13 August 2013 Useddenim asked me to review a template he had written, I asked why, and with no explanation after two days, I nominated it for deletion. He responded with a tit-for-tat nomination of the template that has been widely used for years, and said we were having a disagreement, I replied that the solution to an edit war is discussion not forking. I asked him again about the use of the template on 9 September 2013 and 12 September 2013, Useddenim has yet to respond. Since Useddenim has indicated on Template talk:ETS LRT route that he would like changes to that template, a discussion was started on how that would work, when Useddenim left the discussion after I left a proposal (WP:SILENCE), I went to commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests to look for other users willing to help out. There Useddenim called my proposal half-assed, so I asked him to rejoin the discussion, twice, he has yet to. Up to two months ago the Edmonton LRT had one template, that worked just fine. The addition of more templates has been called unnecessary multiple times[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40], yet on 9 September 2013‎ Useddenim created a fourth. Its deletion discussion closed on 22 September 2013‎ as no consensus, so I edited it twice [41][42] hoping to clean it up, and correct it, and each time providing my rational in the edit summary, Useddenim subsequently revised/reverted it. I also brought up my concerns on Useddenim's talk page, and the template page, and asked him to respond to my concerns twice[43][44]. When he failed to respond to my concerns with the template, I made the changes, which was reverted without an explanation on why his version is right, but stated I was ignoring WP:BEBOLD. I don't see how a user can hide behind WP:BEBOLD, which doesn't allow a user to assert his version without discussion. On 30 September 2013 I reminded Useddenim again of the open discussions, he has yet to comment in any. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I will not judge anyone's behaviour (as I only occasionally happened to interfere with this story), and can only say that most of Useddenim's proposals and solutions go in line with a more or less established consensus across Wikipedias & Commons (again, no point on his actions). Commonly raised questions were: including an RDT in addition to a list of stations (as I wrote, they are complimentary), having two templates instead of one (over time I myself came to a conclusion that this may be beneficial, if templates present different aspects of the system; so the accusation of forking does not hold here) and including proposed stations into RDT (Useddenim seems to have provided sources[45], but I won't judge their reliability). I would say that both sides should (on their on will) take a break from editing anything related to Edmonton LRT. In the end, this edit warring will have little effect on whether these stations would be built or not and how soon; so let's embrace m:eventualism... YLSS (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be an established consensus across Wikipedia, and the multiple template system works for large transit systems, but Edmonton's 18 stations neatly fits in one diagram. The issue I have with Useddenim is his unwillingness to participate in discussions, to explain why he thinks he is right. I know a user can't be forced to answer a question, but I don't think that a user should make controversial edits without participating in discussion, and Useddenim has demonstrated that on Template:Metro Line. I've come here because I am tired of getting reverted, asking questions that don't get answered, and asking for Useddenim to join conversations. 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this probably should have been taken to WP:DRN, but 117Avenue escalated this dispute and has strewn it into so many corners that I can’t keep track of it any more:

Template talk:ETS LRT route (15 August) Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit (28 August) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 1#Template:Capital Line (1 September) Template talk:ETS LRT future (9 September) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#Template:Metro Line (10 September) User talk:Useddenim (10 September) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#User:117Avenue (12 September) User talk:117Avenue (13 September) Commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests (20 September) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 23#Template:Capital Line (23 September) Template talk:Metro Line (25 September) User talk:YLSS (3 October) Template talk:Capital Line (oh yeah, it’s been deleted…) and who knows where else.

It’s damn near impossible to have a discussion with someone when most of their responses are “No”, “I don’t like it”, or “We don’t approve”. And let’s be clear that User:117Avenue usually makes the first revert. Furthermore—although not posted in the best location—117Avenue was clearly aware of my overall intent for these templates and page edits. Useddenim (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You're saying I keep linking to discussions, and asking you to reply, because you "can't keep track"? I don't believe that, because I've linked to discussions multiple times without you responding. Why are you suggesting the first revert is wrong? WP:BEBOLD doesn't allow you to make controversial edits without the risk of another user reverting or asking for an explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Template:Kurdish separatism in Iran

A recent community consensus to remerge template Template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict into template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran was violated and reverted by user:HistorNE - see revert (he also used another IP account [46] when implementing edits on the second template).

Previously, HistorNE was the one doing the disputed split of the original template in early September and the only one opposing the remerger, though consensus was reached. He had previously also proposed to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, and when opposed decided to split a "competing" article with a desired name. HistorNE has a general tendency not to apply the community consensus, use harsh language, dispose of reliable sources and engage in edit warring, specifically on Iranian and Kurdish related topics - like this,this and this incidents. The editing culture of this user is very problematic - he clearly acts in a disruptive matter and against the community and i don't have an intention to edit-war with him.GreyShark (dibra) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I exluded all events irrelevant to separatism and that's all. No consensus can change fact that you don't have any reliable source which describe 80% events as "separatism". Regarding editing culture of this Israeli user, just to mention few from this talkpage: misusing sources, violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, insisting on WP:POV directly opposed to WP:RS, prefering unreliable sources and unfinished working papers instead of academic books written by most eminent scholars, forcing version full of inner "citation needed" and header POV template, reverting everything like he WP:OWN article and acting WP:ICANTHEARYOU toward all relevant criticism, etc. --HistorNE (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It should be noted that during proposed merging user Otr500 adviced merging under some neutral name like "Kurdish conflict(s) in Iran" or "Kurdish–Iranian conflict", but still Greyshark09 deseperately wants to keep all conflicts under "separatism" title. --HistorNE (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is simple - you refuse to follow community consensus and edit war at all related articles and templates (apparently nothing changed since this explanation by an administrator). Currently i don't edit those pages, so WP:OWN applies to you.GreyShark (dibra) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Another topic

• This editor also removed a category from an article, where that category was justified by a sourced part of the article's text, see this edit. This edit might be POV related. At best, removal of a sourced category is careless editing, and the editor should be warned. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

For an encyclopaedia article on a historical topic the source is junk. Popular history written by a non-academic, non-specialist, non-historian, not published in an academic press. The claims you want to introduce to the article (that the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt was an example of genocide that resulted in "an almost complete depopulation of Judea and an attempt to erase Judeans from history") are fairly exceptional and would require good quality sources. Added to that, the claims seem to be at odds with what has been written by academic experts published under academic imprint (see e.g. Davies, Finkelstein, Katz et al 2006 pp23). Dlv999 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that HistorNE shows a pattern of edit-warring, which he continues even after this thread was opened and after I warned him not to remove sourced information [47] [48]. In addition, he posted an personal attack and insult on my talkpage [49], which comment I find bordering on anti-semitic in fact, convincing me of a lack of good faith from this editor. Not to mention, Dlv999, that calling the source "junk" is an exaggeration. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong again

Coming off the last ANI about Ryulong's abusive behavior, he seems to have gotten worse and is now attacking me and accusing me of gaming the system by attempting to improve MOSAM. He breaks 3RR and swears continuously while making bad faith accusations.[50] He attacks my improvement as "gaming the system" because he can't revert it after breaching 4RR on a completely unrelated section.[51] He thinks self-reverting after part of his 4RR was reverted makes it okay, it does not.[52] Then he says he "fucked up" and retreats from his gaming the system accusation, but this is meaningless as evidenced by the recent ANI on Ryulong.[53] I'm really getting tired of dealing with Ryulong's hostility coupled with a string of bad faith accusations and mass reverting of hundreds of different editor's contributions. Ryulong must himself agree with the change or he will revert and insult the editors until his preferred version is reinstated. Also, Ryulong had just said three days ago he would "curb" his language to be more approachable after the last ANI.[54] Since then Ryulong has continued to yell in all caps at editors as if he was screaming at them.[55] And even did another improper use of rollback, a major point of the last ANI.[56] Ryulong has a long history of edit warring and ownership issues. Typically, requesting full page protection after you break 3RR shows more spite than restraint and I think Ryulong needs to know his abusive behavior towards other editors will not be tolerated. This has gone on for months and years, Ryulong's behavior has not changed after the ANI so I think Ryulong should be on 1RR for a duration of a month. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a total aside: why would anyone want to spend time and energy on the unverified fancruft found in Kousoku Sentai Turboranger? Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I realized my errors regarding the accusations of WP:GAME and retracted them and apologized. The edit on Talk:Attack on Titan was preceeded by this one. The revert on Kousoku Sentai Turboranger is to a long term disruptive editor who constantly hops IPs and who I've come to this board in the past to request assistance in dealing with. If you look in the history of the article you will see this is a recurring problem going back several years and it is not just limited to just that one article [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. And all of these pages are in dire need of cleaning up as well, but I digress. Just as ChrisGualtieri is tired of dealing with me, I too am at my last ropes with him. After I had reverted Adam Cuerden's modification of WP:MOSAM as it had not been discussed, and as a discussion on the talk page was being made about it, ChrisGualtieri reverted me, and after I had undone that change, again, he began to further modify the project page without discussion, which at the time confounded me. I don't see why requesting protection, particularly when the page is at what would be considered the m:wrong version from my point of view, is disruptive either. I still fully apologize for my statements towards Adam Cuerden this afternoon, and I hope that my attempts to explain my other edits that ChrisGualtieri cherrypicked for this are sufficient.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To me this is simple, you said you would watch your offensive language and be more approachable and not abuse rollback. I'm not "tired" of dealing with you, because I welcome your positive contributions and maintenance of pages that are generally problematic. This is why I may disagree with your behavior, but found your argument to make sense in both policy, it took me over an hour of researching to prove at DRN that your argument was indeed correct on the Death Note matter. Behavior and content matters are two different things for me. And I also owe some thanks to you for fixing that template at Anime. I'd like it if you could communicate better about these situations and not commit to edit warring to breaking 3RR over the issue. People can be BOLD and add or make good faith changes and many are constantly reverted by you resulting in little to no improvement over years; interestingly you removed a large chunk containing two sources as "UNIMPORTANT TRIVIA" (yes, in all caps) on the MMPR page.[70] While one part about "breaking boards" is useless trivia, we have two sources that dealt with opposition to Saban's reuniting, including a source noting the death of Trang. The removal is just one of many that negatively impacts Wikipedia and I believe abiding by a 1RR would help foster communication and growth with editors who think differently than you do. As said at the last ANI, your intentions are good, but the execution could certainly be better and this could go a long way to resolving the issues. It is also hard for people to work on the page given your dominance and reverting of almost every edit on these topics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You used the word "tired" though in your post here. Perhaps "unimportant trivia" was the wrong phrase, because are Huffpo and TMZ really the best sources for possibly controversial BLP statements? But I really do not think 1RR is necessary. I mostly deal with IP ediors who rarely if ever touch a talk page so it will only prevent me from cleaning up after the handful of uncommunicative long term problem editors I've had to deal with over the past 7 years of editing this niche set of pages ranging from an editor who would blank articles with lengthy screeds against the producer or completely whitewashing pages of the existence of his works; an editor who would remove every single reference, hidden comment, and piped link; an editor who changes Japanese TV show casts to have Bollywood actors; an editor who would unnecessarily append color names to items; an editor who for some reason would remove fictional characters' nicknames when they're used in the work of fiction; an editor who replaced pages wholesale with his fanfiction; an editor who made up whole seasons of Philippine TV shows; and of course the one who I posted like 15 diffs for above. I honestly cannot be expected to communicate with editors like these (even though only one is still active) under a one-revert restriction, but how am I supposed to deal with editors who do not adhere to BRD when I expect them to and request them to? That's what happened with Despatche and his edits to Pokémon Platinum, Pokémon Stadium, and Pokémon Stadium 2, and I can think of many other instances where I've reverted someone and gone to their user talk page or someone else's user talk page only for them to engage in discussion and then revert back to their preferred version or cease communicating with me on one page and begin a discussion on another as if the previous one never existed. How is 1RR going to help? I'd rather be allowed more time to adjust my behavior instead of it being expected of me to happen overnight, which is exactly why I was upset with how the RFC and RFAr happened to me several years ago. I was given no chance to attempt to change my behavior for the better before having the RFAR thrown at me. I would like to voluntarily be given more than 48 hours to adjust my behavior in this case rather than having a "community" backed editing restriction over my head.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ryulong wouldn't be the first positive contributor to benefit from a 1R limit. If incivility and tit-for-tat editing follow a series of back and forth reverts (no matter who's right and who's wrong), then 1R nips that in the bud. I haven't looked at what you said to Adam, though I'll take your word that your apology was sincere--but when in the same breath you use the word "cherrypick" to describe Chris's selection of edits I do wonder if you ran out of contrition already: "cherrypick" is a loaded term and serves only rhetorical purposes; of course there's picking since Chris can hardly point at all your edits to make his case. That's by-the-by, but it should show you (Ryulong) that it is important to get away from an adversarial mindset, if that's what's guiding your word choice. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, give him a chance, a little longer before you 1rr him. He is a good contributor in an area you couldn't pay me to touch, and, unlike most trouble makers here at ANI, using the term trouble in its lightest sense, he is admitting he is wrong and needs to change. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

