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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

MezzoMezzo's continuous disruptive editing and highly biased editing behavior with a certain agenda

The case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Wikipedia:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Wikipedia:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

He is editing a numbers of Articles with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.

He uses Wiki:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
See here [1] he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
See here[2] and
here [3]
here [4]
Inserted a biased source here [5] and
veiled criticism in the name of history section here [6] again
here [7].

This POV pushing based on single source [8] continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive [9], *[10],[11]
Blatant accusations [12],
Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here [13]
Again accusations [14]
Blatant POV and lies [15]
Editing to prove a Point [16]
Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.[17]
Inserting his POV [18]
Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source [19]
Again tampering [20]
Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV [21]

Salafi-Removing a very Genuine template from the Article see here[22] and Protecting *blatant lies and POV here [23].
Unsourced POV here [[24]]
Nazim Al-Haqqani -He removed a lot of content here[[25]]

Tawassul-Removing total neutral valid content according to his personal views here [26]inserting his POV here [27]
Ibn Arabi He removed half of content in bad faith here
Ya Muhammad here[28]

He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
for speedy deletion [29],
[30],
[31],
[32],
[33]
Mohra shareef here
Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [34]

This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here [35]

Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day[36].
He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.

He is doing this since long-[37]
See a small example here [38] and here
reverted by other editors [39].
Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors [40]

Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi [41]

This editing pattern has harassed many editors in the past and has forced them to leave editing specially from Barelvi Page.For Ex-User:Hassanfarooqi,User:MatthewVanitas with his efforts to improve the Article [42],User:Nkv and User:Coercorash. Many fears to edit a single line or wording on these Pages due to this monopoly.

One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Wikipedia as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Wikipedia a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: [43]. I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Ibn Arabi allegation, I can verify that Msoamu is the one causing the problem, as all MezzoMezzo did was remove a massive chunk of unverified information (or verified only by primary sources, which aren't sufficient in this case; the information was highly non-neutral. Even with the edit, the article still needs major improvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One major issue is that the majority of Msoamu's diffs are also very old, I believe, and yet being presented as if they're a recent issue... Lukeno94 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not discussed here just a single Article ′but continuous patterns and motives of him'.He is continuously engaged in proposing Sufi movement Articles for deletion.But he is facing failure in his attempts.Many editors have removed his Deletion Prod from various Sufi Articles see here [44] ,[45].Msoamu (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here

Msoamu, a lot of your issue here is that you're presenting diffs from 2007 as if they're recent. They're not, and from mine, and other editor's, assessments of this dispute, you are by far the more disruptive. There are very few diffs you've presented that date from after your block for edit warring. I believe I requested that you'd stop trying to sully MezzoMezzo's name with half-baked accusations, sadly, you haven't. I can only see this being resolved by a WP:BOOMERANG and a topic and/or interaction ban being enforced on Msoamu, sadly. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luken,Kindly read my above comments.There are major POV pushing and disruptive editing by MezzoMezzo with in a month.The time period from which he has started this years editing.I have given numbers of Pages and Articles as Proof which he has recommended for Deletion with in a month and reverted by various editors.All the Pages in past and in present he has recommended for deletion belong to Sufi movement ,for which he seems to have certain agenda.Even I have shown recent changes by him to reduce importance from various Articles so that later they can be suggested for Deletion.Most of the pages he has developed belong to Salafi movement which is in strong opposition of Sufi or Barelvi movement.This is not a case of half baked accusation or something else.Non salafi Islamic expert can easily identify his edits.He has been accused of doing this many times.

I have brought this case here to examine his edits in depth and to seek comments on his editing pattern.Msoamu (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments seem to suggest that sourcing doesn't matter a jot - if you disagree with an edit, it can have a thousand reliable sources backing it up, and still should be removed. That is totally incorrect, as are assertions that Mezzo has regularly gone against consensus - the opposite is true. Some of these complaints about AfDs are unfounded, as other editors have removed significant chunks of information (rightly or wrongly), and that is what Mezzo has based their arguments on. Also, you've confused speedy deletion and AfDs in your diffs - the two are very different. You also label things as "big accusations" when they're not, they're single sentences worded neutrally. Saying things like "Barelvis have begun mixing with Shi'ites more than before" is NOT an accusation, it's quite possibly a statement of fact (I don't know the source, so can't check), and it's blatantly absurd to claim that - I don't suppose you're anti-Shi'ite? In fact, you've even provided diffs here that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MezzoMezzo - try this one: [46] as an example. You're so blinkered by either your dislike of MezzoMezzo, his (fairly neutral) views, or these movements themselves that you're making a boatload of unfounded accusations, based on a mixture of old, dodgy or downright incorrect evidence. For what it's worth, I'll provide my talk page assessment of this dispute here, from the 9th of February:

Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi."here is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing).here I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not.here He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:

Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:[47]. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:[48].
Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.

Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Msoamu, I suggest you look at your actions, apologize, and move on, and join the discussions, otherwise the ONLY way I can see this age-old problem is for you to be topic banned from editing anything to do with Islam, broadly construed, and an interaction ban with MezzoMezzo. You were flagged as being disruptive on these articles in 2006: this needs to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Luken,I learnt a lot from this discussion here.I will try to be calm and cool.Many times third person can clearly tell us that what is really wrong.Hope to see your cooperation in editing,I regret my complaint.Thanks.Msoamu (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unfortunate that you decided to go against the discussions I'd tried to have with the pair of you, as it's likely this will WP:BOOMERANG back at you, with your history of being involved in edit-warring on these topics as long ago as 2006. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-claims

Msoamu and two editors with whom he sometimes collaborates have launched what I feel are a number of personal attacks on me in the past few days or so.

In the case of User:Msoamu:

Accused me of supporting Salafism and Wahhabism here.

Note that Msoamu was recently blocked for edit warring, POV-pushing and personal attacks (against me). This user has been blocked for vandalizing the same article in 2006.

In the case of User:Hassanfarooqi:

Accused me of engaging in a "Salafi jihad" and turning Wikipedia into a "jihad ground" here.

Called me an "anti-Sufi bigot" and accused me of engaging in a "Jihad against Sufism" and brining a jihad to Wikipedia here.

Accused me of being an "anti-sufi wahhabi" and on a "jihad to wipe them (Sufis) all out" when creating this page.

Note that Msoamu seems to be egging Hassanfarooqi on here.

This user was also blocked in 2006, but for personal attacks rather than vandalism.

In the case of User:Shabiha:

Changed one of my comments on a talk page, seemingly to portray me as a POV-pusher, here.

Accused me of supporting Salafist jihadism here. Yes, it's there. Look all the way down at the very last sentence in his edit.

This user was blocked in 2007 for edit warring and personal attacks.

Especially troublesome are the accusations of me supposedly supporting holy war and violent extremism. I work for a reputable institution; should I ever be outed, such accusations can have personal ramifications for my family and I. I've tried both ignoring it and asking for it to stop, and multiple other users have tried reasoning with these three to no avail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unintentionally deleted Your comments on a Talk page.I was para phrasing my own headings,in this process mistakenly done that.That was not motive which you understood.Next,the comment was not directed to you and was in good faith.Please avoid taking it personally. Shabiha (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can I present here some earlier examples of Personal Attacks on me ? Shabiha (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, disclosure: Mezzomezzo asked me on my talk page about this complaint and whether or not he should post here, and I advised him to post a short summary with diffs as he has done above. Having said that, now that I see the diffs, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha need to stop the attacks immediately. I am willing to AGF that Shabiha's comment was not intended as an attack and the deletion was in error; but the other two are totally unacceptable. The are evidence of a battleground mentality at best, and outright offensive at worst. Were these western users casually dropping the term "jihad" it might be vaguely understandable, but these editors (based upon the topics they contribute in) must certainly know how strong and aggressive and, ultimately, rude such a label is. Just because someone nominates a lot of articles in a particular subject matter for deletion does not mean that they are attempting to wage a holy war of violence and eradication. Having seen some of the content Msoamu was defending, this is very disruptive. I'm interested in hearing what sort of defense these two have for their attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to counter claims asked by Qwyrxian:-

I am admitting that my wordings and behavior violated wiki policies and guidelines.For that I faced a blocked and I express my sincere apologies for the same.I am in discussion mode on Barelvi page.You can see my sincere discussions [49].But on the other hand would you like to examine these things.Sorry,If I wrote excessive points here but Don't this kind of behavior also needs some kind of action ?

User:MezzoMezzo accused me of POV Pushing[50] while i was just restoring a consensus version unchanged since months.
Trying to insult me and another editor Baboon43 [51]
Accused me of having some hidden reasons [52]
Claiming falsely that his edits have support of more than one editor which later on proved to be false [53]
He used the words, intentional disruption for other editors[54]
He was asked to refrain from making remarks about bias towards other editors[55]
Personal Attacks on more than one editors-
Accused Baboon of Racism [56]in these words, Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. and this [57]
Seems to be engaged in edit warnings [58]
Accused User:Sunnibarelvi to malign the Salafist movement by creating a Template on Salafism.[59].Msoamu (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's some signs of tendentious editing on Mezzo's part but I'm not sure if it is intentional or unintentional as i have not really looked into it..based on my previous discussion with Mezzo on Talk:Barelvi he took the discussion to ani which leads me to believe he might have strong feelings about this barelvi article. Baboon43 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 editors are definitely passionate about this topic area, however you look at it. Msoamu's edits have regularly been the more biased - some of Mezzo's are definitely a bit iffy, but it's rare that someone other than Msoamu or Shabiha has reverted them. Part of Msoamu's problem is with his grasp of the English language: due to him clearly not being fluent, he sees things as being insults when they're not - for example, the diffs about Mezzo insulting him and you are most definitely not insults, and the one saying he has the support of other editors is sort-of true, as GeorgeCustersSabre has reverted Msoamu's edits back to Mezzo's edits. Shabiha also may suffer from a similar issue, albeit to a lesser degree. Inadvertently, Msoamu has also pointed to an inappropriate comment by Baboon - "your either a wahabi or just lack knowledge of the subject", of which the first section is inappropriate - you should not be speculating about what religious beliefs an editor has if they haven't publicly stated them. (I can't comment on the last bit, I've used those sorts of comments myself) Mezzo's template comments start off a bit marginal, but then he does improve them with some relevant points. I would state that "Sunnibarelvi" would be advised to stay away from the groups that Barelvis are known for having disputes with, due to the COI problem (not just his own, which I believe he actually handles reasonably well, but that of other editors, which may provoke a battle). These are just my observations; I'm definitely not a Muslim (nor am I anti-Muslim), let alone a member of any of these groups, so I'm neutral :) Lukeno94 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the ANI thing with Baboon, I took it there mainly because, after 6+ years of seeing Barelvi editors create accounts solely for the purpose of rewriting that article to push their POV, I've come to expect that from any non-native English speakers adding overly-positive content or deleting any content which is remotely negative. In the case of Baboon, things were sorted out (and he's apparently not a Barelvi or even from South Asia to begin with). I don't have strong feelings about Barelvism and I've never met one; I freely admit, however, to having strong feelings about the article. For years, the fact that most English speakers (and this is English Wikipedia) don't know much about the movement has been capitalized upon by Barelvi editors (not all Barelvis, but all of these editors have been Barelvis) in order to push POV about which most English speakers are not aware. I was never even aware of it until I witnessed this editing behavior across 2006-2007; were it not for editing Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what Barelvis are.

As for the attacks, then Hassanfarooqi has a history of attacking anybody who disagrees with him even on articles relating to sports. Without even scrolling down, I checked his last 20 edits and found two personal attacks on other editors in addition to the three on myself. I don't think his issue is disruptive editing (I don't have the experience with him to say that) so much as it is habitually making personal attacks, despite having once been blocked for it. From what I can tell, nobody else ever seems to complain so it's hard to say how often this has happened in the years since his last block.

Msoamu has a combination of things. His editing has been described by disruptive by at least three or four editors other than Lukeno. He only seems to edit articles relating to Barelvism and the movement's opponents, and in all cases seems to present the beliefs of Barelvism as objective fact - Talk:Barelvi is testimony to that. He also has a tendency to call anyone who disagrees with him insulting names, usually relating to religious violence and extremism. I didn't know what a topic ban was before it was mentioned here but it seems to be the only way; as far as I know, he could still comment on talk pages but given his six years and going of POV-pushing followed by personal attacks and disruptive editing if he doesn't get his way, it seems to be the only solution. It seems that any article in which he takes interest never receives fair, productive attention or discussion.

About Shabiha, then again, after six years of interacting with this editor and having previously been involved with content and conduct disputes with him, my good faith has about run out. To be fair, though, Shabiha engages in discussion regarding content in addition to occasional personal remarks, whereas Msoamu generally engages in personal remarks in addition to occasional discussion of actual content, while Hassanfarooqi seems (on both religion and the soccer articles I saw) to just engage in personal attacks.