The only thing is that repeated attempts have been made and they resulted in numerous editors showing evidence of hostility and bad faith and abuse of rollback. Perhaps it hasn't been a long enough period of time, but all caps yelling at an editor for correcting a typo in a talk page header mere days after recognizing the problem is not promising. If one says they will modify their behavior and one doesn't and continues right after the last ANI, business as usual, what weight do the words carry? Given the RFC and the ArbCom matter and the dozens of issues raised throughout the months from my meeting of Ryulong; perhaps Ryulong isn't capable of changing his behavior. Anyways - resolving our long standing content issue may help ease his tension and a week or two should be given to show Ryulong is capable of modifying his behavior. I'd like to see such restraint employed going forward and not being "gradual", while and no one is perfect, I think Ryulong acknowledges the issue. Next time, I'll request 1RR, but unless someone is opposed to closing this ANI - I think it has served its purpose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A Pox on both (or all) your houses ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and another editor who has been previously sanctioned (with respect to the other 2) have constantly been bickering back and forth across multiple venues (DRN,AN*,VP*). At this time I consider the net good you may have as been completely overshadowed by the eruptions of drama-bickering that require well trained (and thick skinned) volunteers to take their time way from productive ventures to extricate the combatants. I seem to recall that the riot act has been read in relation to these editors before, so I assumed that they would have behaved themselves. I guess I was wrong. I am deliberately being obtuse regarding the third editor because I don't want to inject any further drama into the issue by giving notice to them and opening the door for them to comment here. If others disagree, please feel free to notify the user in question Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Say what you will, I don't think any "riot act" has been read to me. I work 20+ hours a week in researching anime and manga topics; I am studying Japanese and can read and correct errors in translation, including one that Ryulong had edit warred to revert to an incorrect translation. All my GANs have passed and I have many more active, I expected our differences to be resolved when I showed that these pages do not need to be deleted and improvement is easy if only done properly. Since the matter, I've had to protest a deletion campaign advocated by 3 A&M editors and others which think LOCALCONSENSUS is acceptable. MOSAM is not official and has ruined dozens of pages; enforcing its LOCALCONSENSUS which was a major part of my issue with those two editors. Those willing to do the work on Wikipedia should be allowed that chance; to save an article from deletion or to have an article that meets N/GNG to not be reverted out as "no consensus to split". Sorry, if I am of different mindset; I know far more about anime and manga than what is on Wikipedia and as a scholar, I have a genuine appreciation of the art form and get a bit defensive when accused of being malicious, committing to some conspiracy and or worse. Especially when Ryulong's comments are taken word for word and thrown at me when I am sensitive about the situation. I've begged these two editors to work together; and while I have issues with the behavior and repeated personal attacks; I can still say I respect Ryulong for much of the work he does. You don't praise your "enemy" and spend over an hour to prove his argument and defend his changes at DRN or on talk pages and thank them for fixing things or telling you how to operate a weird template. I like Ryulong; but not some of his behavior; and that is why the mediation should go forward and the differences solved. I wish we could just bury the axe and work together; and any suggestion otherwise would be injecting more bad faith into the situation. Because Ryulong would not ask my input if he truly hated me, we bump heads, but I think we understand that we both want Wikipedia to be better than it is now. Sorry, Hasteur, I disagree with your assessment, but I understand how this problem appears from the outside. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you can puff up your credentials all day, but I think both you and Ryulong are at fault here. LOCALCONSENSUS is indeed acceptable when it makes sense in context. You can say all you want about how "it is consensus" or "no, it isn't", and other trivial remarks, but at the end of the day such consensus issues are best solved individually for each article, instead of trying to create a blanket template as you have been doing at WT:MOS-AM . That aside, you guys need to resolve any longstanding disputes between you and leave it at that. Wikipedia's volunteers should not have to waste their time separating you two once again when that time could be better spent elsewhere. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 01:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like dispute resolution would be a good move if all parties agree to it. It's clear how much you all have invested in the subject. But, sometimes, someone completely outside the topical area can look at a situation with fresh eyes and be able to offer some editing practices that would both acknowledge everyone's contributions and help you mediate when differences of opinion emerge. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of dispute resolution, everyone commenting here should take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 and at Wikipedia:AN#Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban. We can't start mediation between ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong and Lucia Black until this discussion is over, and the mediation might touch on some of the issues being raised. However, mediation won't deal with conduct issues, so if people think that there are any conduct issues that need dealing with, then those should be dealt with first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Ryulong just needs to WP:STAYCALM and realize that he doesn't WP:OWN articles. He thinks he is always right, and will revert blindly to anything that opposes his opinion, even if it starts a WP:WAR. Then he gets very heated in discussions, trying to bend the will of others to his view. It really isn't worth it. WP:NOW doesn't apply do everything. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri has very clearly made WP:POINTy edits in his splitting of an article after I offered an opposition to his proposal when it was already under contention in the discussion. He very clearly stated he would go through with it anyway, and demanded that I not edit the page. I reverted it, expecting a discussion to begin per WP:BRD as he so desperately wants me to do and attempted to start one but he reverted me and is continuing to build up the page despite the opposition to his proposals. What am I supposed to do now? Sit back and let him act against consensus because I'm the only one who noticed?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualteri has also been warned about ownership and WP:NOEDIT Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

He is also now on the defensive, claiming that because I made these four subsequent edits to the article [71] [72] [73] [74] that I've somehow WP:GAMEd him into possibly breaking WP:3RR with his next edit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just seen this. Whatever, I am locked out of improving a page that I had an "in use" template on and I can't edit it lest I break 3RR. Konveyor Belt is a misguided editor who advocates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS it seems and makes dramatic rhetoric, but I can't edit the article and the courtesy template said I was in the middle of working on a page I had just created. Not even NPP is to act in such a way by reverting a brand new page out of existance without discussion, especially when I said doing so would be edit warring. I've never seen such a disregard for the process that an editor will say "meeting N/GNG does not allow you to create an article because I oppose it!" This says a lot about how far Ryulong will go to get his way - he won't even work together when begged. The articles are being deliberately kept subpar and poor because of such actions and no one cares enough about the premise or the esoteric subject matter. The result has been terrible coverage and a self defeating policy by a handful of editors who are so reactionary that they'll cut their noses off to spite their face. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not locked out. I have not been reverting the page to what would be my preferred version (a redirect) and in fact have been collaborating with you to make it look presentable, even if I do not believe the page should be retained. You are just drama mongering. I cannot tell how you are interpretting WP:3RR but if two people edit the page at the same time and there are no reverts performed that's not a 3RR vio.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Even though my opinions may be a minority, there's no reason to bully and push me about to make it look like you are the only sensible one. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that the editors that have been involved with Chris so far include: Lucia Black, Ryulong, Konveyor Belt, and Folken de Fanel [75] all from wikiproject anima and manga. Now I don't know if there is a connection or not but I do see it as problematic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah, there's a simple reason for that: Chris keeps screwing up anime and manga articles and then reacting extraordinarily inappropriately when others disagree with his edits. Go read his userpage if you want a laugh, he describes it like some sort of glorious otaku crusade. --erachima talk 03:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the same could be said of many of the combinations of the people you just listed... Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