I would like to see some sort of repercussions at least for Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi. Not simply for attacking me personally, but also for the good of the articles on which they set their sights. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits of MezzoMezzo have been described by various editors as Non Neutral and it is not my view that his editing tendentious.Many Salafi editors also have tried in past to change the page according to their wishes.I have tried to maintain it neutral.I have supported in past criticism section and it is there.Msoamu's latest evidences are enough to prove that MezzoMezzo is not free from attacking editors Personally.No one is free from errors.We should try to be Neutral and objective as much as we can. Shabiha (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabiha, there have been very few that have had major concerns with Mezzo, apart from those mentioned here (namely yourself, Msoamu, Sunnibarelvi and, apparently, Hassanfarooqi, whom I haven't come across, and haven't seen mentioned before). Most people have had issues with Msoamu. As I've said several times, you've all made mistakes, but Msoamu is probably the more aggressive, and part of the issue is the fact that you and Msoamu have a weaker understanding of English, and are less able to communicate than Mezzo, whom seems fairly fluent. All 3 of you have made allegations of personal attacks that have been completely incorrect, however (simply as English isn't your first language). This is coming from a native British English speaker, so I'm in some position to judge. No offence is meant by this, it's merely my observations. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that both Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi have had a minimal amount of activity, so they have logged in. I'm concerned that they might just be trying to dodge the discussion so that it conveniently "goes away." Still, a discussion is not enough and the pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks - again, especially ones relating to violence and radicalism - are something I would like to see administrators address. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Okay, my feeling is that this is all way too complex and long standing for ANI to solve; some of these complaints go back years, and it would probably take RfC/U's on everyone to really see if there are long term problems. As an alternative to that, I propose that we give Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and MezzoMezzo final warnings: any more personal attacks, incivility, or blatant POV pushing will result in escalating blocks, to be issued by any uninvolved admin. If any of them are in fact "innocent" (and note that I believe that MezzoMezzo is much more the victim here, possibly blameless), and are editing in the best interests of Wikipedia, then they aren't at risk. In a sense, what I'm recommending is that we place these three users on discretionary sanctions. Yes, I know that there is no such thing, but I think you can get my idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully accept and even welcome being put on discretionary sanction. I fully accept and welcome administrator scrutiny of any and all edits I make on Wikipedia indefinitely, and given the overly long nature of this conflict, a final warning after which no warnings shall come (Lovecraftian, no?) should solve this. I am confident that my editing here is merely to improve the site and thus I have no issue if my account remains under such scrutiny forever. I only ask that administrators follow through should personal attacks come from any of those involved, including myself. One question, will Shabiha be exempt from this? I feel that he has been involved in the same issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too feel that Shabiha should be placed on some kind of warning, although to my knowledge, he hasn't been involved in the dispute quite as long, so maybe it'll be a 3-strikes-rule or something for him. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shabiha has also been at it on the Barelvi article. His block back in 2007 was for his personal attack on my talk page here due to the same POV/content disagrements. Similar comments about myself rather than relevant content can be found under his contributions during the past month or so. It's not limited to the original two examples I posted up there; while his comments are milder than those of the other two, the tendency for personal remarks is still there and has been for at least six years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Shabiha and Msoamu are back to refactoring comment to a pro Barelvi POV, see here.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 12:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, it's my comments, not MezzoMezzo, so they've got no valid reasons for it whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,I welcome any proposal given by Administrators.I am ready to cooperate with all respected editors of this nice site. Shabiha (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a small part of this at AfD by accident. Both Msoamu and Mezzo requested I say something. But I'm not familiar enough with content aspect. All I can say is that first impression that Mezzo was the problem quickly (sorry Msoamu) were reversed to Qwryxian's view that Mezzo isn't the problem here. However if it is "too complex and too long" then pre-final not final warnings are called for. Also Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, you could avoid friction by reading WP:IRS and WP:PSTS and following it carefully with every byte added in article space. If content is sourced, even using Urdu Arabic or Farsi, then frictions and edit wars are much less likely. Also Msoamu, play the ball, not the man, okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I became aware of this discussion because of a message Mezzo left on my talk page. Some might consider it WP:CANVASSING, although I can see that Mezzo isn't the only editor asking for outside input. I was the admin who blocked Msoamu. I haven't read the long list of bullets Msoamu posted at the beginning, although I clicked on a few of the diffs. I belive Hassanfarooqi was added in the middle of all this by Mezzo. Hassan was properly notified by Mezzo of this discussion, but I note that they haven't edited since February 20, so they haven't had a chance to respond, even though they are included as part of Qwyrxian's proposal. Although Mezzo doesn't object to the imposition of "discretionary sanctions" (it's kind of an editing restriction with a discretionary sanction flavor), it's unclear to me why he's included except perhaps out of an abundance of caution to be "fair". I commend Luke for his tremendous efforts to mediate, and I commend Qwyrxian for his proposal to resolve the situation in a practical way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I was also asked to comment since I blocked Msoamu for six months in December 2006. Whilst that is old news, it appears from my review of some of the diffs and the comments above that there has been little improvement in his attitude to other users. I'm not sure why Mezzo merits a final warning, that appears to be intended to give an impression of even-handedness which is not justified. Msoamu clearly carries most of the responsibility here, and any sanctions should reflect that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "warning" of MezzoMezzo was primarily a move towards even-handedness. My worry was that the previous discussion had bogged down and was overflowing with so many diffs (some ridiculously old) that I felt it likely that it was just going to end up archived without any action taken. My thinking is that if MezzoMezzo is, in fact, editing entirely in good faith (something I think very likely, though the large number of single subject AfD's can be a matter of concern), then the warning ultimately has no effect, as I'm trusting that future admins are smart enough to tell the difference between a real infraction and something trumped up by an adversary. My other thinking is this: I'm of the opinion that, in a certain sense, once a user has been here long enough, they shouldn't need civility warnings; that is, we should all be editing as if we were on a final warning for civility. I really don't want Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi to just be able to walk away thinking "It's okay to call someone a jihadist, as long as I make sure to be the one to file the complaint with dozens of diffs from the past 5 years". I want them to understand that this behavior stops now, or they stop editing. It's a risky move, but given that MezzoMezzo has indicated a willingness to accept the "warning", I'm even more comfortable with it. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Interaction ban

An interaction ban between Msoamu and MezzoMezzo is the only appropriate solution in this case.

Support. Zaminamina (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - with respect, I don't think you've quite understood the issue. This ban would be unhelpful as it doesn't address any issues with biased editing, and as they both contribute primarily to the same articles, it makes things even worse with that regard. It also ignores any issues from Shabitha and other editors involved. The proposal above this is far better. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a ban would be impossible, since the two editors already co-edit a large number of articles...and there are ongoing AfD's and content disputes in which neither of them should necessarily gain precedence. Furthermore, from my reading of the situation (which is somewhat limited), MezzoMezzo is attempting to conduct wide ranging cleanup in topics that have been created and/or protected by Msoamu, and the encyclopedia would be significantly worse off to lose his editing in those topics. Again, returning to the key point that lead for my call for the above proposal: calling someone a "jihadist", repeatedly, is something that needs to stop, period. I cannot believe that using such a strong invective is uniquely caused by the relationship between these two. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:KuhnstylePro and persistent creation of WP:HOAX articles

Over the past year, this user seems to have made a large number of what appear to be WP:HOAX, or at the very least, extremely speculative articles, most of which seem to have been speedy deleted or AFD'd, judging by his talk page. The user has been warned numerous times about this kind of behavior. Outside of editing in the mainspace, the user seems to spend a lot of time creating elaborate speculative articles about nonexistent future products/media in his userspace (User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/A Hero's Guide to Deadly Dragons, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Holy Cartoon!, User:KuhnstylePro/iMoonTelevision, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Wendy Wu: Year of the Dragon, User:KuhnstylePro/Disney Channel All Star House Party, User:KuhnstylePro/The Star Wars Show, User:KuhnstylePro/Drawn to Life: Boneheads Edition, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Kinect Q, User:KuhnstylePro/Xbox Portable, and many more), a hobby which represents over 40% of his edits. I'm a little bit at a loss for what to do with someone like this. He has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Bushranger nominated a bunch of them for speedy deletion, and I deleted those and some others. I hope the ranger will come by here and give their opinion--given that they were blocked before, for the same thing, I'd say block indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And a ninja-block strikes! It's clear he's not here to build an encyclopedia, so an indef has been applied. If he wants to be unblocked he'd better provide very strong assurances he understands what Wikipedia is actually for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...looking further into this, it looks like a truly massive hoax has been perpetrated here, focusing around "Boneheads (TV series)". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, what criteria would User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII fall under? Since the game does exist, but essentially, the "hoax" is the entertainment section, since Beyonce performed the show, not Maroon 5/Selena Gomez. Zappa O Mati 05:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I saw that one and thought about MfDing it. Is there content worth saving? If no, it's a test page (at best). I just deleted one (forgot which one) that was copied from mainspace in October and then worked on some; I deleted that under "Housekeeping" as an unattributed copy paste job from the article. I urge other editors to go through their subpages and delete/nominate as they see fit: after a dozen or more I need something else to look at. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think so, since I'm pretty sure all but the entertainment section has been in the main page before the game kicked off, so CSDing it as a test page would work; I'd do it myself, but I have to hit the hay now. Zappa O Mati 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I just deleted it as a BLP violation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). Read it and weep, for we - and apparently a large chunk of the Internet, judging by the Google hits - but lack of reliable Google hits or Google News hits - have been had but good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII created. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a spot: User:KuhnstylePro/Cartoonlopedia. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all. I need an index-finger massage. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that was fast. And efficient. One last thing, his move of Future Earth to Future Earth (2009 TV series) should be reverted. Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moved back without redirect. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great! Thanks for all the help, admins! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would Touch FX count as another hoax? I've been looking through the user's edits and found this article which, so far, has received edits only from him. A brief search turned up this website, which lists some games listed as "Touch FX". I doubt that it's an actual arcade board, though. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been nuked; I agree that we simply can't extend any good faith to this user's contributions given his proven use of Wikipedia to spread his own imaginary creations (charitable)/hoaxes (WP:SPADE). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty socks

Well, that didn't take long at all, did it? The socking has begun. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SPI for ~~spy~~sleepercheck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I found the existience of this to be interesting... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If he would like to be the only active contributor to the wiki for a TV show he made up one day, that's totally fine by me. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I like this bit, however: "Note that "usernames" should be the known user names of the main people who edited the article on Wikipedia." Lukeno94 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the existiance of the wikia that raised eyebrows. It was the "This content copied from a deleted Wikipedia article" template that perturbed me. Seeing as since the attribution history of a deleted article is hidden, that makes it a copyright violation... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That template itself doesn't seem to exist [60]. Your link above showed the template documentation which is probably the leftover from a deletion process. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you've gone to the wrong place. [61], which is exactly the link Bushranger provided. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Bushranger's link is "Wikipedia-deleted/doc", but the template as such does not exist over there. Note also the redlink in their template code. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair cop, you're right on that one. Not really sure what this user hoped, or even hopes, to achieve, to be honest, but there we go. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Wikipedia:Etiquette etc

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC, where I have been requested to file the following, as I now reluctantly do having wanted to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND, as previously noted on my talk page:

In contravention of the usual and required policies of Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility; Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and following my considered outside opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by IZAK, here is a list of recent discussions that relate to me where at no point was I ever informed about them by the parties who commenced the discussions, primarily by User User:Danjel backed by User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs). Some of them were quite serious and had I known about them in a timely fashion I would have taken the time and effort to respond:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK. (Fortunately I did manage to comment after a user not connected to the compliant brought it to my attention. The SPI "investigation" ended quickly and was also quickly deleted without any action taken and in effect rendering the spamming of a link to it on other forums that in effect rendered anything to do with that moot.)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view criticism of children's account.
Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Per WP:WIKIQUETTE, when commencing a discussion about another user, be it on any talk page and certainly on an official forum, and definitely when making serious allegations against that user, it is not just common decency but almost required to inform the user concerned or even any other interested parties. See for example Category:User warning templates, such as: Template {{ANI-notice}}: "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."; or Template {{SPIusernotice}}: "A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts... Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPIusernotice for evidence..." and others like this.

While User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs) has had things to say about me lately, yet he has:

Been suspected of sockpuppetry WP:SPI himself: User talk:Bob K31416#Sockpuppetry case; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416/Archive.
Been criticized for accusing an established user of being a sockpuppet: User talk:Bob K31416#SlimVirgin that violates WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
Accused an established user applying for adminship of being a sockpuppet User talk:Bob K31416#unsupported allegations in a request for admin; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/History2007#Oppose in violation of WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
Forgets that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Constant focus on toughening WP policies, thereby making user contributions more difficult, and thus reducing the ability of new users to join (a constant lament at the present of the WP Foundation) and is takes his causes to Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) even coming up with an idea for a "WP Commission" that would have the "final veto" on policy (even as he freely edits away constantly in areas of WP:POLICY) that flies in the face of what WP is all about about which he is reminded and that was rejected: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Policy commission, as concluded by User Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs): "At the end of the day, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think we are in danger of thinking of wikipedia politically in terms of policies rather than focusing on what is most important, encyclopedic content. In fact if many on here cut the bureacratic/governor pretense and wrote articles instead the site would be massively better off.. And if much of the time spent discussing policies and wiki politics instead went into actual development planning and how to feasibly greatly improve overall content we would start meeting our real objectives...♦ Dr. Blofeld" [62].
Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) disagrees with his "off-wiki" obsession: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125#Consensus and off-wiki canvassing: "I don't think it's a serious issue. I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" - it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Wikipedia is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying - they are - but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [63] and "I don't disagree with it (much) as written, but I think people tend to overstate the likelihood or importance of it, and tend to underestimate how often the real problem is people screaming 'canvassing' to prevent people from seeking outside voices. Many things on Wikipedia would benefit from more participation, more eyeballs, and the bias against recruitment means that decisions are made in obscure corners without relevant people being properly notified. This may suit the interests of a group that has a majority in that little corner, but knows that they are in the extreme minority in the broader community or world. But it doesn't suit the interests of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [64].

Colon-el-Nuevo

Colon-el-Nuevo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user has been a long term disruptive presence on articles related to Christopher Columbus, especially Christopher Columbus and Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. The user’s goal is to elevate the theories of amateur historian Manuel Silva de Rosa, who has argued that Columbus was actually the child of Polish royalty. Given her/his singular purpose, and the strength with which he pushes these theories, I believe that Colon is either closely personally connected with Rosa or is simply a super-fan.

Colon was blocked twice for disruption on these article in 2011. While there have been no recent blocks, the editing has still certainly been disruptive/tendentious. There are two major problems.

Filling talk pages with arguments about the subject, not about the article itself . That is, Colon is using the talk pages as place to make academic arguments about the topic to push Rosa’s claims. See, for example, [67] , [68], and [69]. Sometimes other editors tell Colon to stop; in some occasions, she/he has even been reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. If people need more examples of tendentious/forum-like behavior, they can be provided…though simply looking at Colon’s contributions will tell the story as this is basically the only thing she/he does on WP.
Insertion of non-neutral information into articles. Thankfully, this is less common, but the most recent attempt was the back-breaking straw causing me to finally seek sanctions. See [70] and [71] from a few days ago. In these edits, Colon proves her/his inability to edit neutrally on this topic, instead inserting language that sounds as if the case for Columbus’ nobility is now proven, and there is nothing more to debate.

A perusal of Colon’s talk page will show that in addition to the blocks, people have tried to communicate directly with her/him, but to no avail. The user is indefinitely blocked on Spanish Wikipedia, and has been blocked on Polish Wikipedia as well. A quick look at his global contributions shows that this is Colon’s only topic of interest in any language. I believe that the time has come for an indefinite block on en.wiki as well. I mean, theoretically we could topic ban him from any edits related to Christopher Columbus, broadly construed, in all namespaces, but since Colon seems to have no interest in any other topic on Wikipedia, I don’t see any difference. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May as well indef. Further up the page another editor was indef'd for the same thing. Not that it should be a precedent but if all they do is harp on about one subject then topic ban, which can't be enforced by admin tools, isn't going to achieve much beyond a succession of violations leading to an indef anyway. Blackmane (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef - It's been years of his pushing Rosa's views into articles in a pov manner with dubious sources and/or sources that don't back his claims, and using talk pages as a forum. I've never blocked him only because I'm too involved. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now Colon, editing as an IP, attempted to add one of his non-proof non-sources to the Origins article in this edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller and I have been dealing with this editors shenanigans on Filipa Moniz Perestrelo for awhile as well. All of this is visible in the history and talk page. —Diiscool (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Filipa Moniz Perestrelo page is finally a page worthy of the wife of the Admiral Colon thanks to my efforts, despite the constant fight by Dougweller and others to dumb it down. Compare the current version with the fact that there was not even a page for her prior to my involvement. - Furthermore, the fact that I am a poor editor and can't write neutrally, should not be a reason for a ban. Nor should it be a reason for a ban, the fact that I support a writer who others call a dilettante or unreliable. I have done enough reading of both Rosa's work and many other authors to understand the problem of Columbus and I feel Rosa's contribution is worthy of mention. After all he has been invited to speak at many Universities in several countries as he listed in his Portuguese language blog, this is no small accomplishment. Even if I am unable to do the edits in the proper wikipedia "format" - It would be more productive and more beneficial for the Wikipedia, if instead of blanket deleting of all my edits, the interested editors would attempt to re-write them in the proper "neutral" format utilizing the sources that I present. Otherwise it would not be me who loses but the readers who come to this site looking for updated and worthy information.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon you have been told by many editors many times that you are wrong in your assessment of Rosa's notability as a Columbus scholar. The fact that you are bad at formatting your edits is not wehat makes you a poor editor, but the fact that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to accept that the information that you want to supply is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia because it is based on scholarship that is not considered valid by the academic community. Adding information that most scholars consider to be patently false to articles is not an improvement and removing it does not dumb down wikipedia, but raise its quality as a source of reliable information based on serious scholarship rather than layman's speculation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few words... Colon-el-Nuevo spends his days, in a series of systematic violations of the rules... disruptive user. --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colon el-Nuevo began with the assumption that all the Genoese documentation referring to ::::Christopher Columbus has nothing to do with Colon. He found hints of Polish origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. To Colon el-Nuevo, even thenavigator's reminiscences on geography were proof of his Polish origins. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics.

Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Nobody in the Admiral's lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace. There are hundreds of evidence. Colon el-Nuevo is a nightmare. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: I would absolutely have indeff'd Colon-el-Nuevo months ago, except that I may count as WP:INVOLVED. I'm hoping another admin will take a moment to look at the evidence, as I think it would be very hard to reach any other conclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A moment taken indicates that this editor is here to push The Truth, not to improve the encyclopedia, and, therefore, an indef has been applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus IP addresses

IPv6 can be confusing. De728631 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It seems that some anon are popping up where they appear as a series of random letters and numbers. Is this a glitch in the system or an effort to hide IP addresses from anon editors? –BuickCentury Driver 09:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they're IPv6. Giant Snowman 09:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever seen one IPV6 user myself, I'm really surprised that switch is still so limited. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to that message that used to show up when you viewed an IPv6 users User contributions page? It was useful to let people know that it wasn't a glitch.--Auric talk 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confusing page moves and deletions

I'm exceedingly confused as to what Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is up to with moving ~~talkpage archives~~userspace pages around and deleting/undeleting them. I asked a while back what was up, but didn't get a useful answer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's just dumping everything from his own userspace. Perhaps with no intention of returning. Nothing, imo, to worry about. --regentspark (comment) 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understand it, he's allowed to delete archives of his talk page (or anything else in his userspace) but not User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim itself. I don't see any need for admin actions here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... unless he actually moves his usertalkpage to an archive, and then tries to have it deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking again, that is what happened. He moved it, deleted the moved page, then recreated his user talk without the history. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get the history of my talk and user page deleted too? Volunteer Marek 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me, too, please? Bielle (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy fornication, Batman ... he's done it more than once! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of admin rights

As an admin, Deacon would know as well as anyone else that user talkpages cannot be deleted; period. It appears that based on the logs, he has moved the contents and then deleted the new subpage more than once. This is a clear violation of the trust that the community provided him. "Retired" or not, this is an offensive and improper situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of you idle dramaqueens insist on drawing attention to this, I'm streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out. There is actually no policy that prevents me deleting my talkpage if I want to contrary to the assertion above (and per WP:DELTALK), but as it happens all but a fraction of my talk page is undeleteable due to its high number of edits and will remain available to view until I get a crat to delete it some time in the future. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of usertalkpage cannot be done by the editor themself, and you know that. Only in very rare circumstances will the usertalkpage be deleted upon retirement, and you also know that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm commenting, since the damage is already done, but he's not just moving his old talk page and then deleting it (which, if determined to be a bad idea, could be reverted by another admin); he's moved most of his subpages (one at a time) to the same page, deleted it, then moved another pages to that page, and deleted it again. As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle. That's not "streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out". There's no "vanishing" type rationale for doing this. I suppose it's too late to get upset about it as long as he's leaving soon and requesting a desysop, but if he's planning on staying, I stongly object. Didn't another admin do something like this a long time ago, causing a giant uproar? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle." And that, of course, is why he has done it. Why doesn't someone with the power take away his tools immediately, before he makes any more messes that are advantageous to him, and are difficult, if not impossible, to clean up? He had proven he cannot be trusted. Bureaucrats, where are you? Bielle (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They've got their own board ( Wikipedia:Bn#User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim ) but they can't do anything per constraints of policy. Can they be blocked, or would they be able to simply unblock themselves? NE Ent 01:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he could unblock himself. And seeing as he's already broken policy, I see no reason he wouldn't. Regardless, this could be construed as an emergency situation, in which case either per some policy I don't wish to bother finding or IAR an emergency desysopping can and should be performed. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#U1 (policy) and WP:User pages#Deletion of user pages (guideline) disallow speedy deletion of a user's main talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim has created a large WP:HISTMERGE at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion. No independent admin would have fulfilled its many deletions, G6 or otherwise. For convenience, these are the move logs relevant to the main user and user talk pages: [72], [73]. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I plan to challenge the deletion at WP:Deletion review, as no justification has been presented. Another relevant page is WP:Courtesy vanishing#Deletion of user talk pages (guideline), which includes the sentence, "User talk pages should never be moved to become user subpages to facilitate deletion." Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the logs of User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim after DoP's comment, "all but a fraction of my talk page is undeleteable due to its high number of edits". I found one remaining archive at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI (history, info), covering 2005–May 2012 (when it was move-archived). As DoP wrote, it is mostly EdwardsBot delivering WP:Wikipedia Signpost after late 2011. I'm not sure why DoP was unable to delete it, as its info page lists 3500 edits, and the bigdelete limit is at 5000, according to WP:Deletion process#Pages with many revisions. He did successfully delete User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive I through XX (my guess is cut and paste archives). Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ive done some digging, there are 61 pages that have been combined in that one page, If an admin is interested in undeleting and restoring the individual pages I have some information that will be useful, and make it easier. Werieth (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you post that information under the DRV to assist anyone contemplating undeleting this mess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

its not something that is easily posted on wiki, nor should it be made public as it may violate a few foundation policies about releasing information on deleted content. If an admin wants to undelete please either drop a note on my talk page or email me. Werieth (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Deacon be blocked promptly to prevent any continuation of this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet with his admin-bit, if I remember right, he could just unblock himself.. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bureaucrats don't seem to have any interest in stopping this misuse of the admin tools. In fact, they are downright patronizing about the complaint. I don't get it. I am quite sure the rest of us, admin or not, wouldn't be allowed any such privilege. Bielle (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking oneself is grounds for an emergency desysop. --Rs chen 7754 19:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to apparent belief, bureaucrats are not allowed to punitively remove the admin flag. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect would it be punitive? The evidence here is that DofP is using his admin powers to do something he shouldn't be doing, the desysop would be to prevent him from continuing to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only ArbCom is authorized to desysop people. --Rs chen 7754 05:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats idle. Should we notify Jimbo?

Since it appears that the bureaucrats are failing to take any action, and it is clear that this is an emergenmcy situation (per gwickwire), perhaps we should inform Jimbo of the abuse? He might be able to do something. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not going to pursue this, since (as I said above) the damage is done, and it appears he isn't going to stay active, and ArbCom is such a hassle. But if you want him desysopped, you're going to have to go to ArbCom. That is - literally - the only way to desysop someone against their will. Jimbo won't do it anymore, and Crats (even if they wanted to) are forbidden from involuntarily desysopping someone without direction from ArbCom. Whether ArbCom will desysop... or instead chastise/admonish/warn him... is an interesting question. I know what I'd do, not sure what they'll do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection, I think the best thing to do is to wait and see what happens in the next day or two. This will quite possibly resolve itself on its own. I note that he has not done this anymore, ever since this thread was started. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this "resolves itself on its own" in the sense that "he does not do this anymore"... can I get the history of MY talk page and user page deleted? Why or why not? Volunteer Marek 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "resolves itself" in the sense of "he requests a desysop and retires". It's unacceptable to me that he does this and stays active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Since it appears that the bureaucrats are failing to take any action..." I've yet to see anyone in all of this illustrate what they would like the bureaucrats to do that we are actually allowed to do according to policy. I keep looking at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions and I see nothing relevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want someone desysopped, you have to go to ArbCom. Not commenting on whether a desysop is appropriate here. --Rs chen 7754 21:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must've read the policy wrong (trouting self now). Stewards can emergency desysop, as would be appropriate imo now. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have the power to, but they very rarely interfere with large wikis like enwiki and dewiki for such a relatively trivial matter like this. But if you don't believe me, m:SRP is thataway. --Rs chen 7754 05:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the current version of that policy in 2009 and I'm a bureaucrat-steward, so I might have an overly detailed perspective on the topic, but no, this isn't an emergency, under the GRU, CRAT, or ADMIN policies. An emergency is where someone is doing something that is very harmful or can't be undone easily and the person has shown an unwillingness to stop or is perceived to be likely to engage in very harmful or permanent actions if not stopped. If I perceive correctly, the subject's last actions were over 24 hours ago. They consisted of deleting user talk pages with less than 5,000 revisions. The subject's deletions were (and are) reversible, they do not impact the ability of other users to edit nor directly harm other users, and the subject has not "wheel warred" or otherwise indicated he is likely to perform very harmful or permanent actions. Additionally, while it appears his deletions are against policy, no one has even attempted to obtain a consensus to overturn them at WP:DRV. Therefore, they are not an emergency and are best dealt with by Arbcom (if Arbcom so chooses to take a case). It's further worth noting that under Arbcom's own emergency procedures Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions, this situation would be unlikely to be an emergency because the subject is not actively using (and has not for 24 hours) his advanced permissions in a harmful or destructive manner. MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it the case then, that any admin can undo DofP's actions? DofP's deletions are a first action, the undo would be a second action, and a (theoretical) third action would be the forbidden wheel-warring, if I understand correctly. If that's true, then -- without concern for DofP's status -- why doesn't an uninvolved admin simply restore these pages (utilizing the help offered above) putting things back to the staus quo ante, then delete all the pages one by one from their original names (without the obfuscating move DofO utilized), except the user talk page, which can be courtesy blanked. Then, a block for DofP would seem to be in order for blatantly misusing his bit. He then would have the choice of unblocking himself, and being desysoped for it, or turning in his bit, which he really doesn't need anyway because he's going bye-bye.

The whole megillah does bring up a more general question, which is what to do when admins go off the deep end -- not that it happens that often; still, it would be nice to have policy which says that when the signs are that an admin is clearing the decks leave, he or she no longer needs the admin bit, because they no longer have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. The bit, after all, doesn't belong to them, it's been given so that they perform specific tasks in aid of the project. Once they turn away from that, the bit should be removed. It's silly to wait to "see what develops" when every indication -- including messages from DofP on his talk page -- are clear that this admin wants no part of the project anymore. That's fine, that's his perogative and his choice, but if so, there's no reason he needs the bit anymore. We should not leave it to the (obviously) departing admin to decide when to give it up, because his or her personal concerns are no longer congruent with those of the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to start a DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 24. --Rs chen 7754 09:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the DRV. Seriously? Seven days of process wanking. over this? Just undo it already. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I meant that because there was the option of going to DRV to undo the action, it wasn't an emergency. Not that we should race ahead and file a DRV. MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts were to start a process to at least do something measured about the matter to pacify the people wanting a desysop, without an admin going in there and reverting everything and then having Deacon delete the pages again. I'm rather disappointed that my middle-of-the-road proposal was speedy closed. --Rs chen 7754 18:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Beyond My Ken, if the Deacon's actions could be reverted, and as there is a pretty unanimous consensus that these self-deletions are wrong, simply restore these pages and undo his actions. Cavarrone (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Floq is right here, the best thing to do is see how this flushes out, and clean up afterwards. There is no need to overreact. His actions are obviously out of policy but they aren't affecting any other user directly and can be easily undone. As Rschen points out, only Arb can strip the bit outside of an emergency. All this talk of emergency bit-stripping is very premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if these actions are fine (which they might be), then when and if I put up the retired flag on my user page, can *I* get the history of the user page and talk page deleted? Volunteer Marek 17:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's well oiled and effective de-sysop process strikes again. It is quite ridiculous then most logical solution for blatant abuse of admin privileges is waiting and hoping that abuser is nice enough to do everyone favour of retiring voluntarily.--Staberinde (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, this is a victimless "crime". His deletions may be out of process but this isn't the same as an abusive block, so I recommend we keep things in perspective. We have deletion review, which is the proper way to deal with this. As for retiring, that seems to be his objective and he has stated as much. This isn't normally a basis for desysoping someone, it is a reason to have a discussion, get a solution, and then if he were to interfere with that solution, you could entertain stronger action. No one seems concerned that we have a very long tenured editor, who has the admin bit, who is upset and leaving. That is a bigger issue than the small amount of work it would take to undelete his talk page via delete review. I'm not so worried about the temporary loss of access to his talk page. Everyone here knows that if deletion review says to undelete, it will be restored. Nothing is permanently broken. I'm more concerned about the human being who feels disenfranchised enough to leave. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may very well be victimless. But then the question is - do regular editors get the same privilege when they retire or is this a right reserved for administrators? Accepting that he does indeed retire, there's two ways this could go. Either someone undoes all these deletions, or not. If not, then it should be clarified somewhere that this is something that *any* editor, admin or not, is allowed to request (since they cannot do it themselves) to have done.

Otherwise, there needs to be an explicit and obvious statement somewhere that the right to obliterate one's talk page history into "oblivion" (Deacon's choice of words) is a right that for some reason comes bundled in with the standard admin tool set.Volunteer Marek 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of policy is that it is not ok to do this. Being an admin doesn't grant special privileges for anything, you and I agree more than you probably know. Assuming good faith, I do think he is simply mistaken on his interpretation based on his actual comments (it isn't a common topic, after all) and I know that we can undo the delete tomorrow, or next week, so zero will be lost. Undeleting is a trivial thing to do with the admin tools. What we can't undo is losing the editor, so that takes a higher priority. In other words, lets not let the bureaucratic process make us lose sight of what really matters most here: people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I think that you don't understand the problem if you're calling it "trivial". WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#How to undo a history merge is relevant reading that covers an example of two pages. According to Werieth's comment above, there were 61 pages merged together. I have some thoughts on extracting just the main user talk page, but I think that the merging is practically impossible to undo completely, short of restoring from a WP:Database download. Restricting the target date range to after May 2012 (earlier history at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI) makes selective undeletion considerably less difficult, but not necessarily easy. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial != Quick. The logs show his every move like a recipe, which can be reverse engineered. It only requires time and patience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" != "doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon every time I look at it", apparently. Is there any reason that we actually need to undelete this? Can we just say for the record that "This is not cool, nobody do it in the future" and leave it at that? Why, yes, I am extremely lazy; why do you ask? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All i's must be dotted and all t's must be dotted; thank goodness we're not a bureaucracy ... it's my (Non-administrator comment) understanding that all 859 {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} can view the content of the pages, despite the Deacon's attempted cover-up / overzealous desire for post facto privacy / cleaning up after themselves. Not worth a fuss. NE Ent 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no reason to actually undelete this thing, then obviously there is also no really good reason to deny talk page deletion requests of non-admins in 99% of cases. I am sure they wouldn't even demand numerous page merges first, so undeletion would be even less issue then it is here.--Staberinde (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that there's no way to tell whether something's in the 99% (probably too high a figure anyway) or the 1%, since it depends on what other user's need for the page as a reference. This one case doesn't tell us anything about the general case of which talk pages are okay to delete and which aren't. So, for this case, if anyone needs it we can do undeletion, but since it's kinda a pain, we won't do it unless they ask. But generally, people shouldn't need to ask, so as a general rule, we don't delete talk pages. We can totally have it both ways; no reason we can't. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no. There is nothing in Deacon's talk page archive that is in any way critical to the encyclopedia. Or for the matter useful to the encyclopedia. There is, however, sufficient information to identify him/her in real life, and he/she has decided to protect his/her privacy on his/her way out. There is no policy that states we cannot ever delete talk pages (only guidelines). This has been a massive over-reaction all round. Just leave things as they are. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I completely agree that this has been a massive overreaction, privacy concerns were never mentioned, so I don't see that being relevant in this case. Even if privacy had been the reason, it wouldn't justify doing such a pain-in-the-ass history merge of everything; it should have just been straight-up deleted and/or he should have requested that select edits be suppressed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon has stated that this was done for privacy reasons: [74] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took that to mean that he just wanted some privacy (i.e.: "stay out of my stuff"), not that there were privacy concerns (i.e.: "there was non-public information that needs to stay non-public"). The latter is protected under policy, but the former is just a "well, that's nice" sort of thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't merely an 'overreaction', it was a mean-spirited wild goose chase. Its end result is not merely to reveal my sandbox along with some notifications and Edwardsbot spam, but more importantly (for you guys) to reveal the character and weaknesses of many of the participants here, as well as the AN/I (or public IRC) platform as a whole. I hope you guys make better use of that revelation than you will those Edwardsbot messages, though I am almost certain you won't!

The best of it is that, for all the bloodlust and frenzied calls for recrimination, I was never actually asked to restore its talk page contents (which was a series of ticks that would have taken 30 secs to 1 min). I would have done so on my own initiative if you all weren't so petty and mean, but despite that I did in fact offer to do so in an email to the crats/Evula. The only response I got was a repetition of the mob's poorly sourced view about my talkpage rights, which is sad for you guys 'cause it would have saved you a lot of wasted time (time you would also have saved if you paid more attention to what I said at the top than you did to the hysterical cries around it).

And indeed Jim, your interpretation of my remarks was correct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Considering that everyone is pretty much in agreement that the deletion of talk pages is wrong (and that DofP was wrong to do so), I don't understand the repeated question of "do I get this right as well?" This isn't a right that non-admins are being denied, it's a one-off event where an administrator did something inappropriate, and can be reversed by undeleting the pages (which I definitely think should be done, though I'm not terribly surprised that nobody has tried yet, given the annoying complexity of the moves and deletions). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have undeleted User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion but will not attempt a history reconstruction of the individual pages. Everyone can now see the full history, just like admins did when it was deleted. If there is actual need to get the histories untangled, some further effort can be made (which would probably include redeletion and then partial undeletions and moves), but it doesn't seem to be worth the effort. Note that while this "oblivion" page includes some talk pages (hence the undeletion), the vast majority were not talk pages; also note that the actual main talk page archives apparently were not (and never) deleted, but hidden away at places like User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI (with six page moves recently...). Fram (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to sign

Before this thread goes too much further, note that 18 hours ago, the user in question signed their most recent talk page edit. I imagine it was the calm, polite, rational request and explanation from FisherQueen that did it. If this thread closure has prevented you from adding to the frivolity in the subthreads, I apologize. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

somebody else try telling 70.44.58.168 (talk · contribs) to sign posts; consistently refuses to do so. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you're talking about. Wikipedia doesn't say I have to sign my posts to edit an article. I also don't know why you think you can tell me to do something. If you're going to ask me to do something because of a rule, then provide a link to the rule. Don't act like your the boss of someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGN: "Persistent failure to sign may become disruptive, and if it is persistent, despite the problems being pointed out to the user, doing so may be subject to sanctions." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:TPG#signature NE Ent 01:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to sign talk page posts will eventually be seen as disruptive and in bad faith. There's no good reason not to. —Rutebega (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Per Seb and Rutebega, we suggest that you use four tildes to sign and date your posts, before it is seen as disruptive and blocks are handed out. P.S. Technically, admins are our bosses. If they have something to say, it almost always has a good reason. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say admins are our bosses at all. They have earned the community's trust, and are to be respected (and listened to, as you said), but nobody serves anybody else on wikipedia; we're all here for the project's sake. And for selfish reasons. Oh, and if you were referring to Seb, he's an admin on the Navajo wikipedia, and doesn't have the tools here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there were not a rule, it's a good idea to follow widely-established conventions unless you have a good reason not to. Signatures help us to follow conversations. (Ideally we'd have a better forum system that would eliminate the need for signing, but we don't.) Dcoetzee 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{We do, it's just not "ready" yet. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

We're apparently dealing with someone who doesn't give a shit unless there's a rule. That rule has now been given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've laid down...THE LAHW!. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, anonymous editor: respect our authoritah!--Shirt58 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With a new editor who doesn't understand how to sign, we ask nicely, and help if there's a problem. But if a user understands what signing is, and how to do it, but refuses to do it to prove that no one is the boss of her, that is bad manners, and counter to the spirit of cooperation which is the foundation of Wikipedia. I think it's reasonable to ask this person to sign her posts from now on, with a clear understanding that if she will not, she will be temporarily blocked from editing until she masters this simple but important Wikipedia coding skill. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c, but I agree with Fisher Queen.) I sometimes wish "attitude problem" was an official block reason, specifically in the sense of refusing to comply with polite common-sense requests unless a "rule" is supplied about it. It's more frustrating than a few cusswords, and is tremendously unpromising. @Shirt: What? Bishonen | talk 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Lo and behold! This post has been signed. Was it really that hard to type four tildes? I hope not, so IP 70.44.58.168, please continue signing your contributions to talk pages. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what FisherQueen says

−I am rather drunk but I have to say that FisherQueen from my memory is if not the best Wikipedian, very close to it, and whatever she says you should all do. Egg Centri c 02:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this post is fairly amusing. :D Lukeno94 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ALL FOLLOW THE FISHER QUEEN. GiantSnowman 20:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful, it might involve free trouts for all followers! De728631 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromize proposal

Make a signature that says: "Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk)". Then you can pretend that you didn't sign your post. Count Iblis (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Time to invoke BLPSE?

There is unanimous consensus for a topic ban. JakeInJosey has been banned from editing pages about John Kerry, broadly construed. De728631 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm concerned with JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs)'s recent edits regarding John Kerry. Might it be time to invoke WP:BLPSE and counsel him to be much more careful with his edits regarding biographical information? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can you please provide some specific diffs of "edits regarding John Kerry" beyond this series which resulted in the re-instatement of my edit (subsequently reverted by a third editor and now the subject of an ongoing dispute resolution RfC) and the issuance of a block for edit-warring and disruptive editing in the original series of edits? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a topic ban from all articles related to John Kerry may be the best way to prevent further occurrences of this particular timesink. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given this user's forum shopping, frequent hostility, and intense negative focus on the subject of the article (I find few of his edits from the last three months to be about anything but Kerry), this is the most logical solution. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, JakeInJoisey has created a lot of anti-Kerry articles, and kept a copy of one of the attack articles in his userspace for about a year, which is currently up for MfD. His attitude to editors who wish for this userspace article to be removed also has left a lot to be desired. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created zero "anti-Kerry articles"...and specifically had zero involvement in the creation of the current MfD article, originally forked from John Kerry to John Kerry VVAW Controversy and now, apparently, about to be expunged from this project space. WP:NPOV notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned. Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules (as does you constant citing of them, despite the fact they actually disprove your points) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned.

First, I didn't "create" this article. I've attempted to improve upon the original article based upon the objections noted in the prior AfD, the first of which were that it was a "non-controversy" and "unsourced and speculative".

Second, whether or not you personally perceive it to be "anti-Kerry" is irrelevant to a consideration as to whether or not it currently satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Wikipedia policy criteria as I've amended it. This WP project is replete with Insert Name Here Controversy content...all in apparent compliance with WP:POLICY criteria.

Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules...

Specifically, which "rules" are you alleging that I don't understand? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support ban on all Kerry-related articles, including swiftboating. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite topic ban for any edit or comment associated with John Kerry or associated topics such as Swiftboating. JakeInJoisey is an experienced editor who knows to not blatantly cross the line. However, inspecting an MfD shows that a topic ban is warranted: see the two comments above mine in this permalink (they have been redacted from the ongoing Mfd; diff, diff, diff). In Jake's last 1000 edits, 459 mention "swiftboating" or "swift vets" or "john kerry", and there are perhaps another 50 on the same topic on talk pages without those terms in the title. In Jake's first 50 edits in 2005, 43 are on the same topic. Good editors have wasted enough time resisting such dedication. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is still going on?? It's been years -- enough already. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the expungement of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP John Kerry content is still in fine fettle...despite the efforts of good faith editors (besides myself) who will no longer even go near the topic(s)...where any gf attempt to insert sorely needed WP:NPOV improvements will be met with a battleground mentality all too typical in articles with political consequence. (Redacted)

With little doubt, any editor who might deign to attempt to correct the misrepresentative absurdity of this remnant entry should be prepared to endure an editorial juggernaut of opposition, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP be damned. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support indefinite topic ban related to John Kerry, broadly-construed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just redacted the BLP-violating section above, as that's the second or third place I've seen Jake post that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have redacted links to existing and quoted WP content and to my improved article, originally placed on my talk page by administrative action in pursuit of improvement, and now the subject of an MfD. Interested editors will thus be denied the capability to view the improved WP:V, WP:RS sourcing and content which forms the basis for my now redacted comments...rendering what's left to be almost a non-sequitor. I will restore the link to the referenced content already incorporated in the related VVAW article. I would imagine you have no problem with that. Are you suggesting that a link to the improved article is in violation of WP:BLP? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban - it's very clear that JakeInJoisey is completely obsessed with violating WP:ATTACK with his numerous edits against John Kerry. And he also constantly violates WP:BLP, which applies everywhere, broadly, throughout Wikipedia - not so much in articles, as everywhere else. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - JIJ's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with regards to this subject is not conducive to collaborative editing, even if he were 100% and completely right. The fact he refuses to even consider he might, possibly, be in the wrong indicates to me that this measure is, regrettably, necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the consensus of this discussion I have now notified JakeInJoisey that he has been banned from editing pages about John Kerry, broadly construed, including swiftboating and discussions about Kerry. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a result of this discussion, should User:JakeInJoisey be listed at WP:BLPSE? RNealK (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent edit-warring

Strangesad is involved in a rather disruptive edit-warring campaign against the expressed consensus at Resurrection of Jesus. The factual matter is simple. Strangesad insists on inserting a paragraph into the lead saying that resurrection is impossible. Other users have pointed out that while they agree, this is not relevant for the article. The article is where people come to read about the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection, not the article where people come to learn about Death.
Whether to include the paragraph or not is of course a content-dispute and not the subject of this report. There is a broad consensus on the talk page not to include it [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]. No other user has supported Strangesad's proposed paragraph, but despite this, Strangesad insists on ignoring the consensus and imposing, with small, variations "his" paragraph all the same, [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86].
While he is careful not to violate WP:3RR, inserting the same version six times in six days and against a consensus not to include it is clearly edit-warring. I have pointed this out to him [87] but obviously he doesn't care. Some other actions of his also seem odd, such as this reply when the consensus was against him [88], or his idea to strike out user comments on ANI that he disagreed with [89] even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate [90].Jeppiz (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on the edit-warring noticeboard. However, it is false that every other use opposes the information that the resurrection of Jesus is impossible in an article on the resurrection of Jesus.

Jeppiz's comment that this is where readers come to read "the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection" is specious. The Christian view is that the resurrection was possible--as Jeppiz's comment implies. Thus, whether it is possible is relevant.
The title of the article is not "The Christian View of...." It is, flatly, Resurrection of Jesus. The possibility of X is obviously relevant in an article devoted to X. Unicorn makes it clear that the subject is fictional in the first sentence.
The article has a section on the historicity of the resurrection. It quotes a source saying the majority of scholars consider the resurrection a biography not a myth. I am not the one trying to introduce the truth/fiction theme; I'm trying to keep Wikipedia secular by adding balance.
It is sort of ironic that I previously commented atheists don't win popularity contests, and now I find myself repeating the situation. Jeppiz has taken it upon himself to follow me around by getting his editing ideas from my contribs [[91]]. He had no prior interest in Resurrection of Jesus before I edited it, and the recent ANI on a related subject.
It seems obvious that Wikipedia's policy of secularism collides with its policy on consensus, in the case of Christianity (probably in the case of any dominant religion on any of the Wikipedias). How is Wikipedia going to resolve that problem? Most of the editors opposing this edit are plainly Xians, as seen on the Talk pages or edit history.
Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article. Jeppiz just seems to be a drama-seeker, finding controversies on ANI, and then showing up at the related article to take sides and "get people in trouble." That kind of thing is disruptive.

I suppose this will go down as either a content-dispute, or I will be blocked. Wikipedia's secular principles are not a content dispute. The use of an easily-mustered Christian consensus to override the project's secular principles needs to be dealt with administratively. Strangesad (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that there is no "secular" policy or principle as such on wikipedia, but a policy of neutrality, see WP:RNPOV.Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong on the edit-warring noticeboard, because there is some inappropriate behaviour in there. Strangesad, myself and others noted, during that ANI, that striking other's comments for the reasons you gave was horrendously inappropriate. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see Strangesad is trying what he always does, passing it off as a content-dispute. That is not the reason he is reported. He is reported for massive edit-warring [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98] despite a strong consensus against that version [99], [100], [101], [102], [103].

Quite frankly, Strangesad's response only confirms my worries. Rather than addressing the topic, his edit warring, comments such as "Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article." shows that Strangesad is determined to insert the WP:TRUTH against a consensus to the contrary. Calling me a "dramaseaker" is also in line with his earlier comments [104]. As for me following him around, anyone is free to check my edit history and his. We've come across each other at two articles. On one we agree, on one we disagree. So much for the accusation, which of course also suits Strangesad's tactic of discussing anything except the topic of the report: his persistent edit-warring.Jeppiz (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't strike out anyone's comment (except my own). In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid that. When does deliberate distortion become a conduct issue? I struck the "votes," calling attention to the fact that they were from editors excluded by policy from the consensus process on that matter. I left the comments untouched.

Jeppiz also misleads by saying: "...even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate." It implies I struck the votes after being warned, which is wrong.