True but being all from one project creates a problem, I tried in the past to intervene in the problems but did not have much success. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But some of the Wikiproject's editors are the problem because they believe in a local consensus that allows for edit warring to remove pages with invalid rationales. You cannot preclude the creation of an article that meets N/GNG as Ryulong did.[76] During discussion, Erachima also did this citing CFORK incorrectly.[77] Two major violations per WP:BLAR, considering the page was brand new, in use and Ryulong's good faith improvements put me to 3RR. These editors simply cannot do this, but do so repeatedly, thinking that several of them saying "don't make this page" is valid or with "MOSAM" to supercede N/GNG. It is not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And just to clarify, it is not the entire Wikiproject, but a very active minority that has taken to preventing me from improving the most important and notable subjects. Much of this likely falls under WP:HARASSMENT because they are trying to get me to stop editing and make insults about my academic interest in the subject. This is unacceptable behavior that should be condemned on sight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I just replied on Chris's talkpage suggesting him to take his proposals for the wikiproject anime/manga to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga in an RFC. If disruptive editing continues there then it can be brought back here, but it sounds like we need an official consensus on the matter and not editors just saying we have one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga sounds like a good idea. As annoyed as these Editors are with each other, I'm sure there are plenty of more casual Editors who might want to comment on proposals for cooperative editing who would never come over to AN/I to comment. This is such a popular subject on WP, there must be dozens of active Editors...try to come to a consensus on WikiProject since it seems like attempts to prod y'all to DR haven't succeeded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be as good a place as any, though Chris's willingness to engage A&M may be less than ideal given his, uh, iffy opinion of the project's legitimacy. --erachima talk 21:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I request the closure of this thread. It has gone off topic, no admin action is necessary. Also, this needs to be closed for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP Deletion

Hello, I am representative of a person who has a biography created by another person but the biography is full of errors and has a lot of copyright issues. Please can you help me to review and delete the following page : https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%92%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2 Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slav.popov (talk • contribs) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the article is in Bulgarian, you should look at the Bulgarian Wikipedia at http://bg.wikipedia.org For procedural reasons it is difficult for editors of the English Wikipedia to delete things on another language edition. I trust you speak Bulgarian? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is for dealing with issues in the English Wikipedia, so I'm afraid that we can be of little help to you. Having said that, I see that you have attempted to add deletion request templates to the article, so I have converted these to what seem to be the local equivalent. Hopefully an administrator on the Bulgarian side will pick those up and deal it it appropriately. If you still require further assistance, you might want to try asking for help on this page, which is their equivalent of this fourm. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, editors on the Bulgarian wiki modified the page and then removed the deletion tags on the grounds that the concerns had been addressed. The OP does not appear to have posted again. I think we can close this now. Bovlb (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Siouxmac41

Siouxmac41 (talk · contribs) is promoting an off-wiki discussion related to bias at Wikipedia by posting at multiple user talkpages. I am not sure if it needs any admin action so reporting it here for community input. -- SMS ^Talk 16:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting them all as trolling. I've seen this link and more or less the same text surrounding it previously - Siouxmac41 must be a sock. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's possible he is a meatpuppet doing things on someone else's recommendation, and it's remotely possible he's just a "bird of a feather" who found his flock without the help of a puppetmaster. Either way, quack! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Erachima harassing me on my talk page.

I've asked Erichima to stay off my talk page numerous times. Even at the ANI, Erachima was told to stop.[78] Erachima has made numerous attacks and cast aspersions and I said I would be ignoring this user, but this user simply will not leave me alone or stay off my talk page. Repeatedly violating my requests to stay off my page.[79] I'm at my wits end. This user will simply not cease and desist their abusive personal attacks and commenting on my talk page.[80][81][82] The user continues to badger me when their presence is unwanted and I was forced to leave a message on the users page about DRN, but since than the user has continued to post notifications that are not necessary or with good reason, like replying to DRN[83] and arguing about my removal after warnings.[84] This user has caused much emotional distress and I ask that Erachima be forced not to post to my talk page again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Chris keeps leaving me messages on my talk page, so I reply to him on his. Simple as that. Chris's labeling of normal communication as "harassment" is a disingenuous attempt at wikilawyering, and Chris's continued attempts to have anyone who disagrees with him banned from communicating with him are intolerable. Editors must be willing to discuss their differences. --erachima talk 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Erachima replied on my talk page about the ANI notice for the unwanted talk page posts being harassment with the message: "I have received your ANI notice and responded. ".[85] This editor is argumentative and disrespectful, I asked for Erachima not to post such worthless messages on my talk page after a series of insulting posts were made. This user has no intention of leaving me alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have agreed not to post on your talk page except in reply to you,[86] and I have kept to that agreement. Meanwhile, you go around telling other editors I'm a sadist in one of the most rankly hypocritical NPA violations I've ever seen.[87] --erachima talk 19:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This editor continues to violate WP:BLAR and edit war the removal of Bleach (anime), twice before. Going so far as to move to my userspace, than redirect the moved page. I nominated the page for AFD in accordance to BLAR and the user continues to post unwanted messages about "forum shopping" on my user page.[88] I don't want this editor to continue WP:WIKIHOUNDing me. I have repeatedly said I feel harassed and asked this editor to stop, but they will not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Current consensus is that the page should be a redirect. I have graciously moved the article under contention to User:ChrisGualtieri/Bleach (anime) so that Chris may continue to edit the article while dispute resolution is ongoing. Chris, however, shows zero interest in engaging in DR beyond forum shopping, even when approached by friendly parties such as User:Knowledgekid87, and at this point I believe he can safely be said to simply be WP:NOTLISTENING. I therefore request the following:

1. Bleach (anime) should be fully protected for the space of one week to force discussion rather than edit warring.
2. One page be officially designated the place for discussing this issue, rather than it being split across WP:DRN, WP:ANI, WT:MOS-AM, WP:AfD, Talk:Bleach (anime), etc.

Thank you. --erachima talk 14:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your harassment and wikihounding is the purpose of this ANI. And few people care about it. AFD is the venue for contested blanking and redirecting per BLAR. You should not have repeatedly removed the page per BRD. This has been discussed before, but clearly you are WP:NOTLISTENING. I requested some time to work on the Bleach (anime); it has from a mere redirect to a B in only an hour or two of work. You need to Assume Good Faith and follow policies; I feel bullied and harassed by your actions and you need to tone it down because it is making it impossible to work constructively on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody cares because I'm not harassing you and your claims to the contrary aren't good for anything more than a chuckle. We're in a content dispute. --erachima talk 15:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that Chris is currently in violation of 3RR ([89][90][91][92]). I don't believe blocking him would be constructive to discussion at this point, but it's salient evidence regardless. --erachima talk 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I support Erachima's request to protect Bleach (anime) in its redirected version. A consensus has been reached on the talk page to keep the article as a redirect, if ChrisGualtieri believes he can improve the page, then he can work on a userified version and submit it later to the consensus, but right now ChrisGualtieri seems so convinced he's right that it is OK to violate a consensus decision, and something needs to be done to prevent this from further escalating. By the way, Erachima telling ChrisGualtieri to stop forum-shopping is not "harassment" but an appropriate warning relevant to the situation. Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I broke 3RR. I didn't get ECed and had no warning. With that said, this needs to go before the community and closing and reverting AFD nominations is problematic.[93] A local consensus of deletionists who actively preclude and delete articles with over 45 sources immediately after creation is a problem. This ANI can close as no one cares about Erachima's posting on my talk page. I am not going to restore the Bleach anime until an RFC or some wider consensus is done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course you don't think you did, you believe you are immune to both consensus and policy. It is the duty of every editor to police their own reversion, warnings are unnecessary except for the newest editors. You have 4 times reverted a single page (from a redirect to an article) in the space of a single hour, and it is only by grace that you are not currently blocked. --erachima talk 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris, your AfD nomination was contentious because you reverted a consensus-approved redirect in order to do so. Erachima was right in closing an obviously WP:POINTy action, in my opinion. It may be a problem for you not to get the consensus you want on certain issues, but that's part of the WP experience, and you just have to accept it. You can't just edit war until people get tired and give up, or forum shop an issue everywhere when you can't get people to agree with you, DRN or RfC aren't your personal trump cards to bypass a consensus that doesn't suit your liking. I note these kind of incidents about anime/manga have only multiplied around you lately, if you can't understand it on your own, as Erachima said, there's a point when administrators will be forced to act. That would be a waste, so I strongly advise you to take a step back and think about the way you interact with users.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• ANI IS NOT A PLACE TO CONTINUE BICKERING All of you back off and wait for someone else to comment.--v/r - TP 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, having taken a look - Chris, you're inviting these comments on your talk page with your poor behavior. Editing against consensus, taking pot shots in your edit summaries, and templating these editors is going to bring them to your talk page. Your behavior was also brought up in the last ANI thread. I think you're the root of your own problem. You're not being harassed. When you willfully violate consensus, expect it to be addressed.--v/r - TP 16:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Chris, at this point I would leave Bleach as a redirect, userfy the Bleach anime page and improve it while you work out your proposals. I do not think it (the Bleach article) needs protection, what we need is a solid consensus on the root of Chris's proposals when it comes to things like this. At this point I would suggest that this be the primary focus here as this is what is causing alot of the argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Just a question but what should be done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime)? The AfD was not closed right and as a result has no outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• If I did the bookkeeping incorrectly, you're welcome to fix it. --erachima talk 16:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• It has been placed for CSD which I support so will just leave it be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Chris has gone and made a proposal section under: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#MOSAM proposals can an admin follow the discussion or close it when need be? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please close this thread. This section is only taking up space now. The DRN on the matter is closing as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's closeable at this point. Feel free. --erachima talk 06:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Visitor moves