I also wasn't made of any particular authority in the person who gave me the "warning" Why should I consier a warning from a non-admin anything but an opinion? (Also, please stop referring to me as "he." Not everybody in the world is male, you know.) Strangesad (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for the record, the story of the "edit-war" is that History2007 initially didn't oppose the statement that it's impossible to come back from the dead, he just disagreed on the right way to source it. The first 3 or so edits Jeppiz mentions above involve only History2007 and myself, and the consensus was different than it is now. I didn't realize History2007 had changed his mind when I made one of the reverts. Jeppiz mentions none of this. Maybe because he wasn't aware of it, because he came to the article only after the recent ANI.....

Comment As is clear to see, Strangesad is intent on changing the topic, mostly to talk about me. As I've made just one edit to the article, I'm a bit surprised by this. Even more surprised by his/her retaliatory suggestion below that I be topic-banned. The fact of the matter is that:
There was never a consensus for Strangesad's version.
Strangesad has edit-warred by inserting the same version six times in six days.
The latest two of those reverts were both made after being aware of a strong consensus (5-1) against that version.
Strangesad thinks I should be topic-banned after having made one edit in line with the consensus, but thinks s/he is right to revert over and over again against the consensus. How's that for irony?Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Topic (or Interaction?) Ban for Jeppiz

This editor just launched 2 ANI threads regarding Jesus articles, both concerning matters that just wound down after an exhaustive previous ANI thread in which he also launched an unfounded sock accusation. He seems to have only come to the Jesus articles as a result of seeing them on ANI threads. His characterizations of conduct are consistently distorted. There is sometimes some truth at the kernel--neither Humanpublic nor I have been perfect in every regard, but Jeppiz assumes bad faith averywhere and misrepresents the truth. I am tired of this drama, I suspect the community is too. He seems to have no interest in the articles themselves, never having added a single new source. (I'm willing to topic-ban myself as well, but its the folks who only get to articles from ANI threads, and only stir up muck, that really drive me crazy.)Strangesad (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - Strangesad is one of the least suitable people to propose this, also it is making a load of incorrect statements - "assumes bad faith everywhere"? That's completely false. You striking out people's comments in a terribly inappropriate manner, plus other misdemeanours, means it should be you who faces sanctions. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not strike anyone's comments, and when that accusation has been repeated 3 times, after corrections, I consider it dishonest. Strangesad (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of fact. You did strike the comments, citing the reason being "involved editors are not allowed to vote". Which is an incorrect assertion to make about something that wasn't a vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you literate? I did not strike the comments. Strangesad (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, because comments like that really will help your case... </sarcasm>. Also, neither will downright lying.[105] Lukeno94 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, watch it. I heard it is a personal attack to accuse someone of lying. At least when atheists do it, not so much everybody else. Anyway, the diff you provided does not show any stricken comments. I struck the "vote" and left the comment intact. I have made this point to you an insane number of times. Nothing was altered, the point was that involved editors cannot participate in the consensus-building process for a ban, and writing "support" seemed an attempt to do that. This has been pointed out an insanely large number of times, and was discussed in the closed thread. Is there a reason you keep bringing it up and distorting what happened? I struck the "vote" and left the comments intact. Now please don't accuse me of lying. It's a personal attack. Strangesad (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack when, here, it's an accurate statement. You striking a vote, in something that was not a vote, is basically striking a comment. When you make blanket statements like "I didn't strike the vote", without clarifying it, constantly, it's incorrect. At least now you are saying the truth. Also, if that's a personal attack, then what about your completely irrelevant comments about atheism, and your completely inappropiate "Are you literate?" - seems like you're happy to abuse others, but can't take the slightest hint of criticism yourself. Funny, that... Lukeno94 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to the admin threatening blocks for the word "dishonest." As for the rest, you just don't seem able to get it right. I did not say "I didn't strike the vote." I said I did strike the vote. I did not strike any comments. I clarified this quite a while ago, in the original thread, you just didn't listen. Strangesad (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether I should be topic-banned or not is for others to decide; I've contributed as best I can and if Strangesad have diffs to show why I should be topic-banned is for him to post them. Earlier today I reported him for edit-warring. In all his posts since then, he has consistently been coming after me, never bothering to explain his edit-warring, but instead focusing on me. It is absolutely true that I don't consider Strangesad and Humanpublic constructive users. It's not because I disagree with them (I disagree with a lot of other users, that's life and usually there's no problem) but because Strangesad consistently edit-wars and Humanpublic hurl insults like "turd", "drama-hound" and "zealot" on other users. That is the reason I have reported them, and I guess this proposed topic ban for me is Strangesad's retaliation. As for striking, I provided the diff so everyone could check for themselves.[106]Jeppiz (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diff shows comment intact. Humanpublic (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of semantics and pedantry, the comments weren't struck, merely the word of support. However, in the scheme of the discussion, this a minor point and is effectively viewed as being the same as striking out someone else's comments. Furthermore, being involved in a discussion does not bar them from indicating their support or opposition to a sanction because there is no voting on Wikipedia. What you are thinking of is WP:INVOLVED which only applies to administrators. I also oppose this proposal per WP:POINT Blackmane (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on community bans, which I cited in the closed thread, clearly states that only uninvolved editors may participate: "a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute... a consensus of uninvolved editors" [107]. The distinction was not "semantics and pedantry" to me. I was careful to only strike the word "support" and leave the comment intact, because my only purpose was to call attention to editors excluded from consensus by policy. How many wrongful bans there have been because admins didn't know the rules for banning? This is the third time I have quoted the policy on this page in less than a week.Strangesad (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non starter This sub-thread will go nowhere. There is no way on earth that it will lead to a ban on Jeppiz. Please just end it now. I an not going to say more on this. It is a non-starter. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nonsensical proposal. Jeppiz is obviously a good-faith editor who's here to improve wikipedia. (Is there something missing in your post, Jeppiz? Your drift is unmistakable, but you don't "consider Strangesad and Humanpublic"… what?) Bishonen | talk 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Bogus WP: POINT proposal Merely a retaliatory act by Strangesad. Jeppiz is an obvious WP: AGF editor with no reason to impose a topic ban. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for obvious reasons. (POINT, BATTLEGROUND, etc.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long history of PA

Closing as Kim Dent-Brown has issued a final warning to Humanpublic and has finger on block-trigger. Further comment is unconstructive. Blackmane (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Humanpublic has a long history of uncivil behavior. Only in the last five days, several editors have urged him to stop this behavior [108], [109], [110], [111]. Clearly this does not concern him. When he received his final warning, his reply was [112]. Afterwards, he has only stepped up his uncivil behavior as in [113] and this latest attack on me [114]. Well, he urges me to take it to ANI so I oblige him. His statement I refuse DRN is erroneous, by the way, as I took full part in it. Humanpublic will probably reply to this that I once called him dishonest and that that was also a WP:PA. It is true that I called one edit of his dishonest, and I believed it justified as he appeared to me to contradict his source. Since then, he has called other users dishonest around ten times at least. Humanpublic has been reported several times for disruptive editing, so I'd like to clarify that this report is only about his continued personal attacks and uncivil behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you've called me "dishonest" four times, and falsely accused me of vandalism once, and falsely accused me of sockpuppeting once, and probably some other stuff I haven't stored in short-term memory, but who's counting:

"What is more, his edit was intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as he took a source that states categorically that Jesus existed and used it to claim that there is no evidence for Jesus's existence. Given that Humanpublic has been informed about Wikipedia's policies time and time again, his edit appears to be clearly disruptive. Controversial changes are to be discussed on the talk page, and using sources to claim the opposite of the main message of the source is just dishonest. [115]
"Yes, I've rarely seen such a dishonest edit in so many ways. The proper way to edit is to discuss controversial changes first, then edit. ... And talking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing." [116]
False vandalism charge [117]

The thread containing the sockpuppet accusation seems to have been moved or deleted..... Humanpublic (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those refer to same edit of yours. And yes, as I said then "taking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing". I stand by that, I don't consider it a personal attack. If you do, please file a report about it. If you consider it so serious, it's hard to understand why you hurl that charge at others several times a day. Nor do I consider it a PA to inform you about the policies when you deleted a sourced part of an article. And I have certainly never called you nor anyone else a "turd" [118], a "drama-hound" [119] or anything similar.Jeppiz (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so if you really believe someone is being dishonest, it's not a personal attack to say so. Thanks for making my point. (And I'm not the only one calling you a drama hound, I see.) Humanpublic (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would tend to agree with you. At least partly. Calling another editor dishonest is something I'd recommend avoiding. Calling a particular edit dishonest, if there is reason, is something I personally would judge on a case by case basis. None of that has any relevance to the present discussion, of course. Unless you want to give the basis for calling other users "turd" [120], or "drama-hound" [121] or anything similar. I also seem to recall you calling History2007 a "zealot" as well. All of those are uncivil edits of yours for which I find no reason whatsoever.Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Humanpublic has been clearly informed that Wikipedia requires civility of its participants, and that he has gotten a final warning which states that he will be blocked if he continues to make personal attacks. The diffs provided by User:Jeppiz contain personal attacks that are made after that final warning. Is there a reason that we wouldn't block this user, at least temporarily? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to as my final warning, but to my knowledge I've received a "warning" only from people breaking the same rules they're warning about. I could be slapping these warnings on their Talk pages, if that is considered relevant to evaluating their behavior. This entire matter was just reviewed in an extremely long discussion here less than a few days ago, and I received no warning from any uninvolved admin. What personal attacks have I made after the "final warning" anyway? Humanpublic (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned about your question. "Turd" and "drama-hound" are both personal insults. Do you disagree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of Humanpublic being blocked, in fact he should've been after his performance in the previous ANI involving him. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Turd" has already been examined, discussed, and dismissed for a week in this forum. Seems like something about double jeopardy applies. The editor, Seb, had already harassed me, deleted my comments from a Talk page, falsely called me a vandal, been warned here (now deleted or archived), called me self-important, told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then kept posting to my Talk page. In that context, "turd" doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you want to block me I guess you can. "Drama-hound" seems the same level as "disruptive" and "dishonest" to me. I'm not going to repeat everything that has already been said in a thread here that lasted a week and was just closed. Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't see the thread here before, so clearly there is context I am missing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanpublic, where was your "turd" insult "examined, discussed and dismissed" a week ago? And how could it be, as it was made this Monday? The "drama-hound" and "find some new carcasses to pick at" are both from today. I'm also mildly surprised that you argue a thread where many users thought you should be topic-banned as something in your defense for breaking WP:CIVIL.Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) :::::I just went back and found a thread about you, but it seemed to be about whether your editing primarily in the subject area of Jesus was problematic. I don't see anyone mentioning personal attacks, and civility is barely touched upon; it's a discussion of your editing of articles. Is there a different thread that I'm missing? Is your future interpersonal style likely to be different, or about the same? I don't see anywhere in the thread I found where you really address the question, and your statement that 'turd' and 'drama-hound' don't seem to be very significant problems concerns me. It's easy to lose one's temper in a heated discussion, but a person who doesn't know which words are rude is a person who won't be able to stop using rude words. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thread was closed with this comment: "Closing as this has descended into bickering, going around in circles, and no action will be taken at this point. GiantSnowman 14:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)" The "turd" comment was brought up several times. The same editor beginning this thread, Jeppiz, proposed a topic ban for HP, which did not achieve consensus. Jeppiz is now forum-shopping, basically, um...drama-seeking. I've seen admins describe editors with some variant of "drama-queen". Odd that you are focussing your strict definition of "rude" only on HP. Strangesad (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humanpublic is exhibiting problematic behaviour in various ways. Earlier today he advised a user to "start being honest", accused him of "being obstructionist and distorting sources" [122]. He then removed a sourced statement from an article, referring to "bogus" sourcing [123]. Humanpublic started a discussion on DRN full of accusations on 18 February which has been archived as no one volunteered to mediate [124] but he today chastised other users for not participating in this process which is no longer taking place.[125] Some intervention seems necessary to me to prevent a continuation or escalation of this pattern of behaviour.Smeat75 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. Idle browsing....The user HP called a "turd" was Seb az86556. Here's a recent comment from him on an unrelated topic.... "this isn't about you, this isn't about being a drama-queen and attention-whore. Go be famous elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" [126] Gives you a sense of how that editor treats people. I can't say I've waded through all the archives, but the goading is clear to me. Strangesad (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum... Admin calls editor "silly drama queen": "Stop being a silly drama queen. Nothing was moved, so the question of out-of-process does not arise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)" [127]. A violation of civility rules????? Strangesad (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out above in the thread concerning Strangesad (who is reported for persistent edit-warring), Strangesad's tactics in all discussions of this kind is to change the topic. To reply briefly