Vmjaishankar seems to have cut and paste the contents of the Visitor (disambiguation) page into Visitor and then created Visitor (ecclesiastical) for the content that was previously at Visitor. This screws up the entire edit history and if there is a way to fix this I don't know what it is. Anarcham (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the cut-and-paste page move and temporarily protected Visitor. I'm not done with what needs to be done. --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this discussion (something you should do the next time you post on this board). I believe this was a good-faith error. It appears to me that the cut-and-paste move resulted from the user's confusion and frustration over an unhelpful and misleading hatnote on Visitor. (The hatnote read "For the Catholic equivalent, see Canonical visitation and Visitor (disambiguation).") Based on the user's edit history, the user was reading articles about the topics of visas and health insurance for visitors to the United States, and was bothered to see incorrect indications that only ecclesiastical uses of "visitor" were covered in Wikipedia. I've restored the old article structure and I edited the hatnote and the disambiguation page to make them more helpful to users. The pages are still protected for a few minutes longer. I hope the matter has been resolved. --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notify Vmjaishankar because I didn't think this was really about him or her but instead about fixing the edit. I agree that this was a good faith error and I don't want the editor sanctioned in any way. I didn't have the knowledge or ability to fix the problem created with the various creations and pastes. Anarcham (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vmjaishankar says my fault with regards to cut and paste (not done on purpose, but to fix genuinely). My opinion is that the topic Visitor should be generic (as my previous revision shows) and broad based seriously. Can some seniors with the authority help move current Visitor (disambiguation) to Visitor (older revised edition)? Also current Visitor can be moved to existing Visitor (UK Universities) instead of wrongly created Visitor (ecclesiastical)? Please help correct this! Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Vmjaishankar: I am disappointed to see that you have continued to rearrange and repurpose pages. Unilateral page moves, such as the ones you have done, can be very disruptive. Please do not repurpose any of these pages or make any more page moves until a [{WP:RM|requested move]] discussion has found [{WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] for the change. See WP:Article titles for more information on how titles are determined. If you continue as you have done, you can expect that your account will be blocked to prevent continuing disruption. --Orlady (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Robertpattinsons (Persistent spam/promotion, referred here by AIV)

Referred to AN/I by AIV. Full AIV thread can be seen at [[94]]. I believe this should be AIV, but it was declined and I was referred here.

User:Robertpattinsons appears to be a spam/promotion only account. All contributions appear to follow a promotion pattern with three distinct periods of activity. The first period of activity, the user spent time adding Playstation store links to the External Links section of video game articles, all of which were reverted. In the second period of activity, the user spent time adding a personal blog that the user authored as a reliable source to video game articles. These were reverted by myself following a discussion at WP:VG/S. In the third period of activity, the user became involved in promoting health product sites, on various articles as well as the user's own page. The user's page contains many barn stars that do not appear legit, but I don't know if any policy or essay covers that.

This report is primarily meant to deal with the persistent pattern of promotion/spam, however as a secondary note the user may also have at least one sock, LissaCoffey, who's only contribution include usage of a similar userpage (Deleted by an admin as COPYVIO) and posting a barn star to the primary's talk page. At various points, the user claims LissaCoffey as their wife, but also claims to be the CNN iReporter by the same name [[95]]. An earlier userpage revision claimed to be a different iReporter. [[96]] -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the barnstars and userboxes on Robertpattinsons's user page seem to have been copied from the user page of Alphathon. Deor (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, I suspected it was copied from somewhere but couldn't find the source user when I first looked into reporting. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say all the userpage shenanigans are to give the impression that he is a legitimate Wikipedian. That he is not. Take a look in the bottom right corner of reviews.contently.com -- it shows what this is really about. Might be worth a checkuser to see how many more of these fake Wikipedians there are. MER-C 11:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What's the next step? What needs done? -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

I am being harassed by Spc 21 (talk · contribs). First time was an insulting edit summary, for which GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) warned. Tonight, I edit Tim Howard after (not revert) to correct the timestamp and User warns me for Edit warring on my Talk page. Finally, when I sought the opinion of an experienced editor, I was insulted again User talk:Struway2#Everton_reverts by Spc 21.. "your antagonistic editing style is aggravating multiple editors on this issue. Perhaps you should stop as we would hate to see a valued contributor as yourself blocked." I have done nothing wrong and user is not acting in a WP:CIVIL manor towards me. I would appreciate feedback from the community. JMHamo (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to waste my time on this. User leaves invalid edit warring template on my talk page so when I dare to leave the same one on his I get accused of harassment..... That was the first time I have ever left anything on his talk page! The first insulting revert he mentions is done on my talk page to remove another of his unwarranted warnings out of frustration. If anyone is being "harassed" here (and by the way nobody is) it is me! Spc 21 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Worth pointing out Spc 21 has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past, so rather than myself reverting his change to Tim Howard (and other articles) I looked for advice, where I was insulted. JMHamo (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Worth pointing out I haven't broken the 3RR. I changed dates of footballers infoboxes to more accurate ones and get accused of harassment.... On a side note please stop bombarding my talk page with continuous notes, templates and invalid warnings..... some might view such behaviour as harassment..... Spc 21 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of the reviewing Admin, can you please provide Diffs of these. When I try to enter in to discussion with you per WP:BRD you blank your Talk page and insult. You even did this when I notified you on this ANI For the love of god - go away. JMHamo (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Has my continuous blanking of my talk page not given you any sort of clue that your contributions are not welcome there? Where have you attempted to talk to me anyway? You just leave unwarranted warnings. I have left my opinion on your talk page before you started this ridiculous harassment accusation. In fact I am the only one to have tried to discuss your edits on what is a very minute and uncontroversial issue!

Perhaps you should both just let it go? It seems like the easiest thing to do before it gets out of hand. Ross Hill Talk to me!  23:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate a block for this user as I feel very harassed and bullied by his behaviour towards me especially as he has been warned by an Admin about this a few days ago as I have included above, not very WP:CIVIL at all. JMHamo (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It is clear at this point both JMHamo and Spc 21 have been adequately informed about the 3rr rule, so hopefully there is no need for either of them to post on each other's talk page. While Spc 21 has been incivil, editors are generally not blocked as punishment for that. I also note there was reversion back and forth on, for example, Tim Howard but neither editor posted anything to Talk:Tim Howard. Discussion on article talk page is highly preferred to dualing edit summaries. NE Ent 23:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry JMHamo but i kind of understand the angrement from the other editors. You often "abuse" the warnings and it looks like trying to scare people of. I understand if editors feel "attacked". Instead you should also have started discussion at for instance WT:FOOTY or somewhere else about how the timestamps should look. I have not seen all of the discussion and certainly have not ssen that the majority favours the 5-tilde timestamp as you said at one place, so maybe I missed something, but to me you are way to aggressive. You are probably right about the timestamps, but I dont see that you have the consensus for how the timestamps should look. And claiming you get fake warning is incorrect since you currently are edit warring just as the other editors. You dont need to revert to edit war but you are adding the same content over and over again. To me both editors are just edit warring and acting "childish" without any consensus how it should look. QED237 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Qed237: Please get your facts straight before you edit. Making an ~~~~~ Infobox datestamp is not edit warring, in fact it's the right thing to do for that template, as it states in the template documentation. JMHamo (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox football biography

@JMHamo: this is the first time from what I have seen that you told anyone about this template documentation. Do you have a link for it? To me you are aggrevating all other users. The warnings feels misplaced sometimes. User:GiantSnowman (an admin) also stated that "I think you were being extremely childish JMHamo but hopefully you have learnt a lesson", about the 5 tildes he says: "Yes, it's preferred, but there's nothing wrong with using the date of the last match, as long as it is clear that is what is happening" and also " I don't understand why he insists on changing it." about JMHamo. However, right or wrong, your actions are not appropriate and as I said you have not said a word about the template doc before. To me you are edit warring. QED237 (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This template doc is not a secret. Here is the link again Infobox football biography