I'm certainly not "forum-shopping". Forum-shopping is taking the same even to different forums. I've taken different events to the same forum.
Strangesad is right, I should perhaps not focus WP:CIVIL only on HumanPublic but on Strangesad as well. Strangesad suggests a topic-ban on me (after ONE edit) to make a point, Strangesad calls me a drama-queen, etc. But why does Strangesad think that the fact the s/he also breaks WP:CIVIL has any relevance for this discussion?
Same thing for the last point. Yes, it appears HumanPublic was in a heated exchange, but that is not an excuse. Another user breaking WP:CIVIL does not give Humanpublic the right to break WP:CIVIL. And it certainly does not get HumanPublic the right to be uncivil with others, such as he's been with both History2007 and me.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) I think the community is beginning to get tired of Humanpublic and Strangesad's WP: GAMING. The blatantly unwarranted and WP: POINTy proposal for the topic ban of Jeppiz above (similar to another false proposal by Humanpublic) clearly shows the WP:LAWYERING done by H&S. IMHO, this is really getting old, and, has to stop. H&S really need to ease up on the incivility throttle before things get really bad, for both sides. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed to insult? I only respond (really should not waste my life doing this) because the get tired of this comment by Herr Kommisar resonated. But I will make no further comment on this thread after this. As I said on his talk page, this is a user who has done around 40 article edits to date and been on ANI three times already. Does that sound like productive encyclopedic development in any way? If Humanpublic is allowed to walk away from this scot-free, it will create "agent Humapublic: licensed to insult". If Humanpublic goes quiet for 3 days and this thread closes with no action, that can then be used as a rationale for continuing insults against other editors. Every time one is to make an edit to Wikipedia, there will be the prospect of another insult from this editor and that will just drive away other editors who are under the impression that civility is a pillar. If the traffic laws are not to be enforced, why have them at all? History2007 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous two ANI threads have clearly determined that Humanpublic is exempt from WP:NPA. I suggest no more discussion be held on this subject. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody (except for Jimbo) is exempt from WP: NPA. Some admins may tolerate it (if it is a minor outburst), but Humanpublic intentionally using PAs to cause grief to other editors, and disrupt Wikipedia as History stated above, is not acceptable. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any diffs for my "long history of PA" that are more than 6 days old? Humanpublic (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filing an RFCU might be a good idea here. It's generally preferable over repeatedly opening ANI threads about someone. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool-down. What I see is a series of (too) heavy discussions on Talk:Jesus, in which noone, on one side and on the other side, could claim his full "innocence". Maybe it's time to protect that page for a while, as the previous ANI discussions had the only effect of making the relations between some involved users still more tense than they previously were. And noone appears to attempt to deescalate the situation and calm down. Cavarrone (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly vindicate what History2007 and Seb say, that HumanPublic is exempt from WP:NPA. This is the third time he is discussed at ANI, each time there are people suggesting a "cool-down". Clearly it isn't working.Jeppiz (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you agree with me that noone here is fully innocent? And that noone is exempt from having used harsh/uncivil language and/or having done inappropriate actions? C'mon, the best suggestion here was the one by NE Ent, "ignoring" and avoiding escalations, but it seems you guys just want blood. Previous ANI clearly didn't solved the problems but just have created more tensions, protect the page for a while (and possibly stop the related discussions in your respective talk pages) could be a solution. Cavarrone (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me asking, when and where have I (or History2007 for that matter) said something even remotely like "turd", "drama-hound", "go pick at carcasses"? To the best of my knowledge, never. That being the case, I do object to putting us all in the same both, I don't think it's a fair characterization; there's a vast difference between arguing passionately for a case and deliberately insulting other users. Neither History2007 nor I have ever hurled out insults with the sole purpose of insulting.Jeppiz (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you agree with me that noone here is fully innocent? And that noone is exempt from having used harsh/uncivil language and/or having done inappropriate actions? No, I don't agree with that at all.Smeat75 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have issued a final warning to this editor. The exchanges noted above are a very poor contribution to a collegial editing atmosphere. I would have blocked but the most egregious was some days ago now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have issued the first warning to me. The other "warnings" were from editors involved in the content dispute. In other words, opinions. Their "final" warning for personal attacks was because I said "He has a tendency to add sources he hasn't read." Maybe, instead of throwing your power around, you would like to educate me about how that's a personal attack, particularly given the context. You're right this is not a "collegial" atmosphere"--do you think threats will make it more collegial? Humanpublic (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "final" I mean it's because there won't be any further warnings from me before I block. I don't usually throw my admin powers around, as regulars here will know. But in this case I do think my threat will improve collegiality. Either you will heed it, change your ways and edit more collaboratively, or you won't heed it, you'll carry on as before and I'll block you. In terms of improving the atmosphere here, that's a win-win. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Seb showing up at an article he had never edited prior to his conflict with me, reverting me without explanation in the edit summary or Talk, as he just did this morning? [128]. Since you have decided to seize control, you should be fair and treat everyone equally, no? You have researched this weeks-long dispute carefully, and are in a position to understand context and anatagonism that exists farther below the surface than the word "turd." You know I sought dispute resolution, and Seb refused. [129]. You know he was warned for his treatment of me: "Slapping archive tags on conversations with pointy comments about editors is not a good move, not actually supported by written policy, and is itself disruptive. NE Ent 00:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)" and "Agreed with Ent, although I would be less soft: moves like this one are highly disruptive, plain and simple. Humanpublic is free to express opinions and concerns in the talk page, especially if supported by sources, even if they are minority views, and noone is allowed of misleadingly marking them as vandalism. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)" [130] And since you are warning over rather mild attacks like "tends to add sources he hasn't read", you duly noted Seb's comment to me "Learn to read" his titling of threads on my Talk page like "You're not that important" and comments like "get over yourself; I can revert whatever I want" [131] when I asked him not to follow me around reverting (which he just did). You are careful and fair. Humanpublic (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff of my request on his Talk page, that he not follow me around to articles reverting me. [132] He deleted my comment with the edit summary "get over yourself", came to my Talk page to tell me that posting to his Talk page was vandalism, tell me to get over myself again (in case I hadn't noticed the first time), and put a bunch of templates on my Talk page. Now, he has followed me around and reverted me again. So tell me, when dispute resolution is refused, when requests on Talk pages are met with "get over yourself" and accusations of vandalism, and saying the guy is being a "turd" gets *me* a warning, what exactly do you suggest? Improve collegiality with education, not threats, if you can. Humanpublic (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly, Humanpublic's continued personal attacks and sarcasm in their above response to Kim, along with his stated indifference to being blocked, his PA's against Kim, and now accusing Seb of Wikihounding, ~~leads me to believe that the camel's back has already been broken.~~ Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Der Kommisar, please don't pour oil on this fire. HP has been warned and there is nothing to be gained by agitating for further action right now. As far as I'm concerned this thread would be best off closed as it's only going to attract further inflammatory posts if it stays open. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Der Kommisar. To be blunt: the best way to avoid further inflammatory posts is to block HumanPublic as he is the one making all of them. Appeasing him has been tried, we've seen that it doesn't work.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not going to block right now (though my finger is on the trigger) and apparently neither is any other admin. These shrill attempts to get us to change our minds only have the effect of weakening your case. Jeppiz, the post you have just made is a perfect example of fanning the flames - so it's not only HP who is adding fuel to the fire. Back off everyone, you don't win at Wikipedia by getting your enemies blocked. We're here to edit an encyclopaedia, remember? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, that is the central point of this thread, in that admins have their finger on the trigger. This kind of behavior has been tolerated before, but no longer. Any further disruption from Humanpublic is likely cause for a block, but not yet. There is still an opportunity to defuse this peacefully, and I am afraid I may have sent it from the frying pan into the fire. I shall strike my inflammatory comment immediately. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copyright violations by User:Irvi Hyka

Irvi Hayka has been continually copy and pasting copyrighted content (translated from a foreign language) into the project. I've warned the user numerous times about copyvios ([133], [134], [135]) however he just keeps adding them.

The latest example from today (courtesy of google translate) is:

"Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, D. M. Jayaratne, invited the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, on a visit to Sri Lanka, and promised that special attention will review the request for recognition of Kosovo."

vs

"Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Mr.. Jayaratne invited to Prime Minister on a visit to Sri Lanka, and promised that special attention will review the request for recognition of Kosovo."

I can provide many more examples if requested. Perhaps some admin can step in? We might need to do a WP:CCI to clean this up as well. TDL (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CP is the best place for it. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, CP is just a forum for addressing copyright problems. I've already fixed this specific case. I brought the issue to AN/I because of the larger issue of Irvi refusing to stop adding copyrighted material to the project which I believe requires administrator involvement. TDL (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeffed Irvi Hyka. Considering the previous blocks for sockpuppetry and edit warring, plus the not so recent inability to listen to copyright warnings I think this is finally a case of WP:NOTHERE. The last block was 59 days for socking, so I didn't see any merit in issuing an even longer temporary block, and opted for the indefinite version. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCI opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130224. MER-C 11:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone with the toolkit please check Irvi Hyka's unblock request? I've got a feeling they've now been waiting long enough. De728631 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party movement; looking for community input

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

– Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics Killer Chihuahua 06:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tea_Party_movement. RNealK (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they changed it. The sub-page here is still being edited, too. Killer Chihuahua 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by 118.21.142.128 (cont)

Sadly, I have to reopen this case, as this IP has taken his block rather harshly. He's now posting my personal information on any site he can find. Suggested course of action? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the severity of the problem and the methods used, legal authorities may be an option. ~~As for here, a community ban would provide closure.~~ I forgot we seldom ban IP's. Suggest that the current block be extended to an indef one, as it expires in three days. Jusdafax 04:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mostly been taking what little personal information is available for non-friends on my facebook page and posting it on other wikis I'm a member of, sending spiteful e-mails to any family members whose e-mail he can find, and signing me up for inappropriate e-mail newsletters. Thankfully, he hasn't broken into any of my accounts, but his actions ARE irritating me. Not sure whether it's reached a point that justifies legal action yet, though. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's reached the point of seeking further advice, at the very least. The WMF legal counsel might be a good place to start. I am a firm believer in shutting this type of harassment down with all the tools in the box. Jusdafax 05:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll definitely take it under consideration. Just to be sure, what are the proper channels through which I would go about getting legal counsel from WMF? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - My suggestion is to contact M.Paulson by email (or phone if the problem escalates) and take it from there. There can be few more serious matters than real word harassment, and I have a bit of experience with this sort of thing from my time in the San Francisco office, so contact me on my talk page if you hit a dead end, but I doubt you will, as I am sure WMF will advise on your options, which I believe include alerting proper investigative and punitive authorities. I should make it clear, however, that the WMF is extremely unlikely, unless I am mistaken, to actually represent you in court. My best, Jus da fax 06:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to have stopped, so I'm not going to make any decisions just yet. If this escalates or becomes a recurring thing, however, I'll definitely use this. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Never mind. He seems insistent on continuing his spree, and now he's bringing family into this. E-mail's already been sent. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest a follow-up call to the WMF offices on Monday morning. This matter is potentially very serious, and deserves immediate attention. Jus da fax 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommunicative disruptive IP - too complex for AIV?

IP blocked one week. De728631 (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

187.153.58.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The above user has made 58 edits over the past two weeks, most of them either deleting information without explanation, or changing songs' genre without consensus. Both problems are exemplified in this edit. The user has ignored six warnings from four different editors, has never made any attempt at communication, and after the expiry of a 31-hour block rapidly resumed the behaviour they were blocked for. Given their history, it seems all but certain they'll continue with their disruptive edits. So can an administrator please block?

As a second issue, I reported this user to WP:AIV like this:

* 187.153.58.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Was recently blocked for frequent undiscussed changes to song genres, sometimes contrary to references. The block expired and the IP has resumed the same behaviour. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The report was declined with the comment "Stale. Last edits approximately 12 hours ago." This must be the third or fourth time I've made what I thought was a straightforward AIV report and had it declined for what seemed to me like a solely procedural reason, contrary to WP:NOTBUREAU. So I'm seeking some feedback on my use of AIV. Is it reasonable for me to report this kind of thing there, or should I be using ANI? Note I reveiw edits via my watchlist, rather than recent changes, so it's pretty common for me to find editors with a consistent history of disruption but who haven't edited for several hours. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC) User notified. Tweaked for tone and clarity. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP got blocked for 31 hours on 22 February but since they have resumed their course, I have now reblocked for one week. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:SchrauwersSchrauwers, disruptive editing

This can be closed: plaintiff will seek redress elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is a small summary of this incident with appropriate diffs:

Takes out request for citation without discussion and omits edit summary: [136]

Again takes out numerous citation requests without discussion and omits this from edits summary: [137]

False edit summary, claims to add lost source, but in reality takes out citation request in addition: [138]

Reverts all edits that are not his without discussion: [139]

takes out clarififcation request without disucssion and omits edit summary: [140]

takes out page request without any kind of explanation anywhere, no discussion, no edit summary. This request clearly explained in the discussion and in the tag it self in the article text in an attempt to prevent him from simply deleting it (that is further expalation for him, in case he does not understand. [141]

Edit summary claims to be adding a ref, but actually is deleting a non-primary source request in addition. This even when the reason is discussed on the talk page, and he does not give an counterpoints there: [142]

takes out Original research template without discussion or mention in edit summary: [143]

After discussion on the talk page, some other editor reverts his undiscussed deletation of the primary source tag, but he reverts it saying the sumary that there is no primary source problem, which clearly is not true as it cites one single study claiming itself to be the starter of the anthropologicala dicussion on gift economy, when this claim has been challanged, and even if it were true, would still be primary source (i.e Malinowski claiming to be first sourced with Malinowski himself). Editor claims to be PhD and is explained the differences in Wikipedia editing and academic writing, but ignores this.[144]

Conflict resolution was attempted by leaving a message on his talk page. User responded to this by deleting the discussion. [145]

What has made this conflict especially frustrating is the fact that the editor has agreed that his one of his entries is his own synthesis, after the majority views has seem it like this. This after a long disruptive edit scence, where he first deleted request numreous times, then provided as a source something that was not cited in the original paragraph, refused to give page, deleted request and when finally gace page, it was clear that the claim was not in the source mentioned. This part was deleted and he requested it back. But after others agreed that it could be brought back, in the case that a source is found that states so, he simply reverts the edit yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpylkkö (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tpylkkö, please sign your posts with four tildes as such: ~~~~. Also, if you put URLs in a pair of single square brackets like this [] you'll get a nicely-formatted unique ID to the underlying link. I've formatted the above to make it easier to read. Garamond Lethet c 09:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Pylkko does not make reference to the extensive discussion that went on in the talk page. I have been editing the page on Gift economies for about two weeks. The page is on a major topic in anthropology, yet little of the extensive literature was cited. I have reorganized the page, preserving what was there, adding citations to existing material and adding my own material. The task is now nearing completion.

The gist of our discussions on the talk page revolve around footnotes, and derivatively, claims of original research. Mr Pylkko prefers a footnote at the end of every sentence, even if it is the same source. I would direct you to the last entry on the talk page (which is actually from early on in the discussion) in which he tagged one paragraph with 7 requests for footnotes. Since he would not accept that the paragraph was covered by one note at the end, he also added a tag about original research. In the talk page, we laborously worked through the paragraph at at the end we established that the single citation at the end was valid as a principle. When I applied the principle, he reverted my edits - plus additions that I had made.

Currently, he is concerned about a paragraph in the lead where I cite a primary source that was included in a major anthropological debate. I explained that I provided the reference because it is a major work for which bibliographic information should be provided. There is a citation at the end of the paragraph which covers the debate itself. To ensure that reference note is not confusing, I most recently placed it next to the relevant link "Kula exchange" rather than the end of the sentence. I was accused of being sneaky. Again it was reverted and other interim edits also deleted.

Further down, he contested the sentence "Property is not a thing." He added tags for footnotes, which I explained was one sentence down. He contested the source. He removed my material claiming it was original research. After discussion he agreed that the points were valid and I could re-add them. He then reverted them again. These do not appear to be good-faith edits, or discussion on the talk page.Schrauwers (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see yet what administrators are supposed to do in this content dispute. I see that Schrauwers's edits would benefit from more edit summaries, but the same applies to the plaintiff's--let this example stand for many, that is, many edits where tags were placed without explanation. This is another example (and there are page numbers in the citation). As for those page numbers, there is discussion on the talk page (about style and such), and I don't understand why, when that discussion seems to be relatively friendly, the plaintiff seeks out this board at this time. There's a lot of other possible venues--third opinion, dispute resolution, request for comment--which are much less antagonistic. My personal opinion is that while I can see that the complainant has some valid points on the talk page there is indeed, as Schrauwer comments, an over-fetishizing of the footnote. At any rate, this is not (yet) a matter for ANI since there is no disruption that requires admin intervention, and I hope it never will. To both of you, without pointing fingers: don't start edit-warring, please. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is not about edit summaries per se, but about removing other peoples requests for citations and other clarifications without discussion. And continueing to do so even when other people make valid points. I noticed that the page needed tag I was using is intended for requesting the pages of the work, not the exact place where the statement is in the work. Sorry about that. I hope this will resolve itself without going into edit waring though. In that case I'm going to leave it be, because I don't care. Concerning the actual content dispute, I have seeked thrid opinion the usual way. Tpylkkö (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page name change request?