@Qed237: Please check your information before you post, so that you don't look silly. The comment "I think you were being extremely childish JMHamo but hopefully you have learnt a lesson" was posted by a disruptive IP, not GiantSnowman. JMHamo (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@JMHamo: IF I should follow your example maybe I should warn you for harrassment now? I dont like editors telling me "dont look silly". I might have made a mistake but no need for that comment. You are unfortunately an editor that has easy to make other angry and should look at your behaviuor. And also I dont see anywhere in that link the the timestamps "must" be like you want them to be, it is just an example. I get the feeling I ahould probably end this now before being warned bu JMHamo. QED237 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you make an accusation about me and don't bother to check, who said what, then yes, you do look silly, but I will put that down to inexperience, so no offence. Also, if you read the doc you will see the date stamp in the club-update, which you get from five ~~~~~ JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the fact that you call me unexperienced I take as an offense. Just because I copy-and-pasted wrong in this "fast" growing discussion" does not mean I am inexperienced. And I know how the five tildes look so please do not lecture me about that! Yes looking at the timestamps in the documentation it is the five tildes (I am not blind) but it is in "example". Nowhere does it say that is must be this timestamp and there is no consensus to use it. QED237 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps making comments like "please get your facts straight" might be one of the reasons for all of this. You talk to experienced editors very disrespectfully.... By the way that isn't insulting it's just my opinion. You changed infoboxes so that it could look like a player has played for a national team and a club at exactly the same time. I changed it so it said player has played for club on match played on x october etc. That is not edit warring but actually improves the articles. This is what I tried to say on your talk page but you are yet to reply to my comment there and would instead prefer to claim I'm harassing you when quite clearly I am not. Spc 21 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Spc 21 that is very true. I feel that User:JMHamo is also very fast in letting people no that "he has been blocked before" but we should remember that he has been blocked for editwarring himself earlier. QED237 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I mean that both of you are less than a year editing, but we are getting away from the point. JMHamo (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming up on 2 years but never mind.....You're on 8 years and still call people silly. I'm interested.... you call users silly on these pages which you know many people will see and it's ok. I do it when removing rubbish from my talk page which chances are no one will ever see and it's harassment and bullying? Spc 21 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually feeling very weird for the first time editing wikipedia. I know I have a red username but I have made 11,000 edits and run the PDC darts section on wiki almost single handed. I have not harassed anyone nor would I ever. I made a stupid comment a week ago for which I was warned. The comment was made to revert an unjustified warning on my talk page. I have not insulted said user since in fact I have praised him on another talk page before all of this advising him to stop with his timestamp reverts as other editors have had the same problems with him that I have. I also stated my opinion on his talk page before all of this. Spc 21 (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked for advice from an experienced user (Struway2) on their Talk page because Tim Howard was just one of the edits of mine that this user reverted - Leighton Baines, Leon Osman and Phil Jagielka being others that were reverted too. It's the uncivil attitude that makes me feel very uncomfortable, I would like to discuss this content dispute, put when you're told that you are a "silly tit", that to me is bullying. It's the abuse that's upsetting me, not the reverts! I did not come to ANI about reverts! JMHamo (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I said silly tit on my own talk page to remove your first unwarranted warning and if I'm totally honest you are my proving that my stupid, throwaway comment wasn't far off the mark..... If you are deeply troubled by someone you are never going to meet calling you a "silly tit" then I am very sorry. I find it hard to believe given your aggressive editing style and frequent use of unwarranted warning templates that you haven't read far worse on here. I was told not to do it again and I haven't done it since. I would be appalled if anyone thinks my editing tonight could be construed as harassment or now bullying as you claim. I have said nothing insulting to you and have used your talk page two times. You have bombarded mine with multiple warnings I don't deserve. Maybe I should request a block for you? Spc 21 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Spc 21 can you please provide Diffs for the times I used "unwarranted warning templates" rather than refer to them. The fact still remains you were warned by an Admin about your attitude towards me, and you didn't listen. I am not going to let anybody bully me online. JMHamo (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry JMHamo, but he did get warned for that about a week ago and after that I have seen no harrassment. However you keep warnings fly everywhere. QED237 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was warned and as I've said countless times above I have not insulted you since. I made a stupid remark when removing an unjustified warning from you. That is all I am guilty of. No I will not be providing any diffs as it takes me forever. I am more used to editing on articles really... As you can see from my contributions on here 97% of my 11,000 edits come on articles like improving darts and snookers pages and updating Everton players and seasons. That's all I do on wikipedia. Spc 21 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Qed237 and Spc 21 can't be bothered to provide Diffs to back up their allegations, to allow me answer fairly. But this is not about content, content disputes are not why I am here! It is about uncivil behaviour towards me by Spc 21, which I take offence to after he was warned about it previously. JMHamo (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm past caring now. Your allegations are spurious. Since I was warned a week ago for saying you're a silly tit when removing your unwarranted warnings from my talk page I haven't insulted you once (if it is a truly terrible thing to write in the first place). So I don't really understand what you're taking offence to. As I said above - why are you allowed to call people silly and when other people do it to you it's highly offensive and harassment? Get real! As an aside can users be punished for claiming harassment and bullying when there's no grounds for it? I don't edit on here to be dragged onto these noticeboards by people with nothing better to do. Oh and that's not offensive you've been pestering admins and other users the last 14 and a half hours. It's actually a fact. Now leave me alone I have not done anything wrong and am getting increasingly annoyed with all of this rubbish. Spc 21 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All I am asking for is an experienced Admin to review my initial complaint and decide. I am not interested in what you think about my time online or if you think I have nothing better to do. JMHamo (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No people are free to do what they want it's just an observation. You've been looking at a computer screen for almost 15 hours maybe you're not thinking straight. Besides me saying you're a silly tit a week ago have you found anything I've wrote that even remotely constitutes to harassment yet? And to the reviewing admin what options do I have when someone puts in false claims such as these? May I also point you to what an admin wrote on their talk page some time ago? I thought then that this nonsense would end there.... Spc 21 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record User Ross Hill is not an Admin JMHamo (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well he should be - the guy talks sense. Can you show me how I have insulted, bullied and harassed you besides saying you're a silly tit almost a week ago. I don't know what you think that even means as I don't find it at all offensive but if it is I am sorry. So me removing a warning from you on my talk page and calling you a silly tit is the worst thing I have done to you.... Do you really think in your wildest dreams that is harassment or bullying? It isn't! Show here all the other times I have insulted you - I know I haven't! Harassment means a continual attack.... You've only known I edit on here a week, I've posted on your talk page twice neither of which said anything bad and I've reverted a few of your edits for reasons I expressed in the edit summary and your talk page before all of this happened. Why didn't you just reply on your talk page before? At the maximum we are both edit warring....nothing else has happened. Spc 21 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Spc 21 I no longer want to interact with you. I have made my point and have nothing else to add. JMHamo (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You have nothing to use against me! I responded to you here and here. I posted on your talk page two times. I removed your unjustified warnings from my own talk page one with a stupid comment. I have reverted a few of your edits all for the same reason at Leighton Baines and Leon Osman. I believe the edit summaries adequately explain why I did that. That is all the contact we have ever had. I truly fail to see how that equals harassment, bullying or anything else. No other editor who has contributed to this agrees with you. In my opinion you are an editor who must be right and when someone stands up to you you shower them with warnings. Most back down but when someone doesn't you drag them through this. None of my interactions with you deserve to be labelled as harassment at all and I look forward to the speedy closing of this rubbish very soon. Spc 21 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, this is going round in circles and just seems to be you two arguing. JMHamo, what are you actually trying to achieve here? GiantSnowman 11:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say this bickering calls for two orders of trout but there seems like a genuine content conflict that is likely to continue unless it's resolved. Maybe an RfC is in order on the appropriate WikiProject about time stamps? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, JMHamo has also been undoing all of my edits and edit warring with me for over a month, even after he was told there was nothing wrong with my edits to begin with. Now he is bombarding my talk page with spurious warnings for harmless edits and continuing to undo random edits in an effort to try and provoke me into reverting edits and to get me banned. He is causing a constant disruption to me and other users, and several dozen pages have been locked so far because of his edit warring with other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.243.163 (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1906 page

Resolved

I do not know if DerbyCountyinNZ is an editor or not, but said user informed me that I needed to go to this page to resolve our difference, so here I am. I added an entry to the Deaths section of the 1906 page. Buck Ewing died on Oct. 6th, 1906. He was a Major League Baseball Hall of Famer. I felt that this made him significant enough to qualify for such an entry on the page. Derby contends that he should only be on the "1906 in the United States" page because he is not internationally significant. I countered that the U.S. is part of the international community and that there are thousands of Americans on the death pages throughout the years including many MLB Hall of Famers. Derby continues to undo my entry of Ewing and, quite frankly, I'm genuinely confused as to why he/she has a problem with THIS entry when so many other Americans and HOFers are listed in the death sections of the international pages. All I am asking is that this entry be allowed and that Derby quit undoing it. It is not an offensive or controversial entry that I can see.Twinsdude (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DerbyCountyinNZ is just as much an editor as you (as us all) are. --MuZemike 05:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note, as explained at DerbyCountyinNZ's talk page, they were not directing you here to resolve the problems but instead simply suggesting they will ask for a block if you continued. Regardless of what was likely to happen, this is not the place to resolve your differences. You both need to stop editing and discuss on the article talk page. If unable to come to WP:Consensus, try a method of WP:Dispute resolution none of which are ANI. Per WP:BRD, it is generally accepted that until you can achieve consensus, the information you want to add (or remove) from a stable version should stay out, which doesn't of course mean people can refuse to discuss with you (but I haven't seen any evidence for that). You also should remember to assume good faith and be WP:CIVIL and avoid anything which could be construed as a WP:Personal attacks, and therefore not claim the disagreement has anything to do with nationality or bias against nationalities without evidence. You might also want to consider the fact that another article has something is rarely a good argument for or against inclusion particularly without considering possible differences or establishing widespread consensus for such automatic inclusion (which is very rare). Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Questioning an administrator's attitude

Administrator GiantSnowman recently changed the update source of Template:Arsenal F.C. squad to the Premier League website [97] and added three players, namely Chuba Akpom, Héctor Bellerín, and Nico Yennaris, to the template, supposedly because they all featured in Arsenal's English League Cup game against West Brom (see [98]). This edit [99] does not seem to be very constructive to me.

Based on what I heard from this user, there is a consensus on WT:FOOTY about player inclusion on squad templates (even though some users do not seem to agree with it). Basically, players who have a squad number, have made at least one first-team appearance in ANY competition, and are still with the club should be included. However, I do not understand why this user added the three players above, but did not add Thomas Eisfeld or Kristoffer Olsson who also played in the West Brom game, not to mention the goal Eisfeld scored. I talked to this user, but they not only branded my warm welcome message as "trolling", but also ignored most part of my post on his Talk page because of that (see User_talk:Miunouta#Arsenal squad template). This seems to have violated WP:NOTPERFECT as "administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others".

Back to the edit, before this user's edit, the squad template included a complete list of first-team players and was perfectly consistent with the update source (see [100]). However, after they changed the update source and added the reserve players, the squad template

a. is no longer well sourced because the new source only includes players' OVERALL stats (not the current season) in the Premier League (and Premier League only) but Yennaris has not played in the league this season and Bellerín has never played in the league;

b. does not make any sense because it is not the first-team squad or the current squad (Eisfeld and Olsson seem to be missing).

I contacted them again, and even apologized for my welcome message just to get them talk about the issue I brought up earlier. First of all, they did not apologize back for branding me as "trolling" (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE word to me) and ignoring my post. Also, they did not explain why they changed the update source, did not explain if they added the three players because of the appearances they made in the West Brom game, refused to admit about the conflicts within his own edit, and has not fixed the problems he caused even though I kindly advised them to.

Anyone here on Wikipedia can make mistakes, even the administrators. It is completely fine as long as they realize what they did was questionable and do not make the same mistakes again. However, some users always to find excuses to avoid facing the fact that they did something wrong. I wonder if this is the kind of attitude Wikipedia administrators are encouraged to have. Thank you. --Miunouta (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, this user simply doesn't like the consensus from a discussion here. GiantSnowman 10:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Miunouta, I do not think you were trolling but if you start a post with "Welcome to Wikipedia" on the Talk Page of a user who's been at Wikipedia since 2006, you're not going to get a positive response. You're not expected to know every Editor but you should also not assume others are less experienced than you. Also, I think if you are extremely offended by a user saying you were trolling, well, you might be offended a lot on Wikipedia. People get annoyed and words are spoken. If you want to be a long-time contributor at WP, you're going to need a thicker skin or you'll be filing complaints at AN/I every other week (depending on whether you edit in contentious subjects or, instead, about something less prone to controversy).

I don't agree with Giant removing your subsequent messages on his Talk Page as you tried to discuss this difference of opinion but users are given a lot of latitude to remove content from their TPs (except warnings and block notices). I think if Giant had been willing to talk this out there, this AN/I complaint probably wouldn't have been filed.

As AN/I deals with conduct issues, not content, I think you both need to defer to the consensus that was arrived at, wherever it was discussed (WT:FOOTY?). "Consensus" doesn't mean a decision that everyone agrees with, it means a decision that a majority of people participating in a discussion think is proper practice (given their supporting arguments). Minouta, for good or ill, if you disagree with the consensus, the appropriate response is not to revert edits or complain about those you disagree with but instead work on convincing other Editors, through persuasive argument, that your position is well-founded. This is more challenging because it involves dialogue with the specific Editors you disagree with, but complaining and reverting can easily lead to a temporary block as it is seen as disruptive editing. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I didn't remove any talk page posts - I archived them after two days of no response from Miunouta, assuming the matter was over with - a significant difference. Look see - Diff 1, Diff 2. GiantSnowman 08:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Giant, the diffs I saw didn't show that you had responded to them but I see in your first example that you did provide a response (I can't see one in the second example). Two days of non-activity isn't a lot of time to have before archiving a Talk Page comment (mine go back to August, others have all of 2013 still on their TP) but that is, of course, your decision of when (and if) to archive comments.

Your page might get a lot of duplicate notices if Editors post a comment and return a few days later and can't easily find it. But if this has been your practice, I'm sure you've run into this before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: - I appreciate you trying to help, but you really need to check background more before responding. You say that "[the diffs] didn't show that you had responded" - well, of couse diffs from my talk page won't show that, seeing as I responded at their talk page, see here. 2 days is merely a vague rule-of-thumn for me - sometimes it's longer, sometimes it's shorter - but in my experience if an editor doesn't bother responding after 48 hours then it is likely that the conversation is over. There was also no attempt from Miunouta to re-contact me before coming to ANI, and I note they have not participated further at ANI since their initial complaint. While they have also not made any edits elsewhere, that does not mean they are offline. GiantSnowman 11:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think most people who edit Wikipedia do so on a daily basis but I don't have a citation to back up that opinion. And even though I do edit daily now, I know I don't check back to every place I've left a comment within 48 hours to see if anyone has responded to it.

But, I agree, if I was going to make the statements I did, I should have first checked Miunouta's Talk Page. Lesson learned, Giant. Thanks for being polite about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No problems :) - it's also worth bearing in mind that ANI is only 36 hours... GiantSnowman 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Hot sexy drama...

(bait and switch) Please go to the talk page of Fluorine and open the peer review. I will fill out what I want from the review but I need the page itself created. Por favor...71.127.137.171 (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request

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

---

This is going to need closed soon. Given that there's about a 4:1 consensus in favour of Chelsea Manning as the article title, this should be a pretty uncontroversial close, thankfully. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While Wikipedia doesn't provide any hard and fast rules as to what constitutes consensus in general, but the one place that it does is WP:RFA where consensus is defined as somewhere between 70-80% where !votes towards the lower end of that spectrum may be rejected.

The current !voting stats are this:

Support 126
Oppose   37
Neutral   5
Abstain   5
-----------
Total   173

126/173 = 72.8%

I'll note that the longer the discussion has gone on, the less support the MR gets. Given that this entire discussion has been tainted by off-Wiki-canvassing[101][102][103] and its legitimacy is in doubt,[104] I suggest that it be closed as no consensus.

Instead, after the current ArbCom case is closes, an RfC be opened with neutral wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! First of all, your maths is fallacious: the relevant ratio is supports:opposes. 127/(127+36) = 77.9%, which is about the 80% that 4:1 is. And secondly, the very idea of extending one of the most harmful debates Wikipedia has had for literally no valid reason' in the face of that sort of numbers, only to drag everyone back through it in a week or so, is pretty much trolling. Further, the maths to justify it add in non-votes (abstains - the definition of abstaining is to state that you are not voting; they cannot be counted as part of a vote by definition.) to get a number that's still defined as consensus in policy. Even if you count neutral votes, it's still 75.6% support. Wikipedia should not be acting in ways that serve no purpose other than the creation of additional drama, and the pointless overturning of a clear consensus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Anonymous vandal

On article UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying is non stop vandalized by IP address 92.237.230.122 for putting nations such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan & Vatican City. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan are members of AFC but not UEFA. Vatican City is not member of UEFA any FIFA. --188.47.101.66 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible edit warring and WP:OR issues at Sikhism in the United Kingdom

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

---

I’m having a dispute with another editor who claims I am “censoring” an article when in fact I am trying to remove what appears to me to be WP:OR.

On 2 October I first came across what appeared to be a misreading of the source cited: a Faith Matters report which quotes from this: the editor User:StuffandTruth had interpreted it (shall we say) to read: "However the organization [i.e. the Sikh Awareness Society] is known to have radical anti-Muslim Sikh elements according to the Mail on Sunday and Huffington Post; Faith Matters, a charity based on interfaith cohesion, notes that the group have ties with the English Defence League (EDL) and have even set up secret meetings at demonstrations in the past."

I accordingly made this edit. When StuffandTruth reverted this, I then explained quite carefully on the talk page why I believed that the text misrepresented its sources here, then reverted the article here. Within the last 24 hours StuffandTruth has made these reverts to keep the text despite the fact I had carefully pointed out his/her interpretation of the sources they cite is WP:OR:

[105] [106] [107]

Despite my spelling out even more clearly on the Talk page what the problem is, StuffandTruth has simply retorted that I am “censoring information” and that I am indulging in “non-neutrality and original research”.

I’ve tried to explain the situation succinctly here, but please let me know if anything’s unclear. Basically I think it’s an issue of WP:OR and edit warring, and I’m wondering what is my best recourse to solve this situation. Alfietucker (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Writing about the controversial aspects of a Sikh organisation known as the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) should not be a problem on Wikipedia. However the above user (user:Alfietucker) repeatedly wants to delete the controversial aspects of it because he believes that the SAS is a respectable organisation and so the controversial aspects do no deserve inclusion. He has stated: "the SAS has since proved itself an organization not only to be taken seriously but to respect". While he may respect it, he is also attempting to remove reliable sources that discuss the controversial aspect of the organisation. Surely this is not the way Wikipedia works, as noting controversial aspects of organisations is part and parcel of Wikipedia.

1. User is attempting to censor, omit and misrepresent information regarding a report by a reputable charitable organisation, that has been peer reviewed by a scholar, Dr. Matthew Feldman, who has worked for Faith Matters in the past and is an expert on the far right in the UK, that discusses a Mail on Sunday article on the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL).
2. User clearly has a problem with the reliability of Faith Matters, when reliability is not questionable owed to the peer review by the PhD. User is trying to re-interpret information from a separate Daily Mail article (note the website: it's clearly Daily Mail and no other source) and attempts to say Faith Matters is discussing this wrong article when they are discussing an article from the Mail on Sunday as they state and cite (page 29).
3. User attempts to equalize the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail newspapers and tries to portray them as one and same, and assumes everything is published on Mail Online, from their newspapers. This is done without proof, as Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online.
4. User insists Mail on Sunday article is the same as the one published on Mail Online but has no evidence to back this claim, as before Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online. In addition Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate magazine for the Mail on Sunday reference (page 29), another charitable organisation that is dedicated to fighting fascism.
5. Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate, which first reported of the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL) in the first place. The Mail on Sunday is cited by Hope Not Hate.
6. User has also been claiming that the word "consensus" is worthless or meaningless: stating that the words "common consensus" means "hearsay". Consensus is however, a universal/general agreement. Faith Matters author and the peer reviewer/academic state that the SAS involvement is "common consensus". This clearly is not hearsay as the user suggests.
7. Further, user misrepresents Hope Not Hate citation, claiming that Hope Not Hate do not talk about the links between the SAS and EDL, when in fact they do on page 29 of the Faith Matters Report. They use Hope Not Hate as a direct citation. Hope Not Hate's magazines are widely available. Libraries commonly have them too. Organisations clearly buy from them.

Overall we have 4 sources discussing the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and the English Defence League (EDL), but the user does not want to include them.

1. Lane, H.S.; Feldman, Matthew (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League". Faith Matters: 29.
2. Elgot, Jessica (2012-09-24). "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
3. Hope Not Hate magazine, July-August 2012, p.27. (cited by Faith Matters on page 29 of their report on the EDL)
4. ...and lastly the Mail on Sunday article, the main discussion of which can be found from the third citation listed here. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To reply to StuffandTruth's points and allegations. First: "Writing about the controversial aspects of a Sikh organisation known as the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) should not be a problem on Wikipedia." I've absolutely no problem with this, and that is not the issue: what I think is irresponsible is to sling what appear to be *ill-founded allegations* (as opposed to creditably citated facts) against any organization - most particularly one which has clearly (from the BBC report) done such positive work. To take his following points one by one:

1. User is attempting to censor, omit and misrepresent information regarding a report by a reputable charitable organisation, that has been peer reviewed by a scholar, Dr. Matthew Feldman, who has worked for Faith Matters in the past and is an expert on the far right in the UK, that discusses a Mail on Sunday article on the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL).

• That's all as maybe, but it seems clear to me that StuffandTruth is misrepresenting what those sources actually say. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the MoS article nowhere mentions the SAS, let alone suggest any link between that organization and the EDL. AT

1. User clearly has a problem with the reliability of Faith Matters, when reliability is not questionable owed to the peer review by the PhD. User is trying to re-interpret information from a separate Daily Mail article (note the website: it's clearly Daily Mail and no other source) and attempts to say Faith Matters is discussing this wrong article when they are discussing an article from the Mail on Sunday as they state and cite (page 29).

• I've already explained to StuffandTruth that not only Daily Mail articles end up on the Mail Online website, but also Mail on Sunday articles. AT

1. User attempts to equalize the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail newspapers and tries to portray them as one and same, and assumes everything is published on Mail Online, from their newspapers. This is done without proof, as Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online.

• I didn't say any such thing. They are separate papers, yes, but as I've explained to StuffandTruth they are owned by the same company and - not surprisingly - articles from both papers end on the same website. AT

1. User insists Mail on Sunday article is the same as the one published on Mail Online but has no evidence to back this claim, as before Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online. In addition Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate magazine for the Mail on Sunday reference (page 29), another charitable organisation that is dedicated to fighting fascism.

• Unless someone can prove that somehow the printed version of the MoS article is different from the article I have given a link to, then the claim that it is not the same is - I submit - unsubstantiated and dodges the issue, which is the citations given by StuffandTruth do not support what he/she thinks it does. AT

1. Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate, which first reported of the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL) in the first place. The Mail on Sunday is cited by Hope Not Hate.

• OK - so can StuffandTruth or anyone supply a quote from Hope Not Hate which confirms his contention about this link? AT

1. User has also been claiming that the word "consensus" is worthless or meaningless: stating that the words "common consensus" means "hearsay". Consensus is however, a universal/general agreement. Faith Matters author and the peer reviewer/academic state that the SAS involvement is "common consensus". This clearly is not hearsay as the user suggests.

• Constructions such as "everyone agrees", which is the drift of this, is not up to Wikipedia standards: see WP:WEASEL. AT

1. Further, user misrepresents Hope Not Hate citation, claiming that Hope Not Hate do not talk about the links between the SAS and EDL, when in fact they do on page 29 of the Faith Matters Report. They use Hope Not Hate as a direct citation. Hope Not Hate's magazines are widely available. Libraries commonly have them too. Organisations clearly buy from them.

• Can StuffandTruth please quote the relevant passage - I have failed to find it though I've searched twice over. AT

Overall we have 4 sources discussing the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and the English Defence League (EDL), but the user does not want to include them.

1. Lane, H.S.; Feldman, Matthew (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League". Faith Matters: 29.
2. Elgot, Jessica (2012-09-24). "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.

• This merely reports what the Faith Matters report presents. AT

1. Hope Not Hate magazine, July-August 2012, p.27. (cited by Faith Matters on page 29 of their report on the EDL)

• The citation there does not substantiate the supposed SAS-EDL link. AT

1. ...and lastly the Mail on Sunday article, the main discussion of which can be found from the third citation listed here.

• Again, this simply does not mention the SAS, let alone a connection with the EDL. AT

Alfietucker (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you guys have been very busy: I brought the case here in the first place at the suggestion of StuffandTruth, but now I'm wondering if it would be better dealt with - leaving aside the time issue - by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion. I've posted on S&T's talk page suggesting this, and unless I hear from someone here, or receive an objection from S&T against taking it to Third Opinion (I've given him/her 12 hours to do so), if S&T agrees to this, then I'll remove this entire post ("Possible edit warring" etc.) and apply there. But until this happens, please assume that I would like this case seen to. Alfietucker (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an awful of diffs on content and reliable sources for uninvolved Editors to sort through. I think you need a dedicated mediator to help you sort this all out. I think your best bet is Dispute Resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Though StuffandTruth hasn't been in touch with me about this, I noticed that he's been in touch with User:Darkness Shines here to ask for their input to this dispute. To assume good faith (though I'd already suggested Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion to S&T), I guess S&T is going about this in their own way. Alfietucker (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my talkpage about Third Opinion before going to Darkness Shines. Please see my talkpage. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, though I guess you didn't click on the link I offered on your talk page, as there is a specified process for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion. Never mind - I've since posted a possible wording at your invitation on Talk:Sikhism in the United Kingdom. Alfietucker (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is matter is now resolved to any admins looking at this. Consensus was reached between us. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Op47 modifying what other users said in a Talk page

I need help at Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico#RFc for list of mayors with, User:Op47, a user that doesn't know how to properly use our Talk system and keeps replying within my comments rather than below/after them. This generates confusion as people might believe that I was the one that made such statements. The user is also for some weird reason using a different reply system (using '@' like you do in Twitter) rather than replying below comments. I don't have the patience to deal with this guy and I'm not an administrator so please someone lend a hand. Per WP:AGF the guy is not doing it on purpose, he is just unfamiliar with our practices (remember WP:BITE). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, ANI is supposed to be the equivalent of dialing 911, not for when someone cuts in line boarding the trolley or doesn't pick up after their dog. Just invite some other editor you happen to know to join the discussion, or get someone from WP:EA, or something. EEng (talk) 2:49 pm, Today (UTC−4)

The issue is not about the discussion, it is about what the user is doing with people's comments which is an ANI issue as it is concerned with user behavior. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI is, as you say, for behavioral and not content issues, but it's more specific than that: it's for serious matters requiring immediate attention of (typically) administrators. This situation doesn't qualify. I'm not trying to be harsh but ANI is way overloaded with marginal issues without also having to carry the clearly inappropriate. Just get one or two people you know to join you on the Talk page, and if that doesn't resolve it escalate appropriately. EEng (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To echo EEng, Ahnoneemoos, AN/I should be the next to last place you go to resolve an intractable dispute (the last place being ARBCOM). You should try other ways to resolve the dispute before coming here.

I don't think it takes great patience to deal with this, just go to Op47's Talk page and tell them, in a friendly way, that it might be useful if they looked over Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in order to learn about proper behavior posting on Talk Pages. Or, you can post a note at the top of the Talk Page that advises Editors to post their new comments at the bottom of the page. There are plenty of things you can do that don't require a great deal of effort and will deescalate your apparent annoyance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply but I'm not interested in doing any of those things as I'm not an administrator. Hence why I'm posting at ANI so that an administrator can handle since at the end of the day that's why they agreed to become an admin. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A user does not have to be an admin to do everyday notifications and cleanup. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 23:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jessy and his family

• Jessy9009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Y.Adinarayana Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• YerrapuReddy Ravindra Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jessy has an extensive family whose members should all have articles at Wikipedia "so that many people who are searchin for occurance of thair family and law records and psycology students to have projects on them". Jessy's edits came to my attention when I deleted A.V.Narsimha Reddy. Then I looked at his other edits and became concerned. After I screwed up by BLPPRODing a dead person, I bowed out partially and enlisted the support of @Titodutta: who is much more knowledgeable about this subject matter than I am anyway.

The second article above is now listed at AfD.

However, Jessy's edits to two other articles are even more problematic. For example, he added a copyrighted image to Samantha Ruth Prabhu, which he had uploaded to Commons claiming that it was his own work (he still claims he's the copyright holder on his talk page). He got into a battle there with another editor, and I tagged the image at Commons for speedy deletion.

His editing at Rayachoti borders on vandalism. He oddly changed the name of the municipality to Jose Avila and added a tremendous amount of unsourced material to the article (he's not big on sourcing).

Finally, as I was writing this, he created a sock puppet (mimicking my user name), User:Bb31323, which created two edits, one to the Rayachoti article adding back in the garbage, and one to the AfD, which was priceless: "yes you may continue with YerrapuReddy Ravindra Reddy no problem in it pl continue . Regards Wiki management USA." Both have been reverted.

I have blocked the puppet indefinitely and blocked Jessy for two weeks, figuring that even if I'm WP:INVOLVED, this was a "straightforward case". That said, if any admin believes either block was unjustified, they can feel free to unblock, change the duration, whatever, without consulting with me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes straightforward and clear. --Tito☸Dutta 18:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've deleted the first article as a CSD:G12 - the entire thing was copied from copyrighted web pages and a book available on Google Books. There's a big difference between using a book as a source and copying it verbatim. The subject might actually be notable - but the article is simply a copyvio. (FYI The second article, currently at AfD, does not appear to have any obvious copyvio). Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Denisarona

Awards stars to anyone doing her work for the user on user page, and employs police like tactics with other users to subdue any dissident, the meritocratic system infringes the "free" in encyclopedia. We do not have stars like sheriffs for doing Denisaronas sort of justice we are there to educate what your opinion is to people remember SOPA?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subranadan88888 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reporting account has a very limited editing history, and created a userpage with "Black list: Denisarona. For the treachery of editing and policing." It is most likely the same user as 79.65.75.155. I can't see any action being taken against anybody other than the reporter. James^x12345 19:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OP blocked per WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NOTHERE. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a new user named Suuran88 has recently appeared and committed minor vandalism on Denisarona's userpage. The user has also vandalized a couple of articles, which is how he or she came to my attention. DoorsAjar (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Zmaher's edits

Zmaher (talk · contribs) is an oddball. Though his talk page shows some old warnings, the bulk of his edits concern Russia–United States relations (history) and appear to be perfectly fine. But when it comes to the world of entertainment, he seems to be hell-bent on adding long, very long descriptions to articles. For instance on Red Dawn (2012 film), he made his fair share of reverts and has subsequently been warned over his attitude. I myself noticed Zmaher's edits on the article of the video game Frontlines: Fuel of War. His description was over 25,000 characters long, overly detailed and unnecessary (see diff). After I cleaned up the article, I saw that he reverted it (see history). I gave him a warning over this, to which has not responded. And that's just it, he does not communicate at all: does not respond to talk page messages (or even deletes them). --Soetermans. T / C 19:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Zmaher's overly-long additions to Red Dawn almost a month ago, but he had not returned to the article since then. I know nothing of his other edits, past what Soetermans has pointed out above. He does not use edit summaries, which is quite annoying, and this seems to be part of his overall lack of communication. It might be good if someone reminded him that WP is a collaborative project and that he needs to explain his edits and engage other editors in constructive communication. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ganged up on by multiple editors, content-building edits blindly reverted, article deleted.

Can an admin or someone with access to deleted pages please check the history of Breakdancing Cop tweet and assure me that everything's kosher? In short, the article was tagged A7 despite several claims of significance from both BuzzFeed and Rob Delaney. As I tried to add more "reliable" references (since the stub was somewhat heavy on primary sources), I kept getting reverted (due to my missing the "please don't remove this yourself" blurb in the template and also due to my own habit of skimming over boilerplate talk page notices). I understand the template being put back on, but these edits also removed my additional sourcing. Frustrated with both this and the fact that other people's comments were attributed to me (one editor characterizing my talk page post as WP:ILIKEIT or whatever when it was not even close to what I said), I tried talking with editors, only to have the article deleted under A3 instead. I'm sorry, but a nearly 2-kilobyte article is not - at least in my mind - an "article that has no meaningful, substantive content". The quality of writing was poor, mostly due to my having to shoehorn in the material that - I thought - would help keep it from getting A7'd too quickly, and subsequently getting frustrated and, I suppose, semi-consciously distracting myself from further polishing... but the content was meaningful enough to get mention on BuzzFeed, for heck's sake! Clam Digging Johnson (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to read these and review (because I'm not an admin), but I might suggest that you take a look at WP:GNG. Notability is established through coverage in reliable sources; just getting mentioned on a popular website isn't necessarily enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Primary sources can be good for citing certain aspects of a subject, depending on what it is (WP:SELFPUB), but cannot be used to assess notability. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It definitely was an A7. No credible claim of importance, most of the sources were twitter, and the single reliable source doesn't even mention this meme. Obvious A7.--v/r - TP 22:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Clam Digging Johnson: Had you considered going to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to ask to have the text put into your userspace? That would give you more time to work on the article without it being subject to speedy deletion for lack of notability. CSD A3 and A7 don't apply in userspace; it's only bigger issues like G11 and G12 that would lead to a userspace draft getting speedy deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have userfied the article as User:Clam Digging Johnson/Breakdancing cop tweet please work on it and return to the main space only if the notability is clearly establised Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also interesting to note: since "clam digging" is a euphemism for having intercourse, and "Johnson" is a euphemism for penis, having a username that's basically "fucking penis" is probably going to lead to people thinking you're not always here in the best interests of the project to begin with ES&L 10:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That view is supported by their first edit. Ravensfire (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap - really inappropriate, and should have been a block (I'm not tracking to see if one was given) ES&L 14:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also refer to other editors as "bozos". Not sure Mr Johnson is here to build an encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 14:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear lord... *polishes glasses* Blatantly WP:NOTHERE. (ES&L: No block was given, why though I have no idea). Support block as WP:NOTHERE, would do it myself but am heading out... Also, I've revdel'd that little gem per RD2 as a blatant BLP issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently all admins live in the US and have yet to wake up an smell the coffee. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive bots missing in action

What happened to the archive bots? They don't seem to be running on ANI, AIV, AN3, or RFPP that I can tell. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

During these perilous botless times, Mark has graciously manually archived AN3 and, bravely, ANI (those are the two I know about). A vote of thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FYI_--_archive_bot_down. NE Ent 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request - third admin needed

User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero have volunteered to close and judge Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request sometime late on October 7th. The editors (including 'Bradley' supporters and 'Chelsea' supporters, and including me) who collaborated to set up the move request would prefer if three uninvolved admins closed and judged the discussion (because two might "tie"). If you're willing to be the third admin, please comment here, at the latest thread about closure (an earlier thread about closure was here). -sche (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have commented there offering to serve as #3 if a third is needed. 28bytes (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! Please let User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero know. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Kim, Guerillero and I are in touch and we will start the closure once 7 full days have elapsed since the move request was initiated (a few hours from now.) 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Imtitanium (persistent copyright/BLP violations)

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

---

Imtitanium (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for a week for vandalism, including copyright violations. In light of the scale of his disruption and his talk page posts while blocked I'd like to recommend that the block be extended indefinitely. My reasons are as follows:

• He has already been warned several times in the past for copyright violations and for removing {{copyvio}} templates. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium was completed in September and discovered and repaired 24 cases of infringement. Even after this he continued to post copyright-infringing material (e.g., [108] [109]) and to remove {{copyvio}} templates [110].
• For the latest case of copyright infringement he has posted an unblock request claiming that he "didn't know it was copyright material". However, he must have known it was infringing, since what he had done was reverted an administrator's edit with the summary "this whole thing is a copyright violation (from sources such as http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/bigg-boss-5-pooja-bedi-takes-on-pooja-misrra/ and many others)…".
• His non-infringing contributions often introduce deliberate factual errors using falsified references in an attempt to smear public figures. Some recent examples:
  • These edits claim that a reality TV contestant won a bull riding contest. However, his reference says nothing about such a contest; instead it's a yellow press article all about how the contestant is a "slut" who is the alleged subject of a publically circulating sex tape.
  • This edit claims a certain celebrity is a notorious bigot and a homophobe, but none of the three references mentions this.
  • In this edit he accuses various public figures of adultery, of bribing television producers with sexual favours, and of homosexual escapades with other celebrities. He reinserted this information twice, adding falsified references, after other editors removed it as "unsourced and potentially libelous" [111] [112].
• He's had numerous past warnings and blocks for personal attacks, incivility, and harassment. Last year he was warned for attacking User:Dharmadhyaksha. As of today he hasn't changed his attitude.

In summary, I don't think our project is benefitting from his presence. We can no longer assume good faith about his copyright and BLP violations. As long as he continues editing, all of his contributions will need to be checked for copyright infringement and libel, which is a huge time sink. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block if for no other reason than the copyvios: It's been a year since his CCI was opened, with the cost to community resources that followed as the few dedicated people who work in that area laboriously cleaned up after him. He claimed at that time that the copyvios were old and he had just gotten to know about our policies. His subsequent edits suggest that he is intending to return this material to publication. Beyond the incident reported above, see [113].(As an aside, note the BLP issue in that.) He had already edit-warred with several editors to keep that content in Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5) (see [114] for instance), and the problem with it had been explained to him at Talk:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5) months before. His edit summary here suggests he had finally understood the problem. (See [115].) He was further acquainted with our policies here when I left him a hand-written note explaining that there is a process that must be followed when you copy from one article to another. Yet, he has persisted in this practice as well (see [116] and [117] for two instance of copy-paste correction of his edits subsequent to that explanation). I don't believe that we can permit him to continue contributing without some strong indication that he truly understands our policies around copyright and intends to comply with them. Allowing him to undo the copyright cleanup already done and to continue to violate these policies simply creates more work for other people who have better things to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Indefinite block I agree, I think the blatant and continued policy violations (after blocking and counselling) make it quite clear that Imtitanium is not here to building an encyclopedia. Given the chances they have already had I think an indefinite block (with the standard offer or {{2nd chance}} certainly available) is the best and only way to deal with them at this point. I can't really see one specific area that there is bad editing (and others which there isn't) to make a topic ban effective, or a desire to make useful contributions which are within policy which might make adopting/mentoring effective. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block - long history of copyright abuse. Recently, this shows a poor attitude while the unblock request shows arrogance. User is clearly not mature/competent enough to edit productively. GiantSnowman 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Do not unblock until he demonstrates understanding of our copyright policy, is willing to comply with it and starts cleaning up after himself. I have recycled the CCI. MER-C 12:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose right now. Generally, I'm not in favor of levying a heavy block on a user during another block when the Editor can not come and participate in the discussion and defend themselves and address concerns people have with their behavior.

Why the rush? Can't this wait until their week-long block expires? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush; this discussion is timely as it arises in part from his activity during his block—namely, his refusal or inability to recognize the disruption which led to the block, and his continuing to engage in behaviour that led to the previous blocks. His block is due to expire in a day or two, after which he can freely participate in this discussion himself; in the meantime he can respond on his own talk page and his comments will be copied here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The indefinite block changes the parameters of future participation - we assumed at the time the CCI was opened that he would correct the behavior, and he has not - he has instead active begun returning content cleaned up for copyright issues to publication. At this point, I think the onus should rightly be on him to demonstrate that he understands policy and will comply. I routinely indefinitely block people who continue violating copyright policy after a CCI is opened - it's a bit much to ask people to clean up after somebody else and then let the user continue making the same kind of messes (or in this case exactly the same messes) - but the important point there and here is that an indefinite block is not a ban. It can be lifted at any time that they offer good reason to believe that the problem they are creating will stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've extended the block to indefinite. If he was going to resolve the issues or understand copyright, he would have done so the first time he was under a copyright investigation. You get to two, then quite frankly you're done. Wizardman 13:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef An editor needs to gain a clue before their first CCI investigation or block. This is now a year of putting the project at risk, and steadfastly refusing to comply with something so vital ES&L 14:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Block evasion

I have just noticed that in the past few weeks 121.52.146.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly reinserted exactly the same falsely referenced, libellous material about celebrities which User:Imtitanium repeatedly tried to post: [118] [119] [120]. As with User:Imtitanium, almost all the account's edits are to Bigg Boss 7 and other Bigg Boss-related articles. All this points to User:Imtitanium editing while logged out to avoid detection, before 2 October in violation of WP:SOCK and after 2 October in violation of WP:EVASION. If others agree with this conclusion then I suppose the IP needs to be blocked as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Longitude and Lattitude Brief refuses to die

Longitude and Lattitude Brief deleted, more than once. It's now back as Talk:Longitude#Longitude_and_Latitude_Brief, Longitude and Lattitude Summary, User:Sven nestle2 & User:Sven nestle2/sandbox. Can someone with a mop please have a word. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also several other personal essays, with similar problems and persistent reincarnations. See links on the user talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted and warned. GiantSnowman 11:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I know this is not WP:SPI, but doesn't this look like Sven nestle (talk · contribs) evading his block? Favonian (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Good spot - I have indeffed per WP:DUCK. GiantSnowman 13:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Stars Dance mass vandalism

There is already a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but this seriously needs to be protected. I am removing vandalism every couple of minutes from an insane amount of IPs. Please help. Anarcham (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done semi'd for three days. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Anarcham (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have another if you don't mind. All morning long vandalism on Éilís Ní Dhuibhne from a bunch of IPs. Anarcham (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 3 days. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)