The RM is thataway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hey just asking for the following pages name to be changed to be correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_no_Im%C5%8Dto_ga_Konna_ni_Kawaii_Wake_ga_Nai "konna ni" is actually "konnani" and "imōto" should be changed to "imouto" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyJ Lock (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM. Also, I'm pretty sure you'd need to provide reliable sources for your proposal, and the imoto bit seems more accurate, unless the entire article is wrong. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to the right place where I need to put this request, and I believe that imouto is the correct spelling. Reliable sources will be provided when I re-post under WP:RM AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference a WP:RM has been posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Ore_no_imouto_ga_konna_ni_kawaii_wake_ga_nai AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

JudgementSummary has written a POV/OR essay in Clockwork universe theory and refuses to remove it

User Talk:JudgementSummary created his account in the midst of a POV/OR expansion by 71.133.107.222 and 71.198.45.10. In all likelihood he's both of these IP's, as he proceeded to carry on their expansion in the same manner, with identical writing style. He's writing a POV/OR essay about Determinism and his personal philosophical views, under the guise of five "Objections/Considerations" sections. One can experience this monstrosity immediately by glancing at the article.

By far the most important diffs:

Net IP contributions before JudgementSummary created his account: [146]
Net change between JudgementSummary's account creation and just before I tried to intervened (~400 edits): [147].
- most of this is either JudgementSummary or one of the two IP's, with occasional blundering appeasements by User:Tgeorgescu, like: [148]]

Multiple warnings:

he creates a fifth "Objections due to Free Will" section [149].
My 1st explanation/warning to him: [150]
- he doesn't get it: [151]
I throw out four WP:OFFTOPIC WP:COATRACKs: [152],[153], [154], [155]
- he reverts, changes their names to "Considerations", requesting discussion: [156]
2nd explanation/warning: [157]
- he accuses me of being a sockpuppet, doesn't get that his content is POV, OR and SYN:[158]
3rd explanation/warning, cautiously firmer: [159]
4th warning: [160]
I request a WP:THIRD from Machine Elf 1735: [161]
Machine Elf 1735 concurs, and warns him, suggesting WP isn't for him: [162]
- JudgementSummary ignores Machine Elf, complains about reverts of his other POV content: [163]
5th. After extreme patience, I suggest he's being disruptive: [164]
- He just learned a new word, and accuses me of being disruptive: [165]
He breaks WP:3RR by reverting 5 of my attempts to purge various WP:NPOV phrases: [166], [167], [168], [169], [170]

Proof he's 71.198.45.10: [171]
The Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Clockwork_universe_theory is going nowhere fast.
Because the result of a recent AfD was keep, JudgementSummary is convinced his essay is worth keeping.

Given the duration over which this WP:Tendentious essay-writing has taken place, given that he has ignored several attempts to dissuade him, and given that he still doesn't get the fundamental complaint about his WP:OR/WP:NPOV essay, I don't think Wikipedia is for him. (First time, have mercy if I'm utterly misinterpreting this), but request a 1 week ban on JudgementSummary's account and the two IP's mentioned above.

—wing gundam 13:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be a tedious edit-war between Wing gundam and JudgementSummary, the edit history of Clockwork universe theory is depressive reading. It's quite likely that JudgementSummary violates WP:OR. It is absolutely certain that both Wing gundam and JudgementSummary edit-war extensively, with no respect for WP:3RR.Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Balderdash, I've tried hard to avoid edit-warring. After he reverted my initial removal, I left it, and went to the Talk. He reverted several other attempts of mine to cleanup different sections. Sorry if I pushed WP:3RR last night: The last revision is his; I stopped when I realized what was happening. I probably waited a day too long before coming here, but I was hoping the Talk would come to fruition. JudgementSummary has heeded neither the Talk nor WP:ORN discussion. Tell me I'm wrong on this, and I'm gone. —wing gundam 13:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent exercise after the keep was twice a removal of major sections without specific comment. I did appreciate the appology by Wing Gundam on his talk page. Subsequently there were 4-5 deletions of exactly the same material again without specifics. There was in addition a dispute over whether Newton supported a "clockwork universe". I can honestly say I tried to detail my reasoning in the talk section and tried to keep the exchange civil. I would suggest the other party did not. I do agree it is depressing.JudgementSummary (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removal of cited lede

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamrup_region&diff=prev&oldid=540047202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both users warned (3RR). Go to talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide regarding next step. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same as all content disputes: follow dispute resolution, and if either of you editwar you'll get blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will go for it. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Seb az86556 for letting me know of this notice, since User:Bhaskarbhagawati did not inform me of this. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As adviced here we have to move to DRN, till then can you restore the cited lede because your version is not sourced. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the first step of DR is to talk it out on the article talkpage to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the dispute here: Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary. We may discuss this situation there. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this sourced lede is identical to original one which you disputed, please restore the same till we reach consensus in DR process. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute is part of a larger issue involving many other articles. User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB) has been WP:POVFORKing Kamarupa to define his own boundaries and history of the Kamrup/Kamarupa. Some of the other articles he has created, besides Kamrup region are: Greater Kamrup, Early Period of Kamarupa, Kamarupa of Bhaskar Varman, Kamarupa – Late to_end_period etc. His effort, in all these articles, are focused on excluding the eastern portion of the Kamarupa kingdom. Though three dynasties are associated with the Kamarupa kingdom, he excludes the middle dynasty from his edits because the capital of this dynasty was in the eastern portion of kingdom. My experience with BB has been that it is very difficult to have an informed discussion with him because he will keep on insisting his claims and will not address the issues raised by other editors. It has been pointed out to me by others that giving him considered arguments amounted to feeding the troll (diff), and that by engaging him, I have wasted other people's time diff. I tried to engage him on Talk:Assam/Etymology of Assam and it took months to resolve, and that too, after someone had to warn BB not to revert (diff) Even so, BB raked it up once again (diff) So my question is: is there a remedy for this kind of behavior, or do we have to spend months disputing sentences and ledes? Chaipau (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaipau mentioned on my talk page that this discussion had been opened. I saw something of these exchanges, a while back. Very briefly, my opinion from observation is that Bhaskarbhagawati has disrupted Wikipedia by unreasonably pushing a POV. Andrew Dalby 17:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing at Meethari Marwar

User:Anuomkara have been continuously removing maintenance templates at Meethari Marwar without addressing or fixing the issue. User:Anuomkara is not even following MOS either when editing. I have repeatedly warned the user yet he/she is not even responding either. I have even guided User:Anuomkara to links to improve the article. The article is about a village in India and does not make any sense since language is very poor. So I couldn't improve the article either, maybe someone from WP:INDIA could rewrite the article. Could someone tell me what to do? --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Advertising at Balun

Thanks to Penwhale for devising an edit filter. De728631 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#radiondistics.altervista.org for details. It appears that no one is taking any action about any sites listed at Spam-blacklist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be handled with an edit filter? De728631 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with WP:Edit filters. If it were possible to prevent any edit to Balun that adds the string "radiondistics.altervista.org" I suppose that would solve the problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation, it seems links to this site have been a problem for a while. See User talk:2.193.212.47 which states that XLinkBot has been going about deleting links to at least one page on the radiondistics site since July 2012. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit filter for this after learning how to do it really quick... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will note the edit filter at the black list talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Fused shadows13

Editor has been blocked. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fused shadows13 has been using his account only for vandalism. He created inappropriate pages such as Zelda Wiki and also he vandalized pages Menstrie Glen and Toronto Blue Jays. I think he needs to be blocked for vandalism because his account is only being used to vandalize wikipedia. Please respond there. --Starship9000 (roller coaster fan) 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has been indef blocked by Elockid (who just beat me to the button...) Peridon (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elockid should go put the block notice on his talk page. Thanks! --Starship9000 (roller coaster fan) 19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already have on their behalf. Peridon (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Return to David Hedlund

Less than a week ago, I requested assistance in dealing with David Hedlund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of excessive unattributed copy-paste between articles. The problem extends to copying from outside wikipedia, as well. Another editors has noted copyright violations. After blanking the user talk page notices, one copyvio was restored. Further examination reveals an unmitigated pattern of copy-paste.

Alcohols in alcoholic beverages (which I will likely flag for speedy deletion, but my examination is not over) is rife with passages that can be traced to other works:

"poisoning due to" cached prior to article creation
"as four milliliters" cited, but pasted
"No epidemiologic studies" cite, but pasted
"unhealthy levels" [172]*
"absorption of 4A" [173]*

*also appears in Applejack (beverage) and Fractional freezing

Production of alcoholic beverages has been copied from Trappist beer, Alcoholic beverage, Alcohol industry, and possibly more. I still have barely scratched the surface.Novangelis (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today I tagged David for two copy and paste violations [174] [175] both of which were cited, but directly cut from the original sources. After informing him of the copyright violations I explained to him the reasons we needed to avoid cut and paste from journal articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside the user also refuses to provide edit summaries in his edits, and many of them can come across individually as vandalism on a quick glance due to deletion of information. In addition the editor seems a bit spammy in pushing their views around Wikipedia. While they have now stopped (for now) posting inappropriate hatnotes (like this one.) I'm also starting to get a little concerned that they are pushing an anti-alcohol agenda throughout the project. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an anti-alcohol agenda, I'm trying to educate people that there are different alcohols in alcoholic beverages but that is explained on the Alcoholic beverage article now. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know when I was doing wrong of my nearly 4000 edits so Its not weird if some problem have been encountered. However, I do not copy-paste that much any more and I add edit summaries most of the time now. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to bring a second voice into the conversation regarding David's editing style and agenda, here is an example. On January 20, David placed this picture on 62 individual pages (First edit, last edit) with subjects ranging from alcohol related topics such as "Alcoholics Anonymous," "neonatal withdraw," "French paradox," to substances that didn't even appear in the study, "Salvia divinorum," and "Legal status of salvia divinorum," among others with the exact same subheading "Results of the ISCD 2010 study ranking the levels of damage caused by drugs, in the opinion of drug-harm experts. When harm to self and others is summed, alcohol was the most harmful of all drugs considered, scoring 72%" regardless of what page he was pasting the file on. This example is characteristic of his editing style.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that study suits in most of the articles that it is added to (which was quite many). I agree that it didn't suit in the examples above. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the study didn't suit most of the articles and has since been removed from a majority of them, secondly your commentary specifically mentioned the dangers of alcohol, even though it wasn't the only thing demonstrated by that picture, and was added to articles such as the legal status of Salvia Divinorum among other articles which didn't have anything to do with alcohol or with the study. A specific message was being broadcast, and that message wasn't related to the content within the articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have also encountered some difficulties. They added this

to 38 articles such as here [176]. It appears to be an attempt to promote an article they had just created.

And what is "alcohol family content" This term occurs zero times on google books and zero times in google scholar"

They also expanded a template on a few dozen more [177].

No templates are expanded now. I was informed how to use "Psychoactive substance use |state=expanded" as mentioned stated in the template. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combine this with plagiarism such as here [178] which is from this source word for word [179] and this user is creating a fairly large mess for others to clean up. The response "I do not copy-paste that much any more" is not reassuring. I would support at least a topic ban.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll stop copy-paste for good. I will take a break for a week to think about the current situation and learn to work in new ways. Please do not ban me meanwhile. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer extent of copy-paste is astounding. I missed another copyvio notification that occurred in the five days since the editor undid three edits and declared "problem solved". If I look at any edit of more than a few hundred characters, I find copied material such as in this one which has text copied from here and here (and I haven't examined every sentence). As I keep digging, it gets worse, and the fact that it persisted past numerous warnings suggests that mild measures are unlikely to stop the damage.Novangelis (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes basically someone needs to go through ever edit they have made and revert them. It is a little complicated as many of their edits evolved the moving of text from one page to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is unlikely to be effective. As this edit shows, copying was not restricted to alcohol-related articles.Novangelis (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just tagged Django Software Foundation for a speedy deletion due to copyright infringement. But User:Novangelis is right, the entire page was a straight cut and paste from the foundations main website.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before we start implementing blocks or topic ban's I would like to propose something. Right now we have established that David's editing style is problematic. What I don't see is evidence that they ignore warnings when placed on their page. Going through the history of their talk page I see a huge amount of warnings, but they evolve. Additionally David isn't edit waring over their edits, and in fact frequently lets reversions stand. So I am saying that we are faced with one of two different problems, each of which have different solutions

David is a bad editor who ignores community input. This can be proven if we lay out differences demonstrating that David ignores warnings when placed on their page (the copyright vio's that I left on their page were for edits done in the past so they may have already changed their behavior but I am not sure). If this can be proven then I think that sanctions are necessary.
David is an enthusiastic editor who has developed several "speed editing" tricks which, while infuriating to clean up, demonstrates an enthusiasm for the project. Mistakes were made out of ignorance of wikipedia policies and they learn and correct problems when given a warning. Unfortunately due to their style, once a problem has been caught they have already repeated the mistake hundreds of times. David isn't demonstrating a lack of concern for community standards, he just hasn't been given the chance. This again will be proven due to differences. If we can show that once David gets a warning they change their style I think we would only need to coach them on wikipedia policies and we would have developed an enthusiastic new editor who will be an asset to the project.

Now I am not sure which one applies, and today I don't have the time to go through the edits, but I think this should be taken into consideration before we apply any sanctions.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to his page a copyright warning,[180] and he then followed up the conversation on my talk page,[181] where he seemed to think that it was okay to copy and paste if the source allows you to do so but I explained that this is not appropriate for building an encyclopedia and we must summarise in our own words regardless etc. Only a couple of days later and he is doing the same again, after I have warned him, copying and pasting into articles and getting warned for it by other editors.[182] He again violated copyright despite warnings from myself and others on toulene toxicity[183] and on the anxiolytic article.[184] He even went as far as to begin an edit war over his copyrighted material,[185] on the anxiolytic article reverting an editor even though this editor had taken the time to explain why adding copyrighted material is wrong.[186] I do not think that he has been editing in WP:GOODFAITH at all and in fact he has been a WP:DISRUPTIVE editor. It is possible that he will change his ways and become a good editor in the future but at the moment he is ignoring the community and is causing an enormous amount of damage to the project. Many of the people issuing warnings are probably unaware of the huge amount of warnings this editor has been receiving for not using edit summaries, copyright violations as he routinely blanks his talk page.[187],[188],[189],[190],[191]--MrADHD | T@1k? 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the above, it does appear that David did insert copyrighted material [192] [193] after MrADHD had a discussion with David about that problem. Although I would resist the characterization that he was edit waring, because after he reverted the edit and reinstated the copyrighted material, it appears that he tried to correct the copyright problems according to the information I had given him on his talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I think that it would be of benefit to get a further response(s) from David Hedlund to see his thoughts on the problems being raised here. It may be the case that a (indef) block can be avoided here - perhaps he is a good faithed editor who was just over-enthusiastic newbie?--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I informed David that we are interested in hearing from him. He has taken a week long wikibreak so I don't know if we will hear from him anytime soon.

An user named Frogacuda who refuses to quit pushing original research

So there is this article Wasteland 2, about an upcoming video game which I'm editing for nearly a year (and I'm by far the most active contributor). One day this week, Frogacuda comes in and pushes their original research (completely unsourced), apparently hating how this game is described by everyone (the press and the developers) alike as having an isometric perspective. Keeps on trying really hard, also after being told (repeatedly) that it's an original research and what WP:OR and WP:V means on Wikipedia (including being shown the links to the relevant Wikipedia polices), even pleads with me to "fucking stop".[194]

I warned Frogacuda to cease it or there will be consequences (additionally I also posted a warning on their talk page), but Frogacuda then chose to disregard this so deliberately that actually told me to "report away".[195] And so here it goes. Reported away. --Niemti (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Niemti was asked to adhere to conflict resolution protocols and refused, retorting to discussions on the talk page with "LOL, No one cares." Request for third-party opinion was made, and discussion continues, but use Niemti continues to disregard procedure and engage in disruptive behavior.Frogacuda (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute. Trout to Niemti for escalating it here rather than continuing talk page discussions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither party's handling the dispute very well and both have demonstrated some lack of civility, but I agree that the discussion's still ongoing on the talk page and I don't consider things to be so exceptionally out of hand as to require an AN/I thread. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"User Niemti was asked to adhere to conflict resolution protocols and refused" - a lie. "Niemti continues to disregard procedure and engage in disruptive behavior" - another lie. Reality:[196][197] (Of note: Frogacuda was also caught misquoting the sources, possibly deliberately but unfortunately this would be hard/impossible to prove.) --Niemti (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also (as Frogacuda has edited their post): it was not "LOL, No one cares." but actually "Lol, no. Also, no one cares." (with this very, very relevant link, showing how indeed no one here cares for any unpublished "truth") - in response to Frogacuda's "Please fucking stop this." (as in: to allow their original research - no way). Source:[198] --Niemti (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now: Frogacuda needs to be forced to accept the very core polices of Wikipedia, which is something that they flately refused despite being informed and warned repeatedly (and not just by me). If they still refuse... well. --Niemti (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Frogacuda just flatly refused to accept Wikipedia core policies once again, after I've asked him officially to do this (to accept WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS). So, please act on this, in the way you find the best in this case. --Niemti (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best way I find to act in this case is to decline your call for action and ask you to take this dispute back to the article talk page. If any other admin thinks action needs to be taken I'm sure they'll do so but there has been a deafening silence so far. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, do as you think would be best. I only "reported away", just like Frogacuda actually taunted me to do, and now you know there is this user who blatantly refuses to accept the core content polices. --Niemti (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest closing with a warning to Niemti to work with other editors rather than carrying on his strong battleground/ownership/condescending attitude. Furious Style (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On further research, this incivility and ownership by Niemti seems to not be a one-off occurence here, but has lead him to be blocked and topic banned before, quite recently he was banned from the article Anita Sarkeesian for the same behaviour he exhibits now. Furious Style (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: a possible use of a sockpuppet account (less than 100 edits, inlcuding 0 video game related edits) to agree with Frogacuda in the related discussion. Also: continued refusals to accept the core content policies.[199] --Niemti (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - yes, this possible sockppupet account just above ("Furious Style"), which even came right here. How curious. Well, hello. --Niemti (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued to stay on topic and try to continue the conversation in a civil manner. Niemti is now resorting to claims of sock-puppetry and other nonsense. I don't really know what to do about him, he seems obsessed with me more than he is interested in the article. I've gone through all the conflict resolution procedures and he continues to troll my talk page and lobby attacks. I really want no part of this nonsense. I'm happy to wait for the 3rd opinion dispute resolution. Frogacuda (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to wrap up: you guys might add either a very possible case of sockpuppetry (something that Frogacuda was once blocked for, with a warning to not do this again 'or else') or at least unackowledged secret canvassing. Plus the continued refusals...but you know about it. --Niemti (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that they look like a sock, but you should file a report at WP:SPI if you wish it investigated. -- Dianna (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:DVMt

This user has been changing another editors comments (not mine) on a talk page 8 times in the last hour or so being reverted by said editor [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207]

They reverted content here 3 times Feb 11 revert by different editors each time [208], [209], [210] and than continued again a couple of days latter on Feb 14th after not getting consensus [211] Yet here claims that only I ever reverted them even after diffs provided [212]. Than that the other editors who disagreed with the changes were my "troops on stand by"

Please note that I am involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that he hasn't been warned at any point on his talk page - has he been warned elsewhere? I have left a notice on his talk page and will block if he carries on. Get back to me if there are further problems. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a warning when he was refactoring my comments, and edit warring them but he deleted those as vandal edits to his talk page. — raeky t 22:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was warned here [213], [214] and [215] however removed the last two warnings. Has removed older warning as well [216] and Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 days for edit warring. Hopefully he'll get the message. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Far too bold and too little will to edit collaboratively. Large changes that are hard to analyze, deceptive edit summaries that disguise deletions of negative information, whitewashing chiropractic, etc.. Sometimes the only way to deal with such large changes is to mass revert back to the original version and demand that changes be small and thoroughly discussed. Unfortunately I don't have time to do much editing at this time of such complicated issues. Accusations (for things he is himself guilty...) against experienced editors from a newbie and SPA are really off-putting and don't bode well. I'm watching for signs of a positive learning curve, but so far am seeing defensiveness and self-justification. We'll see. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SGMD1 Request for SGMD1 COI

I am requesting a thorough investigation of User:SGMD1 affiliation. Please review the talk that I have with. Anytime I am requesting incorrect information to be removed, SGMD1 is coming up with reasons best known to him.

Yesterday, I received an email from previous management of St Martinus University pointing out the incorrect information. I provided the proof and pointed out that the article being referred to is without date. So How did Wikipedia allowed the reference to be used as a verifiable resource? Most of the time all the edits are being unedited by SGMD1.

SGMD1 notified. This appears to be a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharmauiuc. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a number of Sharmauiuc's edits at St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine and advised him of Wikipedia's editing guidelines on his talk page. I'm not quite sure what Sharmauiuc's specific complaint is with my edits, but I stand by all of them. My guess is also that this is an attempt at retribution for the sockpuppet investigation. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 01:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

Protection lifted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have a user account in good standing, I could easily edit it using that if I wanted to. But I feel it ought to be open for anonymous IPs (as I presently am) to edit it - it was protected in 2011 and there is no real reason it needs to be protected now. It may be that I should have brought this somewhere else but ironically I would have been using Twinkle to tell me where it was I should have gone!

Thanks in advance! 81.131.131.235 (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of reasons. So no. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was protected with BLP concerns, so I think the BLP noticeboard would be where you'd start... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I'm only asking for the talk page to be unlocked, not the article. And if it doesn't work then it can always be relocked. Teh primary loony has just been given a suspended prison sentence so I doubt there's that much threat any more... 81.131.131.235 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reopening this discussion. Asking that a Talk page be unprotected 2 years after it was originally protected is a reasonable request regardless of whether the editor asking is logged in. Redirecting him or her to a better venue may be appropriate but it's inappropriate to dismiss the question (a) without answering it and (b) solely because he or she is not logged in. We expect better of the editors in whom we have placed special trust, administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has been answered: "No." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you'll be surprised that I think a more substantive answer should be provided; it's quite rare that Talk pages are even semi-protected and doing so for a period of several years is extraordinary. I imagine it's been done for good reason so I don't understand why you're so reluctant to provide that reason. ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The likely reason is the loonies who think the McCanns did it. However, the loonies have recently been pwned by this court decision. So no real reason to worry about them. Egg Centri c 02:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the IP is sincere about making sincere edits, he could (1) tell us what other IP's and/or user ID's he's edited under; and (2) tell us what edits he proposes. If he's not willing to answer both questions, then the page should be kept protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF? ElKevbo (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, and thank you ElKevbo. The user is me and I have for a while just been doing edits as IPs, as I have not really needed to login for a while (mostly cause of the extreme safety of the edits I have been making).

I'm certainly not one of those nuts who thinks the mcccanns did it or anything. I only wished to discuss the article itself for formatting reasons. But yeah, now you know who it is. Not that it should matter one jot. Egg Centri c 02:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your candor. And to those of us who have been here a while, it does matter. First, because BLP trumps nearly everything else. And as a practical matter, because all too often, IP's or redlinks with very few edits gripe about semi-protection, and refuses to comment on either their past user IDs or their future intentions, and some inexperienced soul cries "AGF!", unprotects the page, and as sure as the sun comes up in the east, the vandalism of the page resumes. ElKevbo has probably not been here long enough to have run across that kind of problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected as far as edits go; I've left the move protection as it was. 20+ months is quite enough of protection for any talk page; we don't protect anything that long unless it's a heavily used template or an article with a massive history of problems. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Nyttend. My goodness. 20 months locked from discussion. That seems unheard of. I am shocked that the talkpage was locked to begin with. Extraordinary. I have never seen that in the 6 years I have been editing on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Reisio disrupting Ref Desk incl. personal attack

WP:Ref Desk / Computing (recently archived)

Disagreement about a computing question has led to a personal attack by User:Reisio, which seems indicative of his general attitude to anyone who disagrees with him. He seems to see every question about Apple/Mac to be an opportunity to inject his personal bias about the company and/or its computers. For past examples: [217] [218] [219] (a search of the Computing archives for "Reisio Mac" brings up over 200 entries)

Others seem to ignore him so I see now that I made a mistake in responding to what seems like trolling, but do those previous comments really belong on the Help Desk? And worse now, his responses escalated to what here reads like a personal attack: "It’d never come up if people like you weren’t attempting to delude others in addition to yourselves". I removed it [220] and he soon restored it [221]. I tried again with the {RPA} tag [222] which he reverted [223]. I ask that an admin step in to advise him to remove his personal attack and warn him about such disruption at the Help Desk. Thank you. El duderino ^(abides) 03:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any personal attacks in the first 3 diffs. I can understand why the fourth diff can be considered a PA, but sometimes it's better to ignore such comments instead of drawing attention to them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there was a PA then as far as I can see it was on both sides. I don't see that accusing another user of having a chip on the shoulder is different in nature to accusing them of deluding themselves... both relate to the user not to the content of their edits. I am inclined to close with no action needed. --BozMo talk 09:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for looking into this. The 'chip' comment may be questionable but I don't think it's equivalent to his insult -- especially since he seemed to sort of embrace it (with a joke? hard to tell) earlier in the thread. Another admin acknowledged that Reisio's usual responses about Macs are "over-eager and somewhat abrasive" and also advised me to ignore it. I can do that, but I think he will continue the uncivil snark at the Help Desk and thereby discourage others from participating, whether to ask or answer. El duderino ^(abides) 20:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an RfC

Could an uninvolved editor please review Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC on the lead with an eye to closing a finished discussion? One editor seems not to be able to step away from a situation where there is no consensus to do what they want to do. Yworo (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keithstanton returns to egregious deletions and POV-warring after block

User:Keithstanton was blocked as a result of my report here [224]. and as soon as his block lifts he's back at it. Per [225] and [226]. This in ARBMAC-land. Can I get some firm and friendly admin attention here please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like time to send him up for an Arbitration enforcement action. Either that or just indef him off the bat. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone who knows my work would regard me as lazy, but I reckon he's lost the plot and ARBMAC would be overkill and a waste of my time. IMHO, indef is quite a reasonable sanction given the wholesale nature of the deletions/reversions. If he wants to play nice he can appeal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keithstanton should be blocked indef, no need wasting any time on such a clear case, particularly not concerning ARBMAC. I looked at it before the first block, and it was clear already then that this was a WP:SPA involved in heavy vandalism (removing long sourced sections over and over again). The fact the he immediately returns to it is sign enough that a limited block has no effect. In addition to his immediate return to vandalism and edit-warning, his behavior is also a cause for concern [227] [228] Jeppiz (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indef Per Jeppiz, for obvious WP: NPOV and WP: CIV problems. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to indef based on what I have seen here, but will allow Keithstanton to make his case before deciding. Giant Snowman 14:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked for one week, purely because active deletions are recent and ongoing. This is without prejudice to a indef or a ban being imposed and is purely to prevent further damage while we decide what action to take. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I reverted this edit of his from Nado's talk page following Nado's ArbCom enforced topic ban, which was basically just gravedancing and trolling. Blackmane (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I could just add if it has not been spotted, I've reason to suspect this account of being used by the same person. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI please - in name of AGF we need solid evidence of block evasion, not mere speculation. Giant Snowman 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP is blocked. Obviously the same editor. Garion96 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonators at RFA

User Ameba mcare, promoting a dubious Edvard Munch

Ameba mcare (talk · contribs)
Madonna (Edvard Munch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Talk:Madonna (Edvard Munch) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

The account is WP:COI (see [229] and [230]), using Wikipedia to promote a painting of dubious and unconfirmed attribution. Points regarding the timeline of Munch's 'Madonnas' seem designed mainly to argue on behalf of the picture in question. JNW (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a genuine problem. If editors cvan upload garbage like this to Commons claiming it to be the work of Munch then we may be in for more such masterpieces. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've seen it done before. It's a fairly serious issue if someone is attempting to use Wikipedia to confer credibility and 'authenticate' a work. JNW (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the file for art connoisseurs: File:MADONNA REVISED 1922 VERSION.jpg. Here is the fully researched analysis: "The eyes of the lady Madonna if we viewed at any direction slightly closed and slightly Opened depends upon the angle of audience view as the smile of Mono Lisa of Da Vinci exists in any angle of view in its original print. The nose is “grayed” as resembles with “Browny” appearance of Lady of Asiatic race. Still some more notable differntialities [ vide : separate report] he made with this extreme style of Hyper magical Surrealism,a new concept of art style coined in his life time after 1920 in Paris and for the first time in Berlin where same styled paintings were either destroyed or hidden by Hitler’s Nazi forces." Paul B (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At painting's talk page the user is claiming to be part of a research team; I'd like to know which museum or university they're connected with. JNW (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've already had three emails from Ameba mcare arguing about the number of versions. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky you! Have they divulged the identity of the research team? JNW (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the answer, such as it is [231]. I'd ask that the user be blocked. Beyond that, the larger issue is how to prevent the addition of fraudulent materials via pseudo-scholarship. JNW (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, no. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got a good laugh from looking at that hoax painting. I suggest an indef block, as this SPA is only editing disruptively and is also unable to communicate in proper English. Zaminamina (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her breast size has increased impressively from the earlier versions. Paul B (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implants. So poorly drawn, and with a faux signature. Someone's trying to pass something off. Nice additions by Johnbod and Paul Barlow. JNW (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave_smith_home

The User:Dave_smith_home seems to be making an awful lot of itty bitty edits, and has made major changes to an old template.. Not sure if there is a problem or not, but a few second opinions may be needed. edits can be found at this link.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly annoying but not obviously disruptive. Leave a message explaining your complaint and what they can do better (use the preview button? do more stuff before hitting submit?), and see what they say. —Rutebega (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selft correct

Please can someone undo my weird, double ns thing: [232]? Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards