Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive774

Deleted history needed to recreate probably over-written article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

• Variational method / Variational method (quantum mechanics) have been moved over each other, presumably there's an article buried somewhere.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

I've dug the article back out and left the move artifacts deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks as always. Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cut and paste move needs sorting out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

• The Six Wives of Henry VIII Live at Hampton Court Palace

Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

• It appears Reaper Eternal has handled this one as well. Monty₈₄₅ 21:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Harcest - duck sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can I get a duck sock block of the Harcest (talk · contribs)? the only edits have been attempts to erase the information that User:Film1024 was blocked for socking. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks by Tarc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given Tarc's insistance on others not using personal attacks on Wikipedia, it's concerning that Tarc decided to attack other editors. Tarc has been uncivil, demeaning, and combative, and I don't think it's constructive or useful to have this kind of behavior on Wikipedia, especially from someone who wants to hold others to a higher standard then they are willing to meet. - SudoGhost 15:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your "demeaning" and "combative" links don't contain any personal attacks. He's attacking a Wikipedia category, not the editors who created it or support its existence. The "attack other editors" and "uncivil" links, I grant, do contain a relatively mild personal insult in naming editors as "yahoos". —Psychonaut (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My being a "nazi" is just fine though? I removed it and another editor restored it, so I'm not going to remove it again or anything, but I think when WP:NPA specifically points out that the exact thing an editor said is "never acceptable", it's probably a personal attack. - SudoGhost 15:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I mostly go along with Psychonaut's analysis. The "nazi" epithet was in the context of tarc describing you as a "grammar Nazi" which is not really a descent into Godwin's law. Describing your edits as trolling is also unnecessarily testy but doesn't cross the line into blocking territory, imho. The pair of you would be better of stepping away and taking a deep breath rather than fighting this out here, I suggest. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone a nazi is fine as long as there's context involved or you append some specific label in front of it, especially when WP:NPA says don't, but even if calling someone a nazi is fine, if this is what passes for acceptable, then why do we even have WP:CIVIL? - SudoGhost 15:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There's an ongoing RFC attempting to address the question (please vote!). I think "nazi" in this context is more like Soup nazi rather than the National Socialist Party. Nobody Ent 15:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get the reference, but if policy says don't call someone a Nazi, I don't think any type of Nazi would be appropriate, and I'm truly at a loss as to why this is apparently okay. It's be no different than calling someone a faggot; it doesn't matter what "type" of faggot you're being called, that's still a personal attack and unacceptable. Treating another editor in such a way is not constructive and serves absolutely no purpose other than to create animosity and the end result is no different than if it had been whatever y'all consider an actual personal attack, but if this is acceptable on Wikipedia when policy says otherwise then I guess I learned something today. - SudoGhost 15:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

@Nobody Ent, yes, that was pretty much the gist, not actually calling someone a Nazi any more than invoking "when did you stop beating your wife?" is an actual allegation of abuse. The specific image I had in mind was this one. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems pretty mild. a13ean (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wading into an contentious category created as a result of a contentious comment on a contentious issue tempers are heated. Best if Tarc and SudoGhost agree to disagree and disengage from each other. Can we re-open WP:WQA for business now? Nobody Ent 15:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes please (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is beyond petty. Sudoghost here is getting a bit agitated form discussions over a disruptive category from the Malleus-JClemens shitstorm that was rightfully WP:IAR deleted because sometimes the unwashed masses around here don't have a lick of common sense. What started this little side affair was this post of mine, where I typo'ed "tese" (these) and "site" (side). This user then came to my talk page to needle me about said typos, which I reverted as obvious trolling. Upon fixing said typos, this user again took a little jab with an edit summary of "Personal attacks? What happened to your support site?". I don't mind said needling and never had any intention of complaining over it, but the needler damn well better be prepared to get some of it in return. Obviously, this user couldn't handle that, and came a'scurrying here. Honestly, my dear ANI, if there's anything that needs admin intervention here is that godforsaken Deletion Review. Go close it up and put an end to this ridiculous pointy bullshit. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's fine. I've learned what is acceptable on Wikipedia, so at least something useful came from this. Guess I'll just have to grow a thicker skin and move on. - SudoGhost 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

One day I'll figure out who the folk insistent on drumming up false equivalences in the Great Civility war think they're kidding. Really, "grammar nazi" is one step removed from shoving people into ovens, honest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice red herring, because you captured what I said exactly; I'm sure you're the same kind of person that argues with the traffic officer that they should be catching murderers. - SudoGhost 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no doubt the Wikipedia community has a serious, chronic issue with its Civility pillar. I agree in concept with Tarc the category shouldn't have been created and in concept with Sudoghost that "Nazi" is over the top. I agree with thumperward that's it's not the holocaust, but disagree with the tone of his expression. Neither I, nor anyone who is actually honest can say which, if any, of those actions crossing the line because no one knows where the heck the line is. We're not going to solve the problem on ANI today, support KDB's close. Nobody Ent 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are a couple of editors who are unhappy with the result of WP:DRN cases where I was the dispute resolution volunteer and have criticized me for same[1][2][3] (which is fine, they certainly have that right). Lately they have started acting in a way that borders on harassment, getting together on their own talk page (and possibly off-wiki) in order to coordinate their attacks.[4][5][6][7][8][9]. I would rather that they moved on having voiced their complaints instead of making me and my perceived shortcomings an ongoing crusade. Given the block logs for both users, I would like to have someone uninvolved look into this rather than confronting either of them directly. (Please note that Codename Lisa, who also had criticism for me (for which I have since apologized) is a good editor who is not involved in this or any other questionable behavior.) ANI-notices sent. --Guy Macon (talk)

I've never been to DRN, have never reviewed any cases there, so have no opinion about any of the cases that have ever been at DRN. You've accused of intention to "attack" you. Completely baseless. (This seems to be a pattern by you; you've done it before, as noted in my criticism of same accusation at the Nomination board, in your edit summary when you indef'd one of my subpages.) IMO, your use here of ANI was unnecessary and an attempt to intimidate and use WP as battleground, game the system, falsely accuse of harrassment. You are derailing your own Nomination for MED COM, IMO. Get a clue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. Oh, as long as we are in this very public venue, could I ask, for the 5th or 6th time, that you never post to my User talk again? I want no contact with you at any time in the future, as has been my consistent request for quite some time now. Thank you.

"Given the block log of both users". Don't you know, this is a worn & tired & transparent attempt to prejudice others about anyone who's ever had a block? News for you: not everyone who's received a block has deserved it. (I've recently read discussion that the trick you are employing to prejudice because of a past block, is creating a "criminal class" on WP. Consider the fact that you may be doing that: You have spread the "news" of my block by Toddst1 over as many WP pages you had opportunity to do so, and repeated as often as you had opportunity to do so. [Do you want a diff list for that?]) You noticed me about the ANI case. It was not my idea to be here and levy more complaints about you. But IMO you deserve these criticisms. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. Guy Macon claims I was "unhappy with the result of a WP:DRN case where GM was the dispute resolution volunteer and have criticized him for same"! Firstly, GM had nothing to do with the DRN. As you can see with this diff, it was closed by Steve Zhang without any involvement by GM and without a decision.[10] So his very first sentence is false. Secondly, my comments about him were my reasons why I oppose his candidacy for the MED COM because the MED COM No mination page says "Input from editors who are not members of the Committee is very welcome". Apparently not.[11] As this diff shows GM has posted on my Talk page whereas I have never posted on his.[12] And the invitation to chat with two other editors who also objected the GM's nominations can hardly be construed as harassment anymore than GM's private emails with Steven Zhang. Perhaps if GM were to apologise to me as he has to CL he might be able to move on instead of wasting my time with this unnecessary harassment.Momento (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll chip in here. I closed the DRN thread because the Prem Rawat disputes have been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia for at least five years, and the participants have strong, ingrained opinions. As I've mediated this dispute before, I offered to assist on the talk page. Guy Macon popped in, and I figured that two heads are better than one, thus I emailed him to discuss a way that we can move forward, to resolve this issue in the long term. There was no conspiracy or harassment going on - just DR volunteers discussing how we can resolve a dispute. I find that Momento's comments towards both Guy Macon belligerent, and thus I have declined to take part in resolving the dispute any further, which I think to be a shame. History has shown the unwillingness of volunteers to take on the Prem Rawat disputes, and I think this will do very little to improve that situation. I fear the only thing that will resolve this dispute is a salted earth remedy. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is bad. I'm inclined to say both Momento and Ihardlythinkso should be blocked for battleground editing, personal attacks, canvassing, etc. Perhaps they should be given their choice between a block and an interaction ban. Their Chewbacca defense raised above is not helping the case. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

@Magog. This (your reponse) is the kind of thing that turns me off to WP. Irresponsible statements and accuses, that I don't believe you can possibly support in any reasonable fashion. There's no basis for your accuses. And I have no idea how "Chewbacca defense" relates to anything I've written. If you can make such unsupportable claims, irresponsible accuses, then how is that a basis to enter any reasonable discussion with you? If I write something you don't agree with and you label it "battleground", it is a misuse of the word. For what end? I'd like to discuss with you each and every claim you've made, to get to the bottom of your basis for making them, but, not here. I'm further unimpressed by the fact that you are an Administrator, Admin's are held to higher standards. That includes being responsible for your accuses and statements.

Meanwhile, the opener of this thread tosses around serious words like "harrassment" and bold accusations not having any relation to reality ("coordinating their attacks"), and goes to ANI with that crap, which is disruptive to WP because it is unnecessary and baseless, and you don't seem to find anything amiss about that?! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would add that I haven't gotten around to responding to that email. Hardly the stuff of conspiracy. Besides, I am busy with an actual conspiracy, which you can find here:

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#Emperor of Wikipedia redirects to your page
(Bottom comment)

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4#Opening DRN threads as volunteers
(Second and fourth comments)

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5#Proposed changes to instructions at the top of the page
(Suggestion number 4)

I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of dispute resolution should be to deescalate situations. If you go around interjecting yourself into other folks disputes, you should expect a little blowback. (I speak from experience.) My own wikocratic oath is First, cause no drama. I highly advise Guy Macon not to stalk other folks' talk pages -- it just leads to aggravation. Additionally, if they do not wish to deal with stuff like this, stop getting involved in other folks stuff. Nobody Ent 13:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. The length of an editor's block log is not relevant to any particular incident. Nobody Ent 13:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint on personal attacks by user Emmette Hernandez Coleman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

During the last several days my account has experienced spamming by Emmette Hernandez Coleman, who repeatedly posted on my talk page posts related to dispute on issues relates to the Palestinian territories and the Palestinian Authority (see [13]). Emmette's posts were interpreted by me as spamming, because he tended not to use the talk pages of the relevant articles, but divert all discussions and remarks to my personal talk page. As a result, i posted a warning on his talk page, asking to perform relevant discussions on relevant articles' talk pages, assuming WP:GF [14]. While being sure that the issue between us is closed, i was surprised to find out that Emmette Hernandez Coleman synthesized a rename proposal Talk:Palestinian_territories#Requested_move, using my remarks on proper usage of the terms "Palestinian territories" and "Palestinian National Authority", and signing it with my name as if it was me who proposed a rename procedure which is a complete nonsense (quote: Palestinian territories → ? – To address Greayshark09's concerns about calling the WB&GS "Palestinian territories".). The proposal, being a complete nonsense immediately drew angry responses from several users in my direction, presenting me in a negative and absurd light. I think it is a complete misuse of wikipedia to post false proposals in the name of others, and is a clear violation of WP:GF and WP:PERSONAL.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that EHC did that with any malicious intent or to purposely mislead (people do make mistakes). The initial proposal just had his signature attached to it and at a look at the history, EHC just copy and pasted your comment into it later from somewhere else on the talk page for clarfication. Disregarding on how EHC should have went about the proposal, it might have been better to have talked to EHC about how this proposal was done and tell him that he shouldn't have copy pasted your comment than come to AN/I right away. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SassyLilNugget. The including of your signature was questionable, but he simply attributed the proposal to you rather than make it seem as if you were the one to post it. And when you insisted he stay away from your talk page (by warning him on his) he did, and then it seems you told him he wasn't allowed to remove that warning. Unless I read a diff incorrectly. Possible. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit: You did. You posted the warning on his talk page, he removed it, and you re-added it. Twice. And then formalized it with a template that you insisted he address. Then you agreed not to continue with a request for "legal action". 192.76.82.89 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, EHC removing your warning from his talkpage does not seem to violate WP:REMOVED, in connection to this conversation. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The rename proposal in Greshark's name was misguided, and I am sorry that Greyshark has been upset by that. Having said that, I am confident that there was no malicious intent in EHC's actions. He/she was simply trying organize a central discussion to work out a solution to to some ongoing issues across a number of articles in the IP topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I (and User:Dlv999) objected to the way Greayshark was changing "Palestinian Territories" to "Palestinian Authority" across a huge number of articles, because the usual practice on Wikipedia was to refer to the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestinian Territories", and to use "Palestinian National Authority" to refer to the organization that governs parts of the WB&GS. "So I brought it up on his talk page, he then moved the distinction to Talk:Palestinian territories#"Palestinian territories" vs "Palestinian Authority". Grayshark reverted one of my edits, so I broght that up on his talk page. He then very strongly objected to me putting those thing on his talk page, so I told him that I'd avoid editing his talk page. The move request was my attempt to resolve the issue of what to call the West Bank & Gaza Strip throughout Wikipedia. If we started calling WB&GS something other then PT, I would have no objection to Greyshark going throughout wikipedia and changing PT to whatever the new title were. The only way Greyshark was panted in a bad light was that other editors strongly disagreed with Greysharks objections to the use of the praise "Palestinian territories" for the WB&GS.

As for personal attacks, when did I ever personally attack Grayshark?

Sense I'm here anyway, could I have some help resolving this WB&GS issue with Greyshark please? Dlv999 and I don't seam to be getting anywhere on our own, and I'm very inexperienced with the Dispute resolution process. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It does seam that the conciseness is strongly in favor of using "Palestinian Territories" for the WB&GS and "Palestinian National Authority" for the organization tough. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Slight correction: "Palestinian Territories" is the normal WP phrase for the WB&GS (e.g. Racism in the Palestinian territories, Demographics of the Palestinian territories) and "Palestinian National Authority" for things of and closely related to the organization (e.g. Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority, Politics of the Palestinian National Authority)Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not for here: the Move request on the talk page was closed; that page is the place to continue. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request a Topic ban on Mtking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Having left the MMA community alone for the last few months, serial troll Mtking is back again with his attempt to delete MMA articles. The MMA community values the Wikipedia articles as the best source there is for fighter stats, event results, and details on upcoming events. The MMA community agrees that the best way to present this is on a single page per event for ease of use the and the community agrred that the stupid and ill thought out "omnibus" idea should dropped. What Mtking is doing now is just ignoring what the community wants.

I therefore propose that for deliberately ignoring the community Mtking should be banned from editing all MMA articles and from nominating any more for deletion and from voting on any deletions started by others. ScottMMA2 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ScottMMA2 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support — Per ScottMMA2. Mtking AFDed multiple articles earlier this year. He left WP for a while, but now is AFDing MMA-related articles again.--LlamaAl (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The AfD in question might have been canvassed.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose no evidence Mtking is targeting MMA specifically and, reviewing some recent Afds, they're supported by the community (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTPOP (2013 album) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strikeforce Challengers: Kennedy vs. Cummings). I'll also note Wikipedia does not exist for the convenience of the "MMA community" -- whatever that is. It's a general readership encyclopedia. Nobody Ent 22:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, first, we need to stop the voting. At this point, no one has produced any evidence. Please step back, provide some diffs or links to AfDs or something. We can't decide whetehr or not someone should be blocked or topic banned based solely on the claims of partisan editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I can oppose a ban proposal that's presented without any evidence. In fact, I do. And based on proposal above, I'd be willing to support a ban on the "MMA community". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You want evidence, look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Los Angeles or his edit warring with User: I remember halloween at UFC 156 or his actions at UFC on FX: Browne vs. Bigfoot about it’s notability. ScottMMA2 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to User:Dennis Brown I have reopened this for one I have posted evidence for two you are an involved admin in the area of MMA, you always voted delete in Mtking's MMA deletions for three have a look above there are other proposals for such bans and for four there is another editor who also agrees with the ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA2 (talk • contribs)

Two things, one, Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect" as it just another way of saying "go fuck yourself", so not recommended here. Second, according to WP:INVOLVED, I am not involved. I've never sanctioned either one of you. That I am familiar with MMA is a benefit, not a detriment, to the process. I've never edited an MMA article, I've only mediated. So you are very, very mistaken here. But fine, we will leave it open. Of course, ANI is the wrong place to start a topic ban, WP:AN is the right place, so you are already at the wrong board, as I said in the closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This BS again? Seems to me ScottMMA only started editing with this new account to continue his grudge against Mtking. Frivolous report that deserves a boomerang if you ask me, especially considering the disruptive history of the main account. But I'm willing to reclose without action just to be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hang on can't you see that he is the one causing all the problems, if he did not have a grudge against MMA then we would not be here asking for help, if he is stoped from trying to delete our event articles and leave us alone then all this will stop. ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Um... If The MMA community values the Wikipedia articles as the best source there is for fighter stats, event results, and details on upcoming events. is true, then there is something very wrong. WP should not be the best source for these details, we're a tertiary work to summarize them. This was the problem before, and still appears to be the problem now. It's unfortunate that the MMA sporting area isn't covered as in depth as MLB, NBA or NFL, but that's not WP's to remedy. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Whats wrong with wikipedia being the best source for these details it's an Encyclopedia is it not? ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Because we are a tertiary source and summarizing more detailed sources that should be better respositories for said information. If WP is the "best" source, that means there's a good chance of original research, undue weight, and other major content problems since we should not be the first publication of this type of information. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ANI isn't the place to request a topic ban, for starters. Second, it isn't your job to tell admin what action they need to do. If you think there is a problem, come here with evidence and let the community hash it out. Scott, you have instead come here demanding a topic ban without evidence. THIS is why I closed it, and why I will end up closing it again if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

MMA/K1 walled garden

I was about to say something above but it got closed. WP:WALLEDGARDEN and WP:SPA (likely sockpuppets) like Special:Contributions/BStudent0, Special:Contributions/Mdtemp_(school), and Special:Contributions/172.162.38.35 aren't very convincing. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

BStudent0 and Mdtemp_(school) are  Likely - they are editing off a uni campus, so I suppose it's possible they are drinking buddies, but one guy, two accounts seems more likely. The IP belongs to AOL so pretty much impossible to say. I've blocked it 24hrs, probably no point in a longer block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:74.240.198.98

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we get a block for this user - simply spamming the same rant all over as see here.Moxy (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Mainly because he was just copy/pasting the same rant on many, many places. If he was actually contributing to the conversation, I can tolerate any opinion, but not copy/paste soapboxing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio but direction not clear

List of Regular Show episodes has been deleted and re-created as a redirect, due to possible copyvio of the episode descriptions. A little discussion on the talk page (qv) indicates more than a negligible possibility that a substantial part of the Wikipedia version is the original. Even if that proves false the bare list of episode titles would not be a copyvio. This needs careful forensic work, from an admin, or undeleting and careful forensic work from an editor.

Be aware that there are over 5000 revisions of this article, therefore "big delete" is invoked if it should need to be deleted again.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC).

It doesn't seem likely to be a copyvio to me. Looking at the deleted revisions, the article was built very gradually in >5000 edits over the course of 2 years. It was very obviously not a cut-and-paste from another website, and I agree that the only website cited as the possible source was most likely copying us. I guess it's possible someone has been systematically copying episode descriptions over from another website. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Television episode articles are one of the biggest banes for copyright cleanup that we have. People don't seem to understand that these episode descriptions are subject to copyright. It's not uncommon to find episode summaries in a single list copied from multiple sources by multiple users, registered and otherwise. Personally, I'm afraid I can't volunteer to to do the forensic work that needs doing with this article, because it would take me (no exaggeration) many hours to determine which sources copied from us and vice versa. I don't have that kind of time at the moment. :/

For now, until and unless somebody takes different action, I'm going to grant the request at the talk page to restore the content sans episode summaries. This'll take a few minutes, particularly reconstructing attribution history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Skeleton is back; list of contributors maintained. I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting this is the best or only possible response to this situation. If somebody else can do the forensic work, awesome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the first steps. Rich Farmbrough, 12:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC).

Was the alleged infringement to do with watchcartoononline.com? Because that site doesn't produce its own episode summaries. It takes them from other websites (not all of them free; cf. Google's record though most of that looks like it's for media). Wikipedia would probably be one of the sites. They often leave the citation numbers in -- e.g., this one from the Regular Show list. Osiris (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Restarting the interaction ban discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I said in my closing statement of the above discussion, while an i-ban was proposed above, it is impossible to read consensus since many of the opposes did so specifically due to their preference for the failed site ban. The proposal did have sufficient support, though, that it deserves to be considered independently of the site-ban discussion. As such, I want to give all participants a chance to comment again as to whether or not YRC and Priory should specifically and formally be banned from interacting with one another. Note that I will be leaving closure of this discussion to another uninvolved admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Both parties have indicated that this resolves the matter for them, and that is a good thing. (A similar discussion should perhaps be started with respect to Nomo and YRC as well.) AndreasKolbe JN466 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Nobody Ent 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support because they both want it as I noted above. I suspect this 2nd poll is going to be a case of voter fatigue. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per my statement in the original ANI case and the fact that both parties are consenting to it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support If they want to give an IBAN a go instead of blocks, sounds great. Zad68 17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - and, given the history, this should be as zero tolerance as it palatable. GiantSnowman 17:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is highly unlikely that further interactions between them will benefit the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. --Rschen7754 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Youreallycan 19:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is every reason to think that Prioryman's activities are going to continue to be discussed in derogatory terms on Wikipediocracy, and that their members will continue to be canvassed to votes like this one. Eventually, if he protests some such off-site action that peripherally involves YRC, he will probably be banned by some widely-canvassed "consensus". Wnt (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  What does YRC have to do with WO? Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. He has never posted there, to the best of my knowledge, nor has there been a thread on Wikipediocracy "canvassing" for uniform action on this topic. Just another attempt to create a bogeyman, and a rather pathetic one. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And that would be a bad thing? Seriously, not sure that makes alot of sense, but its a free wiki :) --Malerooster (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but why is this necessary, given the parties have already agreed to an interaction ban? Further, what do things posted to an external site have to do with anything? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Can't do anything but help. Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just avoiding another resource-wasteful mess like this one is sufficient reason for the ban. I'm pleased that both want the ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. - To avoid wasting any more Wikipedia resources on their personal conflict. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  If they both want the I-ban, why was the community brought into this discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, but why is that a reason to oppose it? Only thing I can thing of is that ArbCom is in the midst of declining the case based on the assumption the ban will succeed. I was hoping an admin would snow close it (needs to be an admin per WP:CBAN) Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

About to post the same. I was going to say to dot the i's and cross the t's. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Wow, this is crazy. I read as much of this discussion as I could before I realized we were just going in circles. Call it a day and move on. This is insane. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Snow- Both parties have agreed to an IBAN, support is overwhelming. Close this. Doc talk 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not kindergarten where fighting toddlers have to be kept apart. Count Iblis (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as both parties want it. --Nouniquenames 05:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Both parties have agreed to the interaction ban, so why are we here? If there's no consensus for a ban here, does that mean that the agreement between Youreallycan and Prioryman is invalid? Makes no sense to me. Jafeluv (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Needed and both agree. To those who are asking 'why?' as both support it. Being willing to have a gentleman's agreement not to interact now may change in the future. Both have issues with staying away from things they shouldnt be doing, this way it has the backing of swift admin intervention in the event either of them decide they want to change their minds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support since both parties agree with it. Nomoskedascity probably should have an iBan imposed on him since he refuses to voluntarily accept it. His actions towards YRC have not been very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Qualified support both are genuine editors, not here for the dramah. My only worry is that either of them could be excluded from real discussion where they could make a positive contribution. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC).
  
• Support - With no support for my preferred option, a double indef block, in the cards, both parties need it. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Wikipediocracy set has managed, yet again, to make this about Prioryman (who admittedly isn't the best voice for those of us SICK TO DEATH of the conduct of editors such as YRC), thus obscuring the real issue. The stunningly dishonest eye-blinking feigned innocence of some involved editors makes clear that action on these favored few, such as YRC, will always be guided by a double-standard: make enough edits and you can be as big a bastard as you wish. --Drmargi (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, but: (1) WP:NPA, please, and (2) you're painting with a pretty broad brush. I have no relationship/membership with Wikipediocracy, have no preconceived notions about the users involved, and do not agree that content provides a free pass for conduct. I do think that WP has not been consistent in its approach to Civility enforcements. I also believe that the proposal, here, has a reasonable chance of reducing further conflict. Want to ban someone? Open an RFC/U. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass deleting of a well-sourced statement

User:Binksternet has been deleting the sourced phrase "democratically-elected government" from various 1953 Iranian coup-related articles in a disruptive manner. [15] He claims to have a "consensus" based on the closing comment and "suggestion" of a volunteer editor who routinely closes RFCs and has stated on record that he is not an expert on this particular topic, when the RFC was clearly inconclusive with seven editors opposing User:Binksternet's argument that because Mossadegh was "appointed" Prime Minster, his government could not have been "democratically-elected". [16] The problem with this rational, is the fact that this is User:Binksternet's own original research, and in fact many democratically-elected governments around the world such as Australia or Great Britain , have "appointed" head of government. Now, there are literally thousands of sources that use the phrase "democratically elected" to describe the government of Mossadegh[17], and this is the position of the vast majority of the scholars and historians. User:Binksternet, however, insists that because some sources use the phrase "Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minster" , that means that Mossadegh's government was not "democratically elected", yet he has failed to produce even one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically elected" and he's allowing himself to mass-delete the "democratically elected" statement from various Wikipedia pages, based on his own original research, without a consensus to do so, and despite thousands of academic sources confirming the fact that Mossadegh's government was indeed democratically-elected. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

When you previously discussed this, one-on-one with him, on his user talk page, what did he have to say in response to your concerns? --Jayron32 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see our discussion here[18]], he dismisses the fact that he's engaged in WP:OR (ie he can't produce one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically-elected" when there are thousands of sources that say it was[19]), and insists that he has a "consensus" to delete "democratically-elected government" from Wikipedia articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F, the consensus was that the phrase "democratically elected" was not supportable by itself in the presence of just as many other reliable sources saying "appointed". The existence of reliable sources saying "democratically elected" is not enough when there are opposing reliable sources saying "appointed".

Do we all agree that Mosaddegh was legitimately the leader of Iran's government? Yes, of course. Was he elected? No, he was approved by parliament as the sole candidate and ratified by the Shah as prime minister. He was never elected by popular vote, nor was he elected by indirect vote. He was appointed, not elected. The point that a lot of reliable sources are making is that Mosaddegh was immensely popular and that he was supported by a democratically elected parliament. The coup, however, was not aiming at the parliament, it aimed only at him. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources saying " he was appointed" do not say that his government "was not democratically-elected". That part is entirely your own original research. Indirect election are the norm in many democratic countries where the head of the government is "appointed" by the head of the state. Wikipedia works with sources. Your own opinion on the subject, is not relevant to this discussion, as there are five thousand sources saying the government of Mossadegh was "democratically elected". You either need to produce a source that explicitly say "it wasn't democratically elected" or stop trying to refute sources using your own original research. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "democratically elected" is a subset of "appointed" has been brought to Binksternet's attention on numerous occasions. It was also the opinion of the majority of contributing users to the RFC that "democratically elected" remain in the lead. There are no reliable sources (or perhaps a fringe I may be unaware of) which dispute the notion that Mossadeq was democratically elected. In fact Mossadeq is primarily notable mostly because he was a democratically elected Iranian prime minister who was overthrown in a foreign backed coup. This is the only reason why he is the subject of so much more discussion and research when compared to his predecessors and successors. The problem is that after numerous discussions and debates on the subject where the majority strongly dissent to his suggestion that "democratically elected" be removed, Binksternet continues to remove these key words every few months, triggering yet another round of reverts and the restart of the discussions from the beginning once again.Poyani (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no substance to your assertion that "appointed" and "democratically elected" are related by one being a subset of the other. Actually, they are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another. It does not matter anyway, since the RfC was decided against having "democratically elected" appear alone in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo777, there was no instance of "indirect election". The parliament was democratically elected, then they voted to approve Mosaddegh as the prime minister after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Shah for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Mosaddegh versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Shah. Even without the Shah the process is an appointment process, but the critical element of the Shah's necessary signature cements the fact of the appointment. The main point here is that the RfC went against your preference, and now you are reacting to retain your preference. Such a reaction does not respect the process of RfC. If you have a problem with the RfC closure, focus on that aspect alone. My editing behavior in following the RfC with appropriate action is not the problem here. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Similarly in June 2007, the democratically UK Parliament voted to approve Gordan Brown as the Prime Minister, after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Queen for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Brown versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Queen. And that is how Gordan Brown became the democratically elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. For the millionth time, that is how Prime Ministers are elected EVERYWHERE! Poyani (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI isn't for content disputes (which this now is). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Independent complaint

I found my way here after a clearly inappropriate deletion by binksternet popped up on my watchlist. Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite. And now I find out that he's been warned before, and the behavior is now spilling out onto articles only minorly connected to the Iranian Coup. This isn't a content dispute, it's a a series of deletion of useful content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not yet followed the link to the RfC where the determination was made to deprecate the term "democratically elected" with regard to Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Here is the link again: Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F Check it out.

There, you'll see that just as much as "democratically elected" appears in reliable sources, so does "appointed", a completely different process. My editing behavior is above reproach here; I am implementing the results of the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to you adding "appointed" to the Masaddegh bio-- but I do object to you deleting the term 'democractically-elected government' from multiple articles.

[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] + 19 others.!?

• Also, point out deleting the phrase from a source quotation in ref tag!?
• And deleting the mention of the vote itself

These are very controversial edits, and I realize he knows they are controversial from prior discussions. When someone deletes the same phrase from about 40 different articles against consensus, that's what the block button is for. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the block button is not for enforcing your preferred content, especially after an Rfc was closed with the suggestion that neither "democratically elected" nor "appointed" be used until editors work out a consensus. Now take this content dispute elsewhere; this is not the correct venue for content disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. The prime minister was appointed and his BIO is a content dispute how to best characterize it on that BIO. I don't care about the bio of the PM.

I'm just talking about the issue of "was there a democratic election in Iran that led to the formation of a government". That is, to my knowledge, not in dispute by anyone but a single editor. We have revert wars on _40_ pages-- edit wars of that scale are a behavior problem. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We see again above that this entire issue is about Binksternet's delusion that "'appointed' and 'democratically elected' () are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another." This is his own original research. No scholar or author on the subject matter agrees with his assessment. His assessment is of course absurd. The president of the United States is appointed by the electoral college. The Prime Minister of Canada is appointed by Parliament. The Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament. The Prime Minister of Israel is appointed by the Knesset. The Prime Minister of Australia is appointed by Parliament. All of these are democratically elected leaders. The fact that Binksternet has trouble understanding this based on his own OR should not be used to damage a critical part of the Mossadeq and coup articles. As I said before, even the perpetrators of the coup agree that Mossadeq was a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. Not a single source disputes this. Some, correctly point out that he was democratically elected. Others, correctly point out that he was appointed by Parliament. This was explained to Binksternet but by being purposely coy he is prolonging this useless debate. Poyani (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet has created a false dichotomy of appointed/elected. In all cases prime ministers are appointed by the head of state. However in parliamentary democracies, the head of state appoints whomever has the confidence of the legislature and therefore governments in Western democracies are generally referred to as "democratically elected". TFD (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's bit troubling to see some of the assertions in this discussion. For example, Poyani writes above that "the Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament". Not so; the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is appointed by the monarch, and after an election that happens before Parliament reassembles. There is a complex theology around how the monarch chooses a PM, the aim being to select a PM who can command the confidence of the House of Commons ... but the Commons itself does not actively choose the PM.

The Four Deuces is right: the elected/appointed dichotomy is a false one. For example, in Ireland the Taoiseach is nominated on a motion of Dail Eireann ... and then appointed by the President, who has no discretion in accepting the nominationArticle 13.1.1. As with the UK, a crude statement of either "appointed" or "elected" is an oversimplifcation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Monarchy does not appoint a PM and she does not choose the PM either in the UK,she just rubber stamps whoever is sent there by the winners of the election(normally the largest party in the Parliament). The person who is PM has been appointed by his own party of MP's,those MP's are elected by the people as is the PM. In the Iranian elections Mohammad Mossadegh was elected by the people of Iran to the Iranian parliament and then he was voted as Prime Minister by a huge majority of the democratically elected Majles (Iranian Parliament). The Shah then rubber stamps it not that he wanted to because he wanted to pick someone else but had no choice.So Mossadegh was indeed democratically elected on a par with many other states in the world including the UK.Anyway getting back to the subject, the mass deletion of sourced material has been reverted back to what it was at the moment.Kabulbuddha (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

BroanHairedGirl is correct. I stand corrected. The PM in the UK is appointed by the Monarch. Similarily, the PM in Australia and Canada are appointed by the Governor General. Traditionally they are the leaders of the party (or coalition of parties) with a plurality of seats. But this even further proves my point that being appointed and democratically elected, are not mutually exclusive concepts. Prime Ministers, in democratic countries, are almost all appointed. Hence, Binksternet's deletion of the critical words "democratically elected" based on his interpretation of sources which state (correctly) that Mossadeq was appointed by the Parliament , is absolutely incorrect and unjustified. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re the "Independent complaint" by HectorMoffet: Please read what you wrote. Specifically, you claimed Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite as an issue. There is only one problem. The onus is on the person adding content to source/cite it. Based on your own words, the other user was not in the wrong. --Nouniquenames 06:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider this scenario: hundreds of pages refer, uncited, to a spherical earth. If a flat-earther took it upon himself to purge all reference to the spherical earth. That would be a behavior issue, not a content issue.

Let me admit, that's a educational fable-- reality is always more complicated. But hopefully you see what I was getting at. Removing it from the 1 page on my watchlist, that was fine, that's being WP:BOLD. But removing it from 40 pages en masse, over the protests of many others editors-- that's being too 'bold'. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where this issue of "uncited facts" comes from. The issue at hand is actually about the removal of facts that are very well cited from multiple reputable sources. The issue is that the user who deletes them is basing his decision (against the majority of editors) on his own interpretation of other authors. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For those arguing about content, there is no point to doing that here. This noticeboard is for behavior, and my behavior has been aboveboard. I took the RfC closure of "both" or "neither" and implemented it by choosing "neither", for simplicity. The choice of "both" is only appropriate to very detailed articles about the event. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the admin should close this now. The editing by Binksternet has been reverted back to what it was and no real harm was done. All he did was make the mistake of taking as gospel a suggestion by a member of the admin team.The admin involved has pointed out to him that it was just a suggestion and not binding at all.Kabulbuddha (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Restarting the interaction ban discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I said in my closing statement of the above discussion, while an i-ban was proposed above, it is impossible to read consensus since many of the opposes did so specifically due to their preference for the failed site ban. The proposal did have sufficient support, though, that it deserves to be considered independently of the site-ban discussion. As such, I want to give all participants a chance to comment again as to whether or not YRC and Priory should specifically and formally be banned from interacting with one another. Note that I will be leaving closure of this discussion to another uninvolved admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Both parties have indicated that this resolves the matter for them, and that is a good thing. (A similar discussion should perhaps be started with respect to Nomo and YRC as well.) AndreasKolbe JN466 15:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Nobody Ent 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support because they both want it as I noted above. I suspect this 2nd poll is going to be a case of voter fatigue. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per my statement in the original ANI case and the fact that both parties are consenting to it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support If they want to give an IBAN a go instead of blocks, sounds great. Zad68 17:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - and, given the history, this should be as zero tolerance as it palatable. GiantSnowman 17:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is highly unlikely that further interactions between them will benefit the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. --Rschen7754 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Youreallycan 19:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is every reason to think that Prioryman's activities are going to continue to be discussed in derogatory terms on Wikipediocracy, and that their members will continue to be canvassed to votes like this one. Eventually, if he protests some such off-site action that peripherally involves YRC, he will probably be banned by some widely-canvassed "consensus". Wnt (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

  What does YRC have to do with WO? Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. He has never posted there, to the best of my knowledge, nor has there been a thread on Wikipediocracy "canvassing" for uniform action on this topic. Just another attempt to create a bogeyman, and a rather pathetic one. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And that would be a bad thing? Seriously, not sure that makes alot of sense, but its a free wiki :) --Malerooster (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but why is this necessary, given the parties have already agreed to an interaction ban? Further, what do things posted to an external site have to do with anything? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Can't do anything but help. Arkon (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just avoiding another resource-wasteful mess like this one is sufficient reason for the ban. I'm pleased that both want the ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. - To avoid wasting any more Wikipedia resources on their personal conflict. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  If they both want the I-ban, why was the community brought into this discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, but why is that a reason to oppose it? Only thing I can thing of is that ArbCom is in the midst of declining the case based on the assumption the ban will succeed. I was hoping an admin would snow close it (needs to be an admin per WP:CBAN) Nobody Ent 01:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

About to post the same. I was going to say to dot the i's and cross the t's. --Malerooster (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Wow, this is crazy. I read as much of this discussion as I could before I realized we were just going in circles. Call it a day and move on. This is insane. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Snow- Both parties have agreed to an IBAN, support is overwhelming. Close this. Doc talk 04:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not kindergarten where fighting toddlers have to be kept apart. Count Iblis (talk) 04:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as both parties want it. --Nouniquenames 05:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Both parties have agreed to the interaction ban, so why are we here? If there's no consensus for a ban here, does that mean that the agreement between Youreallycan and Prioryman is invalid? Makes no sense to me. Jafeluv (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Needed and both agree. To those who are asking 'why?' as both support it. Being willing to have a gentleman's agreement not to interact now may change in the future. Both have issues with staying away from things they shouldnt be doing, this way it has the backing of swift admin intervention in the event either of them decide they want to change their minds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support since both parties agree with it. Nomoskedascity probably should have an iBan imposed on him since he refuses to voluntarily accept it. His actions towards YRC have not been very helpful. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Qualified support both are genuine editors, not here for the dramah. My only worry is that either of them could be excluded from real discussion where they could make a positive contribution. Rich Farmbrough, 12:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC).
  
• Support - With no support for my preferred option, a double indef block, in the cards, both parties need it. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Wikipediocracy set has managed, yet again, to make this about Prioryman (who admittedly isn't the best voice for those of us SICK TO DEATH of the conduct of editors such as YRC), thus obscuring the real issue. The stunningly dishonest eye-blinking feigned innocence of some involved editors makes clear that action on these favored few, such as YRC, will always be guided by a double-standard: make enough edits and you can be as big a bastard as you wish. --Drmargi (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, but: (1) WP:NPA, please, and (2) you're painting with a pretty broad brush. I have no relationship/membership with Wikipediocracy, have no preconceived notions about the users involved, and do not agree that content provides a free pass for conduct. I do think that WP has not been consistent in its approach to Civility enforcements. I also believe that the proposal, here, has a reasonable chance of reducing further conflict. Want to ban someone? Open an RFC/U. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass deleting of a well-sourced statement

User:Binksternet has been deleting the sourced phrase "democratically-elected government" from various 1953 Iranian coup-related articles in a disruptive manner. [39] He claims to have a "consensus" based on the closing comment and "suggestion" of a volunteer editor who routinely closes RFCs and has stated on record that he is not an expert on this particular topic, when the RFC was clearly inconclusive with seven editors opposing User:Binksternet's argument that because Mossadegh was "appointed" Prime Minster, his government could not have been "democratically-elected". [40] The problem with this rational, is the fact that this is User:Binksternet's own original research, and in fact many democratically-elected governments around the world such as Australia or Great Britain , have "appointed" head of government. Now, there are literally thousands of sources that use the phrase "democratically elected" to describe the government of Mossadegh[41], and this is the position of the vast majority of the scholars and historians. User:Binksternet, however, insists that because some sources use the phrase "Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minster" , that means that Mossadegh's government was not "democratically elected", yet he has failed to produce even one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically elected" and he's allowing himself to mass-delete the "democratically elected" statement from various Wikipedia pages, based on his own original research, without a consensus to do so, and despite thousands of academic sources confirming the fact that Mossadegh's government was indeed democratically-elected. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

When you previously discussed this, one-on-one with him, on his user talk page, what did he have to say in response to your concerns? --Jayron32 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see our discussion here[42]], he dismisses the fact that he's engaged in WP:OR (ie he can't produce one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically-elected" when there are thousands of sources that say it was[43]), and insists that he has a "consensus" to delete "democratically-elected government" from Wikipedia articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F, the consensus was that the phrase "democratically elected" was not supportable by itself in the presence of just as many other reliable sources saying "appointed". The existence of reliable sources saying "democratically elected" is not enough when there are opposing reliable sources saying "appointed".

Do we all agree that Mosaddegh was legitimately the leader of Iran's government? Yes, of course. Was he elected? No, he was approved by parliament as the sole candidate and ratified by the Shah as prime minister. He was never elected by popular vote, nor was he elected by indirect vote. He was appointed, not elected. The point that a lot of reliable sources are making is that Mosaddegh was immensely popular and that he was supported by a democratically elected parliament. The coup, however, was not aiming at the parliament, it aimed only at him. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources saying " he was appointed" do not say that his government "was not democratically-elected". That part is entirely your own original research. Indirect election are the norm in many democratic countries where the head of the government is "appointed" by the head of the state. Wikipedia works with sources. Your own opinion on the subject, is not relevant to this discussion, as there are five thousand sources saying the government of Mossadegh was "democratically elected". You either need to produce a source that explicitly say "it wasn't democratically elected" or stop trying to refute sources using your own original research. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that "democratically elected" is a subset of "appointed" has been brought to Binksternet's attention on numerous occasions. It was also the opinion of the majority of contributing users to the RFC that "democratically elected" remain in the lead. There are no reliable sources (or perhaps a fringe I may be unaware of) which dispute the notion that Mossadeq was democratically elected. In fact Mossadeq is primarily notable mostly because he was a democratically elected Iranian prime minister who was overthrown in a foreign backed coup. This is the only reason why he is the subject of so much more discussion and research when compared to his predecessors and successors. The problem is that after numerous discussions and debates on the subject where the majority strongly dissent to his suggestion that "democratically elected" be removed, Binksternet continues to remove these key words every few months, triggering yet another round of reverts and the restart of the discussions from the beginning once again.Poyani (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no substance to your assertion that "appointed" and "democratically elected" are related by one being a subset of the other. Actually, they are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another. It does not matter anyway, since the RfC was decided against having "democratically elected" appear alone in Wikipedia's voice. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Kurdo777, there was no instance of "indirect election". The parliament was democratically elected, then they voted to approve Mosaddegh as the prime minister after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Shah for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Mosaddegh versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Shah. Even without the Shah the process is an appointment process, but the critical element of the Shah's necessary signature cements the fact of the appointment. The main point here is that the RfC went against your preference, and now you are reacting to retain your preference. Such a reaction does not respect the process of RfC. If you have a problem with the RfC closure, focus on that aspect alone. My editing behavior in following the RfC with appropriate action is not the problem here. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Similarly in June 2007, the democratically UK Parliament voted to approve Gordan Brown as the Prime Minister, after his name, and his name only, was put forward as the candidate for prime minister. The parliament approved the candidate, then they sent that candidate's name to the Queen for ratification. The parliament did not "vote" on Brown versus another candidate, weighing the number of votes that each man received; no, he was subject to a vote of approval then was passed to the Queen. And that is how Gordan Brown became the democratically elected Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. For the millionth time, that is how Prime Ministers are elected EVERYWHERE! Poyani (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI isn't for content disputes (which this now is). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Independent complaint

I found my way here after a clearly inappropriate deletion by binksternet popped up on my watchlist. Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite. And now I find out that he's been warned before, and the behavior is now spilling out onto articles only minorly connected to the Iranian Coup. This isn't a content dispute, it's a a series of deletion of useful content. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not yet followed the link to the RfC where the determination was made to deprecate the term "democratically elected" with regard to Iran's Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Here is the link again: Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F Check it out.

There, you'll see that just as much as "democratically elected" appears in reliable sources, so does "appointed", a completely different process. My editing behavior is above reproach here; I am implementing the results of the RfC. Binksternet (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to you adding "appointed" to the Masaddegh bio-- but I do object to you deleting the term 'democractically-elected government' from multiple articles.

[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] + 19 others.!?

• Also, point out deleting the phrase from a source quotation in ref tag!?
• And deleting the mention of the vote itself

These are very controversial edits, and I realize he knows they are controversial from prior discussions. When someone deletes the same phrase from about 40 different articles against consensus, that's what the block button is for. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the block button is not for enforcing your preferred content, especially after an Rfc was closed with the suggestion that neither "democratically elected" nor "appointed" be used until editors work out a consensus. Now take this content dispute elsewhere; this is not the correct venue for content disputes. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. The prime minister was appointed and his BIO is a content dispute how to best characterize it on that BIO. I don't care about the bio of the PM.

I'm just talking about the issue of "was there a democratic election in Iran that led to the formation of a government". That is, to my knowledge, not in dispute by anyone but a single editor. We have revert wars on _40_ pages-- edit wars of that scale are a behavior problem. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We see again above that this entire issue is about Binksternet's delusion that "'appointed' and 'democratically elected' () are parallel methods for selecting leaders, completely different processes from one another." This is his own original research. No scholar or author on the subject matter agrees with his assessment. His assessment is of course absurd. The president of the United States is appointed by the electoral college. The Prime Minister of Canada is appointed by Parliament. The Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament. The Prime Minister of Israel is appointed by the Knesset. The Prime Minister of Australia is appointed by Parliament. All of these are democratically elected leaders. The fact that Binksternet has trouble understanding this based on his own OR should not be used to damage a critical part of the Mossadeq and coup articles. As I said before, even the perpetrators of the coup agree that Mossadeq was a democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. Not a single source disputes this. Some, correctly point out that he was democratically elected. Others, correctly point out that he was appointed by Parliament. This was explained to Binksternet but by being purposely coy he is prolonging this useless debate. Poyani (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet has created a false dichotomy of appointed/elected. In all cases prime ministers are appointed by the head of state. However in parliamentary democracies, the head of state appoints whomever has the confidence of the legislature and therefore governments in Western democracies are generally referred to as "democratically elected". TFD (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's bit troubling to see some of the assertions in this discussion. For example, Poyani writes above that "the Prime Minister of the UK is appointed by parliament". Not so; the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is appointed by the monarch, and after an election that happens before Parliament reassembles. There is a complex theology around how the monarch chooses a PM, the aim being to select a PM who can command the confidence of the House of Commons ... but the Commons itself does not actively choose the PM.

The Four Deuces is right: the elected/appointed dichotomy is a false one. For example, in Ireland the Taoiseach is nominated on a motion of Dail Eireann ... and then appointed by the President, who has no discretion in accepting the nominationArticle 13.1.1. As with the UK, a crude statement of either "appointed" or "elected" is an oversimplifcation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Monarchy does not appoint a PM and she does not choose the PM either in the UK,she just rubber stamps whoever is sent there by the winners of the election(normally the largest party in the Parliament). The person who is PM has been appointed by his own party of MP's,those MP's are elected by the people as is the PM. In the Iranian elections Mohammad Mossadegh was elected by the people of Iran to the Iranian parliament and then he was voted as Prime Minister by a huge majority of the democratically elected Majles (Iranian Parliament). The Shah then rubber stamps it not that he wanted to because he wanted to pick someone else but had no choice.So Mossadegh was indeed democratically elected on a par with many other states in the world including the UK.Anyway getting back to the subject, the mass deletion of sourced material has been reverted back to what it was at the moment.Kabulbuddha (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

BroanHairedGirl is correct. I stand corrected. The PM in the UK is appointed by the Monarch. Similarily, the PM in Australia and Canada are appointed by the Governor General. Traditionally they are the leaders of the party (or coalition of parties) with a plurality of seats. But this even further proves my point that being appointed and democratically elected, are not mutually exclusive concepts. Prime Ministers, in democratic countries, are almost all appointed. Hence, Binksternet's deletion of the critical words "democratically elected" based on his interpretation of sources which state (correctly) that Mossadeq was appointed by the Parliament , is absolutely incorrect and unjustified. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re the "Independent complaint" by HectorMoffet: Please read what you wrote. Specifically, you claimed Deletion of a fact that, though uncited, is easy to cite as an issue. There is only one problem. The onus is on the person adding content to source/cite it. Based on your own words, the other user was not in the wrong. --Nouniquenames 06:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider this scenario: hundreds of pages refer, uncited, to a spherical earth. If a flat-earther took it upon himself to purge all reference to the spherical earth. That would be a behavior issue, not a content issue.

Let me admit, that's a educational fable-- reality is always more complicated. But hopefully you see what I was getting at. Removing it from the 1 page on my watchlist, that was fine, that's being WP:BOLD. But removing it from 40 pages en masse, over the protests of many others editors-- that's being too 'bold'. --HectorMoffet (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where this issue of "uncited facts" comes from. The issue at hand is actually about the removal of facts that are very well cited from multiple reputable sources. The issue is that the user who deletes them is basing his decision (against the majority of editors) on his own interpretation of other authors. Poyani (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

For those arguing about content, there is no point to doing that here. This noticeboard is for behavior, and my behavior has been aboveboard. I took the RfC closure of "both" or "neither" and implemented it by choosing "neither", for simplicity. The choice of "both" is only appropriate to very detailed articles about the event. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the admin should close this now. The editing by Binksternet has been reverted back to what it was and no real harm was done. All he did was make the mistake of taking as gospel a suggestion by a member of the admin team.The admin involved has pointed out to him that it was just a suggestion and not binding at all.Kabulbuddha (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Foul-mouthed slanging match

A most uncivil discussion has erupted at Template talk:Civility#Socks/Meats. I would have reverted earlier, but not sure about what the rules are on re-factoring talk page comments. Thanks, Darth Sitges (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have just blocked Balph Eubank (talk · contribs) for three days for this personal attack. I know that the community has not reached a consensus regarding the enforcement of the civility pillar, but that comment is unacceptable even under our rather loose interpretation of the word "civility". I'd also have blocked Joefromrandb (talk · contribs), but TParis got there first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but the parent comment from Joefromrandb also contains a personal attack, and should likewise be removed. Thanks, Darth Sitges (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The insults have been redacted and the affected revisions of the talk page have been deleted. De728631 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

A strange place to have such a volatile discussion, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like what Darth said "Do neither of you see the irony of a foul-mouthed slanging match at Template talk:Civility"? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" Darth Sitges (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange that the Wikipedia community have not "reached a consensus regarding the enforcement of the civility pillar". This is something I would have thought would have been sorted out when Wikipedia first came on the scene. Jonty Monty (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility like this was hardly an issue in the early years of Wikipedia.--Atlan (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Pillars" are a simplistic graphic rendition of basic WP ideas for newcomers. Actual organizational law are the guidelines and policies and whatever constitutional documents are floating around in the ether — and the civility section of that remains the subject of ongoing debate. We can all agree that puppies and warm summer days and ice cream are good things; exactly what constitutes actionable "incivility" is less definite. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Having seen the now-revedeleted comments Balph made, I'm pretty sure that they qualify as incivil in anyone's definition. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate ice cream. ;) Jonty Monty (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia was originally envisioned as being wide open to editors, and what few rules we had were treated more like a Wild West frontier town than a structured ruleset. Over the years, the rules have become more solidified, losing a bit of that freedom in exchange for accuracy and process. The trick is, no one can really define "civility." And, in a community based on debate, that means it's really, really damn hard to get a working definition that is also practical to enforce. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I generally hew to a "fuck the civility nannies" philosophy. That said, I saw BE's edit before it was revdeleted and can confirm it was well beyond anything that would have been tolerated in the Wild West days. It graphically asserted that the recipient suffered from mental retardation, denounced the honor and chastity of the recipient's mom, and (gasp!) was liberally salted with naughty words. It's the sort of thing that would get someone assaulted were they to utter it in person. This really isn't the best incident to use as a launching point for a metadiscussion of civility. Skinwalker (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see the comment but it sure sounds as though it was a serious verbal assault. I was thinking more basic rudeness than Wild West type insults. If I were to tell someone to f*** off for no good reason would I get warned by an admin that if I repeated it I would be blocked or, would it depend on the admin who happened to come along. That particular admin may have a relaxed view of the F word. Ps; I have no immediate plans to tell someone to f*** off. :) Jonty Monty (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I got a little bit of that myself last night and showed my favored way of dealing with it when directed at me, although I can see how it would get under many an editor/admin's skin. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was poorly done.

• WP:ROLLBACK clearly states: "The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." (emphasis original). As Joefromrandb was clearly attempting to provide an explanatory edit summary, rv IP vandalism-3RR exempt he certainly met the intent of the policy. (Admittedly, the term vandalism was poorly chosen -- referencing WP:TPG would have been more accurate.) Accordingly his rollback privilege should be restored.
• Ks0stm's self-proclaimed "favored way" of dealing with upset users -- a prolonged interchange of snark and smart ass replies -- is immature and inflammatory. No reply was necessary to Joe's fuck you comment. Simply walking away, or providing information on how/where they could appeal the decision would have showed maturity and deescalated the situation. Nobody Ent 21:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

  Close, but not quite. This revert (which he did twice) as well as this one were all blatantly not vandalism and used the generic edit summary. As far as the "favored way", it's not so much the way you put it that I intend it, more along the lines of what Hersfold made of it: "refusing to retaliate against a truly abusive series of insults in a wonderfully humorous fashion" ([63]). However, that's not to say that I don't see your point, and yes, walking away in that situation probably would have produced more good than the way I handled it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion requested on Requested Move decision

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Back in August, User:Jenks24 closed a Requested Move decision (Talk:Union Jack#Requested move) with a decision to Move. The discussion seemed fairly well split with 14 supports and 11 opposes. I don't feel that this was a correct decision, and that really the RM should have been closed with a No Consensus (and hence the article should have been unmoved). Can another admin please give a second opinion? I should point out that I did not take part in the original discussion, and whilst I would have probably opted not to move, I have no strong feelings either way. Bazonka (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Searching wikipedia for what it cost past presidents to run an election

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have been on the internet searching for what a Presidential campaign has cost past Presidents and am unable to find a site that show the historical record. I thought it might be something for people to find of interest concerning just how much this campaign is costing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.121.152 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, this is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for Wikipedia, for matters that need assistance from our administrators. I think you may want to redirect your question to our Reference Desk. SassyLilNugget (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User has moved his talk page to an inappropriate target

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wajids (talk · contribs) has moved his user talk page to Wikipedia:Shaukat Ali. Attempts to revert the move are unsuccessful and require administrator intervention. I have not notified the user as do not wish to disturb the history of the user talk page until it can be restored to the proper location. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've restored his user talk page back to the appropriate location. I think he accidentally moved it when moving his userpage sandbox to article space and then moved his user talk page to Wikipedia space, not knowing how to get it back to the original location. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Cooly123

Cooly123 (talk · contribs) has continued for several years(!) to disregard warnings about adding copyright-infringing material to Wikipedia articles, and about improper use of the "minor edit" flag. [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] His user talk page history is pretty much a string of warnings and his removals of them. He's already been given several final warnings for various types of disruption. From a quick glance at his contributions from the last year or so it looks like there are other copyvios which haven't yet been discovered or reported (like this edit copied and pasted from http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/3794272/Seven-stars-back-in-X-Factor-finals.html). It doesn't look like he's going to reform his behaviour any time soon; perhaps this is a competence issue. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The copyvio you listed is from over 12 months ago. Is there anything more recent? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The most recent one for which he actually received a warning was in October 2012 (this edit was copied and pasted from a PTI news article). A couple others I already linked to in my post above are also less than a year old. Among ones that haven't been reported yet there's also this edit from June 2012 which apparently plagiarized a sentence from the show's official website. So that's at least four copyvios in the past year, three of which he was warned for, and several more (both warned and unwarned) if you go farther back. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Blocked indefinitely. Now, if you'd do me a favor and report him to WP:CCI so we can do a further investigation. Also, you might want to keep an eye out on his favorite articles as he is likely to reincarnate as another user, in my experience. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 15:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Cooly123. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Opened. MER-C 12:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Harassment via template

Hi, gang. This may be a known issue, but I haven't noticed a discussion about it elsewhere. I've noticed a contributor—I'm assuming it's one person—who has been harassing users (disturbingly, often new users) by adding inappropriate templates to their user talk pages. These sometimes take the form of warning templates accusing them of things they didn't do, but more often it's done by adding sockpuppet templates to the pages. The person seems to hold a grudge against User:Bongwarrior and User:Materialscientist, in particular. This pattern has been repeating for months. I first noticed it when my user page was vandalized in August. I've tried to clean up as much as I can, but I'd appreciate your input on next steps and your help with the ongoing cleanup. Here are the IP addresses I've found so far (be sure to take a peek at their deleted contributions):

• 69.171.178.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.68.76.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.21.131.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.21.134.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.21.134.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.21.139.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.125.54.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are probably others that I've missed. Any thoughts? - Eureka Lott 01:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate warnings, inappropriate tags, biting new users, and inappropriate edits in general. Nothing particularly useful being generated. So I've blocked 129.21.128.0/20 for 1 month as a result. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This inspired me to poke around more. I have to stop for now, but there are undoubtedly more examples to be found. Here are a few:

• 129.21.75.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.21.84.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.21.87.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 129.21.87.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't know if a one-month block will be sufficient. These IPs show the same disruptive editing pattern from October and November 2011:

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

What fun. - Eureka Lott 05:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bitcoin

I have several concerns about Bitcoin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

First, this edit was recently made to the AfD discussion for Satoshi Nakamoto, after it was closed by Black Kite over a year ago. The user's justification for doing so was Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Subsequently, the user glibly blanked his or her user talk page, which removed recent unaddressed concerns by AllyD regarding the recent AfD edit and other actions by the user. Subsequently the user placed a nonconstructive disclaimer at the top of that talk page that reads, "I do not archive my talk history. Conversations can and will be deleted at any time. WP:IAR".

Second, the user performed what was potentially an inappropriate non-admin closure of the AfD discussion for List of currency units (see this edit). It was potentially inappropriate because although the discussion had a clear outcome, the full listing period of seven days had not yet lapsed (even though it was just shy of a day) and the user's account is only a few days old (see account creation log) and therefore the user does meet the non-admin closure criteria of being an editor in good standing.

Lastly, I wish to bring attention to the account name, which suggests a conflict of interest, especially in light of the user's almost exclusive editing of Bitcoin-related articles. – Zntrip 08:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am here to make only good faith edits to Wikipedia with respect to all points of view, especially a neutral point of view. I will learn the rules of Wikipedia as I go. I apologize for any disruption due to my ignorance of the rules. I have Bitcoin as my name only because it's a subject that interests me. I currently don't own any. --Bitcoin (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Bitcoin was wrong to edit the closed Afd, and I'll explain why on their talk page shortly.
• Their operation of their talk page is fine per WP:OWNTALK.
• The Afd they closed as redirect was proposed by the OP, ran six days, and had no opposes. It's a fine not bureaucracy close. I do agree they shouldn't do any more Afd closes as those really are best left to admins.
• In the future Zntrip should discuss things with editors on their talk page before starting ANI discussion. Nobody Ent 11:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ent summed it up for eloquently than I was about to post. A further point should be that Bitcoin should change their username to avoid the impression that they have any sort of affiliation with [Bitcoin] particularly as a lot of their edits are focused on Bitcoins and Satoshi Nakamoto. Blackmane (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, it wasn't fine for Bitcoin to close that AfD as he/she had also !voted in it [71]. As for their Talk page, while it's fine to delete messages, responding and then deleting both the comment and the response within minutes—before the original editor might even be aware that there was a response—gives the distinct impression (rightly or wrongly) that Bitcoin isn't really interested in dialogue with other editors. I'd recommend slowing down the comment deletions at least until the other editor has had a chance to see the response. Voceditenore (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• If someone thinks it was not a good close they should be reverting it. And editors are allowed to change their minds, so if Bitcoin wants to post a reply and then revert it before it's replied to, that's fine. Nobody Ent 12:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It was probably a bit heavy handed of me to resort to posting this instead of having brought up my concerns on Bitcoin's user talk page, but I honestly felt that there was no point in doing so. The user seemed uninterested in having such a discussion because he or she deleted active discussions on his or her user talk page posted by AllyD. – Zntrip 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was heavy handed, just a little premature. It's entirely possible posting on their talk page would not have been effective, but it's worth a shot. Nobody Ent 20:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• This morning when I reversed this edit before heading for work, I was minded to bring the matter here. I see Zntrip did that in the interim. For me, there is a key point, that the edit involves replacing the comment contribution of another user (User talk:Black Kite) while leaving it purporting to be signed by them. That isn't right - ever - and in this case even less so as it was a closing admin's conclusion to an AfD that was being changed. AllyD (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• It appears the editor in question has retired [72]. The only clearly wrong edit above was the edit to the closed AfD, hopefully if the editor behind Bitcoin returns, they will be wiser for the above discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 18:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he does return, it will be under a different name. He retired shortly before receiving a user name block [73]. Satoshi Nakamoto which had its closed AfD altered by User:Bitcoin, has had two recently created SPA accounts trying to turn it back into an article today, [74] one of whom was User:Bitcoin, and neither of whom are behaving like new editors. The other spa also retired today. Possibly just a coincidence... Voceditenore (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There are some Bitcoin-related edits with User:Another John S, who hasn't appeared to edit since Bitcoin was blocked. MSJapan (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And both those users started editing in earnest while User:HowardStrong was on a 48 hour block for edit-warring on Bitcoin. Again, possibly just a coincidence. Voceditenore (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the incident board, not the coincidence board. Nobody Ent 20:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Fair enough. MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence or not, it is worth noting that an IP who has never edited before has voiced their opinion at the CfD for Category:Bitcoin companies and organizations and the AfD for Room 77, both of which were created by this user, and appears to be performing other Bitcoin-related edits. (I notice that this user's IP was not autoblocked.) Assuming good faith here (while noting the {{spa}} at the discussions), but worth mentioning in case anyone wants to build a stronger case for an SPI. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've added the IP as a suspected sockpuppet at the SPI and made a comment about the IP's edits. – Zntrip 06:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this be revdeleted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is this something that should be revdeleted?[75] It claims to be a link to a teen porn site, but I'm not about to check out the link to verify it. The user who added it has already been blocked by Yunshui. —Farix (t | c) 12:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done. Even if this wasn't a porn site link it qualifies as RD3: Purely disruptive material. De728631 (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Joefromrandb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (notified) is fresh off a block for edit warring at WP:VPM. His actions since the block seem to indicate to me that he still does not understand why he was blocked.[76] and that he intends to institute a feud with the blocking administrator [77]. I'm not necessarily looking for any sanctions here, but could someone else outside the situation try to explain it all to him? I am pretty sure that he won't listen to me or any of the other editors involved. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not instituting a feud. I said what I had to say to him and I'm done. If I do decide to stay here, it will be to do what I did over 12,000 times before I was attacked: improve articles. And yes, I understand exactly why I was blocked.Joefromrandb (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No action should or will be taken here. He's upset after coming off of a block. That's fairly common. Since he's not causing any problems no one is going to give him a talking to. AniMate 07:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusations of ethnocide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) has accused me of being "bigoted" and "engaging in cultural erasure". These accusations of ethnocide are completely unwarranted, and amount to a personal slur. I request that the user retracts them.

Part of the article in concern, Native American tribes in Virginia, has this content:

• "Virginia Indians are proud of their heritage and history, and want to tell their side of the story. They are still here."
• "Today some Virginia Indians feel like they live in two worlds."
• "For such individuals, their lives are about the balance between the Indian world and the outside world."

These statements are obviously inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and are more appropriate for a blog or other website. They are referenced from what appears to be a PhD by Native American writers, entitled "We're Still Here". This is obviously biased, and thus not a reputable source. Even if it is, it still needs to be wordly encyclopedicly, not like a tourist guide. I have been reverted me three times, with the editor citing "multi-editor consensus", when in reality only that editor and the author of the content have intervened. I have also been accused of edit warring. User:Til Eulenspiegel is engagin in bullying behaviours and article ownership, and appears to not be hsowing respect because I don't have a user account. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice the argument presented above. "Sources written by Native Americans obviously cannot be considered reputable about the subject of Native Americans". In other words, every perspective written about natives must be written by whites to be considered "reputable". Typical white supremacist sentiment, is it not? Always demonize and discredit the article subject matter to the fullest extent you can get away with. But to get it right, I never once used the word "ethnocide". I did say you are trying to engage in "cultural erasure". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. Go to talk page, which you haven't done yet Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This has gone past more than a content dispute. Now Til Eulenspiel (talk · contribs) has said my editing is "typical white supremacist sentiment". I never said anything what you quoted me as saying. I said this particular source is not suitable, and you are trying to portray as racist and bigoted and trying to destroy cultures. I am not trying to destroy culture, I am trying to have writing that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I request Til Eulenspiel take back his accusations or be sanctioned. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You really wanna go there? Read WP:BOOMERANG. You're edit-warring, you apparently refuse to use the talkpage, and now you're filing this at ANI? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I had just posted a message at the talkpage when you posted here. These are serious accusations against my personal integrity, which I feel need to be retracted. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Right. Personal integrity. That's why you don't even have an account. That's why you feel entitled to edit-war. That's why you don't use talk pages until shit flies into your face. And then you're surprised when people lose their patience with you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No one asked me to go to the talk page until just now. Edit warring? I reverted Til Eulen once, because I thought he didn't understand what I was trying to do, and hadn't explained myself well. When he reverted agian, I stopped. Before that, Sarah1607 (talk · contribs) had reverted me without explanation. I didn't realise I could go around calling people white supremacists and bigots because they try to edit a Native American page. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you done? What do you want? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I want Til Eulen to acknowledge that what he's written is unacceptable. The content will sort itself out. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

He's already responded, and it looks like that's not gonna happen. Now what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misread the anon IP's intentions, but anon, you again just said "this particular source is not suitable" though as you say one of the authors is a PhD - why then is the book unsuitable? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 07:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I'm sure the source is fine, it's probably more about what the wording should be in the article. Sorry to drag Seb az86556 into this. Discussion can be reclosed if you look / moved to article talkpage. 58.7.94.82 (talk) 07:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Complaint about user TheTimesAreAChanging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

His talk page: User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging—the pertinent article: History of Cambodia—you can see the relevant edit summaries here.

I would like to make a complaint about the attitude of this editor editor on the History of Cambodia article. Not only has his tone been, from the very outset, aggressive and abusive, he has accused me (without supplying any evidence), of using "fabricated" quotes (even though they are attributable to a Yale professor Ben Kiernan); misconstrued the basis and outcome of a libel trial before using it as a basis to attack my additions; and insists on announcing ad hominems against Kiernan (who is a pre-eminent genocide scholar), including calling him in an edit summary an "apologist for mass murder".

Despite his stance, I tried to accommodate his brusk complaints by switching one RS for another and finding additional RS, and yet he accused me of simply "reverting" him and another editor. I did not break 3RR, and did not simply revert. His use of the word "revert" makes it seem as though I ignored him and the other editor, when I fact I had not ignored them and tried to address the issues (even though I felt the complaints were baseless). One complaint was OK, namely that material I added was already mentioned in the article, and so I duly snipped it out. This was still not enough, and so I took the issue to [[78]] as TheTimesAreAChanging haughtily demanded of me—"Enough. Take it talk..."—but, having seen his other edit summaries, I feel totally disinclined to respond to him given his aggressive attitude.

He accused me of POV, though gave no reason; I tried to guess the basis for his accusation and then explained why I felt it was not merited, and then provided a counterargument that it was in fact he who had the agenda, not I. This accusation/counter-accusation can been seen on the article's talk.

So I am caught in two minds: do I reply to this person, and so put up with their sneering mockery and aggression, or do I just leave it? For the life of me, I cannot see the issue: Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge was mentioned, and neither TheTimesAreAChanging or the other editor had a problem with it even after I called their attention to it, but I am not allowed to add an equivalent mention of the US and UK. Not only that, I am met with abuse from the very outset. All I am trying to do is add an equivalent mention of UK–US support.

Another thing: I initially put my addition as a direct follow-on to the bit about China (seemed like an OK place), but that placement was criticised by another editor for not being in the right chronological section. OK, all I'm trying to do is make an addtion, I don't care where it goes, and so I moved it without comment or complaint. If TheTimesAreAChanging's edit summary—"Ludicrous, ludicrous placement..."—is anything to go by, however, he found a problem with this placement and, unlike the other editor, simply took another opportunity to be abusive.

Even if some of his complaints turned out, after discussion, to have been fair, why should I have to engage with such an editor? I filled in the Wikipedia editor questionnaire yesterday, and this kind of behaviour I ticked as one of the biggest problems. Ah, well. ColaXtra (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The article currently devotes several paragraphs to the US role in the Cambodian civil war (with entire blockquotes denouncing the US), along with one sentence describing the Chinese role in the Cambodian civil war. Post-1978 Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge is never mentioned except in the paragraph devoted to the alleged Western support. ColaXtra's description of the article bears little resemblance to reality. The text he wants is still there, though I've improved it. I'm not sure why he would prefer to pretend it was removed completely. The point of BRD is that when you are reverted multiple times by different editors, you try to gain consensus, rather than openly refusing discussion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a bit of a content dispute. If you cannot work things out on the talk page of the article through discussion, then you can take it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If you don't want to engage with TheTimesAreAChanging, that's your prerogative but, as an insight from my own experiences in RL, there is always going to be someone that you don't always get along with. SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a look thru the article and ColaXtra has added well sourced material from books,newspapers,John Pilger and the UK government minutes of parliament. From what I can see two editors TheTimesAreAChanging and User:Stumink do not like what has been added because it is critical of the US/UK and they have been deleting and changing it with arguments that really do not hold any water.TheTimesAreAChanging has changed apiece on the UK government training the Khmer Rouge and written allegedly even though the source under it was the minutes of the UK parliament and states that they did.He also deleted that perfectly good source.Having had a look thru both editors previous work they seem to do that to a lot of articles when something is added that is critical of the American government and give the same weak edit summaries.TheTimesAreAChanging attitude in his edit summaries does not come across well.It does boil down to a content dispute though.Kabulbuddha (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I will add that I just put a piece back in to said article with the source from Hansard the UK parliament minutes and TheTimesAreAChanging has been edit waring over it Revert Revert. I would not mind but he reverted it twice without even reading it and I have had to open a talk page section and copy and paste the actual source that states what I posted to be correct.Kabulbuddha (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you another sockpuppet of Zrdragon12?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The dishonesty of ColaXtra's edits boggles the mind. Every time I check his sources, they fall apart. He cited NATO's Secret Army: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe for the following claim: "The UK government trained the Khmer Rouge and later recommended that the Khmer Rouge should be involved in Cambodia's post-genocide governance". When you check the source on Google books, you realize it actually says: "Britain had helped train Khmer Rouge allies" resisting the Vietnamese occupation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

He actually cited Hansard which is the UK parliaments minutes and you deleted it. Here.Deletion of sourceKabulbuddha (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop piling on the lies. ColaXtra already admitted he was trolling by deleting his own edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is an open report brought by Kabulbuddha at WP:ANEW. There is an open report brought by TheTimesAreAChanging at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Finalyzer possible copyright issues

User:Finalyzer appears to me to have been cutting-and-pasting copyrighted material from other sources into Wikipedia on at least two articles. I spoke to them about this issue on their talk page[79] and the article's talk page[80][81][82], and the user declined to respond in either forum. Earlier today, Finalyzer restored without discussion some of the text that I believe to be plagiarized.[83]

Opening some random edits in the user's history, I quickly found more cutting-and-pasting (examples below). Since I'm in a pair of disagreements with this editor on unrelated issues, I'm following the suggestion of the WP:CCI instructions to get feedback here first.

If this is found to be copyvio, I'd also like to request a neutral hand cleaning copyrighted material out of the Pussy Riot article. I've now been reverted by two other editors there for removing cut-and-pasted phrases and sentences, and I don't want to edit war over it. Thanks for offering some more eyes, Khazar2 (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Examples

1. "Churkin said he had warned the council over the past few days about a Georgian military buildup in South Ossetia and condemned Tbilisi's refusal to renounce the use of force to settle its dispute with its breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."[84]

Source: "Churkin said he had warned the council over the past few days about a Georgian military buildup in South Ossetia and condemned Tbilisi's refusal to renounce the use of force to settle its dispute with its breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia."[85]

2. "The Cologne protesters were bustled out by cathedral officials, and have been charged with breaching the peace and disturbing a religious service."[86]

Source: "The Cologne protesters were bustled out by cathedral officials, and have been charged with breaching the peace and disturbing a religious service."[87]

3. "some readers were clearly outraged by the “prayer” and were more concerned for the right of the majority to worship in peace. As noted at the research assessment, symbolic value of the cathedral, which had been torn down in the 1930's by Stalin, might have played a role. In the monitored outlets and forums, there was clearly an awareness of being judged by the global community, whose response was referred to in some cases as “hysterical” and unfair"[88]

Source: "some readers were clearly outraged by the “prayer” and were more concerned for the right of the majority to worship in peace. (One should also bear in mind the symbolic value of the cathedral in question: It had been torn down in the 1930's by Stalin to make way for a swimming pool and was rebuilt in the 1990's.) In the monitored outlets and forums, there was clearly an awareness of being judged by the global community, whose response was referred to in some cases as “hysterical” and unfair." [89]

4. "Pavel Chikov, Chairman of the Agora Human Rights Association, said that defense lawyers coped very well with the tasks they were set. "You could have bet either on minimizing the potential liability of the girls or on maximizing the publicity surrounding the case. The lawyers for Pussy Riot, in consultation with their clients, chose the second option." But this tactic did not ensure a lighter sentence." [90]

Inserted second time over talk page objection.[91]

Source: "Chairman of Agora Pavel Chikov added that the previous group of defense lawyers coped very well with the tasks they were set ... this tactic did not ensure a lighter sentence." [92]

5. "they walked up the steps leading to the altar, shed their winter clothing, pulled colorful winter hats down over their faces, and jumped around punching and kicking for about thirty seconds... By evening, they had turned it into a music video called “Punk Prayer: Holy Mother, Chase Putin Away!”"[93]

Source: "Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina, and Ekaterina Samutsevich walked up the steps leading to the altar of Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, shed their winter clothing, pulled colorful winter hats down over their faces, and jumped around punching and kicking for about thirty seconds. By evening, the three young women had turned it into a music video called “Punk Prayer: Holy Mother, Chase Putin Away!”"[94]

6. "The Pussy Riot song recommends that Russians protest the upcoming parliamentary elections — and throw cobblestones during street protests because "ballots will be used as toilet paper," the group said on its blog." "Dedicated to Pyotr Kropotkin, a 19th-century Russian prince and one of the founders of anarchism, the song advocates the "toppling of the Kremlin bastards" and "Death to prison, freedom to protests."[95]

Source: "The Pussy Riot song recommends that Russians protest the upcoming parliamentary elections — and throw cobblestones during street protests because "ballots will be used as toilet paper," the group said on its blog." "Dedicated to Pyotr Kropotkin, a 19th-century Russian prince and one of the founders of anarchism, the song advocates the "toppling of the Kremlin bastards" and "Death to prison, freedom to protests."[96]

7. "The Orthodox Church have been split on the case. About 5,000 lay members have signed a petition calling for forgiveness."[97]

Source: "The Orthodox Church is split on the case. About 5,000 lay members have signed a petition calling for forgiveness."[98]

I've left the editor {{uw-copyright-new}}. This was designed to give a fairly comprehensive explanation of our local practices with regard to copied content, created during the India Education Program problems. I have removed the remaining copied content that you singled out, where I found it. It seems a good bit of it had already been removed. Hopefully, this will address the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'd gotten some of it, but some of it had been restored. The main thing is just having another voice on the page agreeing that sentences can't be cut-and-pasted from other sources--that's been a very contentious issue, oddly.

Many thanks for the help. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

User Perihan S. has been making legal threats. [99][100][101] Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Perihan has been indefinitely blocked from the Turkish Wikipedia for making legal threats (same ones, in fact). Looking at the timestamps, he whined on tk-wiki until he got blocked, and then he came over here. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope he did a "better" job in Turkish. The diffs above are almost incomprehensible (in English).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading that bizarre little rant (which is posted in several places), it looks like there's a legal threat trying to find its way out, but as you say, it's really poor English. Competence is liable to be a larger issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I went to look at his posts on the Turkish Wikipedia that got him blocked there to see if there was something lost in translation, but his posts there were also in weak English. It's possible that 'this must be followed by law' may be an attempt to reference Wikipedia policies on copyright violations, rather than actual law. I don't think this should be treated as a legal threat without him being more explicit, but as Bugs said, there's obviously a competence issue with his English language skills. I don't think 'bizarre little rant' is a helpful characterisation though, it just looks like he has a poor grasp of English. (edited: his other contributions seem to be pretty reasonable, language issues aside) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As with the other editors above, I'm not seeing anything that's definitely a legal threat. He mentions copyrights and legal compliance, but nothing about a lawsuit. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

He brings up the Turkish Dynasty being insulted. Could he be referring to the law in Turkey forbidding insulting Turkishness? 206.47.78.150 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Niemti, community ban proposal

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Niemti.2C_community_ban_proposal

Nobody Ent 15:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats

User Perihan S. has been making legal threats. [102][103][104] Edward321 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Perihan has been indefinitely blocked from the Turkish Wikipedia for making legal threats (same ones, in fact). Looking at the timestamps, he whined on tk-wiki until he got blocked, and then he came over here. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope he did a "better" job in Turkish. The diffs above are almost incomprehensible (in English).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading that bizarre little rant (which is posted in several places), it looks like there's a legal threat trying to find its way out, but as you say, it's really poor English. Competence is liable to be a larger issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I went to look at his posts on the Turkish Wikipedia that got him blocked there to see if there was something lost in translation, but his posts there were also in weak English. It's possible that 'this must be followed by law' may be an attempt to reference Wikipedia policies on copyright violations, rather than actual law. I don't think this should be treated as a legal threat without him being more explicit, but as Bugs said, there's obviously a competence issue with his English language skills. I don't think 'bizarre little rant' is a helpful characterisation though, it just looks like he has a poor grasp of English. (edited: his other contributions seem to be pretty reasonable, language issues aside) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As with the other editors above, I'm not seeing anything that's definitely a legal threat. He mentions copyrights and legal compliance, but nothing about a lawsuit. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

He brings up the Turkish Dynasty being insulted. Could he be referring to the law in Turkey forbidding insulting Turkishness? 206.47.78.150 (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Niemti, community ban proposal

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Niemti.2C_community_ban_proposal

Nobody Ent 15:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit war initiated by User:Omar-Toons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• On October 23, user Dzlinker added some information to the article Fkih Ben Saleh
• User Omar-Toons reverted this contribution here [105] using, as usual, his impoliteness, rudeness and lack of education (using once again the word stupidity).
• I put back the deleted information (well, stating that the famous Moroccan prostitute, Karima El Mahroug or Ruby, was born in Fkih Ben Saleh ) with an appropriate reference (an article from The Telegraph)
• Omar-Toons erased [106] the information with the reference giving this argument: ‘’’Not a wiki article, create a wiki article that respects biographies requirements then put a link if you want’’’
• I undid his vandalism here [107] stating that an article will be created for Ruby.
• He erased the content once again [108] stating that it is not a wiki article…
• I undid this illogical contribution [109] believing that the information is sourced and authentic so it should remain in the article…
• Finally, Omar-Toons undid [110] my last modification stating, this time that ‘’’ NOT A WIKI ARTICLE, NOTORIETY NOT PROVEN AT ALL’’’

Since I do not want to be dragged into an edit war, I would like administrators to tell this contributor to not initiate such situations and to be collaborative.

Omar-Toons already received two warnings even in the Italian wiki for edit wars, please see here [111]

Thanks

Fort-Henry (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You already are edit-warring. Just because you have the truth, does not give you or them permission to edit-war; period. WP:BRD is not called WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR for a reason (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So what to do in such situation? A user keeps erasing sourced information. Keeps using impolite language. Let him just do that? So that it becomes so easy to do so? An action should be taken...Thanks Fort-Henry (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You go to the talk page, then to the dispute resolution board, the edit warring noticeboard and then here, in that order of escalation, but you don't revert and get tangled up in an edit war. If the user has been doing everything you've said, they'll be blocked. But don't fight fire with fire - I appreciate it can be frustrating to see other users doing silly and annoying things, but be the better editor and don't rise to it, lest the boomerang comes back at you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just create the article on "Ruby" first and then add your link. We have far too few articles on Morrocan prositutes. We must always seek to globalise coverage. Demonstrate her notability to give her a life beyond redirect-limbo. Paul B (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Fort-Henry started a duplicate thread at WP:ANEW. Frankly, I was inclined to block both editors. However, things seem to have calmed down, so I have closed the report and warned both editors that any resumption of the battle will be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A very strange WP:POINT violation at AfD

Fourteen minutes after making this comment [112] at the AfD for MusicBlvd, the user creates the article Music Boulevard, having challenged another user to do so in what appears to be a content dispute. This looks like a major violation of WP:POINT--creating a new, similar article just to make a point in an AfD discussion. Frankly, I've never seen anything like this at AfD or in any other WP debate. Qworty (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This article has not been created to make a point at all it is there as a more relevant and referenced article in which the user I challenged I have openly invited to contribute. --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like WP:POINT to me, especially with your mocking him about it here [113]. Let's not argue about it. Other eyes need to look at this. Qworty (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment - Telling a user how good they are at making an article is not mocking them I genuinely believe he can make great contributions therefore have asked him to contribute in an article with a relevant name sited in sources. In the new article I have used the correct name referenced in the sources and am developing it for the good not for bad. The AfD only bought my attention to this organisation and I honestly with good intentions have made comments. The guy Thibbs is really good at making amazing contributions and has restructured articles I have commented about before with great effect. I have done this as I said out of good intentions and that to create a quality article. Secondly the new article Music Boulevard is not relevant to MusicBlvd as that article does not highlight any evidence of connection to the Music Boulevard created in 1995. --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to AGF but the second article was definitely a POINT violation. Olowe2011, you should have let the AFD run its course then, if you had wished to work on it, request that MusicBlvd article be userfied, if the consensus was to delete. Also, much of the commentary should be moved to the talk page as it digresses the AFD discussion at hand. Blackmane (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, I think this may be a case of the editor simply not knowing how to move a page. He's pretty new still and his edit history shows recent examples of strange attempts to move (e.g. see his edit of 10:03, 28 October 2012). Whether or not he's mocking me doesn't matter much to me, so I'll AGF and assume he's being genuine. -Thibbs (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd also go with AGF and think it's a simple misunderstanding. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Semiprotect on Greg Bahnsen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, it's a known and long outstanding problem where anon editors insert a name into this article. The usual remedy is to protect the article although the problem resurfaces once the remedy expires. Can someone protect this article, perhaps for an extended period of time? Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done semi'd for 6 months. If the problem continues when protection wears off, please re-apply for even longer protection at WP:RFPP -- Dianna (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I've just tried to edit two pages - but I've been unable to do so. Have I been blocked? --Rskp (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Which pages were you trying to edit? --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Egyptian Camel Transport Corps. Just tried again and its working. Sorry for the time waster. All the best, --Rskp (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Format of initials in titles of biographies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have noticed that articles about two current South African Test cricketers who are known by their initials have been moved from what I would consider to be the correct format, involving the use of periods and spaces, to an abbreviated form utilising no periods and no spaces. I cannot see anything in the style guidelines that clarifies standard format. The articles in question are JP Duminy and AB de Villiers which, in my opinion, should be titled J. P. Duminy and A. B. de Villiers, the latter currently a redirect. In both cases, the use of initials is correct per WP:COMMONNAME and it is only a question of formatting. Please advise. Thank you. --Old Lanky (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Old Lanky and thank you for expressing your valid concerns about how to improve this encyclopedia, and in particular those two articles. This Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is generally considered the "noticeboard of last resort", and also not usually for what are called in Wikipedia jargon "content disputes". The first place to start discussions about article content is usually on the articles' talk pages. I'll make a start there very soon.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussions started here and here. At the risk of falling into Mummerset or other stage accents, tha correct name format concerns have now been addressed, and thi should comment on the respective talk pages. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Shirt58, and thank you for your proactive response. I'll take it up at the respective talk pages. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pre-close comments as traditional per "Do not clutter discussions here with irrelevant side-discussions". AB, J-P, and Hashim Amla (rated the best bat in the world, and with W. G. Grace, best beard) are probably going to knock eleventy different colours of shizzle out of the young Australian fast bowling attack, usw, usw.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Tedwarddd

Hi.

An User talk:Tedwarddd insist in to do addings of unreferenced changes in List of films based on Marvel Comics & List of films based on DC Comics.

I think that user is same User talk:99.242.222.52, but not response me.

What must I do? or, Am I in an error? Thanks for the attention. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You were right to ask for sources, but a Google search turned up an interview where Stan Lee says they're in development. I don't know how reliable a college newspaper is considered (but the interview seems legit) or if a source from the studio itself would be needed for the article. (FYI you were supposed to notify him about the discussion, but I did that). Hot Stop (Edits) 04:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

In case of Marvel there's not official announcements of these projects, only included official announcements, not rumours or speculation.OscarFercho (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Username impersonation (Terry Jones)

User:DrTerryDJones appears to be impersonating Terry Jones (pastor). I think this violates policy. Pass a Method talk 09:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified the user; I've done so for you. It's not clear from the user's post on the user page whether the user is saying he is Jones or saying he is an organization, or both. An account may not be shared by multiple individuals. The other possibility, of course, is that it is Jones; I'm not sure why you think the account owner is "impersonating" Jones. This is all apart from the obvious conflict the user has in editing the Jones article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the username issue (and whether is actually is the real Terry Jones), the request on the user talk page is quite reasonable; the editor cited a reliable source with the information he wants added to the article, and which is appropriate in context and tone. I will be adding the link he requested. His actions here were substantially more appropriate then what we usually encounter with angry BLP subjects, and it is incumbent upon us to deal with reasonable requests promptly and politely. I'll let others deal with the username issue, which is unrelated to the editing request.Horologium (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "adding the link he requested", but you shouldn't add back the section I removed, if for no other reason than the copyright violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(after E/C) The edit to Dearborn, Michigan has already been performed, by the editor in question. I changed the reference to the reliable source on the userpage, and removed the statement about expungement, which is not in the article from MLive. I did not edit the BLP article; the request on the userpage doesn't say anything about editing Terry Jones (pastor). Horologium (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I was confused by the fact that the section in the Jones article was called Dearborn. I've made one edit to the Dearborn article because of material cited only to a primary source (a legal brief).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless he makes use of pluralis majestatis, it looks like this is not Jones from the userpage. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the use of "we" is because it appears that the account is being used by Dove World Outreach Center and Jones; at least that's what it says. That, of course, would be a policy violation. I've asked the user who they are and what they're doing. I've also removed a very large section from the Jones article added by the user, mostly because it's replete with copyright violations, and partly because it's way too much material for the incident. Finally, I've added a COI tag to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Racist feelings towards Azerbaijanese and Armenians

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to report obvious hatred expression to the above mentioned ethnicities/nationalities by Golbez:

In his posts he states:

1) "I have an attitude against both Armenians and Azeris because I have been editing these articles for seven years and have come to generally hate everyone involved..." [114]

2) "I learned hate from dealing with the articles, not the other way around..." [115]

I commented that it is most disruptive to edit on articles that involve either of those ethnicities with this much hatred towards those [116] and my call to stop disintegrating WP on his talk-page he answered negative.

I request the administrators' attention towards this racism and consideration of appropriate actions to keep the integrity of WP. Thank you. Aregakn (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor informed: [117] Aregakn (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a pointless filing. There is no racism here; and is contradicted by what he has actually said: [118]. He has not said he is a rac ist and makes racist edits; that would be actual grounds for action. Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Read in context, I think it's clear that Golbez is expressing exasperation with the level of nationalistic editing disputes on these articles, and with the editors who unnecessarily foment such disputes, rather than "hating" the Armenian and Azeri people. I personally would not have expressed such feelings in the words that he used, but accusing him of "racism" and "hatred" is way off the mark. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I think this section can be closed, unless anyone wants to look at the BOOMERANG. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, a clear speedy closure candidate.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You have no idea how happy this makes me. And yeah, let's boomerang this! Golbez, I don't really care where u learnt hatred from but your Nazism has to be dealt with. I will find time to ask for a action due to your racist views.[119] Hm! Being called a racist is one thing, but Nazi is quite another. Also lol, Nazi? Really? You gotta hold off on bringing out the big guns, dude. Save that for the coup de grace. --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendentious editing and off-site canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor, User:LukeFF, has been forcing through gamecruft on this article. The first response was reverting my changes with no explanation, and retaliating by reverting my changes on other unrelated pages. When I contacted him and explained why his edits were against the video-game guidelines, he resorted to canvassing here[120], and deleted my talk entry on his page. He has apparently been editing that article for some time, and I'm not the only person's edits he's reverting when you look at the page history, so I think there's some ownership issues here as well. He has since then extended this behavior to other articles that I have edited. Eik Corell (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article "List of UFC Events" needs to be restored.

It seems to have been an accident rather than an act of vandalism, but the user Alisonce seems to have moved the page "List of UFC Events" into the page "UFC Brazil 4: Belfort vs. Bisping". I tried to figure out how to revert this change, but at no avail. I'm hoping someone with more experience could help fix this. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energismus (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor appears to have replaced the contents of List of UFC Events with the contents of article UFC Brazil 4: Belfort vs. Bisping and then moved the page [121] (intermediate edits all by Alisonce). An admin will need to delete the redirect [122] and then the page can be moved and the UFC Brazil 4: Belfort vs. Bisping article can be recreated. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've put the List article back where it should be. I don't see any reason to recreate the fight article as, like the other hundreds of MMA individual event articles, it is completely non-notable. Some day, someone will actually care about the fact that the encylclopedia is being used as a fanboys results service, but I'm not holding my breath. Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor of story is cyber-bullying me, I believe the author's fans are using the wiki for cyberabuse against an involved party

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor of story made comments supporting the page's subject and defaming me, on the Guardian News paper site Editor is part of a group at another forum helping coordinate attacks against my comments and defaming me. Editor posted my IP details enabling users in the other forum to kmow my IP for attacks

I do not know who the editor is but he rolled back one of my wiki edits, or so he says in the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

May I ask where this offending post is? Phearson (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

His comments were deleted by the Guardian mods.

He believes(did) I am one of the subjects of the wiki page, he then encourages others to post, using the AbsoluteWrite.com forum that I am one of the subjects of the page.

The subject has been accused of criminal offenses and he believes I am the subject.

I told users in the forum that I was a South African engineer. No more identifying info.

Editor then posts that a South African IP just changed the wikipage allowing the users of the forum to identify me.

File:C:\Users\Paul\Desktop\editor.jpg

How anyone so "involved" in the subjects wiki page could be allowed to make edits on a situation that is devloping real time with accusations of criminal conduct, is beyond fucking me.

After the abuse at the Guardian site, at least 20 comments were personal attacks against me prompted by the editors accusation that I am one of the subjects, I AM NOT.

I traced where the Abuse was coming from to AbsoluteWrite.com forums which is where I discovered the editor making the same accusations.

I asked the moderators to remove the editors and others comments and during this discussion the editor revealed my identity, I have a screen grab, to the users in the forum.

I have never come across any of these people before the guardian article, yet the editor keeps claiming I am.

I believe if the Guardian reveal the content of the deleted posts, it will show the editor lead a mob of authors to bully and defame me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Children's author and illustrator Debi Gliori has recently been subjected to a sustained and vicious internet campaign, as reported in the national press (see the Controversy section).

41.243.171.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appeared as "ThingWithFeathers" at The Guardian news site and contibuted numerous comments to the article about the conflict, taking sides against Ms. Gliori. A number of his posts were removed as they did not meet the community's standards. He accused Ms. Gliori of defamation and cyberbullying.

The user then appeared as "NakedTruth" at an on-line writers' forum which was discussing the copyright issues of the case. Today, he was "banned for trolling". He accused Ms. Gliori of defamation and cyberbullying.

Now he appears at Ms. Gliori's Wikipedia biography and my talk page, with accusations of defamation and cyberbullying.

I find this behaviour intimidating. Esowteric+Talk 19:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The only information I revealed was a link to the article history to show that a POV edit had been made and that it was a South African IP. The accusor agreed that he lives in South Africa. I did this as others believed that he was a sockpuppet for another person, and this actually disproved it. Esowteric+Talk 19:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The IP-in-question, needs a crash course in how Wikipedia works, for starters. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric's on-wiki conduct seems to be perfectly acceptable, and even commendable for taking a stub that SPAs were trying to push POV into, and improving it into a well sourced and I think neutral article about the subject. I haven't seen evidence of him doing anything wrong off-wiki, and certainly nothing that we would want to address here. Monty₈₄₅ 19:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Please just identify the editors country I intend contacting the police there. I believe this wiki editor has incited others to commit violence against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am the one who suggested to others that you are not the artist, Angus Stewart referenced in the article. For the sake of clarity and so that anyone can check the Guardian and AbsoluteWrite, my handle there is sarmouni. Esowteric+Talk 19:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, that is an unambiguous legal threat. Block the IP per WP:NLT. Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your time and kindness. Now I need a cold shower while I calm down. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 19:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Etienne de L'Amour an editor at Wiki mistook me for a subject of his WikiPage, he then lead a mob of authors from Absolutewrite.com to write defamatory comments about me which were deleted by the moderators. I visited the Absolutewrite.com forums to ask them to remove the defamatory posts at which time Etienne identified me. Nobody in the forum would have known my IP if Etienne hadn't provided the wiki information. He seeks to still deny that he mistook me for the subject of his wiki page and seeks to further publicise my IP in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

But the point is: what can we, as Wikipedians, do about it? We cannot and will not block him for something he may have done elsewhere. And we are not going to give you his IP; those of us who can see it, the CheckUsers, are prohibited from sharing it with anyone under the Foundation's privacy policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I am confident that if a third party from Wiki contacts The Guardian moderators and views the deleted posts, they will see that this incident was as a result of Etienne de L'Amour's mistaken belief that I was one of the subjects in his Wiki subjects page, Etienne is aware that there have been threats of violence from the fans of the subjects but has done all he can to identify me. It seems to me he has been commenting on news articles which are the subjects pages of his Wiki Edits in order to incite further controversy that he can then write up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

There really isn't much Wikipedia can do about this. However, The Guardian has been proactive by removing the comments because they violated its user policy, but if there were comments inciting violence towards you then they are in fact breaking the law themselves by not reporting the incident to the authorities. If you intend on getting the police involved you should report The Guardian to the police, since they are the only ones who can recover the posts and identify who made them. Betty Logan (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for the legal threat above, the disruptive editing on the article, and the attempts to get others to out Esowteric for 48 hours.--v/r - TP 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The accusations are a fabrication. The only comment I made at the Guardian about your identity was to inquire what you were doing up in the middle of the night if you were, as you said, thousands of miles away, and when you said that you were at GMT +2 hours and in the southern hemisphere, that satisfied me. When someone else suggested you were a sockpuppet, I asked. "Not the same M.O.?" meaning I was doubtful, even then. Many other people's comments were removed, perhaps for legal reasons, as they argued that you were wrong in maintaining that Ms. Gliori and her publisher had stolen intellectual property or that she had bullied the artist, Angus Stewart. Esowteric+Talk 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the file path in the "image" the user posted interesting?--v/r - TP 20:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Explain? Esowteric+Talk 20:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the user has now added a statement to his user talk page, with my real world name. diff. Esowteric+Talk 20:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision suppressed and editor reblocked without talk page privs. Can we close this now? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incredibly aggressive demeanor over a minor infobox issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs) began reverting me on Breaking Bad without discussion. When I initiated one on the talk page (here), he instantly became aggravated and starting pouring a bucket of ad hominems at me, while skewing other editors' opinions to conveniently suit his editing choice, which is discriminatory and offensive in nature. This is how his replies build up:

• Bullshit.
• Classic case of discrimination. (Pot calling the kettle... what?)
• "Corrected" the previous attack to an even more obviously personal one: Classic case of Americanism. "Made in America, so English only". Proud of yourself? (referring to my reply here, where I merely pointed out that it only makes sense that a US production, which airs on a US channel, will be primarily in English.)
• The big finish: Suck my d**k.

I know I should have known better and stopped reverting too, but RAP's outrageous barrage of attacks got the best of me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Tedwarddd

Hi.

This User talk:Tedwarddd insist in to do changes in List of films based on Marvel Comics & List of films based on DC Comics, but not response my tryings to talk with him about policy of the project.

What must I do? Tks.OscarFercho (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've made a good start this time by letting him know there is a problem, by leaving a message on his talk-page.

He might not know why there is a problem, though. It would be a great idea to show them the right way to do things. That way you can both focus on sorting out potential problems before they happen.--Shirt58 (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lucasmoura

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It seems that Lucasmoura (talk · contribs) is having a bit of a hissy fit over the exclusion of several Japanese anime theatrical releases from the lists of American films (because they were translated into English). He then saw fit to add {{block}} to my user talk page (I was not even aware of the dispute until I saw the orange bar), Bovineboy2008's, and for some reason SineBot.

Lucasmoura has been blocked in the past for similar edits and it does not look like he's learned his lesson from his month long block this past summer. Clearly something new must be done.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I have tried holding a conversation with Lucasmoura, but the comments tend to be nonsensical and it seems that the editor has a difficul time staying civil, calling me idiot multiple times. The conversations were merely about the edits. BOVINEBOY2008 11:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, the belligerance, nonsensical interactions, talk page vandalism and attempt to block Ryulong in conjunction with the block history for similar behavior, it appears there's a long-term problem. I've indefinitely blocked the editor. If the editor can convince an admin that they can change this behavior and interact constructively, consider unblocking. At this point, it seems interaction skills are lacking in one or more dimensions. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vexorg and WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Vexorg has quite a lengthy block history, including blocks over 9/11 pages and I-P articles.

Most recently, Vexorg posted a rant that clearly falls under WP:SOAP, where Vexorg promotes various conspiracy theories. Vexorg also attacks Wikipedia as a propaganda site that uses the "Zionist Controlled mainstream media." Vexorg declares that "Wikipedia doesn't work on truth."

I hatted this rant that invoked numerous conspiracy theories, explaining WP:SOAP and Wikipedia isn't the place for conspiracy theories. WP:HATTING writes that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring," and I am uninvolved editor who did not comment in that section/talk page.

Vexorg reverted this, despite being an involved editor, asking according to who it's a conspiracy theory. I explained again Wikipedia isn't the place for this, and reverted. Vexorg then informed me that it's not up to me, an uninvolved editor, to hat discussions, and reverted. I stopped at this, rather than edit war.

I think that Vexorg's behavior should be looked into.

--Jethro B 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Vexorg's comment contains a serious BLP violation relating to Rothchild which should be removed. Ankh.Morpork 23:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP?? No it doesn't. I didn't refer to any living Rothschilds. Don't be so ridiculous. Vexorg (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A similar violation of WP:SOAP to promote WP:FRINGE conspiracies can be found here. --Jethro B 00:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Another example, where the editor agrees to a WP:SOAP rant about how "so much of the financial, political, medical, education, media and entertainment seems to be predominated by such a small group of people with Israeli / Jewish connections." --Jethro B 00:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? I have nothing against Jews, but I do recognise the Rothschild-Masonic-Zionist power in the Western World and like it or not they do exert considerable power over Western governments/Media/Money. YOu might wish to note that many Jews are also against Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism, but that's an issue which isn't something to be discussed here. Vexorg (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

VOXORGS's response: to Jethro B

A general note about this ANI report: How childish!! It's like being back at school. An editor, 'Jethro B' in this case, has taken umbridge about my reversion of his sanctimonious edit claimng authority to close down a discussion on a talk page, and becuase of that he/she has decided to research my edit history.

"Wikipedia isn't the place for conspiracy theories." This is also nonsense. Wikipedia has countless articles on Conspiracies theories. What you really mean is that Wikipdia isn't the place for views you don't agree with. You may wish to note that Wikpedia also isn't the place to waste time with ANI notices because you oppose the political views of another editor

What makes this ANI report even more absurd is that is regarding a discussion on a talk page, not the actual article.

"I think that Vexorg's behavior should be looked into. " - LOL - that just looks so Stasi. Go ahead look into my behavior if you've nothing better to do. I've nothing to hide. I have a political viewpoint. So do you. Everyone here has a political viewpoint. Deal with it.

"User:Vexorg has quite a lengthy block history, including blocks over 9/11 pages and I-P articles." ---- That's right. All that means is some administrators with opposing political views decided to exert their power. It's no big deal. The fact you're using my block history as some kind of currency this report speaks volumes about your agenda Jethro B

Jethro B says: Vexorg declares that "Wikipedia doesn't work on truth." --- This one really got me laughing. It's not me who declares that "Wikipedia doesn't work on truth.", but it's Wikipedia itself! [[123]] - here we have an editor, [User:Jethro B|Jethro] B, who doesn't even know the ethos of the Wiki he obsesses with editing.

That's my response to this pointless and childish ANI report. Feel free to look into my behavior. You will certainly find even more commentary regarding the caveats of Wikipedia so don't forget to note them down in order to present them to teh relevant authorities :) :) :) ---- Peace. Vexorg (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support lengthy block Ankh.Morpork 08:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It would have been clearer if Jethro had said "Wikipedia is not the place to discuss conspiracy theories". Wikipedia certainly has articles about conspiracy theories but discussing the theories instead of the article is not the purpose. Support a block for the usual alphabet soup. Blackmane (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I should've made that clearer. --Jethro B 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. At the very least, the article talk-page comment needs to be removed per WP:NPA, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TPNO, and it looks like the editor is requiring an admin to do that based on his revert at the article talk page. If it were just this one incident, removal of the comment and a note at the user's talk page would be sufficient. But looking at the editor's block log and user talk-page history, this user has a history of occasionally making this sort of rant, and his reverting to keep the article talk-page comment visible after being pointed to the relevant WP:RULES is troubling. There also appears to be a failure of this editor to get the difference between a neutrally-written Wikipedia article describing a notable conspiracy theory, and personally engaging in one at an article talk page, and in a way entirely irrelevant to the article. The fact that he's repeated the conspiracy theory here at ANI makes it appear that he's using Wikipedia here to WP:SOAPBOX in front of as large an audience as possible, and keep his comment visible in a disruptive manner despite having his fellow editors point out that it's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia editing capabilities to do so. A block of escalated duration might send the message that this sort of soapboxing is not welcome and discourage him from engaging in this sort of disruption in the future. The editor does seem to be productive in other areas; if this sort of thing continues, a topic ban might be in his future. Zad68 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Vexorg's rant in this ANI thread speaks for itself as well. --Jethro B 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mild support - Though I'm not sure a "long" block is warranted. Have there been previous escalating blocks? Yes, but they are a bit of a mixed bag and have fairly wide gaps. This is more for the disruption of reverting the talk page and the ensuing incivility than the SOAP. Bluntly: The SOAP can be removed and Vexorg pointed to the policy it breaks. If a clear pattern can be shown that they are using it to disrupted discussions, bully, goad, attack other editors, sligh/smear/attack living people mentioned in or related to articles, promote their own interpretation or agenda, and/or are here for reasons other than working with others to build and improve this encyclopedia, then a longer block for it would be justified. - J Greb (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I can show other examples of such behavior.
  • [124] - Agreeing to a WP:SOAP rant.
  • [125] - warned about civility, but removed the warning.
  • [126], [127] - various personal attacks on an editor.
  • [128] - explains that no one actually uses Wikipedia to find the truth and it's flawed.
  • [129] - complaisn that the article on 9/11 is "absolutely dreadful" and "one of the most politically biased pieces of crap," while sticking up (as far as I can tell) for bin Laden.
  • [130], [131], [132], [133] - edit wars and violates 3RR in order to put his fringe soap comments back in, which is essentially the case described in this ANI thread above, but on a different article.
  • --Jethro B 00:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Ridiculous theory that has been disproved many times. We don't need an editor with an ax to grind (baselessly) against a particular group. I'll get RS citations if anybody really wants. MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban - Or at least a LONG block. He obviously is very combative, attempting to insert his crazy rantings everywhere he goes. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence presented that would suggest a block/ban is necessary. Even so, the diff diving is impressive. I was suitably entertained by the diffs from Feb 2011. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The "diff diving" was only to show more evidence of this long behavior to someone who requested it, it was not part of the original report. --Jethro B 23:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. He's been at this for years; absurdly combative in defense of WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support This status quo and trampling of Wikipedia policies is not sustainable. Vexorg has not attempted to reform his disruptive behavior. Time for a block. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• 'Reluctant support. I encountered similar editing problems with vexorg on a different topic, a while ago, but I thought the problem had been overcome; apparently not. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support a long block. Vexorg's conspiracy nonsense is pretty disruptive, has a long history, and has no end in sight. Wing gundam (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

24+ hours with no new !votes, time to close this please? Zad68 02:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support They are clearly WP:NOTHERE--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The user is not causing any significant disruption outside of his moments of passion. The material he wishes to include is controversial but notable. --JohnAndersonian (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)— JohnAndersonian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support We don't need more anti-Semite truthers on Wikipedia, and his ranting on talk pages is not conducive to a collegial editing environment. I'd prefer an indefinite topic ban (very broadly construed, to include soapboxing on unrelated talk pages), but a long block will probably suffice. Horologium (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - If he cannot even understand how people see his rant as a conspiracy theory, we need a competency block or ban. His assertion that Wikipedia is run by some sort of Zionist conspiracy is a flagrant violation of WP:AGF, a cornerstone of this website. It's just common sense to keep him away from certain topics, just as liquor stores wouldn't hire recovering alcoholics. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Do you think articles should consider notable controversies and conspiracies? Doesn't a NPOV entail a notable mix of criticisms and positive reception? Don't users like the one above serve that end in holding such things accountable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAndersonian (talk • contribs) 21:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(Anyone else hear quacking?) Per WP:GEVAL, we do not give paranoid delusions equal validity to accepted facts. 9/11 conspiracy theories are treated in the same manner as other conspiracy theories, because all rational and educated persons identify them as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe in WP:POLE but see my comment below. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ian, my first impression is not a Vexorg sock, but rather a reincarnation of sockpuppeteer Xiutwel (talk · contribs), aka Kaaskop6666 (talk · contribs). Note the barnstars on vexorg's userpage, and Xiutwel was always unfailingly polite, even as he spouted conspiracist nonsense. Horologium (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Topic ban related to 9/11 and Israel/Palistine articles, broadly construed as that seems to be the crux of the problem. Neutral on a block. Ryan Vesey 21:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support block per Ian.thomson. Clearly lacks the competence to edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support lengthy block. Long-term disruptive behaviour. If the user can't understand why his behaviour is unacceptable, it is all the more necessary. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Side note - Looking at this new SPA giving Vexorg a barnstar praising him for "having principles" after defending him earlier in this thread, and considering the knowledge he demonstrates of how Wikipedia works in the first few edits he makes to a single topic before jumping to Vexorg's defence and praise, does anyone else hear quacking from JohnAndersonian? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to explain this in the proper setting, if necessary. --JohnAndersonian (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Media67 disruption, blanking of pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The above user has been blanking warnings from other users on his talk page [134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142]. He has also been blanking sourced information on the Generation X page, most of it having to do with suiting and over-emphasizing a minority viewpoint pursuant to his POV. [143][144] For a brief background, there had been a dispute about the human birth-date range of the above subject, and eventually there was consensus in the article's talk page. In spite of this, the user periodically pushes a single source into the article, literature from authors Strauss & Howe, whilst blanking information contrary to Strauss & Howe. In a related issue, he has been in a revert war with another user on the Strauss-Howe generational theory page.[145][146][147]. He's also blanked segments of the discussion on the article's talk page. [148][149][150]. There's "other editors" by the names of User:CreativeSoul7981 and User:Wikiz876 who seem to share VERY similar editing traits with User:Media67 (the overemphasis of Strauss & Howe), but I don't know if the other two accounts have recent enough editing activity to warrant a sockpuppet investigation. I would appreciate some advice. Thank you. --Danteferno (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.Media67 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely you don't think that that's helpful?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Danteferno tends to jump to alot of conclusions about "vandalism" and "sockpuppets" on various pages. Just saying..... Media67 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just some preliminary comments. Removing material from your own talk page with very limited exceptions is permissible. Changing other editors' material on other talk pages is not. You should have notified CreativeSoul and Wikiz of this discussion; I have done so for you. At first glance, without any comment about the sockpuppet issue, this looks like a content dispute, but one where Media67 is perhaps unduly combative.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who CreativeSoul and Wikiz are. They're not part of the issue at all. And it's a non-issue anyway.Media67 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an SPI should be run. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I welcome it!Media67 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh and btw, I would be considered a "newcomer" and I think you know what the policy is about that.Media67 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Best to clear your name. PS: The innocent have nothing to fear. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to file a report at WP:SPI, they are going to need to do the research to present colorable evidence of sock puppetry. SPI doesn't take kindly to reports that are simply "it'd be nice to know". They have enough work over there without that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You'd be wasting everybody's time.Media67 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

(res to Bbb23) I reckon it's up to Danteferno, if he wants to open an SPI :) GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How many cases has Danteferno opened? Media67 (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And that is relevant how, exactly?--Danteferno (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The evidence would be difficult to present to SPI as the other two "editors" have not been involved in the page in a while. But the fact is that all three have pushed the same info (the Strauss & Howe "1981 birthdate estimate"), blanked cited information that went against the "S&H theory", have often edited the article with sequential revisions, have informally referred to the topic as "Gen X", and have not directly discussed the issue with other editors (instead writing long paragraphs promoting the "S&H 1981 theory", whilst automatically ignoring other editor's points) all seems to be rather suspect, IMO. --Danteferno (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's difficult "evidence" to present because it's not even close to the truth. Move on, there's nothing to see here. Media67 (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The number of cases that Danteferno has opened has no relevance. Anyone can open a SPI if they believe there's sockpuppetry. If Danteferno decides to open a case, so be it. If he doesn't, then he doesn't. By the way, if a SPI is opened about you, "How many cases" will not be a valid argument against a guilty (for lack of a better term). gwickwire | Leave a message 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously my point is that Danteferno tends to jump to conclusions and that is not good for "newcomers" who want to contribute to Wikipedia. Read the annual report -- Wikipedia needs editors. Media67 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs editors, not POV pushers.Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct. Next point?Media67 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(to Danterferno) I'd recommend an SPI be ran. GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You would recommend it based on what? Media67 (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been dealing quite a bit with Media67 lately. I can't really comment on any sock puppet issues, and I don't think it is relevant here, since there is no abuse of multiple accounts taking place.

I have found dealing with Media to be quite frustrating, because they are generally unwilling to engage in discussions openly or in good faith. Reverts/edits are often made without explanation, and replies are often curt and unhelpful, unwilling to address the issue directly (for example: [151]), assuming that a simple reply on their part settles an ongoing dispute in their favour, and questioning my "qualifications" to edit the page since I haven't read all of Strauss and Howe's books (for the Strauss-Howe generational theory page) [152]. As mentioned above, the user has previously edited my comments on a talk page without explanation [153], and later deleted their entire half of the discussion [154]] (also unexplained). When forced, Media has replied substantively, and we appear to be moving in a more constructive direction, but my overall impression is of an editor who is not particularly interested in collaboration, discussion, or cooperation, but rather in pushing their own sources and opinions as hard as possible. I have previously referred my dispute to WP:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Strauss-Howe Generational Theory to no particular result, other than a recommendation that we should try to work together better. However, just tonight Media reverted my edits [155], and has not made any attempt to explain or engage on this issue since they said three days ago that they wanted some time to rework the sentence[156]. It's fair enough to say you want some time to work on the wording, but frankly since the wording as it was has been found to be OR, the material should be removed FIRST, and then reworked. I have been more than patient in this regard, but Media won't accept any alternative wording while we all wait for their next intervention, which I find frustrating and does not show very good faith, nor is it really in the spirit of cooperation to make other editors wait for an edit before proceeding. Also, it has been my experience that the editor is happy to let a discussion lie still for days, until I then make an edit, assuming agreement, and then suddenly jump out of the woodwork again [157]. Not sure what all of that means, but I can agree with Danteinferno that the Media67 has been at least mildly disruptive and certainly uncooperative. Peregrine981 (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your detailed explanation tallies with my impression (based on a cursory review). It would be constructive if Media67 would respond here less tersely than they have up to now. Given the venue, the important question is does Media67's behavior warrant sanctions? I'm not sure I see sufficient evidence for sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that I am not fully aware of the usual procedure regarding sanctions, I would personally be against formal sanctions. I think that it would be useful if a senior editor/administrator explained the wikipedia concepts of Original Research, verifiability, and consensus building to the user. That would hopefully carry more weight than my attempts so far. After that we could see how things went. Peregrine981 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Peregrine981 -- but there's nothing that would qualify for formal sanctions. Media67 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"my overall impression is of an editor who is not particularly interested in collaboration, discussion, or cooperation, but rather in pushing their own sources and opinions as hard as possible." Which is the same impression I have about User:CreativeSoul7981, who hasn't done recent revisions to the Generation X article page but has been somewhat prevalent on the talk page, overemphasizing viewpoints (specifically Strauss and Howe, in his words "the pioneers of generational theory") and eschewing objective collaborated discussion in the same manner as User:Media67 with S&H and Generation X. Circumstantial, but also a bit too coincidental and convenient.--Danteferno (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Peregrine981, our discussion is also about your unduly weighted review that you've posted on the Strauss/Howe generational article under "Critical Reception" under 13th Gen book review.Media67 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Danteferno, that's an interesting theory about User:CreativeSoul7981 and me but why does it warrant discussion here on the Administrators' noticeboard again? Media67 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like throughout this thread, Media67 has been valiantly struggling to create an image of an unapologetic "problem kid", who belongs at Simple Wikipedia at best. There is also the conflict between his demand to be approached as a noob and his considerable knowledge and use of the local demagogy. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean Simple English Wikipedia -- which I wish you would use. What does any of this have to do with the issue? If there's a violation then say what it is.Media67 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• o hai thar Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique, one point of etiquette, I notice that you assume Wikipedia editors are Male (on this page anyway) i.e. you wrote "conflict between his demand" and "his considerable knowledge " above in connection with Media67.Media67 (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oh look, a kitty! This is the second time you're using the same exact derailment technique... and you're not even trying to conceal it by copypasting the same. I'm just stating the obvious, hoping to put an end to this farce ASAP. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Btw, why hasn't Hearfourmewesique been sanctioned for using insults on the Admin page? There should be no double standard. I.e. the name calling above -- go to the link he posted (sorry I had to cut and paste this one).Media67 (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's not an insult, but rather an analysis of your behavior, which keeps getting more and more ridiculously appalling as time goes by. Also, I'm not the issue here, and neither is the gender question you managed to squeeze somehow, and neither is the "unduly weighted review". There is simply no other explanation for all that and everything else you've managed to do on this thread. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just don't do it. It's not nessesary to call people names on the admin site -- even if you are using a link to do it.Media67 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking into it a little bit I do not think that Media67 is a sock puppet of CreativeSoul, for a couple of reasons. Their behaviour is in fact quite different even if they are both interested in the same POV. CS tends to be very willing to discuss, often at length and in almost tedious detail, while Media is quite the opposite. Media tends to make long strings of minor edits to pages while CS did not. Media is also more single mindedly attentive to Generation X and Strauss-Howe. Also, the IP address that Media sometimes edits under ([158] first appeared at around the same time as Media's account. To Media, regarding the "unduly weighted review" I have addressed this repeatedly at the talk page. Please respond there. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"CS tends to be very willing to discuss..." he's willing to discuss so long as he also gets across the POV that suits him, which includes an overemphasis of S&H and calling it "the majority of sources". It would be one thing if the Generation X article edit history was very busy (e.g. there were more contributors, and hence more input) But looking at the big picture, the page is maintained by a small group of collaborative editors and apparently there's only one editor with an agenda of accentuating a minority viewpoint. If this was a SOCK issue, it has more to do with inflating a sole viewpoint than the extremely illicit means of a SOCK (i.e. block evasion). SOCK or no SOCK, what seems striking is that Media67 is extremely defiant of Wikipedia policy, refuses to civilly discuss differences, and yet he doesn't know why his case was brought to the attention of ANI. ("Move on, there's nothing to see here".) --Danteferno (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Danteferno, just one point of etiquette, I notice that you assume Wikipedia editors are Males (on this page anyway) i.e. "CS tends to be very willing to discuss...he's willing to discuss" and "He (Media67) has also been blanking sourced information on the Generation X page".Media67 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no consensus on Wikipedia for what to use for gender neutral pronouns. Some use male pronouns, some use Singular they and some use the xe system. Nobody Ent 16:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous.Media67 (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous is a bit strong, but I agree with you that we should try to avoid assuming an editor is a particular gender. I confess I sometimes make the same mistake, though, and sometimes in the opposite direction.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

We should also avoid assuming an editor using "he" is assuming male. When I was a sapling, he was standardly used as gender neutral; while I personally adopted singular they 15 to 20 years ago some folks still use he as gender neutral. Nobody Ent 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The notion that "he" is gender-neutral is no longer viable, and to the extent it ever was, it was unreasonably male-centric. To quote User:LadyofShalott: "It seems that something like 80–90% of Wikipedia editors are male. This is no reason to make assumptions about another editor's gender."--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

So you're advocating prohibiting use of gender-neutral "he" in all wikipedia namespaces? Nobody Ent 18:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I'm advocating a gender-pronoun ban. I'll take it to WP:AN. I'm simply saying that it's okay for Editor B to criticize Editor A for using a gender-specific pronoun when Editor A doesn't know the gender of Editor B. I'm not even saying that Editor A in fact assumed anything. I'm sure I've made the same "error".--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As this discussion continues, the initial concern that Media67 doesn't care to discuss but rather change the subject and try to "turn the tables" on other editors with cherry-picked trivialities seems unfortunately justified. As a side note, I'm in complete agreement with Nobody Ent about "he" and gender neutrality. (i.e., "Look at that guy in the Fiat, he must be going 80 miles an hour", whilst not seeing who's actually "manning" the car.) It's a non-issue, just like Media67's indictment that I accuse everyone of being a sockpuppet, that I bite the "noobs", or that I'm wasting administrator's time for bringing Media67's activity up on this board. The ANI was the last resort because Media67 refused to discuss their creative disagreements and continued extremely bold (and in my view, very disruptive and ethically-questionable) edits. Only Media67 (so far) has contested my justification. Removing (and not archiving) other user's messages on article talk pages IS a breach of policy, as Bbb23 noted, and it was one of the matters I brought up on here, not just the Generation X article, but they are related issues.--Danteferno (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to change the subject at all, Danteferno. Just pointing out how you could be more "civil" yourself. The edit that brought you here was reverted by you and it's still there on Gen X. In fact, you've done the same thing --- removing content that is reliably sourced -- many times. And as Bbb23 already noted above: "the important question is does Media67's behavior warrant sanctions? I'm not sure I see sufficient evidence for sanctions". Basically it boils down to this -- I've improved the pages that I've edited and by a great degree. Media67 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Not trying to change the subject at all" Not trying to? You already have. "I've improved the pages that I've edited and by a great degree." Apparently a few other editors (besides myself) think otherwise. Pushing your POV and blanking content that you don't agree with isn't exactly a tall-tale sign of "improving" articles. --Danteferno (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just your opinion. Yes, you may not agree but that's the great thing about Wikipedia.Media67 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Media67 is extremely defiant of Wikipedia policy, refuses to civilly discuss differences" this I can certainly agree with. I still see no constructive attempt to deal with my content questions, only continued evasions. There are similarities between CS and Media, so I don't preclude the possibility they are the same person. If there's some way of conducting an analysis I wouldn't be against it. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

These all are just opinions. What is your proof that "Media67 is extremely defiant of Wikipedia policy"? And Peregrine981, don't try to use this page to negotiate your changes. Thanks! Media67 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that some of your perfunctory protests are a bit disingenuous. Regardless of whether you violate policy, you do appear to be interested only in certain related articles, having made only 582 edits since creating your account on June 5, 2012. That isn't a "crime" in and of itself, but you also seem to have an agenda in pushing consistent changes across multiple articles, mainly tied to the use of one source. Even though that's been challenged, you don't appear to be interested in discussion except at a very low and begrudging level.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong, the different sources I've used are all there -- at least 7 or 8 -- from a diverse group. And they are very reliable. And more are coming. And yes I can focus on a few sites if I want to. What's the violation? Media67 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Whya hasn't Media67 been blocked for his tampering with others posts on the Strauss-Howe generational theory page? GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if Media67 would explain why they repeatedly (3x per diffs) violated WP:TPO. I don't believe I'd block them for it, though, particularly because they apparently haven't done it since October 29, and I think the last one was a removal of their own comments (not that that's acceptable but it is different).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the talk page policy is: don't use the talk page as a "general discussion of the article" -- that's what started happening. I quote: "This (talk page) is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". Where the does the policy say editors are prohibited from editing their own comments on a talk page? Media67 (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow... this is the most spectacular troll feast I've ever seen. Any reason WP:BRI hasn't taken place a while ago? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There you go again. Yeah the reason is -- it's not trolling. Stick to the issues and avoid the insults. Btw, why hasn't Hearfourmewesique been sanctioned for using insults on the Admin page? There should be no double standard. I.e. the name calling above -- on Hearfourmewesique's previous post. Media67 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I would get into the details of why Media has been disruptive, but I fear I would be wasting my time. The two important things for now are: the user has spent a good deal of effort on this page, but still has not made any substantive reply on the actual page, regarding the actual issue. The other hilarious one, is that Media has asked me not to " try to use this page to negotiate [my] changes." LOL. I have been trying in vain to get the user to make a concerted effort to discuss our disagreement at the talk page, as can be seen by my statement above :" To Media, regarding the 'unduly weighted review' I have addressed this repeatedly at the talk page. Please respond there." I agree with User:GoodDay, this is getting silly. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct it's silly because there's nothing to any of this complaint. But it's good to get to know other editors in the process! As Peregrine wrote "I would personally be against formal sanctions" and Bbb23 wrote "I'm not sure I see sufficient evidence for sanctions". The sockpuppet issue went nowhere. The only issue left is editing talk pages. Media67 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly the kind of message that is getting you in trouble. You are not able to acknowledge any fault on your own side, or to make any effort to change your behaviour in response to numerous requests, or even to acknowledge the complaints of others and try to explain yourself. No, you've just said that everyone else was completely wrong, and you are 100% right. Try to engage with others. My problem at this point is that you are not even trying to make an argument regarding our long running dispute at Strauss-Howe generational theory. It's now been more than three days since you even tried to engage in discussion (here [159]), despite my repeated requests that you do so, your revert of my edits more than 24 hours ago ([160]), and your promises that you would engage. Come on, get with the program and work with me. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is 100% right. The only issue left for this page is -- editing talk pages. I want to resolve that issue before talking to you about our content dispute on another page. I appreciate your effort to educate new users but I want to resolve the appropriate issues on the appropriate pages.Media67 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What's left to resolve about talk pages? The policy is you're not supposed to edit signed comments on talk pages, unless you have a really good reason to do so, and explain why you did so. See WP:TPO The comments you edited were no "general" as you said above. They were discussing points of contention related to the articles. At any rate, why not just say, "I didn't know, I won't do it again, let's move on?" Peregrine981 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it will not happen again. I want to thank everybody who contributed to this thread for their time! Media67 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this discussion. Media67 has finally (dragging and kicking all the way) promised that he will not violate WP:TPO in the future. I'm not satisfied with Media67's attitude in the content dispute, but unless another admin feels differently, I see no basis for sanctions. That said, I will warn Media67 that they need to improve their attitude and work collaboratively; otherwise, my assumption is they will be back here, and it may not go as well if there's additional evidence of agenda-like editing and somewhat devious or evasive dealings with other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

personal attack needs cleaning

Could someone get the baseless personal attack excised from this edit summary [161]. Thanks -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Revdeleted it. Let me know if there are any more that need to be taken care of. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy full protection

I've full-protected Hurricane Sandy but am doing RL chores on and off today. Can any other admin help keep an eye on things? Also can people who have an opinion express it on the page over verious disputed sections? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You protected the wrong version though :). Seriously, hopefully something can be worked out since its too bad such a highly viewed and edited article has to be locked down. Hopefully this will settle down after Tuesday, but who knows. --Malerooster (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I came very close to locking the article last night. Malerooster, generally, there is no such thing as the wrong version when locking an article, barring obvious policy violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I was kidding Bbb23, hence the smiley face. I guess I should have used the "j/k" notation as well. Thank you though. --Malerooster (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This would be a high edit rate article in any case, but many of the reverts are related to climate change. Can climate change-related sanctions be applied to this article? Even if not, a 1RR restriction for the next week seems appropriate, and more conducive to improving the article than full protection. VQuakr (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to say no. While the sanction calls for "climate change topic, broadly interpreted", I think common sense is in order. You could stretch any topic and make it related to climate (from laws to businesses, movies to religions, etc.) which makes the sanction far too overreaching than its original intentions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

True, but the most severe edit warring on the article has been related to climate change. Common sense might suggest a temporary 1RR restriction regardless of the applicability of discretionary sanctions. VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If they are using the article to dispute over climate change, then I'd say it's within the ambit of the sanction.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note, pages is semi'd now which is much happier. Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
  

Copy pasting same/similar information in a bunch of articles!

• Special:Contributions/123.49.16.156
  

This editor has been copy pasting almost same content (a list of print medias of different languages). Some of those might be correct, but 1) these are unsourced 2) I have followed some of his edits, I am doubtful about accuracy too! --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tito! A good start would be letting the anonymous editor know about Wikipedia's referencing and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia policies on their talk page. Letting the anon editor know why there is a problem is a big step on the way to a solution. --Shirt58 (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Shirt58, but, I am worried about these articles now. I don't know about some articles, but for city like Jaipur, Aajkaal etc Bengali newspaper is too much. And if you discuss about a city's print media, you'll start with local language or country' national language. Bengali is neither. I have found the similar issues in multiple articles.

I could notify and warn the user. But, the number of articles involved here (at least 50+) is making me worried. I was thinking to revert all edits, but later thought of asking for help/suggestions here!

Thanks for your reply! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Copyedit signed --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tito--after just a quick glance, I totally agree w/ Shirt58 — if you talk to the editor, perhaps they can provide a URL to a source of some kind... always assume good faith: a mass rollback is kind of a last resort (because of, as you said, the potentially "correct" edits that would also be lost). Remember, there is no deadline. —Theopolisme 04:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There are incorrect information− I am sure! There are some correct information– I guess assuming good faith! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

More clearly, I am not asking a mass rollback. But I am reporting accuracy of parts of a good number of articles might be in danger (almost all of those are important state or city related articles)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

They haven't replied yet! Any other suggestion? --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Don Lichterman

Could someone take a look at Talk:Don Lichterman and determine if that counts against NLT? Otherwise, the talk page should probably be deleted as {{db-talk}}. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 01:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No question it's a legal threat. Either it's the editor's first edit under that ID, or its other edits were wiped out by the article deletion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the talk page as G8. I'll leave the user a note. I'll understand if there's a need for a block but I won't be taking that action without a clearer threat. Tiderolls 03:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal Threat by User (James.Douglas.Muir) (talk)

I need an Administrator to handle this situation, as this User (James.Douglas.Muir) has made a legal threat on my Talk Page. I, as well as this User, reverted edits [162] to the Jay Leno Article and gave more than adequate summaries of the relevant policies that required us to revert the edits made by this User and we explained this on his talk page). And he just made a legal threat on my Talk Page. I appreciate your quick response to this situation. As Always, With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC) This may also be relevant to better understand the situation as a whole His discussion with User:Rivertorch, My Talk Page, and the User's in questions Talk Page. King of Nothing (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Clear legal threat. I've blocked and informed the user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User James.Douglas.Muir

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

James.Douglas.Muir (talk · contribs · block user)

This new contributor, whose user name is composed of the first and middle names of television personality Jay Leno, is claiming to be Mr. Leno. He or she has repeatedly added some strange content to Mr. Leno's article in support of a purported (probably fictional) write-in candidate for U.S. president. I and another editor have advised the contributor that the edits are unacceptable, and I also advised him or her to change user names (see discussion here) but did not get a constructive response. Since there are WP:BLP implications in all of this, I'm bringing it here with the suggestion that a block for disruption is warranted. (I have notified the user.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

66.99.132.30 / Toddsmith199 / Toadsmith / 50.103.xxx.xxx

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For over 6 years now an editor (66.99.132.30 (talk · contribs) / Toddsmith199 (talk · contribs) / Toadsmith (talk · contribs) / 50.103.xxx.xxx) has been editing in a way that is not in keeping with Wikipedia's goals. In brief, he's obsessed with slavery, distinguishing Germans and Dutch people from Jews, and promoting various conspiracy theories and negative stereotypes about Jews, most persistently that they were behind the slave trade. Characteristics edits:

• Adds Jews and the slave trade to "See also" sections of articles (e.g. [163][164][165][166][167])
• Removes cited scholarly claims with the reason given that the scholars are "guessing" (e.g. [168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175]).
• Speculation that opium is the reason for East and West Indies exploration, with the Jews behind it (e.g. [176][177][178][179][180][181])
• Bizarre speculations about Jews on article Talk: pages (e.g. [182][183][184][185]).

A more complete description can be found here: User:Jayjg/Jews are slave traders editor.
Blocking doesn't help: he's edits while blocked, using dynamic IPs (usually in the 50.103.1xx.xxx range). I'm proposing he be banned from Wikipedia instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• If blocks are ineffective, how will banning help? And if the IP is dynamic, there's a the added danger that anyone making Jewish related edits that appear to some as less than neutral might be blocked as a sock.--Scott Mac 00:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Banning means that the editor edits can be reverted with far less bureaucracy. There's no real danger that "anyone making Jewish related edits that appear to some as less than neutral might be blocked as a sock" because this editor makes very characteristic edits (as outlined above), geolocates to a specific area, and almost always edits from either 66.99.132.30 or 50.103.1xx.xxx. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If there's a recognizable pattern to his editing, you could consider one of those "trigger"-like processes (I'm ashamed I've forgotten just what they're called - some kind of "filter", maybe), which would be intended to foil him in the act of trying to post his nonsense, regardless of what article it's on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• 66.99.132.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- This appears to be a static IP from an Illinois state agency which has been blocked many times in the past, for up to six months. I suggest a one-year anon-only block.
• Range contributions from 50.103.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). -- How about a two-month block of this /16 range (anon only). EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why that range? He typically edits from the 50.103.1xx.xxx range. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, wrong range. Fixed my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified support of a WP:BAN to expedite future damage-control efforts; qualification is only if the IP range is considered small enough and the edit style idiosyncratic enough to yield a very high confidence when suspected future edits are found. This is a judgment call I don't yet have enough experience to make, but I'm guessing the answer is Yes. IP assignments geolocated to same locality and were static, so the individual appears to be IP-hopping on purpose to evade scrutiny and blocks. I looked through about 20 of his article edits and didn't see a single one that wasn't reverted or otherwise removed, and I never saw a source added. Even article talk page comments failed WP:OR, except one that I found that was a claim phrased as a question (no source provided), and the individual was entirely uncommunicative at the user talk pages of the named accounts. This individual has been doing this sort of damage for a while and a change of heart seems very unlikely. Zad68 03:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Having looked thru some of the IP's edits over 6 years I really do not know why this person is still here editing. Seems to be disruptive to say the least. Deleting sourced material wholesale,big chunks of articles only to be reverted. Edit waring as well. Could deserve a ban just for edit waring on the links above.I do not think that the IP is adding anything positive to wikipedia articles at all.Kabulbuddha (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)strike comment by banned user -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support both the proposed ban and blocks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• I support both the proposed ban and blocks. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether the user can already be considered de facto banned, if supporting the blocks and ban make it easier for Jayjg and others to keep a lid on the disruption then I support the ban.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• I support both the proposed ban and blocks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban 'n' block. GiantSnowman 11:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban and block. Some of these edits are bizarre. Ankh.Morpork 14:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ZappaOMati 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I may go ahead and close this. The IP blocks seem uncontroversial, so I have done those. Is it time to enact the ban? The best approach is for someone who hasn't expressed an opinion to judge the consensus. Scott Mac has doubted the usefulness of a ban, and Zad68 gave only qualified support. Everyone else seems to be in favor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed the qualifications I had on my support have now been met. It is clear the community sees the proposed method of identifying the edits as satisfactory, so count me as full Support. Zad68 19:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He has continued to edit in the same way, but is now using deliberately deceptive edit summaries: for example: [186][187][188][189]. In addition, now that IP editing has been blocked, he's started using one of his accounts again:[190][191]. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Gracious, six years of this? Community ban. --Dweller (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Range block too assuming a collateral damage check was done. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violation on user's talk page (not to mention personal attacks)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Herostratus, along with User:Prioryman have made comments on Herostratus' talk page, which aside from being obnoxious insults directed at a person who can't answer back, are a clear WP:BLP violation. Specifically WP:BLP clearly states [192] "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.", with the only exception allowed being a user talking about himself.

I originally removed the attacks [193], which Herostratus reverted [194] with the claim that he was a "reasonable person". Taking that on good faith I simply asked him to remove the BLP attacks and defamation himself [195]. His response was... let's say "less than cordial". Basically, in addition to refusing to remove the BLP attacks he threw in some personal attacks directed at myself, specifically: "So "cannot reply to you directly" kind of doesn't apply when he's got little ____s like you to come over and whine for him, n'est-ce pas?". Now, I don't give a flip about insults flung my way, even though I do believe a prominent admin got themselves in a whole lotta trouble by calling someone "a little shit" - which is obviously what Herostratus' "_____" means, even if he wants to WP:GAME the civility border there. But the BLP violations have to go.

And just for the record, the posts include outright falsehoods and defamation, starting with the fact that no one asked me to make any edits on their behalf and ending with the fact that no one has threatened Herostratus. Volunteer Marek  01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No no, this cannot be! For a certain party has been assured by Dramies and ErrantX (among others) that there is no need to watch Prioryman, because there are so many others to do it - and Dramies and ErrantX (among others) are quite honourable and would never just sweep something under the rug. So clearly, if he'd said anything so obnoxious and defamatory, a whole set of administrators would come down on him like a tonne of bricks and give him a two week block, followed by a four week block if he didn't instantly apologise! Since no one's lifted a finger, and Dramies and ErrantX (among others) are quite honorable and would never just sweep something under the rug, then there's nothing to worry about. QED. Also, once someone on wikipediocracy said something nasty and it took a few hours to delete it, so it's ok for us to say as much nasty stuff as possible and do nothing. And don't you dare point out any hypocrisy... that's clearly the actions of a hate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.13.40 (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You're the only person that uses the "Dramies" slur, so it's obvious. Why don't you just log in to say your piece? Pathetic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. As soon as I create an actual account, unaccountable clique-players like you would ban it. Don't pretend otherwise. What's pathetic is the behaviour here by people who put online chat mates ahead of doing what's actually right... oh.. and people who'll look hypocrisy in the face and change the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.13.40 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking you in the face. What's your excuse? Oh, and the moment I ever see Prioryman, Herostratus, or whatever that other guy's name was talk to me in "online chat" I will be most surprised indeed. I don't associate with arsonists, not here or anywhere else. (For the humour-impaired; no-one called Prioryman ever burned down a temple, that I know of.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The user is incivil to you and should not be.

The user does not accuse anyone in particular of threats (there is a general statement about an off-wiki site but a website is not protected by BLP), however, s/he does call some living person (not you) a "troll" and it looks like s/he says they are not smart. The link given that started the discussion did ask that off-webite users discuss the person with Herostus on wiki. What exactly is the BLP violation? It does not appear to be libel (defamation) in that talk page discussion (plain opinion usually is not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not merely require that we not defame people here on Wikipedia; it says much more than that.

However, given that the requirement here is to defend identified persons from unfair commentary, the continued use of threats and similar by editors of what I now call "the boxcutter site", after their earlier expression of a wish to "fly to London and slit some nerdy little throats", can perhaps permit some wry cynicism (and even its expression) on the part of the temple-burning youth and his acolytes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "continued use of threats" you are referring to - AFAICT you're making stuff up. But you are right in that this is in fact a gross BLP violation regardless of whether there is defamation involved or not (which I do think there is - specifically associating GK with death threats among other things). Volunteer Marek  05:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Then answer me this. Was the person who requested the discussion be opened on Herostratus' talk page, a staff member of a website which also has staff members who have in the past made comments about wanting to "fly to London and cut some nerdy little throats"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this comment extremely offensive, as I have friends who are little people. It's the same thing as belittling physically or mentally challenged people. It is also as clear a violation of BLP as I have ever seen. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I don't think that comment is a good idea. I think that Prioryman should strike it, and find an analogy that more properly reflects Kohs' intellectual abilities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Too late, looks like it's already been removed. What a silly comment Prioryman made. Let's refer Prioryman to WP:WQA if he makes silly comments like that again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the BLP violations started here [196]. And this one is definitely a BLP violation as it misrepresents the subject and the subject himself has express his objections.

Taken together, as well as the fact that Herostratus was desysopped over BLP issues, I'd say this is part of a pattern. Volunteer Marek  05:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, hey, I don't like him either. Let's desysop him again! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note: All of the discussions occurred after Herostratus and Prioryman were already under discussion and/or attack on the external site at which Volunteer Marek is a frequent contributor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, this is a reply to several of your comments in this thread: it's gotten to the point where most of the time I have no idea what it is you're going on about. Please at least try and make an attempt at making sense.  Volunteer Marek  08:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's particularly cryptic, Marek. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• This report is breathtakingly misguided. I would agree that WP:DENY should be applied to long term trolls, so one might have hoped that a different conversation had taken place, but invoking BLP is most unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is very clear, you can't disparage or troll living people anywhere in Wikipedia. And, I would think that Wikipedia would have zero tolerance for hatespeech or discriminatory remarks about people based on their perceived disabilities. Cla68 (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for admin action here. Also, I find the constant sniping between the Wikipedi-ocracy (probably spelled wrong, sorry) site's members and their detractors here to be generally annoying and pointless. The only effective solution that I can see would be a large number of interaction bans, the enforcement of which would probably cause a lot more drama. Maybe someone should file an Arbcom case, at least to keep all the drama in one place for a few months. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Herostratus's WP:NPA and WP:Civility violations

Herostratus (talk · contribs · block user)

AdministratorThe admonished and recalled administrator Herostratus violated WP:NPA and WP:Civility at the discussion of the category of Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. [197], [198] Other personal attacks (along with the BLP violations mentioned above) include [199]. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I was as disappointed as you to be included in H's unamusing "Asshole Department", but on a point of accuracy, I don't believe he's currently an admin. Not that that should matter. Begoon ^talk 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

An administrator that was open to recall. What a very rare thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I recall admiring his composure and integrity at the time. That was why I was a little surprised and disappointed that he described a group of people (whose names he admitted he mainly did not recognise) as a "Department of Assholes". I don't think this in itself calls for any action, though, I was personally content to share my feelings on his talk page. Begoon ^talk 12:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time he's called editors "assholes", made personal attacks, or been uncivil. (Or course, he has also been attacked, also.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've {{rpa}}'d the more egregious personal attacks from the Cfd. As of today, 4 November, civility is still a pillar and, although there was no formal close the consensus of Phase 1 of the current Civility RFC is that we ought to respect other editors, even if there's wide variation in the community as what that means in practice. Nobody Ent 13:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• As a member of the category in question, I am potentially one of the "assholes". But I don't think it's a big deal. The discussion is emotive, and the choice of words was unfortunate - but it's just a bit of letting off steam, as many of us have done over the issue in one way or another. The category discussion will be decided in a few days and we can then move on. I don't see, and would not want, any admin action being taken against Herostratus over this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much my feeling, as one of your "Departmental" colleagues :-) I felt it was worth letting H know how I took his remarks, so I did so, but I wouldn't be in favour of any admin action here - not at all. Begoon ^talk 13:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In a discussion about a category concerning the uneven enforcement of civility, a recalled and admonished administrator can repeatedly insult the minority, after insulting Volunteer Marek on his talk page?

Are there no administrators reading that page or this? Where is Sarek from Vulcan, etc., when administrators insult editors as "assholes"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow you are capable of understanding that GEROSTRATUS IS NOT A ADMIN? He said the word asshole get over it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Are there no administrators reading that page or this?" - Yes, I am. Granted I'm not acting in an admin capacity at the moment, and as a member of the Asshole Dept I'm pretty much involved. But even as one of the insulted editors I would still take no action over the "Asshole" comments, and I would oppose action by any other admin. Also, repeatedly referring to Herostratus as "a recalled and admonished administrator" looks vindictive, and I would urge you to consider moderating your approach and turning it down a notch or two (as I would similarly urge him). The last thing we need now is yet another battlefield of emotions. Nobody Ent has redacted the "Asshole" comments, which I think was a good decision, and I don't think any further action is needed over them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And his other insults of non-administrators, e.g. of Volunteer Marek as an "asshole" yesterday, on his talk page? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an emotional over-reaction, just as yours is here. I repeat (but won't repeat it again), The last thing we need now is yet another battlefield of emotions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mountain out of a molehill, read WP:DICK not for yourself but a example that we use those all over wiki, doesn't mean that we should block the editors linking to it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, I have just reverted your marking of this section as "Resolved". It is clearly still being debated and has not been resolved, and you are involved having offered your opinion. I think your closure of it was therefore inappropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - you are not WP:INVOLVED in the "Asshole" issue itself, but I do not think you are sufficiently disinterested in the discussion here, having opined on one side of the issue, to judge whether it has been Resolved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MissWorldMainPage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MissWorldMainPage (talk · contribs)

is a duck sock of

• MWMainPage (talk · contribs)

who is currently blocked for being a role account/spam promotional account for the Miss Wold competitions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

66.99.132.30 / Toddsmith199 / Toadsmith / 50.103.xxx.xxx

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For over 6 years now an editor (66.99.132.30 (talk · contribs) / Toddsmith199 (talk · contribs) / Toadsmith (talk · contribs) / 50.103.xxx.xxx) has been editing in a way that is not in keeping with Wikipedia's goals. In brief, he's obsessed with slavery, distinguishing Germans and Dutch people from Jews, and promoting various conspiracy theories and negative stereotypes about Jews, most persistently that they were behind the slave trade. Characteristics edits:

• Adds Jews and the slave trade to "See also" sections of articles (e.g. [200][201][202][203][204])
• Removes cited scholarly claims with the reason given that the scholars are "guessing" (e.g. [205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212]).
• Speculation that opium is the reason for East and West Indies exploration, with the Jews behind it (e.g. [213][214][215][216][217][218])
• Bizarre speculations about Jews on article Talk: pages (e.g. [219][220][221][222]).

A more complete description can be found here: User:Jayjg/Jews are slave traders editor.
Blocking doesn't help: he's edits while blocked, using dynamic IPs (usually in the 50.103.1xx.xxx range). I'm proposing he be banned from Wikipedia instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• If blocks are ineffective, how will banning help? And if the IP is dynamic, there's a the added danger that anyone making Jewish related edits that appear to some as less than neutral might be blocked as a sock.--Scott Mac 00:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Banning means that the editor edits can be reverted with far less bureaucracy. There's no real danger that "anyone making Jewish related edits that appear to some as less than neutral might be blocked as a sock" because this editor makes very characteristic edits (as outlined above), geolocates to a specific area, and almost always edits from either 66.99.132.30 or 50.103.1xx.xxx. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If there's a recognizable pattern to his editing, you could consider one of those "trigger"-like processes (I'm ashamed I've forgotten just what they're called - some kind of "filter", maybe), which would be intended to foil him in the act of trying to post his nonsense, regardless of what article it's on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• 66.99.132.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- This appears to be a static IP from an Illinois state agency which has been blocked many times in the past, for up to six months. I suggest a one-year anon-only block.
• Range contributions from 50.103.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). -- How about a two-month block of this /16 range (anon only). EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why that range? He typically edits from the 50.103.1xx.xxx range. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, wrong range. Fixed my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified support of a WP:BAN to expedite future damage-control efforts; qualification is only if the IP range is considered small enough and the edit style idiosyncratic enough to yield a very high confidence when suspected future edits are found. This is a judgment call I don't yet have enough experience to make, but I'm guessing the answer is Yes. IP assignments geolocated to same locality and were static, so the individual appears to be IP-hopping on purpose to evade scrutiny and blocks. I looked through about 20 of his article edits and didn't see a single one that wasn't reverted or otherwise removed, and I never saw a source added. Even article talk page comments failed WP:OR, except one that I found that was a claim phrased as a question (no source provided), and the individual was entirely uncommunicative at the user talk pages of the named accounts. This individual has been doing this sort of damage for a while and a change of heart seems very unlikely. Zad68 03:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Having looked thru some of the IP's edits over 6 years I really do not know why this person is still here editing. Seems to be disruptive to say the least. Deleting sourced material wholesale,big chunks of articles only to be reverted. Edit waring as well. Could deserve a ban just for edit waring on the links above.I do not think that the IP is adding anything positive to wikipedia articles at all.Kabulbuddha (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)strike comment by banned user -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• I support both the proposed ban and blocks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• I support both the proposed ban and blocks. Rjensen (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether the user can already be considered de facto banned, if supporting the blocks and ban make it easier for Jayjg and others to keep a lid on the disruption then I support the ban.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• I support both the proposed ban and blocks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban 'n' block. GiantSnowman 11:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban and block. Some of these edits are bizarre. Ankh.Morpork 14:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ZappaOMati 22:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I may go ahead and close this. The IP blocks seem uncontroversial, so I have done those. Is it time to enact the ban? The best approach is for someone who hasn't expressed an opinion to judge the consensus. Scott Mac has doubted the usefulness of a ban, and Zad68 gave only qualified support. Everyone else seems to be in favor. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed the qualifications I had on my support have now been met. It is clear the community sees the proposed method of identifying the edits as satisfactory, so count me as full Support. Zad68 19:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He has continued to edit in the same way, but is now using deliberately deceptive edit summaries: for example: [223][224][225][226]. In addition, now that IP editing has been blocked, he's started using one of his accounts again:[227][228]. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Gracious, six years of this? Community ban. --Dweller (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Range block too assuming a collateral damage check was done. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP violation on user's talk page (not to mention personal attacks)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Herostratus, along with User:Prioryman have made comments on Herostratus' talk page, which aside from being obnoxious insults directed at a person who can't answer back, are a clear WP:BLP violation. Specifically WP:BLP clearly states [229] "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.", with the only exception allowed being a user talking about himself.

I originally removed the attacks [230], which Herostratus reverted [231] with the claim that he was a "reasonable person". Taking that on good faith I simply asked him to remove the BLP attacks and defamation himself [232]. His response was... let's say "less than cordial". Basically, in addition to refusing to remove the BLP attacks he threw in some personal attacks directed at myself, specifically: "So "cannot reply to you directly" kind of doesn't apply when he's got little ____s like you to come over and whine for him, n'est-ce pas?". Now, I don't give a flip about insults flung my way, even though I do believe a prominent admin got themselves in a whole lotta trouble by calling someone "a little shit" - which is obviously what Herostratus' "_____" means, even if he wants to WP:GAME the civility border there. But the BLP violations have to go.

And just for the record, the posts include outright falsehoods and defamation, starting with the fact that no one asked me to make any edits on their behalf and ending with the fact that no one has threatened Herostratus. Volunteer Marek  01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No no, this cannot be! For a certain party has been assured by Dramies and ErrantX (among others) that there is no need to watch Prioryman, because there are so many others to do it - and Dramies and ErrantX (among others) are quite honourable and would never just sweep something under the rug. So clearly, if he'd said anything so obnoxious and defamatory, a whole set of administrators would come down on him like a tonne of bricks and give him a two week block, followed by a four week block if he didn't instantly apologise! Since no one's lifted a finger, and Dramies and ErrantX (among others) are quite honorable and would never just sweep something under the rug, then there's nothing to worry about. QED. Also, once someone on wikipediocracy said something nasty and it took a few hours to delete it, so it's ok for us to say as much nasty stuff as possible and do nothing. And don't you dare point out any hypocrisy... that's clearly the actions of a hate site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.13.40 (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You're the only person that uses the "Dramies" slur, so it's obvious. Why don't you just log in to say your piece? Pathetic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh. As soon as I create an actual account, unaccountable clique-players like you would ban it. Don't pretend otherwise. What's pathetic is the behaviour here by people who put online chat mates ahead of doing what's actually right... oh.. and people who'll look hypocrisy in the face and change the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.13.40 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking you in the face. What's your excuse? Oh, and the moment I ever see Prioryman, Herostratus, or whatever that other guy's name was talk to me in "online chat" I will be most surprised indeed. I don't associate with arsonists, not here or anywhere else. (For the humour-impaired; no-one called Prioryman ever burned down a temple, that I know of.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The user is incivil to you and should not be.

The user does not accuse anyone in particular of threats (there is a general statement about an off-wiki site but a website is not protected by BLP), however, s/he does call some living person (not you) a "troll" and it looks like s/he says they are not smart. The link given that started the discussion did ask that off-webite users discuss the person with Herostus on wiki. What exactly is the BLP violation? It does not appear to be libel (defamation) in that talk page discussion (plain opinion usually is not). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not merely require that we not defame people here on Wikipedia; it says much more than that.

However, given that the requirement here is to defend identified persons from unfair commentary, the continued use of threats and similar by editors of what I now call "the boxcutter site", after their earlier expression of a wish to "fly to London and slit some nerdy little throats", can perhaps permit some wry cynicism (and even its expression) on the part of the temple-burning youth and his acolytes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what "continued use of threats" you are referring to - AFAICT you're making stuff up. But you are right in that this is in fact a gross BLP violation regardless of whether there is defamation involved or not (which I do think there is - specifically associating GK with death threats among other things). Volunteer Marek  05:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Then answer me this. Was the person who requested the discussion be opened on Herostratus' talk page, a staff member of a website which also has staff members who have in the past made comments about wanting to "fly to London and cut some nerdy little throats"? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this comment extremely offensive, as I have friends who are little people. It's the same thing as belittling physically or mentally challenged people. It is also as clear a violation of BLP as I have ever seen. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I don't think that comment is a good idea. I think that Prioryman should strike it, and find an analogy that more properly reflects Kohs' intellectual abilities. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Too late, looks like it's already been removed. What a silly comment Prioryman made. Let's refer Prioryman to WP:WQA if he makes silly comments like that again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the BLP violations started here [233]. And this one is definitely a BLP violation as it misrepresents the subject and the subject himself has express his objections.

Taken together, as well as the fact that Herostratus was desysopped over BLP issues, I'd say this is part of a pattern. Volunteer Marek  05:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, hey, I don't like him either. Let's desysop him again! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note: All of the discussions occurred after Herostratus and Prioryman were already under discussion and/or attack on the external site at which Volunteer Marek is a frequent contributor. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, this is a reply to several of your comments in this thread: it's gotten to the point where most of the time I have no idea what it is you're going on about. Please at least try and make an attempt at making sense.  Volunteer Marek  08:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's particularly cryptic, Marek. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• This report is breathtakingly misguided. I would agree that WP:DENY should be applied to long term trolls, so one might have hoped that a different conversation had taken place, but invoking BLP is most unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is very clear, you can't disparage or troll living people anywhere in Wikipedia. And, I would think that Wikipedia would have zero tolerance for hatespeech or discriminatory remarks about people based on their perceived disabilities. Cla68 (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for admin action here. Also, I find the constant sniping between the Wikipedi-ocracy (probably spelled wrong, sorry) site's members and their detractors here to be generally annoying and pointless. The only effective solution that I can see would be a large number of interaction bans, the enforcement of which would probably cause a lot more drama. Maybe someone should file an Arbcom case, at least to keep all the drama in one place for a few months. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Herostratus's WP:NPA and WP:Civility violations

Herostratus (talk · contribs · block user)

AdministratorThe admonished and recalled administrator Herostratus violated WP:NPA and WP:Civility at the discussion of the category of Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. [234], [235] Other personal attacks (along with the BLP violations mentioned above) include [236]. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I was as disappointed as you to be included in H's unamusing "Asshole Department", but on a point of accuracy, I don't believe he's currently an admin. Not that that should matter. Begoon ^talk 11:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

An administrator that was open to recall. What a very rare thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I recall admiring his composure and integrity at the time. That was why I was a little surprised and disappointed that he described a group of people (whose names he admitted he mainly did not recognise) as a "Department of Assholes". I don't think this in itself calls for any action, though, I was personally content to share my feelings on his talk page. Begoon ^talk 12:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the first time he's called editors "assholes", made personal attacks, or been uncivil. (Or course, he has also been attacked, also.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I've {{rpa}}'d the more egregious personal attacks from the Cfd. As of today, 4 November, civility is still a pillar and, although there was no formal close the consensus of Phase 1 of the current Civility RFC is that we ought to respect other editors, even if there's wide variation in the community as what that means in practice. Nobody Ent 13:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• As a member of the category in question, I am potentially one of the "assholes". But I don't think it's a big deal. The discussion is emotive, and the choice of words was unfortunate - but it's just a bit of letting off steam, as many of us have done over the issue in one way or another. The category discussion will be decided in a few days and we can then move on. I don't see, and would not want, any admin action being taken against Herostratus over this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much my feeling, as one of your "Departmental" colleagues :-) I felt it was worth letting H know how I took his remarks, so I did so, but I wouldn't be in favour of any admin action here - not at all. Begoon ^talk 13:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

In a discussion about a category concerning the uneven enforcement of civility, a recalled and admonished administrator can repeatedly insult the minority, after insulting Volunteer Marek on his talk page?

Are there no administrators reading that page or this? Where is Sarek from Vulcan, etc., when administrators insult editors as "assholes"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow you are capable of understanding that GEROSTRATUS IS NOT A ADMIN? He said the word asshole get over it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Are there no administrators reading that page or this?" - Yes, I am. Granted I'm not acting in an admin capacity at the moment, and as a member of the Asshole Dept I'm pretty much involved. But even as one of the insulted editors I would still take no action over the "Asshole" comments, and I would oppose action by any other admin. Also, repeatedly referring to Herostratus as "a recalled and admonished administrator" looks vindictive, and I would urge you to consider moderating your approach and turning it down a notch or two (as I would similarly urge him). The last thing we need now is yet another battlefield of emotions. Nobody Ent has redacted the "Asshole" comments, which I think was a good decision, and I don't think any further action is needed over them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And his other insults of non-administrators, e.g. of Volunteer Marek as an "asshole" yesterday, on his talk page? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's an emotional over-reaction, just as yours is here. I repeat (but won't repeat it again), The last thing we need now is yet another battlefield of emotions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Mountain out of a molehill, read WP:DICK not for yourself but a example that we use those all over wiki, doesn't mean that we should block the editors linking to it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket, I have just reverted your marking of this section as "Resolved". It is clearly still being debated and has not been resolved, and you are involved having offered your opinion. I think your closure of it was therefore inappropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - you are not WP:INVOLVED in the "Asshole" issue itself, but I do not think you are sufficiently disinterested in the discussion here, having opined on one side of the issue, to judge whether it has been Resolved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MissWorldMainPage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MissWorldMainPage (talk · contribs)

is a duck sock of

• MWMainPage (talk · contribs)

who is currently blocked for being a role account/spam promotional account for the Miss Wold competitions.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appropriate for semi-protection? Or another solution?

I posted the following at the Help Desk earlier this evening but was advised to come here. I'm in need of advice more than intervention, at least at this point, so I hope it is suitable to place it here. This is my query:

Since mid June, or possibly sooner, there has been a sustained pattern of edits to a number of articles related to the Scots language (most recently the main target being History of the Scots language) by a variety of IPs but which seem to be by the same user, not least because they often style themself as "Cassandra". Most of the edits are to talk pages, using them like a discussion page and promulgating either unsupported WP:OR, or lately more often purporting to be supported by sources which, on investigation, say at best something quite different to what is claimed by the IP or indeed quite the reverse of what they are claiming. Although it is possible that the user is extremely incompetent in their understanding of the sources they purport to be citing, it seems more likely, particularly after such a sustained period and with such a consistent pattern, that they are intentionally misrepresenting sources to give their personal views credibility. As well as to talk pages, there is also a number of related edits to the article pages themselves.

I, and some other users, have often simply reverted these edits, with explanations in edit summaries. I have however also, at some length (e.g. at Talk:History of the Scots language, also at Talk:Scots language but much of it subsequently deleted per WP:NOTFORUM), tried to engage with the IP on article talk pages, trying to help them understand the purpose of those talk pages, explaining about OR and often providing detailed analysis of their misrepresentaion of sources, initially in the hope that they would understand how to use sources correctly, then lately that the exposure of their mendacity would get them to desist or use sources accurately and honestly.

In the main these discussions would have been better carried out away from the article talk pages as they pertain more, or entirely, to the IP's editing rather than discussion of improvement to the article per se. As numerous and changing IPs are used by the editor it would serve no purpose to address them on one of these IP talk pages. A request to engage on my own talk page has not been accepted and I have also tried to encourage them to open a user account, to no avail. The usage of multiple IPs makes it difficult to keep track of their edits and I think it is credible that they may be avoiding opening an account to avoid sanctions that could be applied (accumulation of warnings and possibly resultant blocks). Their usage of multiple IPs also unfairly calls into question any IP edits which happen to be made by another editor entirely.

It seems clear now that the misrepresentation of sources indicates that the edits are not in good faith. The IP shows no sign of mending their ways and continues to persist in making edits in the same vein as before. I'm not sure that semi-protecting affected article talk pages to discourage forum-style posts, tedious as they are to deal with, would be regarded as appropriate although I'd be interested to hear advice on this. It may be more appropriate to semi-protect article pages but as the edits in question are spread over a number of articles and, though sustained over some months now, usually made with gaps of at least several days or weeks to any individual article.

The pattern is sustained across more than one article rather than particularly frequent to any individual article, so is semi-protection an appropriate tool here? If it is, I think the most-affected article currently is "History of the Scots language". Is there any other advice as to how this matter could be addressed? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we start talking about blocking, do you have instances of Cassandra editing articles to remove sourced information or insert OR or dodgy sources? At the end of the day, all sorts of people post all sorts of stuff on talkpages, which other editors are free to ignore if it really is nonsense(in this case, I really wouldn't know enough to comment without research). I have known people be blocked for overrunning talkpages with comments, but it's very rare. However, inserting duff info into articles is a different problem entirely. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the most recent instance I'm aware of, which claims that a RS contradicts the text of the article when in fact it supports it (elaborated in my post on the talk page). I think it is likely that Cassandra is responsible for all IP edits to this article going back to June, which are of a similar character, largely crowbarring in superfluous/off-topic qualifications to the text along the lines of unsupported assertions on the talk page. In regard to the majority of their edits, which are OR postulation appearing on talk pages, I could just start taking the line that if Cassandra says a source says X, they are probably wrong or lying and remove them per WP:NOTFORUM but instead I have been wasting considerable time checking out the sources to see if they do support their assertions. Cassandra has already called foul regarding removal of forum-type posts from talk pages.

I wasn't particularly thinking of blocking as a remedy right now, just pointing out that they may well be aware that appearing as a new IP every other time they edit means a lack of an easily traced record of their editing behaviour or a central repository of comments made to them or warnings on a user talk page which, if seen together, might attract more severe warnings, or potentially indeed a block. I was wondering more if semi-protection would be suitable, so that at least they can't mess with the article, unless of course they finally get themself an account and if they did that, users would then know to be wary that any article edits by Cassandra would likely follow the earlier pattern of misrepresenting sources and inserting OR. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any advice? Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To see how many IPs seem to be the same person, I looked through the rangecontribs from 92.5.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). I found ten IPs from 92.5.* promoting the same thesis, and noticed that the following one self-identified as 'Cassandra' at Talk:Middle Scots:

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

It does not violate Wikipedia policy to promote a thesis about the Scots language across multiple articles, but to do so with no concern for consensus is a problem. The views expressed by Cassandra at Talk:History of the Scots language/Archive 1#Third Opinion request argue that Wikipedia has a duty to include her side of the argument, which of course is not something found in our policy. Repeatedly pushing your views at one article using multiple IPs (against others' objections) *does* violate WP:SOCK. I suggest three months of semiprotection for Scots language and History of the Scots language. EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Of concern is Cassandra's statement on Talk:History_of_the_Scots_language#Third_Opinion_request where Mutt's rebuttal of her proposal is answered by, what is effectively an affirmation that she is deliberately misrepresenting the source in order to force the reader to read the source to determine the actuality of the statement. Blackmane (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for this. I'll request semiprotection as suggested.

It's also useful to know that this is in fact a violation of WP:SOCK and thanks for pointing out Cassandra's admission of misrepresentation. Now I read it again, I think I did clock it but assumed that couldn't have been the intended meaning as it is so barefaced. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I had to read it a couple of times to make sure it said what I thought she said. Basically, it seems like the whole exercise, at least for her, has been to effectively vandalise, for want of a better term, the article in such a way by misrepresenting sources and synthesising her POV so that any reader is forced to dig through the sources that would be the reference for those statements made in the article. Very, very poor scholarship. Blackmane (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin alert please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Youse are under attack at Midget. I'd run for admin and protect it, but my day is done. Mindy Dirt (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandal only account Michaelf133 (talk · contribs) Nobody Ent 21:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Long-term vandalism target; prot expired over the summer and it's been a mess recently...reprotected. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. And article about to be rep-protected. Ent, why don't you run for andmin then you can deal with this stuff :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Total lack of communication from Savannah College of Art and Design

The Savannah College of Art and Design has been working on an article at Interactive design. The result isn't bad, but it could be better. For instance, I would argue that Chris Crawford and Lisa Graham are given too much weight. Alas, despite my repeated requests, nobody on this school project is willing to engage in any discussion on the article talk page.

I am not sure what, if anything, should be done here. Just let them run open loop without any feedback from anyone not on the project? Start reverting the more questionable parts of the article with "please discuss on article talk page" in the edit comments? Ask to have the article fully protected for 24 hours to get their attention? (which would be a bit like killing a fly with a bulldozer...)

It somehow seems wrong that they have made one Wikipedia page into a walled garden where the only discussion / consensus is arrived at off-wiki in their classroom, but I cannot point to a specific policy that is being violated here.

Also see:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Possible School Project

Talk:Interactive design#Savannah College of Art and Design?

Talk:Savannah_College_of_Art_and_Design#School_Project?

I am inclined to just unwatch the page and not worry about it, but i wanted to raise the question here first. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)]

Just deal with them as would any other editor - normally. Revert/edit anything you think is questionable and start discussion on talk page. If they still refuse to discuss anything there, worry about it at that point. Might as well teach them how to collaborate with other wikipedia editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. I will do that. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, skipping the "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." is definitely not what to do. A couple of these editors talk pages now consist solely of an ANI notice. It would have been much better to post the query at one of the pumps or the WP:HELPDESK. The article is being edited by a few established editors. Nobody Ent 13:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of having any grievances regarding this page or its editors. In fact, I specifically said that they are doing a pretty good job. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, ANI is the last place I'd want to invite a new editor as it's kind of Wikipedia at its worst. Nobody Ent 22:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Point well taken. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

USER:HowardStrong is spammer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HowardStrong (talk · contribs)

he only cares about bitcoin and not wikipedia as whole. please ban him permanently he is not constructive thanks--198.105.216.188 (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HowardStrong. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oversighter needed - whole section allegedly "outing" user at Political impact of Hurricane Sandy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Section on Global Warming. prefer not to include too much info, for obvious reasons, also don't care WHO (several possible), just that it gets taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous209.6 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I got beaten to it, but it's done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If this is about the user who was interviewed by multiple media outlets about removing the GW info from the Hurricane Sandy article, the "outing" stuff is a bit overblown since he gave the info (his real name and WP username) to a national US magazine (Popular Science) among other places. I don't see much point to putting his name in the WP article on editorial grounds, but I wouldn't get jumpy with revdels, unless (at minimum) the person himself has requested them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for Interaction Ban between Tony1 and LauraHale

User:Tony1 has been repeatedly asked by User:LauraHale alone and not comment on her talk page [237] [238] but continues[239]. Told to stop [240] but keeps it up [241].

Hurls abuse at other editors [242][243] more personal attacks [244]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawkeye7 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither Tony1 or LauraHale were notified of this discussion. Now rectified.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nigel. I was just interrupted by a phone call. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the history of antagonism between the two users, I think it would be best if Tony1 were to leave it to other Signpost people to ask questions of Laura Hale. But this should not be used as a method to dodge questions about Laura's work with sports history, obviously. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

This has long been on her user page. There is nothing to ask. You know full well that she does no paid editing. It's just harassment and you know it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Rather than an interaction ban – they obviously have overlapping areas of interest and I've rarely seen interaction bans have productive results – I'd suggest everyone involved just grow up a little. You're all intelligent people so I don't think it will take a huge effort to stop sounding like children. I also note that diffs from Wikinews where Tony is not even discussing Laura have no relevance. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay. Grow up then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I think that at least, it would be reasonable to ask Tony1 to respect LauraHale's request not to post on her talk page. wctaiwan (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • +1. If Tony1 has an issue which he feels is legitimate, then there are appropriate channels where he can take it - and if he does, he will need to prevent evidence. Continuing to repost the same question on Laura's talk page when she's requested him not to post there is not the appropriate channel.

My understanding, personally, is that Laura has done no paid editing. If she is paid, declaring a COI is appropriate, but it doesn't violate any policies - making Tony1's pestering of Laura harder to justify. If Laura hasn't yet made a suitable declaration or statement COI and there is any reason to ask for it (and I'm not clear there is), then someone without a track record of harassment or bad blood with Laura should be the one to ask her. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that this was one of the alleged interactions that was unwelcome. I don't see the problem with it at all. It is a perfectly collegiate discussion about something LH apparently removed without explanation and did not respond on the relevant page. I don't see how it has to belong on the project page and not on her talk page, because Tony apparently did not get any response at the former; he ought not to have reposted after its deletion, but that's another matter. As to this, I presume Tony has/had a legitimate reason for asking if LH was engaged in paid editing. Since paid editing isn't a crime and not against our policies, she should just respond and be done with it. Her talk page is not some safe refuge where she can dodge answering questions about her own actions. Of course she can delete those posts, particularly if they are uncivil, but if they are legitimate and collegiate, such removals only makes it look like she has something to hide. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

He had no legitimate reason, none whatsoever, but that is beside the point. Since he has been asked repeatedly not to post on her talk page, for any reason, doing so is in itself uncivil, besides being kind of creepy. None of us are under any obligation to answer questions on our talk pages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry but Tony's allegation has no substance and Laura doesn't have a case to answer. I'm sure Tony wouldn't like someone alleging that he was doing paid editing without facts to support it. Also Tony has a history of harrassing editors whom he disagrees with. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry too, but are the both of you, Hawkeye and Bidgee, mind readers now? Andreas JN466 18:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Please strike that, you have no understanding of the matter. Bidgee (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am indeed sorry if Laura and Hawkeye took offence: I asked a simple question that was not rude or uncivil. I have no idea what the Signpost has to do with this; it's a bizarre angle to take. As an ordinary member of the en.WP community, I felt it was an important issue to clear up, closely related to a long-running discussion at a main-page forum, and more distantly related to an issue on which Jimmy Wales has made strongly worded comments in the press. It was up to Laura to answer yes, or no, or to inform me by email if that's what she desired. Wiping my query from her talk page simply left a question-mark over the matter, so I'm glad she has now reinstated it. Simple. Instead, I've been accused semi-publicly, among dozens of WPians: "Tony, you are a harasser. What you are doing is illegal. You are telling lies. You know it, and we all know it. Crawl back under the rock you live under and die." Hey, calm down and let's treat this in proportion. I won't post on Laura's talk page again, although I'd have thought collaboration would have been possible in the future. Tony (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Tony, what was stated on the members list (a private list) should not be published publicly. Bidgee (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, what is this members list you refer to? Skinwalker (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious about what this members list is. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A local group - not a Wikipedia thing. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a Wikipedia thing. What is it?  Volunteer Marek  01:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm slightly involved here, but I think this should be closed with no action. I haven't seen any evidence at all of Tony harassing Laura--it looks to me like a big deal is being made out of some minor comments here. I suggest everyone involved make an effort to avoid each other, or at least stick to parliamentary language, and then move on. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Also, who told Tony to "Crawl back under the rock you live under and die"? That's really not Ok. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • +1, to both of those comments by Mark. Andreas JN466 18:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The members list (private) is for members of Wikimedia Australia. As to who said the comment, well that is no ones business on en Wikipedia (or any project) as this is from a private discussion. Bidgee (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Bidgee, I'm sympathetic to you and to Laura's case, but you could win more friends by being a bit less combative. Agreed that this is an internal matter for the WM-AU list, but for the record, it was a highly uncivil and inappropriate comment, regardless of who said it and who it was directed at. I'm sure this will be addressed by one of the list moderators (and if not, I'll raise it myself). I won't make any further comment here. --Chriswaterguy talk 02:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, once a user says please stay off my talk page that should generally respected. If Tony1 has reasonable evidence that LauraHale is in violation of some Wikpedia policy, they should make a case. Otherwise, just as checkuser are not run lacking evidence, we don't go around posting I need you to answer... type queries. With regards to the Jimbo-defense: the founder made a decision a long time ago to make the community mostly self-governing and, unless it changed the past week or two, there is not currently a prohibition against paid editing of Wikipedia.Nobody Ent 15:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Tony is not a newbie, he knows what it means when someone removes a comment, especially one accusatory in nature. I don't see where anything was left unresolved. Pursuing the matter was uncivil. End of story. As for Jimbo, his views on paid editing are known. People either agree with them or do not. They are, however, his opinions, and there is no obligation on anyone to agree with him. I fail to see how agreeing with a founder of Wikipedia provides one with cover.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Bidgee, as Skinwalker asked, what is this members list you refer to? 208.54.4.224 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

While this is not in itself a matter for ANI, there is also a matter of WP:Competence here that is part of the background. Tony is an excellent copy editor and proofreader. Laura has today submitted an article containing the following gems for DYK:

• With her competitive snowboarding career starting when she was fifteen years old, she has been injured several times in competition. She qualified for and competed in the 2010 Winter Olympics in snowboard cross, where she was finished in eighteenth place, two out from qualifying for the event finals.

• At 1.65 metres (5 ft 5 in) tall and weighing 60 kilograms (130 lb),[2][5] she only speaks English.[1]

• Hickey is a snowboard slalom and snowboard cross competition,[6] who has been affiliated with the Victorian Institute of Sport[7] and coached by Lukas Prem.[1]

• While snowboarding, she has injured herself several times, including September 2008 crash that dislocated five ribs, January 2009 tear of her medial collateral ligament while competing in Austria, and a 2010 concussion and memory loss following a crash.[1]

• The paragraph following that repeats the verb "compete" in practically every one of its dozen sentences, combined with multiple occurrences of "competitor" and "competition".

An editor who produces output like that and nominates it for the main page should not get to tell people who can actually write English to go away when they are trying to tell her that her writing is not up to par. Andreas JN466 18:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, that seems to boil down to "Your writing sucks!" The subject at hand is alleged harassment about a different issue so even if it were appropriate anywhere, it wouldn't be relevant here. I think it would be appropriate to withdraw your comment and apologize to Laura. --Chriswaterguy talk 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The first diff in the OP's post above includes Laura removing a post from Tony pointing out "the density of corrections required" in her writing, and telling him not to bother her. This is why the question of writing quality is relevant. Andreas JN466 01:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Andreas, the first diff in the OP's post above relates to accusations about DYK nominations, and the others that I checked repeat that accusation. (Unfortunately the diffs were for multiple edits, so I clicked next diff and then previous diff to find what was deleted. I may have missed something.) --Chriswaterguy talk 02:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You did: the diff I gave in my reply to you above. This is the diff that the edit summary on the left of the first diff at the top of this thread belongs to. Andreas JN466 02:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, got it. It looks like Tony is correcting a comment by Laura on a talk or project page, not her writing in article space, and is being exceptionally pedantic. At a glance, most of the "corrections" are completely unnecessary in casual writing, and none strike me as a big deal. I can't see the value of Tony's post other than as harassment.

Laura removed it with the comment "I would ask in the future that if you wish to communicate with me, you do so on the relevant project talk page." I think that was an appropriate and restrained response. --Chriswaterguy talk 04:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this rises to the level of an interaction ban yet, but Tony1 should not make accusations like that without substantial evidence. It's tantamount to accusing people of plagiarism. --Rschen7754 19:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Tins of tuna all round. (Not quite deserving of trout). Let's get back to work? --Dweller (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC) PS, a proper trout to anyone who makes a "member" joke here.

That's a trout for you then, isn't it. --Andreas JN466 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

To answer the questions about the members list, these posts are refering to a (rather heated) exchange of emails on the Wikimedia Australia members mailing list involving several of the above mentioned editors (including both Laura and Tony). Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Where is this list located? It's not Wikimediaau-l, because that has public archives. Andreas JN466 21:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the WP-AU email mailing list doesn't have public archives, and membership of the mailing list is limited to members of WP-AU (I may well be wrong about this though). Nick-D (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nick is correct about the above, the WMAU members list does not have public archives and is only open to members of the chapter. Wikimediaau is a more general purpose list for Wikimedians in Australia, and it does have a public archive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC).

That doesn't answer my question. I asked where the private members list is located. Is it a Wikimedia list, or is it run privately? The official Wikimediaau-l mailing list does have public archives, as do most Wikimedia lists (with some exceptions). The Wikimediaau-l archives are here – it doesn't seem that there is much traffic on the public list. Andreas JN466 01:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, I've just noticed that Bidgee has answered that below. The list is not hosted by the WMF. So who does host it? Andreas JN466 01:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, I've just noticed that Bidgee has answered that one above. :)) The address given at http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Members_mailing_list is http://lists.wikimedia.org.au/mailman/private/members_lists.wikimedia.org.au/ – so it is not hosted by WMF, but by wikimedia.org.au Andreas JN466 01:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• I beseech Hawkeye7 to withdraw his request and close the discussion. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree, Tony took it a step further to publish a private comment (which should be removed and oversighted) from the WM-AU's member list which isn't hosted by WMF and he has a history of harrassing editors but posting a private email (doesn't matter who stated the "comment" on the list, thats not en Wiki's issue) is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Bidgee (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
    • People at WMUK just went through considerable soul searching to make their mailing list public again, for which they should be commended. I think it would be more appropriate if Wikimedia Australia did so too. You might find that behavioural standards on the list, which seem to be quite lax right now, pick up. It is also more consistent with the Wikimedia ideal of transparency. Andreas JN466 01:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment For a long time, I've seen various editors request that some other editor never post to their talk page. I think this is bad practice. I gather that the community accepts this practice, but I don't think it should be encouraged. It just makes things awkward when there is a legitimate need to post a comment to another editor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

While that is a fair position past practice has shown that too many users abuse this legitimate need to harass users and that interaction bans a very effective to enable the wider community to identify the antaganisor and take appropriate action. Gnangarra 23:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time and suggest closure, as no consensus for the interaction ban appears to be developing. Practices of WMAU or appropriateness of asking others not to post on a user talk page should be examined in a new thread, off AN/I, if needed. A proposal for an interaction ban should not become a coatrack for those things, or for criticising either LauraHale or Tony1 on unrelated matters. wctaiwan (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The private comment quoted by Tony and Mark should be removed and revdel/oversighted, it is a breach of privay and also a copyright violation (emails are copyrightable). Bidgee (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ever heard of fair use? Care to show us a case where someone won a copyright lawsuit for publishing an email snippet like that? I can show you OPG v. Diebold in the opposite direction (15K emails published). See WP:POSTEMAIL for the wiki "law" (or lack thereof). Tijfo098 (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
      • These emails, regardless of their contents, are surely not appropriate in mainspace, and WMF policy prohibits nonfree content (even when a fair use claim can be made) outside of mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • The use your admin pohwaz and delete all the quotes from books given on all the article talk pages. Start with Talk:Hans Eysenck move to Talk:Axiom of regularity and earn lots of admin barnstars. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh, and don't forget to delete most of WP:RS/N (archives) too. Lots of quotes from copyrighted sources given there as well, e.g. [245] [246]. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Also go an delete any ANI discussion archives of plagiarism and close paraphrasing cases, e.g. [247] Any comparative examples there necessarily include quotes from the original copyrighted sources. Some portions of RfAs should be deleted too, e.g. [248]. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This kind of childish nonsense is one of the things that's so dispiriting about Wikipedia. Tony1 and LauraHale are adults, let them sort their differences out between themselves. There's far too much of this "stern rebuke from teacher" crap around here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If LH had answered Tony's question with a 'yes' or 'no', instead of a delete? then this thread would've been unnecessary. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually she did. So this thread is unnecessary. Rich Farmbrough, 05:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

This has some close parallels to the Racepacket affair lots of the same faces making some of the same arguments. Also, there is nothing in Tony's block log about harassment; anti-Malleus style block log flashing is a cliche. I agree with RF above. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I will email Hawykeye privately tomorrow—for the first time—to try to arrange a mutually agreeable calming down and resolution. No good comes of bad blood like this, either on-wiki or elsewhere. Tony (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

+1 I seem to remember a very distinct set of principles, findings of fact, sanctions applied from the above mentioned case. Seeing several editors from both sides of the issue show up again clustered around these users and reasoning is an indicator of a potential resurgance of issues. Hasteur (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK topic ban discussion

A DYK topic ban has been suggested for LauraHale at WT:DYK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Banning_Laura_Hale_from_DYK.3F Andreas JN466 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Two Wrongs

• Two Wrongs (talk · contribs)
• 140.247.141.146 (talk · contribs)

User has tried to rewrite a section of Women artists, wishing to remove much content w/o seeking consensus, in favor of weighing the section on behalf of one artist. The intent may have been good initially, but they're way off base. I've tried to discuss this at both the user's and the article talk page, but am receiving accusations of vandalism and incompetence for my troubles--WP:BOOMERANG. A real good example of why good contributors get worn down here. JNW (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Please provide WP:DIFFs of these vandalism and incompetence accusations. Additionally, why are you pretending to be retired but still actively editing and engaging in edit-warring? 140.247.141.146 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

One diff suffices [249]. A user's activity status is beside the point, no? And I'll welcome an administrative view as to whether I've been edit warring--I attempted to discuss this with the other user, and approached both this and the Visual Arts noticeboards. As I said, there's a reason editors walk away. JNW (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

One diff shows nothing more than an extremely minor scuffle. You accused him of vandalism and now he is returning the favor. Why didn't you simply try to be civil and open a discussion about his edits? Also, please answer the retired question. That dishonesty concerns me more than anything else. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try editing under your actual user ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPs are human too. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the non-denial denial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If the representation of my activity status troubles you as much as you profess, please feel free to open a separate discussion on this page. Interestingly, you haven't taken notice of Two Wrongs' edits, which disfigured the article and years' worth of construction by numerous writers, nor their subsequent talk page aggressiveness. JNW (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:PETARD 140.247.141.146 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I find your accusations as misguided as those of Two Wrongs; mind you, there's no intent to imply a relationship, but here, too, I think other editors will be able to read the interchange and discern credibility. Please don't post on my talk page again. And unless your sole intent is harassment, I encourage you to open a thread concerning your problems with my history. JNW (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You do not own the talk page associated with the account you edit under. You are lying when you say you are retired. You are not retired. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Cite a rule that prohibits a self-declared "retired" account from editing again? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:Don't lie. 140.247.141.146 (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So if he tooked down the "retired" banner, would that fix the problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:LIARLIAR. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a little tricky to present diffs when a guy makes like 50 consecutive edits, but if this links properly, you should be able to see the alleged butchering of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

User Two Wrongs made a continuous sequence of about 67 edits which removed about 55 artists from the article and added and emphasized one artist in particular, & possibly images by a couple others. Also their response to some nice attempts to discuss was a series of insults and baseless accusations. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding IP 140 to the above complaint, whose edits here and at my talk page now constitute harassment. Don't know if there's a connection between the accounts, but this sounds like quacking. JNW (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

He is now vandalizing my talkpage as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ripe for WP:AIV. Single purpose account, tendentious and harassing. I'm more inclined to think it's a sock. Took up this campaign right after Two Wrongs went silent. JNW (talk) 02:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

IP 140.247.141.146's edits seem to suggest that he's intentionally trolling. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, between edits here, edits at his talk page, and pretending to block Morphzone. I've not looked into Two Wrongs, so this comment is irrelevant for his situation. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just to support JNW's account; as always he has been very patient on the talk page. I have added a shorter version of the text re the artist, with one pic instead of 4. That's more than adequate while Frida Kahlo and others remain just names in a big list - this is truly a poor article, especially at the end. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend, and good work, as usual, Johnbod. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I've continued to engage at the article talk page [250], and though the rhetoric has, thankfully, tamped down, it's a barren exercise, and silly of me to pursue, given suspicions of a connection between Two Wrongs and the blocked IP. Do we have a policy regarding the foolishness of WP:AGF when it need not be assumed? JNW (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the behavior I've seen on the talk pages is certainly enough to stop applying WP:AGF and begin dealing with the behavior as it is. Intentionally disruptive, as well as aggressive. There's nothing in the policy that says AGF when the evidence all appears to point to BAD faith. I'm sure Two Wrongs may indeed have edited in good faith at first, but when he became aggressive over his edits, he entered the wrong.Khan Tiger (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Abusive sockpuppet block needed

On November 1, Eurobacfiasco (talk · contribs) began adding polemic statements regarding some supposed controversy regarding the 2012 European Baccalaureate program (example diff). The account's edits were all reverted, and the account was subsequently blocked [251]. Yesterday, a sockpuppet of this account, Eurofactoid (talk · contribs), showed up attempting to force the content back in again as "fact". The edits have been undone, the account remains unblocked. I did not take this to WP:AIV, as it is 24+ hours old, but the account does need to be blocked. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked. GiantSnowman 15:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser shows no additional socks - Alison ^❤ 17:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Accused sockpuppet making massive edits, SPI backlog preventing investigation

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000 is on hold because User:DeltaQuad requested more information. However, that was a couple of days ago and even though additional evidence has been provided, DQ has not been on Wikipedia since requesting it. In the meantime, User:Paniraja (the accused sockpuppet) has been making some massive edits here and here now that Polytechnic Institute of New York University has become unprotected. These edits, by the way, are similar to the edits by the puppetmaster. Can another admin review this case? SPI has a backlog. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok,  Done - Alison ^❤ 17:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues at Ref Desk

I'd be grateful if someone could take a look at this question for me: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Serious_question... Looks to me like some serious BLP issues inherent in the question (and trolling?), but I'm rather tired and am therefore unsure if I'd handle it correctly myself. --Dweller (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

An editor has rightly zapped it. It's a speculative question anyway, but explicitly naming public figures is over the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't trolling. I will ask the question again, without naming any particular individuals.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't classify that question as trolling. The naming of specific people was unnecessary, but they are so frequently accused of homophobia by the media (documented in our own articles on them) that I don't consider it a serious BLP issue. Cutting that out and looking at the substance of the question, he prefaces his curiosity with the claim that homophobes are more turned on by homosexuals, which is actually an entire field of psychological study, so I don't think it's obvious trolling. The question should probably just be restored without the names. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking up for me, Someguy1221. Just because I am asking a question on a topic which could be controversial doesn't mean that I'm trolling.--Monopoly on Truth (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Speculating on what salacious stuff some specific public figure might like in their private life, based on nothing but some general statistical study, is not appropriate. Not necessarily trolling, but ill-advised, and we're confident that Mr. Truth won't repeat that mistake in future. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeat spammer

117.27.138.86 (talk · contribs) has created several new talk pages with a series of spam links. These are the user's only contributions. Since the user is spamming Template talk and other low-traffic pages, these could stay for a long time. I think a block is in order, and all the talk pages created have been nominated for speedy delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I filed a report at the spam blacklist. - John Galt ✉ 19:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IP legal threat SPA

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

2.96.223.131 needs a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Indeffed notice on editor and Ip blocked 1 year pending outcome.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for administrative review of Toddst1's actions toward user:Dr.K.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I reverted the addition of the term FYROM from the article of Greece three times because the term FYROM has been restricted in Greece-related articles after lengthy arbcom processes per WP:ARBMAC and long divisive discussions on the matter. I then got a warning on my talk by Toddst1 and after I tried to explain to Toddst1 that I thought I was in full compliance of Arbcom decisions and related matters, Toddst1 (talk · contribs) revoked my rollback privilege because I used the rollback function once and logged it in the ARBMAC logs. I find this treatment for trying to abide by and uphold Arbcom WP:ARBMAC and related decisions on the highly abused topic of the FYROM onomatology, extremely unfair and dispiriting for those trying to uphold the decisions of the community and its highest body Arbcom and I am requesting that Toddst1's actions be reversed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any mention in the linked ArbCom decision prohibiting FYROM from the Greece article. Revoking of privileges should be for abusing them, not disagreeing with admin. Toddst1 warned Dr. K. at 19:30; Dr. K. made no further edits to Greece after the warning. While I concur with Toddst1 that Dr. K. was edit warring, the removal of rollback seems unreasonable. Nobody Ent 01:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nobody Ent. FYROM is a very insulting term for the Republic of Macedonia. If you look at the history of the article and the talkpage of Greece you will see many such edits and requests to change the name to FYROM summarily reverted. There has been a lengthy and divisive community debate on the naming dispute and the decision was to ban the use of the name FYROM. I have to ask Future Perfect for advice because I don't remember the correct acronyms. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) states: "This guideline is a result of a centralised discussion process instigated by the Arbitration Committee following the "Macedonia 2" case (see navigation sidebar for sub-pages where the discussion took place.) Its resulting consensus was determined by three administrators Fritzpoll (talk · contribs), J.delanoy (talk · contribs), and Shell Kinney (talk · contribs), who were named as referees by the Arbitration Committee." [emph. mine]

So yes, an arbitration ruling (ARBMAC 2) was enforced here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Lothar for finding these decisions. I know them well because I also participated. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Toddst1's actions here are, in my opinion, utterly unacceptable. Dr.K was operating in full good-faith under the spirit of the ARBMAC 2 decision, and Kupraios was informed of why his actions were unacceptable several times (after revert 1; after revert 2), choosing instead to continue to push his POV. Should Dr.K have used edit summaries? Probably, but WP:ROLLBACK states that the tool is to be used "where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear", and I believe it was made crystal clear why the reversions were made. Toddst1 deserves a slippery fish to the kisser, and Dr.K should have rollback restored and the removal stricken from the ARBMAC logs. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Nobody Ent And by the way, I reverted the name FYROM out of respect for the community decision not to use the term on Wikipedia and out of respect for the users who hail from the Republic of Macedonia who I know find the term insulting. If I were pushing the FYROM POV I would understand to be sanctioned but I find it ironic that I am sanctioned for upholding these commonsense principles. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LvR and NE here. Toddst1's actions towards Dr.K. were over the top, and rollback should be returned. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have checked this out as well and agree that Toddst1's removal of rollback should be reversed and the logged action stricken. -- Dianna (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I will also lodge support for Dr. K here, as that exact issue led to my protection of the same article in the lead-up to ARBMAC2. Toddst1 was undoubtedly acting in good faith, but he was wrong, and I would ask that he restore Dr. K's rollback and strike or purge the log entry. Horologium (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. I wanted to add that as an upholder of the Arbcom-sponsored community decisions I got logged as an ARBMAC violator but the FYROM POV-pusher who got blocked and who repeatedly trampled over the Arbcom-sponsored community consensus did not get logged. That must be one of the benefits of being a longstanding and good-faith editor here I guess. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also got to say that in my six and a half years here I have never been close to being abused by an administrator and I have held all of them to the same respect they have demonstrated toward me repeatedly over the years. This is the first time that I understand what is meant by abuse of authority on Wikipedia. I just hope that this was not the intent of Toddst1 but rather a simple misunderstanding of the mechanics of ARBMAC2. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys. Just checking back in here. From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia), "Editors are reminded that all contentious edits touching upon Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction. In cases covered by this guideline, editors reinstating the version conforming to it are not subject to this restriction." I was not aware of that and when I politely approached Dr. K, was pointed to WP:ARBMAC, not that naming convention. Had Dr. K pointed me towards the naming convention, I would have taken very different actions. My approach was to discuss with K, before any action. Given the snarkyness of the last revert, "Rv clueless edit" in all good faith on my part, it seemed like a classic ARBMAC edit war. Given the additional info, I'll restore the rollback (i.e. not clear vandalism), but it was clearly not appropriate to use rollback here (i.e. not clear vandalism), nor was the discussion with the editor yielding useful information. Toddst1 (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see Lothar's comment above: Should Dr.K have used edit summaries? Probably, but WP:ROLLBACK states that the tool is to be used "where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear", and I believe it was made crystal clear why the reversions were made. It was a crystal-clear reason why I reverted: To follow the Arbcom-sponsored ARBCOM2 decision. Your restoration of my rollback using your caution as if I made a mistake using it is wrong. You did not remove your entry from the ARBMAC logs either. That is simply not satisfactory. As far as notifying you of ARBMAC2 I did not remember the exact acronym but that is no reason to sanction me so severely. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of rollback was inappropriate in part since Kupraios is a new editor and rollback was bitey. If it's just one incident then the error doesn't rise to the level of removing the tool from Dr.K., but Dr.K. should be advised to put more effort into dialogue (and revert manually if needed) if such a situation arises again. Kupraios is currently blocked and the engagement by admins with Kupraios's unblock requests is also less than ideal in my opinion. It would be better to spend a few sentences (electrons are cheap) explaining that there was a long, drawn-out group decision to not use FYROM; that the decision itself could in principle be changed through even more discussion, but it's not ok to just do it unilaterally, etc. In short, wp:don't bite the newbies and offer the person some coaching instead. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This has apparently been mostly settled now, with Dr.K.'s rollback restored, but just a few quick comments: First, Dr.K. deserves recognition for helping to uphold a community consensus, not out of his own political motives and preferences, but out of respect for the community decision (I'm pretty sure the WP:NCMAC rules aren't the ones he would have personally favoured). Second, it's a bit unfortunate that the relevant Arbcom decisions got mixed up in the communication, both with Kupraios and with Toddst; the relevant Arbcom rule is not ARBMAC, but WP:ARBMAC2#All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned (Kupraios was in breach of that 1RR, while edits such as Dr.K.'s are explicitly exempt from it.) Finally, a reminder that {{Uw-1rrMac}} is helpful for notifying new users such as Kupraios of these conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Concur with recognition but the execution was poor; none of Dr K's edit summaries referenced ARBMACn and there was nothing on the article talk page. The body of ArbCom's work is massive and it should not be expected that editors (even admins) have it memorized. Any editor invoking a topic specific rr exception should make it explicitly clear in either the edit summary or preferrably the article talk page the circumstances of the exemption. Nobody Ent 11:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nobody Ent but there was no need for taking it to the talkpage of Greece. The article is chronically plagued from the FYROM issue. The regulars revert FYROM on sight there. Just ask FPaS. I also informed the other party on their talk about ARBMAC. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the Ent - when you undo any type of edit due to ArbComm decisions, you must specifically note that in the edit summary - period. Otherwise, you a) look just as guilty as the other party, b) are not farily advising the other party, c) are begging for a block of your own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Now try to get me on a technicality. I guess from now on I have to remember all the arcane acronyms, years after they were created and quote them like an incantation to avoid bad spirits. Meanwhile the sanctioning admins don't have to remember these landmark decisions. That's real luxury. The FYROM case is really famous. There is no excuse not to remember this landmark and famous acronym which has constantly continued to harass these articles. Toddst1 even told me on my talkpage that he has executed many actions over ARBMAC yet he did not know on his own about ARBMAC2. How can anyone log an ARBMAC action of any version without knowing full well the ARBMAC suite of decisions? The irony is the blocked party did not get his action logged under ARBMAC. Meanwhile the rollback restoration on my rights log is under a cloud. Instead of the acknowledgment that FPaS is calling for, I am being "cautioned on my rights log not to revert "not clear vandalism" despite this being a clear-cut case of upholding the spirit of Arbcom and community decisions on ARBMAC and being exempt under rollback. I want this caution removed from my rights log. As a "side benefit" to Toddst1's warning about edit-warring to me, I also get opportunistic calls on my talkpage by POV-pushing accounts taunting me about edit-warring. This is a really nice day to be a law-abiding, Arbcom-supporting, community decision upholding, nationalist POV-suppressing Wikipedian. FPaS is also right: I did not fully agree with ARBMAC2 but now that it is the rule here, as a Wikipedian I choose to uphold it and enforce it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"The blocked party" didn't edit once after your ARBMAC warning - that's why it wasn't logged - it wasn't an ARBMAC block. To be an ARBMAC block you have to warn someone about ARBMAC first. In this case, we have not evidence that the editor knew it existed when s/he was making the edits and Dr.K was less than helpful in interacting with him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I gave the editor a 3RR warning followed by an ARBMAC warning on his talkpage. Why do you assert these actions were less than helpful? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we need an extra undo button/tool for "ArbComm Enforcement" that prompts you with a dropdown list of the various ArmComm jurisprudence decisions :-) You're fine upholding it (and it's appreciated), but by definition, ArbComm enforcement != vandalism reversion and thus rollback cannot be used (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BW for your nice comments, but rollback can be used in clear-cut cases other than vandalism. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's review what WP:ROLLBACK actually says.

Misconception #1: Rollback is for vandalism only

To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear

Misconception #2: Tools [252] using the rollback function are subject to the exact same rules as simple rollback

If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary …, then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.

As I have stated before, Dr.K. could have been more specific than using the Twinkle "revert good faith" summary, but given the fact that Kupraios was given direct warnings after each revert about why his actions were in the wrong (and acknowledging the first notification, showing that he does understand how talkpages work), this is nitpicky. In fact, full talkpage posts are probably better than a character-limited edit summary. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way I did advise the other party on their talk about ARBMAC specifically because I did not do it in my edit summary. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to get anyone on a technically. Given the scope of all the arbcom cases expecting that any case is famous enough that every user will know it is just going to lead to frustration. I concur the summary on the rollback restoration is inappropriate; for one thing, rollback can be used for reverting other than vandalism if an appropriate edit summary is provided: If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. Nobody Ent 13:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point Ent about the myriad of decisions by Arbcom and thank you for your comment about the summary of the rollback restoration. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of referencing arbmac[n] or not referencing it, and more a matter of getting into an actual conversation with the person instead of coming across bristling with bureaucracy and threats. Dr.K.'s diff[[253] is IMHO quite unwelcoming to someone who had made only 20 or so edits before getting mixed up in that situation. What I'm trying to urge is for everyone to use a bit more diplomacy. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I believe there is a formal template warning that could have been used, I see nothing offensive in the personal warning that you link to above - it's diplomatic yet firm - the level of severity is definitely emphasized (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the lengthy history of the FYROM POV-pushing and the fast-paced edit-warring this account engaged in, I think my warning captured the proper level of firmness required to make the user comply with Wikipedia norms. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Sowlos's posts[254] are more diplomatic. Unless you think Kupraios is socking/meatpuppeting (in which case you should say so), it's best to to assume (WP:AGF) that the person has no clue about what Wikipedia norms are, what arbmac is, what arbitration is, what consensus is, what kinds of lengthy discussions went into the collective decision to not write "FYROM", etc. and that it's a sufficiently contentious area that they can't just follow their instincts without getting into trouble pretty quickly. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sowlos' second message arrived after the whole disruption was over and the editor was blocked. The circumstances were different and there was no more disruption being caused. Sowlos' first message had no effect whatsoever in the behaviour of the editor. I gave him a 3RR warning after Sowlos' first message with no effect either. You have to remember that when the disruption is occurring at a fast pace of edit-warring by an editor pushing known POV buttons you must act in a way to minimise disruption. The user kept on going even after my very appropriate 3RR warning, so I had to give a subsequent ARBMAC warning. They needed an appropriately firm, and proportional to the disruption being caused, message at the time. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sowlos notified Kupraios (08:26, 5 November 2012) of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) following your first revert (03:51, 5 November 2012). Kupraios then responded to Sowlos (23:46, 5 November 2012), thereby acknowledging the notice received, proceeding then to revert you twice thereafter (23:58, 5 November 2012, 00:13, 6 November 2012). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Lothar. Indeed. The editor kept reverting well past Sowlos' first message and both my 3RR and first ARBMAC messages. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr. K's rollback privilege has been restored, the edit-warring editor who kept re-inserting an term against well established consensus is blocked, and Dr. K's received feedback on how to possibly avoid similar misunderstandings in the future. Per the Pareto principle, I think we've past the 20% of discussion which is going to provide 80% of the benefit. Perhaps it's time for a close? Nobody Ent 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly agree except for one thing: The edit summary on my user rights log: (restoring rollback per discussion, with caution not to use rollback in non-vandalism cases). I don't accept that caution. It was a clear-cut issue and according to WP:ROLLBACK, use is allowed in clear-cut cases. I would request that this caution be erased. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't at all clear to me and you certainly weren't sufficiently communicative when I messaged you. If there's doubt as to why you're using it, it is inappropriate to use rollback- which is how we got here in the first place. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing unclear about ARBMAC2 and about clearcut cases such as this for using rollback. I told you about ARBMAC and you will have to forgive me I forgot the "2" as in ARBMAC2. I thought that was protection enough, given that most admins are quite knowledgeable about such things. I didn't know that I had to come up with the exact chapter and verse and you never gave me a second chance or more time anyway to defend myself for defending Wikipedia. I was busy saving Judith Donath from PROD and I was working into making it a DYK so perhaps I didn't leave as many explanations as I could have. But you told me yourself you specialise in ARBMAC blocks. It would seem that you should have investigated a little more or given me more time to explain things to you or to try to find the information for you by asking FPaS or someone else knowledgeable about ARBMAC. Instead you rushed to revoke my rollback and log me like a wiki-criminal in the ARBMAC logs within minutes. You should not log ARBMAC actions or revoke privileges without having a clear understanding of the regulations or ramifications of ARBMAC and without giving your targets some time to find the information they need to defend themselves. You should not have tried to summarily execute these actions against me. As a longstanding and good-faith Wikipedian I do not deserve to be treated so summarily and brutally. And if nothing else I deserve to be treated with more courtesy and AGF, especially if you are about to blemish my record logs forever. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion that I have "targets" is not helping your case. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, how did you take my rollback and logged me into ARBMAC logs in minutes? I can just envision you sitting with your admin tools pressing your buttons to effect my logs forever. Aim! Click! There goes the plebeian! If that's not targeting I don't know what is. Did you give me any chance for a proper and respectful discussion to present my case? Judging from your curt and threatening replies on my talk and your rocket-grade speed to revoke my rollback and log me at ARBMAC, not so much. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is clear from Arbmac2, and from Lothar's post above mentioning Kupraios' response to Sowlos, etc. that Kupraios's editing did not live up to the expectations that we reasonably have of experienced editors working in these areas. The whole idea of WP:BITE is that our expectations of experienced editors don't apply (at least in full force) to inexperienced ones. The "edit warring" is something we see all the time from newbies who see their edits reverted and treat reversion as if they're dealing with a malfunctioning piece of software (so they keep making the edit again, or otherwise try to beat their way past the malfunction) instead of editing collaboratively (treating their fellow editors as humans and interacting using normal human courtesy). WP:AGF applies even in this situation, and therefore treating the edits as vandalism is inappropriate.

I do appreciate Dr.K.'s sticking with the Arbmac naming convention and his/her trying to bring Kupraios around to doing the same thing, but if one doesn't have time to interact with another editor properly, it's preferable to describe the situation neutrally on a noticeboard (AN3 for this, I guess) and let someone else deal with it. And I'm not trying to pick on Dr.K. specifically, since as already mentioned, I see most of the other responses (other than Sowlos') as also leaving things to be desired.

I see the arbmac log has been updated to mention Dr.K's rollback is restored; this seems ok to me. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I did not treat the edits as vandalism. I treated them as a crystal-clear case of an undesirable edit as provided by the "other" acceptable uses of rollback. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I am astonished that anyone could think that a posting like this[255] was reasonable. The link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia displays a page that most people would not be able to understand. Maybe User talk:Dr.K. should have a block for his/her conduct.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. спасибо. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let us look at your recent interactions with User:Kupraios:

• Greece 03:51, 5 November 2012 (Reverted good faith edits by Kupraios (talk).
• Greece 00:02, 6 November 2012 m (Reverted edits by Kupraios (talk) to last version by SeoMac)
• User talk:Kupraios 00:03, 6 November 2012 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Greece. (TW★TW))
• User talk:Kupraios 00:05, 6 November 2012 (→‎WP:ARBMAC: new section)
• User talk:Kupraios 00:14, 6 November 2012 (→‎WP:ARBMAC: added)
• Greece 00:17, 6 November 2012 (Reverted 1 edit by Kupraios (talk): Rv clueless edit. (TW★TW))
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism 00:20, 6 November 2012 (Reporting Kupraios. (TW★TW))

Both Dr.K. and Kupraios were edit warring. Dr.K. made no effort to explain why he/she was reverting Kupraios's edits to the article on Greece. The link to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia was not a reasonable explanation, because most people would not be able to understand it - I think the most they could get from it would be: "do not edit articles on Greece or you may be blocked".

Kupraios did attempt to discuss his/her edits with another editor User talk:Sowlos 23:47, 5 November 2012, and he/she tried to provide citations 00:13, 6 November 2012. Both of these are behaviours that we want to encourage editors to do. It is not obvious that he/she displayed the "battleground mentality" that Dr.K. claimed he/she did when he/she made the posting on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

On the other hand Dr.K. is displaying a battleground mentality, both in his/her interactions with Kupraios and his/her interactions with Toddst1, and comes across as bullying.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K. was "edit warring"? Nonsense: Editors enforcing a case where a binding #Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR. Please educate yourself on the relevant arbitration before making ignorant statements. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I just struck my humorous reply above because I no longer think you are joking. Your ridiculous accusations are in fact a joke unto themselves so I will not reply to your ridiculous comments. They simply don't deserve any attention, other than to advise you to cease your unjustifiable personal attacks and uncivil comments toward me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not a joke, they're about the same as I observed them. You should take the feedback much more seriously. You're pretty far from being without culpability here. You seem to have missed that. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the kind of culpability? Is it upholding the Arbcom decisions? What exactly is this you are alleging? This user is calling for my block for leaving an ARBMAC message on the other editor's talkpage. You came to my talkpage to assure me Toddy1 is not you and you called his accusations ridiculous. Now you are subscribing to them and his personal attacks? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. So. Here's my take: Toddst1 treated an established editor striving in good faith to maintain NPOV and ArbCom rulings with a heavy-handed, bullish disrespect. I have difficulty assuming much of either good faith or clue on his part. Dr.K. turned up the heat a little too high on a (POV-pushing) newbie and had the hot coals thrown at him as a result. At this point, Dr.K. feels personally wronged by Toddst1, and demands nothing short of a good-faithed full apology and admission of fault. This has not been forthcoming, and Dr.K. has been clearly getting more and more upset as a result. I would kindly suggest that both users log off for the night and drop the matter before this gets further out of hand. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)While not making a comment on the rights/wrongs here on either side, I do support the last part of Lothar von Richthofen's statement, there is no benefit that can come of keeping this open and feel that the best thing for both sides is for this to be put to bed now. Mtking ^(edits) 00:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with most of Lothar's comments except that I am not looking for an apology. I am simply looking for my rights log to be expunged from the "caution" statement which Toddst1 added which is completely unwarranted and false and it only serves to malign my record for the sake of saving face for Toddst1 and nothing more. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Having said that, out of respect for Lothar and his request, as well as for Mtking and his comment, I will follow their advice and not add anything more here tonight. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a risk that this thread will go on forever. I suggest that this be closed. Many of us have now been enlightened on obscure policy points that we may have forgotten. Experienced contributors may sometimes be sensitive when they are sanctioned for any reason; this is understandable. People commenting here don't have to agree with the correctness of everything done recently to want this to be closed. Please be generous and save the electrons. Insisting on an apology usually doesn't work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thread can close, Lothar's comment is well-thought-out and accurate. I'd support changing "cautioned" to "advised" in the permission log entry if that's doable. We have too much damn drama about these logs anyway and it's not at all clear to me that it helps the encyclopedia. I was thinking of suggesting in the civility RFC that they be erased on request after a few months. No idea if that will get any uptake and this isn't the right place to go into it though. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article review of X-ray pulsar-based navigation and behavior of User:Navman101

• X-ray pulsar-based navigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Navman101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Navman2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm tired of engaging in an edit war with this particular user on the X-ray pulsar article. While I'd love to have whatever sources this editor is using, this editor seems to not have a clue about Wikipedia policies and this particular page smells like a copyvio (for a great many reasons, not the least of which is the size of the edit). I would like an admin to investigate this page and take appropriate action against this user... particularly since he has already been warned about this particular issue but continues to even revert edits. I wouldn't even object to a temporary page block here if it would drive the point home to this user. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the cut-and-paste copyright infringement again and given the user a much sterner warning. If it happens again, I will block him. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this user has moved onto sockpupptry and is at it again. At this point, I think it is time to bring out the ban-hammer as this guy just doesn't seem to get it. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

48 hours to Navman101. Navman2012 is indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter Lilley and Michael Portillo

Peter Lilley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael Portillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles (and the talk pages) about two prominent British public figures are currently subject to WP:BLP violations which are poorly sourced. Philip Cross (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What specific violations? Being poorly sourced is, alas, an issue with 99% of articles, BLP or not. GiantSnowman 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are being named in blogs in relation to the Wales child abuse scandal. Both pages need to be protected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are not the only articles being hit like this. I have revdeleted the offending edits on both articles and added them to my watchlist. Bencherlite^Talk 17:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now protected Peter Lilley (3 weeks) and Talk:Peter Lilley (24 hours). More eyes on the articles of leading UK Conservative politicians from the Thatcher era welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Portillo? Unusual choice... Already have the more prominent ones on my watchlist. But this is going to continue across lots of tory MP bios until the politician involved is publicly named. This could take awhile due to the gag order on naming in the UK. Hopefully a non-UK RS will print something soon so the focus can be narrowed. Until then its just going to have to be dealt with as/when they show up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Non admin claiming to be an admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Warter_199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Warter 199 (who is being investigated as a sockpuppet of a rather prolific sockpuppeteer) starts off by filling in his userpage with templates claiming he's an admin. He's made additional edits since then, still keeping the admin templates.

Obviously, he is not an admin. At the very least he needs to know that the template he's using doesn't make him an admin, and considering his only other edits are in line with a long-term sockpuppeteer... I'll let someone else decide, but it's pretty clear what I think since I filed an SPI. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they copy pasted tweaked someone else's user page? I removed the admin stuff from their page. Nobody Ent 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If the other behavior didn't match a sockpuppeteer who's claimed to work for the government and for companies he's written about, I'd have just assumed that, removed it myself, and notified him of it. Given that other behavior, his failure to remove those templates after editing his user page four more times has me wanting a few more eyes on him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You properly filed an SPI report, and it's been confirmed that he's a sock; it's just awaiting administrative closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement of intent to go against consensus, followed by that action

User:Beleg Strongbow stated here on his talk page that he was aware that he did not have consensus to incorporate his preferred version of the article Maafa 21, but that he was going to put it in "anyway". (He has been working on his version for weeks, and there has been a lot of discussion about how it is irrelevant, incorrect, misleading, inappropriate, filled with synthesis, original research and undue weight.) About three hours later, he indeed posted his version and was reverted 90 minutes later by Roscelese. He quickly reverted to restore his version. This is clearly disruptive editing following a declaration to engage in disruptive editing. Note that the article is under 1RR sanctions because it is within the general topic of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User notified. Also, I reverted his massive edit. I'm not terribly sure he understands how consensus works, so someone may need to break that down for him. Ishdarian 03:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for notifying him; I should have done that.

I'm not so sure he is innocent of knowledge about how consensus works. His obstinacy looks purposeful to me. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My intent has not been to disrupt legitimate editing or to undermine legitimate consensus. I have sought consensus, continually asking for assistance from Binksternet and Roscelese. Please look through the multiple conversation threads and judge for yourself, but I feel that I have been acting in good faith and have made many concessions, based upon feedback. In the end, I was simply tired of being bullied and concluded that consensus was never one of their goals. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is when a group of people come to an agreement about something. When most of the group disagree with your suggestion, you can't go ahead and ignore them. This applies even when there are only a small number of people in the discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, speaking in general terms that should be obvious to anyone, but if you are willing to review the corresponding discussions within the Talk page, you may see that this simplistic definition of consensus does not exactly fit. You may also observe the following: "there have been many violtations of key behavioral policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:DNB, etc., but none of the corresponding comments were made by me, with the exception of the three borderline uncivil comments for which I have already apologized." -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No really. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This edit (2011) deleted almost the whole article, copying from this site (2007). It should be reverted and cleaned up the chronology. Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's taken care of--and it's not a matter requiring administrative attention anyway. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and it's not a copyvio--they copied it from us, since the article already contained this content in 2007. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP address vandal (Withdrawn from noticeboard)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP User 76.178.160.125 just made a vandalizing edit to the page Frank L. VanderSloot dif. The user's only other contributions are two acts of vandalism Fiona Apple's page (dif and dif). Andrew (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Why didn't you take this to WP:AIV? Go Phightins! 20:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's my mistake. I will refile the case there. Andrew (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

quick revdel please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this [256] - and my following revert (should have thought about what I was doing :( ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't quick but I deleted it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP has changed hundreds of politicians' birthplaces to historically incorrect place names

Over the last few days User talk:67.49.49.195 has changed the birthplaces of hundreds of politicians (it looks like mostly Africans and Europeans) to the current place names of cities/countries/provinces/etc. which are historiclly incorrect - for example he/she changed Salva Kiir Mayardit's birth country to South Sudan which did not exist at the time. The name changes in most cases also result in the incorrect place article to be linked. These edits violate WP:MOSBIO. In many (most?) cases the articles are subject to BLP rules thus AIUI remedial action is urgent. (The editor concerned has been notified.) Roger (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just issued a final warning. A temporary block will follow. --Tone 08:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, could someone go through the edits and revert them? --Tone 08:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted some but it's too many to check at the moment. --Tone 09:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)The IP is not responding at all to multiple attempts to get their attention - can someone please block this editor to limit the ongoing damage to WP and force him/her to attend to this attempt to discussand resolve the issue. As it is, reverting the edits is going to be a large job, I've done a few but I do actually have a life outside of WP. Roger (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning posted by Tone has put the brakes on the IP's editing. Is the there an accepted method for mass reverting the edits? Roger (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, it hasn't. One week block. Mass revert makes sense, not sure how to do it, though. Bot? --Tone 09:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I started going through the contributions list but started random sampling, and I think a lot of them have been reverted by various editors chipping in, as I couldn't find one that hadn't been changed. Will check again later but well done, people. Britmax (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, still some to do. Britmax (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSROLLBACK might have been useful :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that, until I encountered this user's edits to Kailash Purryag. The one I undid was obviously bad, this one was alright, and the validity of that one depepends on whether you like red links in your infoboxes (I don't care and have no reason to, so I've left it alone). Graham87 10:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• A friendly reminder that we really do need to end the ability of unregistered IPs to edit. Nothing but problems... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrator violating WP:BITE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Nuveen Investments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nickienelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Balph Eubank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A.K.A. John Galt
• OwenX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, a newbie User:Nickienelson (well, the account was created in 2010, but has only made a few edits until recently) posted a question on my talk page about Nuveen Investments, asking for help. I had forgotten about this, but last March, I added a few problem templates to the page, among them Undue Weight and Neutrality. The editor asked me for help editing the article, and I provided some basic guidance. The editor also posted at the talk page of Administrator User:OwenX, who has some history of editing that article. Prompted by Nickienelson, I had a look at the page, and saw that fully 3/4ths of it is overloaded with a laundry list of negative claims about the company, many of them totally unsourced, some of them sourced to blogs. An unsourced negative claim about the company was in the lede itself. I deleted the negative claims because, frankly, they violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, as well as at least one of the cited sources violating WP:RS. OwenX reverted this, and did nothing else but add a source to the lede. He then responded on his talk to Nickienelson with extremely bitey language, accusing Nickienelson of being a "corporate lackey" [257], and insisting he will revert edits to the article based (paradoxically) on POV (and COI). Do we really wonder why new editors abandon Wikipedia? Here is someone asking politely at an administrator's talk page for help and was met with unbacked accusations of COI, not to mention implying that Nickienelson and I are acting in tandem to whitewash the article (same diff linked above). Can an uninvolved person please step into this, hopefully help this newbie who has just been bitten by OwenX, and restore some semblance of sanity? OwenX has been notified and I am notifying Nickienelson now. - John Galt ✉ 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• For better or worse, no action will or can ever be taken here against any admins. Someone will soon tell you that this is the wrong forum to complain about abusive admins, and to consider opening an RFCU. Good luck with all that, and try not to get jaded by this experience. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm already jaded, but I'm not going to keep quiet about it. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A simple Google search for Nickie Nelson Nuveen should make the "newby's" COI obvious Hot Stop (Edits) 04:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you found a possible COI (I did not search as I was assuming good faith). Is that any excuse for his reference to "corporate lackeys" and violating WP:BITE? If this editor does have a COI, there is a proper response to that, and none of them involve name calling. And there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• A claim is allowed to stand unsourced in the lead if it is verified later on in the article. There were problems, maybe, with undue weight, but the WSJ isn't a blog, and Barron's isn't a blog--and those were among the references you removed from the article. Having said that, I don't approve of OwenX phrasing things the way he did so quickly, but it's perhaps understandable given the name issue and the condition of the article, which you turned back into a company brochure. It's reverted, and I suggest you don't hit rollback or undo. I note also that Owen has worked on this article going back to 2008: it may well be so that further digging in the history provides background to these issues, or that Owen simply knows things we don't. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Further: "there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims"--that's probably correct. Good thing that wasn't the case here; one might argue also that there is no excuse for an editor to remove a ton of valuable information and reliable sources from an article without much of a reason. Get to editing the article, that's what it needs. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We really want to encourage corporate PR folks to talk to us if they see problems, as Nelson has done, rather than just deploy people to make biased edits. In that respect OwenX did a terrible job. As for the article, well I don't care. Prodego ^talk 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nickienelson's comments allude to canvassing/socking and OwenX had every right to think so because of past history. User:KHCardoza is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of User:Nickienelson. The latter used this IP today which is the same IP that had tried edit-warring with OwenX in the past and KHCardoza made the same edit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIC In order to request help from uninvolved Administrators an {{uninvolved}} template should be posted here, on the WP:ANI page, filling correctly all the sections:

{{ Uninvolved | type | explanation/note | answered=yes }}

as to welcome Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED Admins to post comments on some ongoing incident.

Please note that AFAIK ALL Wikipedia ADMINistrators are volunteers, time is money and asking for help should be done only for *REAL* incidents and not for time-wasting nonsense forum-chats.

I hope that this helps.

 —  Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That template should never in a million years be used here in ANI or on AN. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Look, the admin was a bit abrasive at most while he was acting in his capacity as an editor. Maybe we should replace WP:BITE with WP:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY, since it would take care of 99% of BITE violations. Owen invoked WP:BRD as per his prerogative, and now there is an RFC on the talk page. Recommend closing this now the RFC is open, because it all boils down to being a content dispute which can be resolved in the normal way. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to concur (partly) with Betty Logan. The fact that the editor who was WP:BITEY is also an admin is somewhat irrelavent: he was not using admin tools or threats of admin action during what is undoubtedly a content dispute. Indeed, they did not edit war, or violate any policy. Yes, admins are supposed to model correct behaviour - but they're also human. The hazard to Wikipedia articles when they're edited by people with such obvious COI is apparent to anyone who has read this thread or even glanced at Wikipedia as a whole - it can, indeed, be frustrating. If you want to desysop or block anyone for biting anyone (especially an editor with COI) then I do wish you good luck with that process ... start an WP:RFC/U. The real surprise is that the COI user wasn't blocked immediately - now that might have been something to actually complain about. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An IP has changed hundreds of politicians' birthplaces to historically incorrect place names

Over the last few days User talk:67.49.49.195 has changed the birthplaces of hundreds of politicians (it looks like mostly Africans and Europeans) to the current place names of cities/countries/provinces/etc. which are historiclly incorrect - for example he/she changed Salva Kiir Mayardit's birth country to South Sudan which did not exist at the time. The name changes in most cases also result in the incorrect place article to be linked. These edits violate WP:MOSBIO. In many (most?) cases the articles are subject to BLP rules thus AIUI remedial action is urgent. (The editor concerned has been notified.) Roger (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just issued a final warning. A temporary block will follow. --Tone 08:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, could someone go through the edits and revert them? --Tone 08:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted some but it's too many to check at the moment. --Tone 09:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)The IP is not responding at all to multiple attempts to get their attention - can someone please block this editor to limit the ongoing damage to WP and force him/her to attend to this attempt to discussand resolve the issue. As it is, reverting the edits is going to be a large job, I've done a few but I do actually have a life outside of WP. Roger (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning posted by Tone has put the brakes on the IP's editing. Is the there an accepted method for mass reverting the edits? Roger (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, it hasn't. One week block. Mass revert makes sense, not sure how to do it, though. Bot? --Tone 09:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I started going through the contributions list but started random sampling, and I think a lot of them have been reverted by various editors chipping in, as I couldn't find one that hadn't been changed. Will check again later but well done, people. Britmax (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, still some to do. Britmax (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSROLLBACK might have been useful :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that, until I encountered this user's edits to Kailash Purryag. The one I undid was obviously bad, this one was alright, and the validity of that one depepends on whether you like red links in your infoboxes (I don't care and have no reason to, so I've left it alone). Graham87 10:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• A friendly reminder that we really do need to end the ability of unregistered IPs to edit. Nothing but problems... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrator violating WP:BITE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Nuveen Investments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nickienelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Balph Eubank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A.K.A. John Galt
• OwenX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, a newbie User:Nickienelson (well, the account was created in 2010, but has only made a few edits until recently) posted a question on my talk page about Nuveen Investments, asking for help. I had forgotten about this, but last March, I added a few problem templates to the page, among them Undue Weight and Neutrality. The editor asked me for help editing the article, and I provided some basic guidance. The editor also posted at the talk page of Administrator User:OwenX, who has some history of editing that article. Prompted by Nickienelson, I had a look at the page, and saw that fully 3/4ths of it is overloaded with a laundry list of negative claims about the company, many of them totally unsourced, some of them sourced to blogs. An unsourced negative claim about the company was in the lede itself. I deleted the negative claims because, frankly, they violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, as well as at least one of the cited sources violating WP:RS. OwenX reverted this, and did nothing else but add a source to the lede. He then responded on his talk to Nickienelson with extremely bitey language, accusing Nickienelson of being a "corporate lackey" [258], and insisting he will revert edits to the article based (paradoxically) on POV (and COI). Do we really wonder why new editors abandon Wikipedia? Here is someone asking politely at an administrator's talk page for help and was met with unbacked accusations of COI, not to mention implying that Nickienelson and I are acting in tandem to whitewash the article (same diff linked above). Can an uninvolved person please step into this, hopefully help this newbie who has just been bitten by OwenX, and restore some semblance of sanity? OwenX has been notified and I am notifying Nickienelson now. - John Galt ✉ 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• For better or worse, no action will or can ever be taken here against any admins. Someone will soon tell you that this is the wrong forum to complain about abusive admins, and to consider opening an RFCU. Good luck with all that, and try not to get jaded by this experience. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm already jaded, but I'm not going to keep quiet about it. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A simple Google search for Nickie Nelson Nuveen should make the "newby's" COI obvious Hot Stop (Edits) 04:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you found a possible COI (I did not search as I was assuming good faith). Is that any excuse for his reference to "corporate lackeys" and violating WP:BITE? If this editor does have a COI, there is a proper response to that, and none of them involve name calling. And there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• A claim is allowed to stand unsourced in the lead if it is verified later on in the article. There were problems, maybe, with undue weight, but the WSJ isn't a blog, and Barron's isn't a blog--and those were among the references you removed from the article. Having said that, I don't approve of OwenX phrasing things the way he did so quickly, but it's perhaps understandable given the name issue and the condition of the article, which you turned back into a company brochure. It's reverted, and I suggest you don't hit rollback or undo. I note also that Owen has worked on this article going back to 2008: it may well be so that further digging in the history provides background to these issues, or that Owen simply knows things we don't. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Further: "there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims"--that's probably correct. Good thing that wasn't the case here; one might argue also that there is no excuse for an editor to remove a ton of valuable information and reliable sources from an article without much of a reason. Get to editing the article, that's what it needs. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We really want to encourage corporate PR folks to talk to us if they see problems, as Nelson has done, rather than just deploy people to make biased edits. In that respect OwenX did a terrible job. As for the article, well I don't care. Prodego ^talk 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nickienelson's comments allude to canvassing/socking and OwenX had every right to think so because of past history. User:KHCardoza is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of User:Nickienelson. The latter used this IP today which is the same IP that had tried edit-warring with OwenX in the past and KHCardoza made the same edit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIC In order to request help from uninvolved Administrators an {{uninvolved}} template should be posted here, on the WP:ANI page, filling correctly all the sections:

{{ Uninvolved | type | explanation/note | answered=yes }}

as to welcome Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED Admins to post comments on some ongoing incident.

Please note that AFAIK ALL Wikipedia ADMINistrators are volunteers, time is money and asking for help should be done only for *REAL* incidents and not for time-wasting nonsense forum-chats.

I hope that this helps.

 —  Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That template should never in a million years be used here in ANI or on AN. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Look, the admin was a bit abrasive at most while he was acting in his capacity as an editor. Maybe we should replace WP:BITE with WP:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY, since it would take care of 99% of BITE violations. Owen invoked WP:BRD as per his prerogative, and now there is an RFC on the talk page. Recommend closing this now the RFC is open, because it all boils down to being a content dispute which can be resolved in the normal way. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to concur (partly) with Betty Logan. The fact that the editor who was WP:BITEY is also an admin is somewhat irrelavent: he was not using admin tools or threats of admin action during what is undoubtedly a content dispute. Indeed, they did not edit war, or violate any policy. Yes, admins are supposed to model correct behaviour - but they're also human. The hazard to Wikipedia articles when they're edited by people with such obvious COI is apparent to anyone who has read this thread or even glanced at Wikipedia as a whole - it can, indeed, be frustrating. If you want to desysop or block anyone for biting anyone (especially an editor with COI) then I do wish you good luck with that process ... start an WP:RFC/U. The real surprise is that the COI user wasn't blocked immediately - now that might have been something to actually complain about. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits by User talk:Carolmooredc on Russia Today

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am asking for administrative help in response to this edit by user CarolMooreDC in which the user unilaterally modified content that was agreed upon by consensus on either the relevant sub-sections on the RT talk page or through the RT section on the DNR. To justify this, the user provided the revert explanation of, “per talk return to more October 12 NPOV version worked on by several editors; updated good changes follow immediately” however in doing so the user not only removed but also subsequently failed to reinstate the content that was achieved through consensus.

As per WP:BRD, I intended to restore and modify all of the aforementioned text that was achieved through consensus, but overridden through the unilateral edits by the user CarolMooreDC, but as I’m coming off a block, I’ve decided to take this issue here first. Specifically, I draw the administrator’s attention to the following requested changes:

1. As per the RT section on the DNR, moving the Assange paragraph from the history section to the programming section. In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to these lines by third-party observer User:Noleander: “Okay, since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section.” and “Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path.”

2. As per this edit by third-party observer User:Noleander, reinstating all the the content under the criticism and controversies section in the-then current Wikipedia version of RT. In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to the user’s opinion that, “Although those are valid and belong in the article…” However, as per the RT section on the DNR, a resolution over the name of the headings has yet to be decided upon, so I would leave the headings as shown in the current version of the Wikipedia article as they are for now

2. As the content to be hypothetically reinstated is lengthy, I draw the administrator’s attention to the relevant sub-contents that were disputed and subsequently resolved:

a. The Marcin Maczka material: in particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this sentence by User:Noleander: “Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one?”

b. NY Times article by S. Heyman: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this sentence by User:Noleander: “Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used.”

c. Section for chief editor Margarita Simonyan: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this paragraph between myself, User:Carolmooredc and User:Noleander: "FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"? Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position." Note that my suggestion has yet to be disputed.

In addition to those changes, I would like to make the administrator's aware of the type of content User:Carolmooredc has been uploading onto the RT Wikipedia page. As per this edit, the user believes that statements like, "the Kremlin is using charm, good photography and a healthy dose of sex appeal to appeal to a diverse, skeptical audience. The result is entertaining--and ineffably Russian." is appropriate for a lede for the reception section of the article.

Any help on this matter would be appreciated. Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For guidance on this issue I recommend editors look at this September 20th block of Festermunk for editwarring on RT (TV network). Also see this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking his talk page which contained his October 31st block for edit warring and battleground behavior on RT (TV network), as well as rejections of his block review; as well as this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking the talk page again. I think Festermunk needs intensive mentoring to understand Wikipedia policy on edit warring. CarolMooreDC 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's should note that the comments by CarolMooreDC do not address whether or not the content that was previously agreed on by consensus should be included in the RT talk page. The user also does not address why the user failed to re-include agreed upon content after the user's edits, in violation of WP:DGF. Administrator's should also note the comments about my past conduct are irrelevant to that what is being discussed and urge that the administrator's focus only what is being proposed for discussion. Festermunk (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your complaint is a WP:Content dispute. And anyone who reads the Dispute Resolution link, the article talk page, the article edit history, or your talk page can easily see what the problem is. I am providing information relevant to this noticeboard. I'm sure someone else will explain it to you. CarolMooreDC 20:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. It has to do with content, but more specifically it has to do with your disruptive editing given how you not only deleted but did not restore content that was already accepted via consensus. That much should've been obvious to anybody who read the original post. Festermunk (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this right now, since the only thing that can come out of this is an indefinite block for Festermunk for persisting, if not (yet) in edit-warring, in battleground behavior. At any rate, there is nothing here for an administrator to do in what is a content matter that needs to be dealt with on the talk page. That Festermunk would come here first is telling and does not bode well for the future, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP is asking to be blocked

NO, literally, I recieved a note (Look at "Block this address " ) on my talk page from an IP asking that they be blocked. I left them a warning two days ago for vandalism, and since it's a school, it's likely not the same person, but more likely a teacher or something at this same IP asking that it be blocked. Since I can't do that anyway, thought I'd pass it on to an admin. (Yes, it's the same IP asking that their IP be blocked )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Block#Self-requested_blocks, I don't know if that's gonna happen, though I don't see why not if we can establish that that is a school, and that the message is from someone with the authority to request such a block (or in a position so that their higher ups won't find out/won't care). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a static IP registered to The Halton Board of Education, Ontario [259]. But I don't see any reason to block it right now. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Users Msc_44, Janedoeare, and Buck Owens talk page.

User:Msc 44 Added a bunch of information to the Buck Owens article. We ended up in a discussion about it at the article talk page. The user and User:Janedoeare have now repeatedly tried to remove the entire conversation claiming that some of it contains the users personal information [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] <-(as IP) and [265] <- Janedoeare. Msc 44 has not said which information they wish to have removed, despite being asked multiple times,[266] [267] and has insisted that the entire conversation be blanked. Janedoeare has left me a level 4 vandalism warning on my talk page with the latest revert. [268]

Msc_44 has been warned by multiple editors on multiple occasions to not remove other people's posts from that talk page. [269] [270] [271]

It is quite impossible for me to have outed the user in question in any way as the only information I know about them is what they have themselves posted to the article talk page. My feeling is that the information they want to suppress is from their own posts. I am quite happy to let them redact anything they've posted that they now see as sensitive, but I would rather the bulk of our conversation remain.

User:Janedoeare has been notified. [272] User:Msc 44 has been notified. [273]

-Sperril (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits by recently blocked user 41.243.171.14‎

41.243.171.14‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come back from a 48-hour AN/I ban to make edits to Debi Gliori and an attack on Talk:Debi Gliori. Can you help out, please? Esowteric+Talk 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: "recently banned" should read "recently blocked". Lacking nicotine late in the evening, I unfortunately posted in haste. Esowteric+Talk 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My response on the user talk page:

"Hi, I've reverted your recent edit to Debi Gliori in which you deleted accurate and reliably sourced information from The Times with the edit summary " Editor has not even read the story, see his twitter, using an attention grabbing headline from a story you have not even read is not a NPOV." I have read the lead paragraphs to the article, as these do not require a subscription." See edit diff. The source confirms the Wiki content that the IP deleted. Esowteric+Talk 22:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has made numerous postings as a Wiki editor at The Guardian, AbsoluteWrite.com, in which he has made unfounded accusations that I am involved with an involved party of Debi Gliori's Wiki page, he has while in the forum on Wiki business outed me. He has detailed his plan to "dilute the controversy" by posting book reviews, which is what Debi Gliori asked for in her blog. He is clearly on some sort of White Knight mission on behalf of Debi Gliori and has shown a clear conflict of interest. Not to mention the unfounded accusations he has made against me. He has also been telling people on twitter that he is monitoring me, using his web server skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it a little strange that you should have visited my blog, my dropbox account, my web site and my twitter account. Esowteric+Talk 22:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Put the IP under your pillow and the stalker fairy will bring you a dollar! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for lightening me up. Esowteric+Talk 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I said that I would dilute the controversy, because it was becoming WP:UNDUE. Please stop twisting everything. Visit my twitter or my blog. You won't find me calling you a troll anywhere. Esowteric+Talk 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are so hopelessly involved in this page, you are stalking me, and you don't even see it, you enter a thread as a Wiki editor, you then reveal where thread users can get my IP from, you then spend the next 48 hours telling everyone that you're being attacked by the dark forces of the internet. What have I done in the last 48 hours ? read your messages rallying up the forces against evil. I adopt a peaceful wait and see, you incite others against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

All I linked to was the publicly-available edit history for the article. And my username and your IP are logged and displayed every time we edit. See the end of your comment above. Anyhow, I need to go to bed now. Esowteric+Talk 23:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wiki rules Esowteric has posted information on his user page, my usernames at 2 other sites, this information can clearly be used to help identify me and users could contact me using this information which is in violation of; "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia."

None of the information he has posted was available via my userpage and is clearly an attempt along with his numerous other communications to incite others against me WP:OUTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If User:Esowteric engaged in any outing of the IP here on the pages of Wikipedia, I have not come across it yet. Two of the IP's edits at Debi Gliori have been revision-deleted, which is usually not a good sign about the person who made the edits. The continuation of off-wiki disputes here on Wikipedia is discouraged. I've now read the contents of Debi Gliori#Controversy two or three times and am uncertain on whether it belongs in the article. I have trouble seeing the IP editor as a victim, at least if I limit my study to the visible edits by all parties here on Wikipedia. After reviewing the contents of this ANI, as well as the previous one here that involved an obvious legal threat by the IP, I suggest a longer block of the IP for disruption. The future of the Controversy section might need discussing at WP:BLP/N but that is independent of any outing issues. It's a question of relevance and of the type of material appropriate for inclusion in a BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N is an interesting idea and may provide an exit strategy from this mess. See Talk:Debi Gliori for the history of the controversy section. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 10:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IP was blocked not "banned". See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has posted my usernames from two other forums on his personal talk page HERE ON WIKI, in your own rules you say this is a "personal attack" and can lead to "harm". I never gave Esowteric permission to reveal this information and he is clearly inciting others to harm me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You publicly acknowledged that this was you. I wholeheartedly apologize for any distress or harm that I have caused you, and I will learn from this lesson. However, I do not agree with you that it is "Debi Gliori and her army of fans who include J.K. Rowling" who have defamed and cyberbullied either the artist, Angus Stewart or you. Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IP should be reblocked. GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we let this matter settle down, please?

The "involved party", artist Angus Stewart, recognizing the damage that this has done, has recently issued a heartfelt plea for the issue to settle down. Many people, including Debi Gliori are thankful and grateful for this manly approach:

He writes on his Facebook page for "Tobermory Cat":

"[Tobermory Cat] May we close this thread please. I would rather like things to settled down. It seems my idea to follow the process of creating a celebrity cat turns out to be an extremely dangerous and damaging idea. It has caused a great deal of hurt and I want no more of it. My understanding of what is and what is not acceptable is misguided. It has been extremely hurtful to Debi and she does not deserve it. I met her once and she does not deserve to be hurt by my work. I don’t like that. I am guilty of following an idea too far - the fog came down and I forgot about where I wanted to go. The good thing is Debi's book came out and its a good book and will give more pleasure to more people than this page will do if this is the way its going. Good things can come from difficult beginnings and truly hope that is the case for Debi’s book. I need a bit of time to think about this so if possible could everyone take a bit of a deep breath. Time to think about good stuff not bad. I would really appreciate that. Sunday [3 November 2012] at 12:20am · Edited · Unlike · 4"

Please can we allow this issue to settle down? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to see, 41.243.171.14‎? No controversy section; the original allegations of copyright theft against Ms. Gliori, or the full story? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

− Yes I did acknowledge this was me on the forum, which I believe was the best response in the circumstances, but it wasn't for you to post the identifying information without asking me first, you then reposted the information on your talkpage. I am not sure how you expect other editors to contribute to the Debi Gliori page if this is how you behave when someone makes edits you don't like. Another editor thinks the whole controversy page you added should be removed, are you going to add another section to your talkpage called "Intimidation II", out them and then twitter for help? I think you need to understand that comment sections on news sites and forums are just people's opinions and not a Wiki of the facts. If people cannot voice their opinions without fear of reprisals then freedom of speech is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for free speech and the right to respond to perceived errors. Perhaps the best thing for you to do here is to tell us what your opinions are of Ms. Gliori's behaviour (specifically the copyright issue and the cyberbullying). That is, after all, the crux of the matter. You argued, for example, in removed posts at The Guardian that Ms. Gliori had stolen copyright "ideas" and that her blog post was thoroughly "passive-aggressive". Regards and apologies again, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: "Ms. Gliori's blog describes the first meeting as an epic battle. She claims he was digging into her life and lunged at her, both of which are absolute nonsense. She claims she "snapped" and that "Hugh dug his heals in" when they should have just left. She mocks the importance of Facebook in Mr. Stewart's life claiming that it's insignificant in hers. Then her official line is of a victim whose very existence is threatened by the internet. Maybe if she had stayed on topic about the idea that was or wasn't stolen instead of Mr. Stewart's character her argument would be sound. Instead she just goes to her mob of fans' lowest instincts, which is the very same accusation she makes against Mr. Stewart, both are guilty of appealing to their fans for action when they should have resolved the matter amongst themselves. It also seems that she was very hostile towards Mr. Stewart before he took any action against her. What should be noted is that this story has been made into an issue of cyber-bullying by the press and not copyright and Ms. Gliori seems, so far, quite happy to go along with this. I think that it's important to note that the current flavour of the month for the press is "Cyber-bullying" and editors should be wary of any bias in the press because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like to express your opinion on the copyright issue, as this is absolutely crucial to the case? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: ""Attacked by internet troll" should fall under Godwin's Law, it's just too easy to label anything you don't like as a "troll". Is it really immoral or evil to accuse someone of theft if you believe it to be true? If a wiki page reports someone as having been viciously trolled, does that actually explain what happened ? Not really, only that the writer believed it to be immoral and disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The copyright issue was explained at great length at Copyright – words and images, not ideas, titles or cats and later at AbsoluteWrite, by writing professionals. Esowteric+Talk 14:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of copyright it's worth noting that the publisher/book seller/author talk as if the cat were still alive, prior to the author writing her book, the cat alive was The Tobermory Cat of Mr. Stewart. Also the author describes the cat they were going to write the book about "even has it's own Facebook page". So if the real cat was dead what other cat could they possibly be talking about. I really think that the evidence at hand shows that the publisher/book seller/author intended writing about Mr. Stewart's cat(fictional creation), and as Mr. Stewart has pointed out there were many other similarities, of his creating, that appeared in drafts by the author. The author also admitted she had to go to the island to find more about the cat, but it was dead, so it's likely she could have injected some of Mr. Stewart's creation from talking to the locals as some of Mr. Stewart's observations of the cat must have already made it into local folklore. I don't think The Tobermory cat belongs to Mr. Stewart but they have obviously used some of his fictional creation and that is why they visited Mr. Stewart in the first place. Their original claims that they only knew he was taking photos of the cat are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All we can go on is what is reported in reliable and verifiable sources. This is why I used the words "unproven allegations" (with intentional redundancy), rather than simply "allegations" (whereby mud might stick) and obviously, I could not use the words "unfounded allegations" (as Wikipedia is not a court of law). Esowteric+Talk 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything is said other than "Debi Gliori and Mr. Stewart are involved in a bitter copyright dispute" it would be unreliable. "Viciously attacked by internet trolls" is journalist-speak for "Don't let my career die behind this pay-wall", if you use this then we will have to start talking about troll massacres in describing other events. The word troll is now used to describe anything that offends anyone on the internet, so what she's really saying is "Viciously attacked by words they didn't like" which simplifies to "offended". Is this TMZ or Wiki ?

I also fail to understand what a cat that lived in the previous century, or two that lived in a distillery have to do with this dispute, both parties base their dispute on a cat that died recently and one's living. This is not The Tobermory Cat Wiki page is it? Why is there a discussion of other cats of the same name ? Neither of their works are based on these cats or am I missing a source because it was her army of internet fans that came up with this information after the fact and Ms Gliori makes no mention of it in the design process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning! The copyright dispute depends on the artist Angus Stewart having produced a substantially original creation about a cat named "Tobermory" or "Tobermory Cat" that is copyrightable, an issue that has been extensively argued on-line by writing professionals.

The lead paragraph of the controversy section is there to provide background information to introduce the controversy section and put it in perspective, and to add counterbalance to the allegations.

It is up to the reader to then decide for himself or herself whether others might have come up with the idea of a cat called Tobermory, made him famous, or whether the actual living cat Tobermory was already well known; or whether Mr. Stewart had come up with a substantially original creation. This is much better than leading with the otherwise provocative and unexplained paragraph "In 2011–12, Debi Gliori was at the centre of a disagreement about copyright surrounding a character named "Tobermory Cat" ..." Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take this back to a POV/attack entry alleging copyright infringement against Debi Gliori, with no rebuttal, redress or counterbalance, but that is not how Wikipedia works. See first edit, later edit. The problem with words like "allegedly stole" and the selective use of citations is that mud sticks and you have to be proactive to counterbalance that. Esowteric+Talk 09:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Both parties are in a copyright dispute, nothing has been decided by a court of law, the views of Ms. Gliori's fans, fellow authors and journalists are prejudicial. They would never be used to decide what is fair elsewhere, why here at Wiki ? What do the involved parties say about the matter and forget about the rest.

Ms. Gliori in her blog makes it very clear the cat the publisher wanted the story to be about "even has it's own Facebook page" and the publisher asked her to look at the FaceBook page before starting her book. That is very relevant and would be the words of Ms. Gliori on her own Wiki page. This should be included on the Wiki if you are going to use a mud tree like "viciously attacked by internet trolls" to throw at Mr. Stewart. Currently the section on controversy is the view being put forward by her fans, with next to nothing about what she actually said and what Mr. Stewart actually said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section draws on reliable and verifiable sources from both "sides" which chose to publish. Ms. Gliori's blog being a primary/self-published source, the article does no more than describe the nature of the post, it does not draw any quotable content from it. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we, therefore, invite Angus Stewart, Debi Gliori and her publisher to view and, if they see fit, comment on this thread? Esowteric+Talk 14:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Undue

OK, ‎TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has now removed a lot of material in the Reception section from Debi Gliori. What this does, of course, is make the Controversy over "Tobermory" section stand out like a sore thumb and I would agree that it is now WP:UNDUE, as TheRedPenOfDoom has tagged and indicated. So should the contoversy section be removed entirely, or trimmed?

If trimmed, what can we say about the controversy that will satisfy the artist who claimed "theft of his ideas" (infringement of copyright); the author and publisher who strenuously deny such allegations; and also fairly represent the regional and national press and television who have written extensively about the matter? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We could take out the Controversy section altogether and add the reliable sources to the Media coverage section, simply as uncommented bulleted items. However, this may not fairly represent the story. Esowteric+Talk 07:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the factually accurate lead paragraph, explaining that the cat, subject of the copyright infringement allegations was already well known. Also removed the direct quote from The Times: ", [writing that] "Gliori was viciously attacked on the internet by trolls." Esowteric+Talk 07:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the controversy section per WP:UNDUE and added bulleted list to Media reception without comment. I am concerned, however, that readers will be left with totally the wrong idea about the unproven allegations of IP theft. Anyhow, please fight this out amongst yourselves. Esowteric+Talk 08:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gregoryat and disruptive edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Over the last few days, User:Gregoryat has seemingly committed several offenses against Wikipedia standards and guidelines. It all starts with an article the subject created about themselve at Greg Terhune. While that isn't of itself a big issue, their behavior and actions since that point have become disruptive. From Wiki-lawyering, (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3), to personal attacks, (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5), to telling multiple experienced editors that don't understand established wiki policy (too many to list, but main issue lies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Terhune). The user has been warned of their behavior, but the person continues to engage in bad behavior ((Warning and deleting someone else's comment at the deletion discussion). Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked for a week for operating a sockpuppet (LA Kings 23 (talk · contribs)). Favonian (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's also accused me of libel (three times at last count?), described editors as "stupid", and accused others of "gross negligence". He's been blocked for socking for a week, but given his attitude at the AfD he is clearly not here to contribute positively. I personaly would favour an indef. GiantSnowman 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess while I was putting together the list, he was blocked. So you can add sockpuppetry to the other charges in case he wants to come back. Patken4 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note the one week block was placed based solely on my findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregoryat. If any admin would like to extend the block based on other behavioural factors then I have no problem with that. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He's clearly not here to be helpful. Those mentions of libel should be an indication for an indef don't you think? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Saying the L word doesn't automatically make a legal threat. If you delete this I'll sue you for libel is a legal threat. Editors frequently discuss whether an edit is a "copyvio," for example, but that's not a legal threat either. Nobody Ent 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree he hasn't made any explicit legal threats - but he is clearly not here to be constructive. GiantSnowman 22:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I do see where you're coming from. I've thought about this before and I feel that if an editor is continuously using "libel", specifically referring to libel against himself, in order to intimidate other editors and skew discussion then that's probably grounds for an indefinite block. Like GS said, he's not here to help is he? Anyway, probably redundant Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't cost us much to let the block time out and see if post-block behavior improves. (I consider AGF to be a code of conduct for ourselves, not a probability assessment.) Nobody Ent 23:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this unfold and trying to help Gregory for the last few days. The legalistic comments did not rise to the level of a legal threat or I would have blocked him myself, although I did warn him about the NLT policy since he was headed in that general direction. He also edit warred with Patken4 on his talk page but that seemed to be a newbie misunderstanding of the difference between removing a comment on an article or WP-space talk page and doing so on a user talk page so I again warned but did not block. I have to say the condescending, arrogant, know-it-all attitude of this user does not fill me with hope that they will turn around and become a productive user after the block has expired, but stranger things have happened. As I said on his talk page this whole incident is a textbook example of why it is a bad idea to create autobiographies on WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And now he is removing every post by another user to his talk page, but leaving his own replies to those posts. This sort of childishness does not bode well for the future, and also would seem to contradict his claim to be a law student. (of course one of the sources he provided about himself said his undergrad major was "sports marketing" so I already had my doubts about that) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of his spam from my own talk page, but his behaviour towards me and the other Wikipedia editors involved in the AfD over his personal article was unbelievable - as was the totally off-topic spam about Barack Obama being, in his eyes, Kenyan (which I'm fairly sure was removed). I apologize for some of the name-calling (for want of a better word) I used towards him, it was sheer frustration at the way he was acting both towards me and other editors, but that's no real excuse and I am disappointed with myself for responding in such a manner. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A pathetic individual; a really despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded sociopath who had a very impoverished upbringing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

However wrong I may have been, did I really deserve to be called a "a pathetic individual" and "a really despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded sociopath" who "had a very impoverished upbringing" by User:Tagishsimon? I don't understand how someone can write such things about a person he or she encountered only a day before. All of that is a result of a single, trivial dispute. At first, I did not intend to be all dramatic about this, but it occurred to me that such behaviour should not go unnoticed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, you don't, removed comment {{rpa}}.
• Both editors got into an increasing spiral of accusation and counter accusation. I'd encourage both to stop discussing and describing each other. Best way to resolve the disagreement is to get additional assistance; I'd suggest WP:DRN or WP:THIRD. Nobody Ent 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The actual disagreement was resolved immediately. What followed was, well, that. I'm actually ashamed of having taken part in that. Hopefully it's over. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made it clear to the editor that his messages are not welcome to my talk page. He nevertheless refuses to stop writing on my talk page and has called me a "deeply flawed individual lacking in the basic common courtesies".[274] He's gone too far and I would truly appreciate being spared new insults every time I log in. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an admin please close an AfD early to prevent further strife?

See here: [275]. The conclusion seems clear (per WP:SNOW), at least as far as deletion is concerned, and the only supporter of the article now seems to be either trying to make some sort of WP:POINT, or is simply trolling. An early closure should nip this in the bud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• (as commented in the AfD) Please let's not do that -process exists for a reason. You can't read what will happen in the future, in theory it is very well possible that some other editor brings novel arguments for either side, even if I myself see it as unlikely.--Cyclopia^talk 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus there. A half dozen different merger targets have been proposed; that clearly needs more discussion to achieve consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A deletion discussion normally runs 7 days. I got my say in on day one, and have seen no reason to contribute further. Anyone averse to strife has only to step away and wait for the process to work itself out, rather than engaging in "IS NOT!" "IS TOO!" repartee. There does not appear to be unanimity for deletion, keeping or merger,as one expects to see in justification for a "snow" closure, but a sensible closing admin will see a consensus for one of the above, from the policy-based arguments thus far contributed pro and con. Let the AFD run out its allotted time. Edison (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Jfgsloeditor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Elen of the Roads has blocked Jfgsloeditor and the AfD's the user created have been CSD G5'ed. Mtking ^(edits) 09:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin have a look at Jfgsloeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their contributions, may need a CU to work out which of the MMA socks it is. Mtking ^(edits) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, do you know which this perpetrated user comes from a banned editor? ApprenticeFan ^work 08:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no I don't for sure, perm one form about 3 or 4. Mtking ^(edits) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• It should be looked into, as their sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to attempt to do a lot of bad faith AfD nominations for America's Next Top Model related articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the nominations were done in bad faith? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• First off, according the checkuser page, that tool is not to be used for fishing. So, unless you think I am some specific other editor, they don't just check accounts on hunches based on their guidelines. Second, does America's Next Top Model really need that many pages? Isn't this a serious encyclopedia? Why is not just an article about the show sufficient? We're not talking about some show with the kind of number one ratings as American Idol or something. --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For being highly familiar with a specific subset of the policy guidelines, being familiar with AfD nominations, and your general combativeness, I concur with MtKing in that my I hear a lot of loud quacking that probably would be best served by an admin taking the user in hand and asking some on the record questions prior to the magic pixie dust being used. Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand, he's a sock of User:BStudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a surprise, the Afd's he created should be CSD'ed G5 in order to WP:DENY the sock unless any of the !vote keeps really wants to keep the pages, I will nominate in an hour or two if there is no objection. Mtking ^(edits) 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Any objection ? Mtking ^(edits) 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, I am going to give a support indefinite ban for the editor for life. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He is de facto if not actualy de jure banned, no admin will unblock and any socks he create will be blocked. Mtking ^(edits) 09:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cross-wiki harassment by User:Euroflux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After his recent block and my proposals to delete/rename two of his categories here, User:Euroflux is now harassing me on the Dutch, German, and Italian Wikipedias, ferreting out my real-life identity (not all that well hidden, I guess, given that I originally edited under my real name and only had my account renamed to avoid exactly this kind of behavior) and accusing me of "proven" sockpuppetry, hounding and blocking him here, destroying his work, etc. etc. Is there a central point to report this behavior, or do I have to deal with this at each WP separately? Any advice is welcome. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can request it at each Wikipedia separately, or you can request a global block at meta:Steward requests/Global. Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about the standards for applying a global block. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I didn't know about this. Unfortunately, it's only applicable to IPs that are guilty of persistent cross-wiki spamming and/or vandalism. Thanks anyway. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the Dutch wiki's admin page, that's about all that I can do with my limited denkraam. Guillaume, if I need to support any statement on some meta wiki, just tell me. It's time this ends. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An admin could help by blocking User:Euroflux from editing his English Wikipedia talk page—User talk:Euroflux—where he is also carrying on this campaign. First Light (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent suggestion. We have had too much patience with Euroflux already, it is obvious that this person just does not get the collaborative spirit of this project. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree too and, so, I have gone ahead and done the honours. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (BTW: your block even made the Italian wiki...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Insofar he is not blocked on the Italian wiki [276]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sysop on it.wiki, so I cannot block him, even if I think he should indeed be. But I hope someone will indef him and be done with him there too... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This thread can be closed. Guillaume2303 is now retired. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued harassment of Mr.choppers by an IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP user 98.193.61.234 has already been reported here once for abusing Mr.choppers, with the result of the IP being blocked 3 days by Blade. I have occasionally checked on the situation and since the block's end, the IP has made two more edits [277] [278], both of them block-worthy, considering the previous circumstances. Furthermore, the second edit is also threatening, and it implies that the IP is being used a sock. After all, the IP claims to have made many edits over half a decade, but the contributions of that IP are minimal, with all but one coming in about a month's time. I'm not saying that there is anything amiss there, but it certainly is fishy. AutomaticStrikeout 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks, for the personal threats on Mr.choppers' talkpage. Feel free to file at SPI as well if you feel it's warranted. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: SaberToothedWhale and personal attacks, although it appears they are allowed on en.wiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For what it's worth, I consider these personal attacks to be out of line and disruptive to editing and reading en.Wikipedia:

On an article talk page: "I'm talking about common names moron. .... Perhaps you shouldn't talk out your ass. Thank you. Good bye." [279]

In the edit summary when restoring the "moron" remark: "(Undid revision 522055685 by Fjozk (talk) i actually made a really good point, assclown.)" [280]

In response to a talk page warning for personal attacks: But he's a bitch who made a comment only a bitch would make? :) [281]

Followed by calling someone a nazi in an edit summary "RE to a nazi": "Just putting a bitch in HIS place. Do you did to be sat down too shorty? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)" [282]

If this isallowed, encouraged, ignored, I'll be glad to go there. -Fjozk (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• who told you it was "allowed"? Or did you just expect random patrolling admin to find it? If you bring it here and no admins addres, then start your "it must be allowed" routine. Doing it pre-emptively just looks whiney. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling me whiney, way to enhance the situation. WP:NPA tells me it is allowed. All the other warning templates have policies behind them. NPA says to ignore it or discuss it with the editor calling you (or someone, hard to tell in this case) a nazi. That's absurd. They're name calling because they can't engage. -Fjozk (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Niteshift! Always nice to hear your voice of reason here. The blind are leading the blind, it seems--but one of them won't be doing it on-wiki for the next 31 hours. Fjozk, settle down, will you? Carry on, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2012‎

I am settled down. I've found thousands of articles full of nothing but junk science; and, on top of that a great new article by a student, not en.Wiki style, except for all the important things (real content, no junk science). Wanna take bets on how long it takes to get rid of him? Thanks. -Fjozk (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has blocked the problem user for harassment and personal attacks. Admin action taken, case closed. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:BITE I think it's preferable to politely ask the person to tone down the invective rather than blocking right away, and in the case of a potentially good contributor, it's worth the trouble. I've had good luck trying to do that on some other occasions. I left a note on the blocked person's talkpage after the fact, but I don't know if it will help. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• The blocked editor was Saber Toothed Whale, the one being reported. He has been editing since May, so WP:BITE doesn't really apply when you've had a bunch of edits over 6 months. Or maybe you thought the reporting party was blocked, which would mean you started commenting (and pointing fingers) without reading the whole problem. So which was it? Are you misinterpreting policy or just under-informed? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-British rhetoric from IP

I've just noticed that this IP, 117.212.54.48 today appears to have started going on a streak of pages making apparently insulting references to religions and to the UK (even seeming to think that he's the antichrist). I'm not sure if this needs action or not but it certainly can't be productive. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AIV might have been a better venue for this... I've given the IP editor a {{uw-vandal4im}} warning; if he vandalises a page again, I or another admin will descend with a blockbat. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An IP from the same range 117.199.98.51 with same style went on a similar spree in July. Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassing by User:IndianBio

Respected Wikipedians,I want to inform you that User:IndianBio is harassing me and doing personal attacks to me.he reverts my edits from article In My City.I want to say I'm responsible for this article,I had done maximum edit,I had added references,sections.That user only did little bit correction and he didn't contributed single word,he never did added reference except 1 which he did after I said.He don't know about Songs Wikiproject and he edits song article.I told him there is no need to add reference in single infobox bit he didn't listen to me.There I did everything to me ,I contributed maximum to the article and he calls me fancruft,I added everything within tefrence.please block this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pks1142 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear a certain Australian hunting implement may be approaching at speed... I see no evidence of personal attacks by User:IndianBio, in fact, I see evidence of him repeatedly trying to explain to you why your edits are inappropriate. I also see evidence of edit-warring by both parties, and a total lack of communication on the article's talkpage (though you've both ranted unconstructively at each other on your respective talkpages). As such, I'm applying full protection to the article for a short while, to halt the edit war - discuss it on the talkpage (ask for a third opinion if necessary) and provide, via a civilly worded argument, the case for including your edits. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'm responsible for this article" - No you're not. You might have created it, but once you hit "Save", anything you write can be changed at will. In this case, IndianBio has identified you referencing content to Digital Spy (a suspicious source in itself), and reverted it as being unverifiable, which he has a perfect right to do. In response, you said "need to checkup your eyes", which is not particularly civil. This is little more than a content dispute, and from my eyes, it looks like you are more in the wrong. Take your grievances to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't mean that,that is mine but all I wanted to say that I contributed most to each word,he never did,he should have friendly with me.but he's not.Also,if it's about reference ,I wrote about his eyes because it is clearly written that she will release her album through Island Records in Uk and elsewhere(only USA through interscope and India through Universal,India) that why because it is rfrenced.you can check.(Pks1142 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how much you contribute - you still can't dictate what other users do if they follow policy. I've quadrupled the size of articles taking them to WP:GAN, but if another editor wants to do minor copyediting and tagging sources, they can. The very fact you say "she will (my emphasis) release her album" is a problem - it might be too soon to include that information. You can't say the album will be released - perhaps the record company will go bankrupt? Anyway, none of this requires any administrator intervention - like I said, take it to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There has been some personal insults by this user. Check the edit summaries of the article. I was gonna post it to ANI thread myself with the differences, but I will leave it to another chance being given to Pks1142. To Pks1142, cool down, and try to understand why edits are being removed when you still feel they are right. Wikipedia's policies cannot be violated and in cases like these they fail a range of policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should sort out our problems and let's make Wikipedia a far better place.Edit the articles with friendly and politely.What's say User:IndianBio.(Pks1142 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

Nice attempt to duck the WP:BOOMERANG (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of POV-pushing and racism at Tipperary Hill

Yesterday, an anonymous user posted a rant on the Tipperary Hill talk page, making accusations of POV-pushing and racism in the article's Green over red section. I reverted the edit, and warned the user not to use the talk page as a forum. Today, the anon. reinstated his rant and expanded it to include numerous comments directed at me. He also added an NPOV tag to the article. I reverted again. My concern is that this has the potential to turn into an edit-war, and I hope to stop that before it begins. The anon. mentioned that this was featured on Reddit in the last day or two, but I don't know that this necessarily means the article will get more traffic.

I see no NPOV issues here. The section in question is factual and referenced, and it does not push a pro-Irish position. It simply states what happened. The anon. offers no actual evidence of POV, only that we "aggrandize and point of view push blatent racism and pathologically insane behaviour" by even discussing this issue. This seems to be a simple case of I don't like it, to which I would respond: Too bad. At any rate, I want to hear what other editors have to say. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This guy's spelling (and style) reminds me of a previous banned user, but he wasn't based in Australia (the WHOIS info on the IP is that it belongs to Telstra). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassing by User:IndianBio

Respected Wikipedians,I want to inform you that User:IndianBio is harassing me and doing personal attacks to me.he reverts my edits from article In My City.I want to say I'm responsible for this article,I had done maximum edit,I had added references,sections.That user only did little bit correction and he didn't contributed single word,he never did added reference except 1 which he did after I said.He don't know about Songs Wikiproject and he edits song article.I told him there is no need to add reference in single infobox bit he didn't listen to me.There I did everything to me ,I contributed maximum to the article and he calls me fancruft,I added everything within tefrence.please block this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pks1142 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear a certain Australian hunting implement may be approaching at speed... I see no evidence of personal attacks by User:IndianBio, in fact, I see evidence of him repeatedly trying to explain to you why your edits are inappropriate. I also see evidence of edit-warring by both parties, and a total lack of communication on the article's talkpage (though you've both ranted unconstructively at each other on your respective talkpages). As such, I'm applying full protection to the article for a short while, to halt the edit war - discuss it on the talkpage (ask for a third opinion if necessary) and provide, via a civilly worded argument, the case for including your edits. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'm responsible for this article" - No you're not. You might have created it, but once you hit "Save", anything you write can be changed at will. In this case, IndianBio has identified you referencing content to Digital Spy (a suspicious source in itself), and reverted it as being unverifiable, which he has a perfect right to do. In response, you said "need to checkup your eyes", which is not particularly civil. This is little more than a content dispute, and from my eyes, it looks like you are more in the wrong. Take your grievances to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't mean that,that is mine but all I wanted to say that I contributed most to each word,he never did,he should have friendly with me.but he's not.Also,if it's about reference ,I wrote about his eyes because it is clearly written that she will release her album through Island Records in Uk and elsewhere(only USA through interscope and India through Universal,India) that why because it is rfrenced.you can check.(Pks1142 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how much you contribute - you still can't dictate what other users do if they follow policy. I've quadrupled the size of articles taking them to WP:GAN, but if another editor wants to do minor copyediting and tagging sources, they can. The very fact you say "she will (my emphasis) release her album" is a problem - it might be too soon to include that information. You can't say the album will be released - perhaps the record company will go bankrupt? Anyway, none of this requires any administrator intervention - like I said, take it to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There has been some personal insults by this user. Check the edit summaries of the article. I was gonna post it to ANI thread myself with the differences, but I will leave it to another chance being given to Pks1142. To Pks1142, cool down, and try to understand why edits are being removed when you still feel they are right. Wikipedia's policies cannot be violated and in cases like these they fail a range of policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should sort out our problems and let's make Wikipedia a far better place.Edit the articles with friendly and politely.What's say User:IndianBio.(Pks1142 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

Nice attempt to duck the WP:BOOMERANG (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of POV-pushing and racism at Tipperary Hill

Yesterday, an anonymous user posted a rant on the Tipperary Hill talk page, making accusations of POV-pushing and racism in the article's Green over red section. I reverted the edit, and warned the user not to use the talk page as a forum. Today, the anon. reinstated his rant and expanded it to include numerous comments directed at me. He also added an NPOV tag to the article. I reverted again. My concern is that this has the potential to turn into an edit-war, and I hope to stop that before it begins. The anon. mentioned that this was featured on Reddit in the last day or two, but I don't know that this necessarily means the article will get more traffic.

I see no NPOV issues here. The section in question is factual and referenced, and it does not push a pro-Irish position. It simply states what happened. The anon. offers no actual evidence of POV, only that we "aggrandize and point of view push blatent racism and pathologically insane behaviour" by even discussing this issue. This seems to be a simple case of I don't like it, to which I would respond: Too bad. At any rate, I want to hear what other editors have to say. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This guy's spelling (and style) reminds me of a previous banned user, but he wasn't based in Australia (the WHOIS info on the IP is that it belongs to Telstra). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Poison

Resolved

 – Article is full-protected. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that the name of the first song off the album The Poison is wrong. The real name is "Intro", not "Intro ... My Lifestyle". I tried to change it, but there are two users who do not stop reverting my edits without consulting. So I've been involved in an edit war. I do not want to be blocked, so I want someone to fix this. Here I leave you some references that confirm that I am right.

• [283]
• [284]
• [285]
• [286]
• [287]
• [288]
• [289]

Cristian MH (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed it, citing the first reference. In the future, I'd suggest WP:DRN rather than WP:ANI for content disputes. Nobody Ent 21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cristian MH (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Content help,anyone? It's been reverted by an IP, so if anyone would be interested in taking a look, it'd be appreciated. Nobody Ent 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've locked it for three days so Cristian MH can stop edit warring and everyone can discuss it on the talkpage or use DRN. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Block for Festermunk

Festermunk (talk · contribs), fresh off a one-week block for edit-warring and with a bit of a reputation to uphold, is doing the same old same old on RT (TV network). This user just can't seem to get enough, and that article is enough of a mess already (look at the talk page, if you are constipated). Anyways, my finger was on the block button, but since I made a couple edits to the article and placed a note on the talk page, and since Festermunk strikes me as a bit of a wiki lawyer, perhaps one of you lot can have a look and take--what I consider to be--the appropriate action. See also Bbb23's warning and the comments of other admins (declining various unblock requests, all of which denied that Festermunk did anything wrong) on the pre-blanked version of their talk page. This user is not here to contribute positively and in accordance with our guidelines for proper editing behavior. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't know what I am doing wrong. I'm currently discussing the changes I would like to see reinstated on RT on the talk page as referred to by you and user Bbb23 and doing so in a much less combative manner. If that isn't an example of, "contributing positively and in accordance with our guidelines for proper editing behavior" I don't know what is. Festermunk (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And that response is precisely why I'm asking what I'm asking. It's either incompetence or ignorance--an editor comes back from a block for edit-warring and goes right on edit-warring, as the history of RT clearly indicates: I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the lead issue was already established by consensus in the talk page so in reverting the lead I was only doing what is stated as per Wikipedia guidelines. However, as soon as another editor reverted my edits, I immediately put a stop to what I'm doing (and will not revert it barring consensus on this issue) I haven't yet got around to discussing that issue, but will do so after I'm done what I am doing. Festermunk (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI I was about to save this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Festermunk_reported_by_User:Carolmooredc_.28Result:_.29 when happened upon this, so added the link to this discussion. Since Festermunk already has been warned he will be permanently blocked for edit warring if he is blocked for it a 3rd time on this article for it, I think the Edit Warring complaint takes precedent. Whatever... CarolMooreDC 18:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Festermunk. My only interaction with Festermunk has been administrative. After the discussion Drmies and I had with Festermunk on my and Drmies's talk pages, I am disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised, that they didn't heed our advice on how NOT to get blocked. Festermunk has had several blocks of increasing lengths. However, Festermunk has proven to be remarkably impervious to statements by other editors. After the most recent one-week block, I specifically warned Festermunk at WP:ANEW that a resumption of their misbehavior might lead to an indefinite block. I agree with Drmies that there's a bit (actually, more than just a bit) of wikilawyering in this user, so I expect some rather strident unblock requests, but I don't see this editor as an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Geolocate says "confirmed proxy server"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've been investigating some odd edits to an article on my watchlist when I came across the fact that three similar IPs all say in the Geolocate data that they are "confirmed proxy servers" and also "Static IPs", which is particularly odd considering that it is very obvious that the same individual is operating from behind the IP addresses but 3 of them are in use (two in use within minutes of the other). The IPs in question are:

• 67.142.168.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.142.168.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.142.168.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

In addition to the edits on the page I'm keeping track of (and recently my decision to prune it of plot summary was met with more reverts), I saw large contributions by the IPs to Thomas the Tank Engine pages, which raises a red flag for a previous banned user but I'm not exactly sure which one. So these edits and the fact that the IPs are being reported as proxies are why I'm bringing this up for review.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a possibility that they are open proxies they can be listed at WP:OPP for confirmation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While that is useful, there's also the fact that the IPs contribute to many animation themed pages and there were several long term problem users who do the same. I am not familiar with any particulars but this may be a way to get the word out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong and co - just letting you know I'm watching this page. Best, --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, whats up? I was just mulling over the talk pages and contribs of those three IPs. I personally believe that they are all the same person, but of course my opinion is unwarranted. In any case, it appears to be that the user willingly makes edits in good faith. However, perhaps those edits do not follow our general guidelines - it is through this he has become frustrated as seen on his talk page. We should consider fast-tracking this issue over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. What do you guys think? --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering he edited as 67.142.168.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after his proclamation of "I QUIT", this suggests that that is not necessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the contribs. Very similar style of editing. Can anyone care to comment?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of terrorist incidents in London

Hi, I would appreciate an Admin's assistance at List of terrorist incidents in London. This article name was changed today to List of militant attacks in London. There was a nonconclusive discussion on this over two year ago which petered out and no change took place. Then today an editor has made the change without starting a new discussion but just tagging on to the dead disucssion with a comment "excellent idea" See here. The new title is not appropriate in my view as it does not describe the content accurately and is out of line with similar and related articles. Unfortunately a subsequent edit has been done so I cannot undo myself. Please could an Admin do the required "Undos" and then if needed we can have a proper discussion about the merits or otherwise of a new article name. Thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Returned to original title and move protected. There was no edit to the redirect so you could have moved it yourself. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the move protection, unless there is a move war. The move that happened looks like ok BRD to me. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What´s the problem? There was a majority in favour of moving, and the word terrorism is problematic, right? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the discussion was opened, on that page only, 12 January 2007. The first reply was not until just over a year later on 21 May 2008. It then went dead for 21 months until 4 February 2010. Then two suggestions for a new title were given but gathered no response other than a reply saying the first suggestion wasn't suitable. Given that it has now been over 30 months since that was last discussed it is obvious that there is no consensus to move the page and definitely not to "List of militant attacks in London". If you want it moved start a new discussion at the bottom of the page and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:Niteshift36, egged on by Admin:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is impossible for a user to understand the bureaucracy of rules that is Wikipedia, and wading into the cesspool in order to correct something that Wikipedia is sending all over the web, bad science articles in DYK seems worth doing, but these gangs of social networking daddy-scolders are so overdone.

I have repeatedly told User:Niteshift36 to stop posting on my talk page. I finally went to his talk page and told him to stop. He did not stop. He posted again. I have reverted it as vandalism, unread, which it is, and which his comments have earned. Now he is simply harassing me. It's time for him to stop. Past time. Like the usual cesspool of drive-by scoldings on Wikipedia, nothing he is doing is about creating an encyclopedia. He was encouraged in his actions by Admin:Drmies congratulating him for his drive-by post to my AN/I post about a user calling other users assholes and nazis.

A little less friends hanging out and a lot more editing would stop the cesspool of bad science that en.Wikipedia is spreading through cyber space. Since it is apparent that Niteshift36 has no intention of stopping posting on my talk page; since his edits to my talk page are harassment and nothing else, and in contrast to contributing he is interfering with my editing and correcting science articles harassing me, I request an admin stop him from editing my talk page.

-Fjozk (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Given what Fjozk had to say awhile back when I reported them here for battleground behavior, it will be interesting to hear how Drmies and Niteshift36 respond to their "whining subpoena." Until something is done about Fjozk, they are going to wind up here again and again. AutomaticStrikeout 01:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of this report, Niteshift has said he will stop posting to Fjozk's talk page and trusts Fjozk will reciprocate. Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he didn't stop posting on my talk page; I told him to stop multiple times; he continued to post; I posted a stop on his talk page; he continued to post on my talk page. I am not posting anything on his talk page other than the notice to stop posting mine and the required AN/I notice. -Fjozk (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Actually sunshine, you never told me to stop posting on your page until your last little rant," isn't a promise of anything, it's just more harassment. And, per instructions, I put this in a new section. -Fjozk (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe you should slow down and read: "Now that we've cleared up your false allegation, and you've finally expressed your wish in actual words (not just in your head), I will no longer post on it."[290]. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new section, but given your persistence, I'm reopening. I'm concerned that this will WP:BOOMERANG as you are not only complaining about Niteshift but about Drmies, generally about admins, and about Wikipedia. What administrative action do you want here at ANI? I won't even ask what you want to accomplish at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it will boomerang. I'm both a content editor and an expert, highly despised persons on en.wiki. I also correct copy vios in DYK and point out the crappy science all over Wikipedia while correcting it. Not a chance in hell this won't boomerang or I won't forever be engaged in being bullied by Niteshift, AutomaticStrikeout and all their buddies. And, did you revert because of my persistence or because I accused you of a COI in regards to Drmies? Heck, we want AutomaticStrikeout to get more opportunities to beat me over the head with his hammer also. I request an uninvolved admin tell Niteshift36 to stay off of my talk page. Really, I have no interest in his, and I am not the one posting on his after being told 4 times to stop. -Fjozk (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't even see your absurd post to my talk page about my alleged conflict arising out of my "relationship" with Drmies. If the only uninvolved admins are those who aren't friends with Drmies, you'll have a very small subset of "uninvolved" admins. You're being silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just eliminate the ones he nominated for adminship. Tit for tat. -Fjozk (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The good doctor is of the XX persuasion, as it were. I'd suggest you adjust your pronouns accordingly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? There is no way to tell gender on Wikipedia, and apparently her issues here are about my failing to thank her (inaccurate). Another grudge match, it seems. Everyone uses "he" on Wikipedia as a default gender. And, I won't be interacting with Drmies in the future, so remembering specific users' genders when they are not obvious, won't be necessary without communication to or about. -Fjozk (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a bully, you are. That is why this is likely to boomerang. AutomaticStrikeout 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're the bully; you come here to post, and you will take every opportunity as long as I am on Wikipedia to wish that I fail; because I had the audacity to speak against your friend. And that's what bullies do, they get their friends and gang up. There are even comments about this at the admin you recently nominated. You use WP:AGF as a hammer. You enflamed the situation at the post about the edit conflict, and you are here now to provoke me, no other reason. It's harassment, it's bullying; it's not the least about editing the encyclopedia. -Fjozk (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't own your talk page. You can't respond to what someone posts on your page and then selectively remove the comments when he replies [291] (you even asked him a question). Either remove the entire section or allow him to post. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IRWolfie, but you're wrong. If Fjozk hadn't reverted you, I would have. With very limited exceptions, every editor has control over their own talk page. Moreover, your reversion unnecessarily adds to this little drama.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't even have any meaning, IRWolfie. I reverted what I consider vandalism, continued harassment of me by an editor told not to post on my talk page. I will not be leaving posts by a harasser on my talk page. -Fjozk (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet you restored posts by niteshift to your talk page that I (admittedly inadvisably) removed [292]. Do you not think it would be best to remove them? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, what ever are you doing here? -Fjozk (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. That which was wrong with the previous ANI thread is one of the things that's wrong with this one. In the previous one, complainant comes and cries loudly about how we admins are letting people talk badly, when of course we only know they're talking badly when we're told. That was, in fact, the thrust of Niteshift's response (the "whiney" excluded--but I challenge you to find a better word for the tone of Fjozk's complaint). And here we go again. I got little more to say, because every word is probably a personal attack to this editor, but if anything sounds like playing the victim, this is it. Oh, by the way, Fjozk, I granted you your request, didn't I--yeah, you're welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• From their talk page, section from October: "Following Dennis's links and discussions elsewhere, it appears he fully supports the battlefield mentality". That's Dennis Brown. Dennis Brown--the man who couldn't find a battlefield mentality if he was riding with Napoleon toward Waterloo. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And, you then egged on Niteshift, congratulating him for getting a drive-by in, emoboldening him to come to my talk page and continue with his "whiney" remark. And, apparently, your friend Bbb23 just shared his post on your talk page, so continuing there also. AutomaticStrikeout is my mentor when it comes to AN/I posts, and I think my tone is on a part with his battleground mentality post. And, yeah, Dennis Brown, you should check out his contributions to ArbCom while he was making his remarks on my talk page. Maybe you can find something there. I think I judged him rightly. -Fjozk (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

404 edits and you think you know us. Tell you what, you are a quick learner in many ways, though I wonder if an account with so little verified experience here should be making article quality assessments, for instance. It's easy to find fault with me, I admit (yet I notice you still haven't thanked me for responding to your lengthy, combative, and unattractively formatted request), but it's pretty difficult to find fault with Bbb23 and Dennis Brown so quickly--unless one is looking for conflict. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I did thank you.[293] That's what this is about, that you think I didn't thank you? Wow. -Fjozk (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Given what you had to say about my ANI post way back when, I find it amusing that you consider me to be a mentor (not that I really think you meant it). Still, when everybody else is against you, what do think that indicates? AutomaticStrikeout 01:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just in whineyness. And, everyone isn't against me, just people who aren't editing articles, and not all of them, either. Most of them aren't as interested in me as you are. -Fjozk (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly did you remove my post? This is not your talk page. AutomaticStrikeout 02:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably just an edit conflict. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing for me to defend here. The complainer's original poster's actions and persistant victim complex speak volumes. He argues with those who offer to help him, claims everyone is attacking him and seems to have some very unrealistic notions about what admins are supposed to do. Besides, this is really more of a WQA issue than ANI. This is a waste of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately WQA was done away with some time ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't know they actually did it. If I drank a shot every time the OP posts "egged" (in one form or another) or "drive-by" on a Wikipedia page in the past 8 hours, I'd be bordering on alcohol poisoning by now. It's a broken record. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone fire ahead with a boomerang? The initial filing alone was effectively boomerang worthy, and the response Fjozk has been giving to every respondent here has continued on that trend. From his talk page all I see are assumptions of bad faith against numerous editors (and even Dennis, although i don't know how that is possible). IRWolfie- (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So, harassment is allowed? Seems that my original post, that Niteshift had to make fun of and accusing me of whining for, was correct. Thanks. And, Niteshift will be allowed to harass me on my talk page. So, Niteshift, see, I was right. -Fjozk (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• If that helps you sleep or makes you go away, then I won't burst your bubble. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Hmm, so you're not staying off my talk page, you're just finding new venues for harassment and comments. Maybe Drmies will give you another piwo for this one. -Fjozk (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, contrary to what you might think, just because you supposedly can kick a respected good-faith editor like IRWolfie off your talk page, that doesn't mean you have any control over their posts at ANI. AutomaticStrikeout 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Who kicked IRWolfie off of my talk page? Thanks for establishing you're here on your own vendetta and don't even know what this thread is about. -Fjozk (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You did. Right here. And I know perfectly well what this thread is about, you found another user or two that you can't get along with. AutomaticStrikeout 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad. I did. I can't say I don't get along with him, though, as I still have no idea what he's talking about. Maybe I can take your example and develop long term grudge, but, unfortunately, I probably won't even remember his name. So, it seems pointless for him to post on my talk page. -Fjozk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you do have a point. I have been holding a grudge and for that I apologize. AutomaticStrikeout 02:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you stop holding the grudge, I fully accept your apology. -Fjozk (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• This has all the earmarks of a trolling sock. My suggestion is that unless an admin wants to take action against Fjozk, the best response is silence. Barring something extraordinary, I'm done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yes, I must be a sock, because I don't like being bullied. I'm surprised the accusation took so long. Post the whine at whatever the sock puppet page is, rather than just making the accusation against someone who already accused you of a COI. -Fjozk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have de-archived this. There are multiple issues in the original posting, and not all of them have been dealt with. As an attempt to help resolve the situation overall and to clarify their position, I politely reached out to the OP to try and gain their perspective along with some diff's of the specific timeline. Apparently, because I actually asked to help them I am an "incompetent admin" and that "I'm fucking kidding". It is of course best for all parties that this be resolved at the lowest level - but stooping to the lowest is not the goal (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This has gone to absurd limits now. A user (who's pontificating about being a productive content contributor) has less than 450 edits on en.wiki, 75% of which are on various talkpages (and anyone who's seen the bruhaha he started on DYK and new page patrol projects, knows how productive these have been). He's been to ANI twice now with frivolous reports. And, has accused (by my count, and I haven't been keeping up with him since his last time here) at least 5 editors (all of whom are in well-standing in the community) of harassment. Disruptive much? Cut the drama, and stop feeding the troll with attention. Yazan (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Awkward editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone take a look at Yummy Dunn (talk · contribs) please? There is an on-going problem at St Austell about the size of the section on Freemasonry in the town. A discussion is underway on the talk page, to which he contributes in fits and starts. He has accused other editors of vandalism and prejudice, while repeatedly ignoring BRD, and exercising ownership to the extent of demanding that discussion about the article takes place on his own talk page. I'm fed up to the back teeth, and I suspect the other editors involved are too. Anyone uninvolved fancy taking a look? Many thanks. I'll point him here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a previous ANI thread about him (under his old username) [here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I echo these concerns too. He needs to drop the battleground attitude and the accusations and open up into civil dialogue, which I tried to, ahem, "guide" him too via mentioning it wasn't very masonic to make unfounded accusations (lol). I try to keep my head out of heated arguments on Wikipedia these days, but this one is becoming strenuous due to bad faith and a lack of communication. It doesn't have to be this way at all. (Ooo! Monkey's on the TV!) --Τασουλα (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He is repeating exactly the same edits (ethnicity changes and free masons) for which he was brought to ANI last time. That is additional to the reference from Duncan Hill so that is now three ANI references including this one. He responsse to Duncan on his talk page says it all ----Snowded ^TALK 00:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users Msc_44, Janedoeare, and Buck Owens talk page.

User:Msc 44 Added a bunch of information to the Buck Owens article. We ended up in a discussion about it at the article talk page. The user and User:Janedoeare have now repeatedly tried to remove the entire conversation claiming that some of it contains the users personal information [294] [295] [296] [297] [298] <-(as IP) and [299] <- Janedoeare. Msc 44 has not said which information they wish to have removed, despite being asked multiple times,[300] [301] and has insisted that the entire conversation be blanked. Janedoeare has left me a level 4 vandalism warning on my talk page with the latest revert. [302]

Msc_44 has been warned by multiple editors on multiple occasions to not remove other people's posts from that talk page. [303] [304] [305]

It is quite impossible for me to have outed the user in question in any way as the only information I know about them is what they have themselves posted to the article talk page. My feeling is that the information they want to suppress is from their own posts. I am quite happy to let them redact anything they've posted that they now see as sensitive, but I would rather the bulk of our conversation remain.

User:Janedoeare has been notified. [306] User:Msc 44 has been notified. [307]

-Sperril (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled the above from the archive. To reiterate, my comments at a talk page have been removed by 2 different users. One of them has already been warned not to remove my comments 3 different times by 3 different editors including 1 admin. If nothing is going to be done from an administrative standpoint, can I at least be told why or given other options? Thanks! Sperril (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• The whole thing is very odd. I don't understand why there are two relatively new editors who both seem interested only in the Owens article. I don't understand who the IP is. I don't understand the removal of the comments from the talk page. I don't understand who they are trying to "protect". Maybe I'm missing something, but the whole thing makes little sense. In any event, I've restored the talk page material and warned the two named accounts that unless they justify the removals on their talk pages or here, any further removals will be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm getting the same impression you are. There seems to be something else going on here that I can't quite figure out. There doesn't seem to be any purposeful socking going on as far as I can tell. I've also gotten a number of strange emails from Msc. Sperril (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Msc_44 (talk · contribs), Janedoeare (talk · contribs), 70.41.215.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Buck Owens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry if you didn't get a quick response the first time. We're all volunteers here. They've been thoroughly warned now, and they don't seem to have done it for a couple of days, so hopefully they'll find more constructive ways to raise whatever the issue is. I don't see anything very out of line in the talk page content, although I did find one email address that needed redaction. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I know you folks are busy. I was in no hurry. I just didn't want it to fall through the cracks. Also, I believe Bbb23 inadvertently removed a comment from Msc that was posted between my last change to the talk page and his revert. I've restored it. If I'm wrong and it was removed on purpose please feel free to revert me. Thanks again for your attention. Sperril (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It was kind of you to restore Msc's comment, but the removal wasn't inadvertent. I figured they created the mess, and they could always restore their own comment, which wasn't all that important, anyway. Certainly your restoring the comment wasn't "wrong". As a clarification, the e-mail address properly removed by Bovlb was not part of this material but from 2006. The section with the e-mail address is pretty odd, as is the entire history of the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to self-revert Msc's comment? And if there are issues on that talk page in the future should I bring them directly to you or should I post here again? Sperril (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no, you were absolutely right to restore Msc's comment. As for the future, it's a judgment call depending on the circumstances, but you can certainly feel free to come to my talk page and discuss it. I'll leave the article on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I may now have a glimmer of an understanding as to why Msc removed material from the talk page based on their most recent removal (post my warning). I think they wanted to remove their own posts but removed the entire section instead. Their own posts were unusual, revealing things that were not supported by reliable sources, and my guess is it may have revealed more than Msc wished. That, of course, doesn't explain why Janedoeare also removed the same material; indeed, it makes the two editors' "relationship" more suspicious. In any event, although normally one shouldn't even remove one's own posts once they've been responded to, I let it go because of the privacy claims. I added a note to the section, though, because with Msc's posts gone, the other comments make little sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming nothing else happens, I'll be happy to let it go at that. Janeoeare hasn't really been an issue except for the one removal. (S)he seems to have made a large series of minor edits to the article, and then has reverted each of the changes in turn. (Trying to push something off the first page of the article history was my guess.) I'm not sure it's worth an SPI, again assuming nothing else happens. Sperril (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dapopewarrior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This offensively-named user has done nothing but create trivial articles which were all speedily-deleted, committed plagiarism, and is now engaged in vandalism (see [308]). Does the building really need to be ablaze to put out the fire? Quis separabit? 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that is vandalism. Edits in good faith are never vandalism and that appears to be in good faith to me. As far as the deleted articles go, I'm not seeing why the editor needs to be blocked over that. They've mostly had some sort of claim to notability. In fact, one of the speedied I'd even argue should've gone to AfD. Not saying your concern isn't valid, but I think a block is too much. This user needs guidance.--v/r - TP 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I cannot access speedydeletes so I don't know what the articles consisted of. I have been an editor since 2005, and my instincts tell me his edits are not being done in good faith. Look, I know I am nobody to throw stones, but I think you are being naive. Did you see the photo on his userpage in which he is doing an apparent imitation of the Anthony Weiner underwear Twitter scandal, which resulted in that congressman's departure (hopefully forever) from public life? -- what kind of editor uploads their underwear clad butt to Wikipedia in good faith? Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This looks needlessly harsh upon an editor who only joined Wikipedia about three weeks ago. Please Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Assistance in the ins and outs about Wikipedia (and sourcing!!) might be better then biting him. The Banner _talk 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite numerous warnings on their talk page for uploading copyvio images in October, yesterday they uploaded yet another one, File:Jon.manfrelotti.jpg.png, claiming it was their own work and had never been previously published. Blatantly untrue. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

While the seemingly arbitrary change of birth year on Katherine Helmond may not appear to be vandalism, this editor has also added made-up dates of birth to at least two other articles [309], [310]. They've also been adding and/or oddly altering protection templates, e.g. [311], [312], [313], [314]. It's posssible that all of these were all misguided efforts to be helpful, but it's disruptive nevertheless. I'll leave him a note about these issues. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, this type of edits make me think of people active in a certain type of childrens theater. Not to a new editor. The Banner _talk 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too laid back, but I totally fail to see how this user's name is "offensive". Kansan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be offensive to some Catholics, but that's about all. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh in that case, carry on? Not like he is insulting Mormons, Jews, or Gays right? --Malerooster (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you are driving at. Very poorly worded on my part. Sorry. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've taken this out of the archive because it was not resolved. On November 7, I left the user an explanation of why their edits were becoming disruptive, especially their altering of protection templates [315]. Their sole response was to to return yesterday and today for more of the same. Altering protection templates [316], [317], [318]; blanking a large portion of Barry White and making a completely inappropriate page move at Peter Sauer as well as adding a date of birth for which there is no reference whatsoever and may well be spurious like the others he's added. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt until the newest swath of disruption. Indef'd until they're willing to show the community that they are actually here to edit non-disruptively (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

pattern of possibly disruptive Talk: page editing, or good faith edits?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi,

Charles35 has made some significant edits to Talk:Crack cocaine that include claiming the comments of an IP editor, and removing a comment by that same IP editor. I have manually reverted the latter edit, but am unclear on how to do so with the former.

On Charles35's talk page, he/she has been warned repeatedly in the last few days to use strikethrough rather than deleting comments, so this seems to suggest a pattern of WP:DE rather than a set of underinformed but good faith edits. Of course, I could be wrong, but i thought it might be helpful to post here about it in order to try and sort things out.

relevant diffs are:

[319]

and

[320]

Thanks

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am not trying to make a destructive edit. I am trying to follow the rules. I have been informed by several experienced editors recently that I am allowed to delete my edits as long as they have not been there for a while and especially, if nobody has responded to them, or if they are on my own talk page (which doesn't apply here). On the talk page in question, I made a new section. I mistakenly wrote that I was unable to edit the article and I asked if someone else with a confirmed account could do it for me (it's a semi-protected article). After saving the edit, I realized that I was not logged in. Then, I logged in, and I realized that I in fact could edit the article. Since this was only about 5 minutes later, and nobody had responded to my edit (nobody had probably even seen it), I figured it would be better to just erase it altogether, as it was completely pointless and would just be taking up space! I have been told by several editors who present themselves almost as if they are 'staff' here that I am allowed to do this if nobody has responded. If that's not the case, sorry! But either way, I disagree with the rule and I believe that I should be able to delete my comments, no matter what. I will still follow the rule, but I'd like it to be noted that I disagree.

Can I delete comments from my talk page? I would rather not have this warning that has been given to me, especially since this is such a trivial matter (in my opinion, at least).

Sorry if I caused a problem. Thanks for your time. Charles35 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude or sound demanding, but if somebody could help me straighten this out as quickly as possible, I would really appreciate it. I do not like seeing seeing that big fat warning. If I broke the rule, please just inform me. I don't appreciate that warning tainting my talk page. And honestly, it seems like people are just scanning recent edits trying to find something they could twist into an 'incident'. And it hasn't been repeatedly. It was one other time. Charles35 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the warning. With limited exceptions (e.g., WP:BLANKING), you can remove anything from your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Was I correct or incorrect about removing material from other talk pages if nobody has responded? I'd like to know so that this doesn't happen again. And also, can I remove the pointless section from the crack talk page? Thanks Charles35 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You can generally remove your own comment if there've been no responses to it. I've removed the "misinformation" section for you. In the future, you should provide a clear edit summary if you're going to remove something that is signed by an IP so that people know (assuming good faith) that it's you. The best would be not to edit unless logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You may remove anything from your own talkpage except certain notices if you are blocked. If someone posts a warning and you remove it, you are considered to have read it, and can't later say 'well, I wasn't warned'. If you write a post then pretty much immediately think better of it, you can revert the edit (we have all done this sometimes). If someone has replied or cited your post, you should not remove it, and should use some indication to show where you have edited it (eg strikethrough). You may not remove anyone else's posts from a talkpage. If you think it needs removing, ask an admin (if it just says something like 'you all suck', you're probably ok to nuke it). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if i was overly alarmist about this. There was the suggestion that the ip edits came from you, but it wasn't clear from the edit summaries that it was you who made the ip-linked edits. Given the previous warnings, i figured best to ask someone else with more experience to sort it out than to try and deal with the potential worst-case. Again, my apologies. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'm glad we sorted all this out. I will close as resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incident with Sjones23

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Sjones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello dear administrators. First of all, I'm sorry for my not perfect english. Well, user Sjones23 making war edits in the Princess Mononoke article. If look in the past, it's all stated quite long ago, in september 2012 (you can watch history [321]), but with help of another Wikipedia members we solve conflict and found consensus at that time. But now Sjones23 again wanted to rewrite plot section just by himself. He again undoing all improvements and deleting important plot section text. He press down on film plot rule, that there must be no more than 700 words, but he forgets about more important things and rules. I explained him many times in differents places that common sence and five pillars is highter that that film rule. Look, he is experienced user. But he don't listen to me, he just pushing his own vision. You may look on talk page of article, there some of experienced members supported me in the past and explained to him from another angle. But he again doing war edits. There was consensus and Sjones23 told that he will not corrupt plot section again... but what we see now... (I think he thought that I'm not there in WP anymore, so after some time, pair of monthes, he again wants to push his edits). More than that, he violates me in war editing. Again, I just undo to CONSENSUS and rational, intelligeble and important detailed version with some corrections, but he undo and undo it again and again. So he is one who destroying consensus version of article. First I though just to undo to consensus version, but then I saved some if his improvements with rewriting. But he again made unconstructive edits... Please, explain him or block him for violation. Thanks. I wrote a report in edit warring section, but though it is not simple case how I think, so here it is too. It's quite unusual to me that in english wiki there such many division by rules for reports to administrators. So, please, solve this incident please. "Anonymous with IP" 01:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no administrative action to be taken here - neither of you are actually edit warring yet. Keep discussing it at the talkpage or at WikiProject Film], where I have added a note to the effect that WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, not a policy, so you don't run out of space at exactly 700 words. You only seem to be debating around 100 words, and it is a film with a very complicated plot (I'm still not sure I understand it), so I'm sure you can agree something between you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Very complicated plot is right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this film has a great plot. Quite complicated? Well, maybe. And becouse of that it can't be so briefly described. Really I wanted to write more, there are very important things and moments that are not writed in plot section at all. And after that Sjones23 wanted to delete critically important text in plot section. It's nonsence. I just don't understand - why you are so attached to those 700 words? Common sence is higher than this. After all, always there is exception. Just CAN'T write plot so briefly of this film. If you will delete something you will delete plot itself. It's equivalent of deleting plot itself, again. So, please, think about it. Don't let WP:FILMPLOT beat you from commoon sence. "Anonymous with IP". —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the IP came here as they filed an almost identical report at WP:ANEW, which I've closed. Actually, I do think Sjones was edit-warring, and Sjones very properly acknowledged it and promised to stop. On that basis, I closed the report at ANEW, and I'm going to close this one, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ghost rider14

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, could someone please look at the recent work of the editor User:Ghost rider14, who appears to be the same as blocked sock User:Jetijonez, and is taking up his older work in terms of adding copyvio material to Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc.. I've already posted on WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yattum, but that does not address the repeated copyvio issue. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of the serial copyvio and WP:IDHT:

"The company began 2006 with a new name, PHI, Inc. The move was made to unite its broad range of operations under a single brand. Its old NASDAQ ticker symbols (PHEL, PHELK) were replaced by new ones (PHII, PHIIK), as well." [322]

"In 2006 company officially changed its name to, PHI, Inc. The move was made to unite its broad range of operations under a single brand. Its old NASDAQ ticker symbols (PHEL, PHELK) were replaced by new ones (PHII, PHIIK)" Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to properly look into the copyvio allegation but from what I can see this is not an incredibly obvious case - especially given that another admin has already denied a G12 as they did not think it was an obvious copyvio. Therefore I would caution both editors against continuing to edit war as I am not of the opinion that the exception to 3RR for copyvio will apply given the circumstances. Dpmuk (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dpmuk, thanks for the quick reply. I will take a break now :) Part of the issue is that Ghost rider14 seems to be the same editor as blocked sock Jetijonez. The denial that you refer to was about Jetijonez's edits, which were highly similar to Ghost rider14's edits. And there is other behavioral evidence here WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yattum. So it is sockpuppetry mixed up with serial copyvio, which is why I took it to ANI. FWIW, though, I think the sample passages above are copyvio. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I am of the opinion that they may be copyvio but if they are they're not so obvious as to be able to be dealt with quickly and I don't have time right now to do a more thorough investigation. Given the uncertainity I don't think the 3RR exception replies as that's for "clear copyright violations". If you are concerned that it is a copyvio the appropriate action at this point would be to add the {{copyvio}} template. WP:CP is currently stupidly backlogged but I'd try to have a look at it when I have more time. Dpmuk (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi so are you saying that I should follow these instructions including blanking the suspected material? WP:CP#Suspected_or_complicated_infringement Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Logical Cowboy (talk) requested a Speedy deletion reason: G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement It was reviewed by WilyD and declined on Aug 23, 2012 - and this his 2nd attempt to tag me as a sock - first time "decline NOT RELATED"! Ghost rider14 (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Comment was by Blocked sockpuppet. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Garrybalarry (talk · contribs), who contributed to the PHI article, just blanked Ghost rider14's talk page. Not involved, but it seems like a simple case of 'forgetting to log off the sock account while blanking their talk' to me. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Alison appears to be currently dealing with the checkuser / sock puppet side of this and I'd imagine will shortly be along with more. I'd already indeffed Garrybalarry (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock and blocked User:Ghost rider14 for one week for that socking (with no comment on anything beyond that). From a copyvio point of view the extra work done by Logical Cowboy while I was away makes it very clear that we do have a copyright problem so I've reverted and left a note on the talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Yattum has been blocked as sockpuppet, by the SPI clerk Dennis Brown. Not the sockmaster. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Logical Cowboy, see WP:CCI about doing copyright investigations. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think it is more widespread that is. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_About_Love_Tour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Forgive my ignorance if this is not the correct place to post, I am new here. But, I believe Administrator intervention is required, either to set me straight or some others. I nominated this article for deletion. I don't believe it reflects the intent of the Wikipedia. If it had move coverage in the general media, I would not object. But it does not seem to be there. When I have tried to point this out in comments(I admit a bit sarcastic, but it is my nature) they get reverted. My vote was also reverted, being told, I don't get a damn vote. If this is normal, then I have been wasting my time and will quietly go away. -- :- ) Don 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And now I find out I am tagging Newbies who got drug into this. This totally SUCKS. -- :- ) Don 01:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't understand your second comment (links might help) but as to the first - your nomination is fine, policy cited and all that, template transcluded properly etc. You don't get two votes, nominating it for deletion counts as one vote - you probably didn't realise this and tried to vote again. This remark was very rude. You're lucky someone reverted it before an admin saw it, so the less said about it the better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Kraxler using abusive language and deleting talk page information

User:Kraxler calls my edits "shit" and me "insane" and an "imbecile" and that I am "fucking up articles on Wikipedia" at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover and in the edit summaries in the article space. See a previous ANI here, from 4 May 2011, over him calling me "mentally retarded" and "half-illiterate". He is also removing my additions to the talk page. Otherwise he is an excellent editor adding lots of biographies and doing excellent research on deserving people from history. The problem arises when we both end up editing the same article. We both work in the area of biography and New York, so now twice we have encountered each other. I show respect for his opinions but he is abusive when I edit an article that he has created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree that this is merely when you both edit the same articles: an interaction ban certainly won't fix behaviours of calling anyone illiterate or retarded. The overall behaviour is enough that IMHO it's time to block - this level of filth directed at another editor is wholly unacceptable. I'm not as concerned about them calling your edits "shit" (although that's uncivil) - it's the direct NPA's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair he called me "half-illiterate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified Kraxler about this discussion. I have now done that and I have now left him [Kraxler] a 4im warning too. Anyhow, I'm not opposed to an immediate block regarding the nature of his comments. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I notified him at 11:20 with this edit and gave him a 3RR warning for removing my talk page comments again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't sign those (at least originally)... and they were meshed together (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just added the templates. I see they both run together and I added a header so they stand out a bit better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a contrast see how Road Wizard and I interact with mutual respect to improve the same Stephen H. Wendover article. There is no name calling or intimidation, even as we question each other's information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I requested Kraxler tone it down on the 7th. I think he toned the language down a bit - I hadn't realised he was deleting half of RAN's talkpage edits as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can have a second opinion on what started the rude comments. I was editing the article by converting the references that are a list of external links and changing them to in-line citations so that each fact is now tied to a specific reference. Here is his original article and and here is the reformatted version. I also add {{no footnotes}} to articles I am editing, but have not made the switch yet, so I can find the ones that need to be converted to in-line citations. Does anyone have an opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He also left with this edit a threat on my talk page when I added the 3RR warning on his talk page: "Do not send me warnings referring to a dispute you are a party to: See WP:INVOLVED. Besides, You are not and [sic] admin, so do not send me warnings anyway, or I'll have you blocked." I am required to give a 3RR warning before reporting him for any 3RR violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As a reminder, no action was taken at the previous ANI which emboldened him to be twice as vituperative during this interaction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• It appears to me that Richard Norton's work is being targeted by Kraxler. I'm not sure the root of the issue, but it seems to be long-running and mean-spirited and it seems to start with him. Administrators should keep an eye on this interaction, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Complex move chain needs fixing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It appears that someone confused about the purpose of the Wikipedia:Main namespace page has created a new article, Har Swarup, by copying and pasting the contents of their sandbox to Wikipedia:Main namespace. Following this, the page was moved (twice), creating a chain of redirects. I'm assuming that this needs administrator assistance to properly preserve the page histories, so I'm pointing it out here. The move logs are here. Thanks. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh jolly dee. I'll see if I can sort it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

That was me. Now all sorted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible made-up or fabricated citation and hoax

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190.

• This is partly a misleading, nay false, citation. It is not an academic paper, but an entitled, bound and published book, not in or of academic binding, cover or appearance, but that for the consumer [323] [324] [325] [326] – probably also not peer-viewed – complete with its ISBN ("African exodus: The origins of modern humanity", 0805027599) [327].

• NO such newspaper entitled "The London Daily Times" was known to had existed in England during that time, in the year 1994.

• Given the long history of the modern homo sapien human race, spanning over at least 50,000 years, it is also highly unlikely that a publication with only and merely 282 pages can possibly touch upon the subject of the Chinese community in the United Kingdom in any length.

• Therefore, I would move to allege and denounce that it is also partly a made-up or fabricated citation, with an unrelated publication, and that all of this is ultimately a hoax of some sort.

• This citation is not only used at the article for the British Chinese, but also previously in the article for the Model minority.

-- KC9TV 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You should post this on the talk page of the related article, as that is where the most knowledgeable editors in this specific area. If there were a pattern of this, however, here would be the right place to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is, of sorts, for there are at least in two separate and unrelated – not directly – articles. -- KC9TV 01:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• A pattern of two may not be the same editor... has this been added by the same person? If so, I wouldn't mind checking his/her contributions more closely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have been mistaken - the newspaper cited should have been the Sunday Times, I think. Please see the talk page of Model minority. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just noting that the citation (and the quote cited) appears on page 87 of Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 1, February 2001. -- 86.185.22.166 (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SkepticalRaptor

This editor had been quite threatening on my talk page, has automatically reverted my edits, and has failed to respond on the talk page... meanwhile calling my edits "vandalism" which is against policy since none of my edits were vandalism. Please warn the user to tone it down and start discussing and also to stop reverting automatically. He needs to defend his edits based on policy, not on the fact that he doesn't like some of them. I refer to edits to Parapsychology and Psychic. Thank you! He's also using Twinkle to revert, telling me to go to talk when I already had.

Oh, my goodness, now he's deleting edits to his talk page... [328] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.95.226 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And now he's accusing me of personal attacks, when there were none. Please do something. 98.103.95.226 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Both accounts need to take a break from editing the articles until consensus is determined, but SkepticalRaptor seems to have a history of biting the newcomers, not assuming good faith, and simply reverting edits he disagrees with without going to the talk page first. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well the IP is ignoring WP:BRD. S/he is attempting to insert controversial material and then failing to use the talk page after a first reversion. This type of article attracts editors with a song they want to sing and experienced editors can get frustrated as a result. Yes the reverts could have been more kindly made, but they are legitimate and the responsibility for explaining the proposed changes on the talk page rests with the IP who made them. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I somehow doubt that the IP is a newbie, and I think the IP is pushing a particular point of view in both articles. With the exception of one edit summary, SR did not label the IP's edits as vandalism but as POV and non-neutral. Same with the template warnings left on the IP's talk page. I believe, just as with any content dispute of this kind, once reverted, the burden is on the editor, in this instance the IP, to obtain consensus for the changes to the article. All that said, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure it does belong at AN/I. You know that you have to strongly resist being discounted and bullied when you edit a controversial article. I'm not pretending to have no experience at WP. I'm just asking for the respect accorded to a normal editor. And I did use the talk page. I also used edit summaries to give good explanations. I ignored BRD yes but I was being reverted as a routine matter with edit summaries just ignored. And I was being called a vandal. And, my attempts to reason with the editor were just deleted from his talk page.

And the POV I'm pushing is that if you look at it objectively, you have to admit some of these things I changed are very poorly sourced. 98.103.95.226 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The place to discuss disagreements about content is on the article talk page, not here, not in edit summaries, and not on SkepticalRaptor's talk page, as he abundantly (and rightly) makes clear. As for him calling you a vandal, he didn't. He called one of your edits vandalism, and there's a difference. Should he have done so? No, in my opinion, but that's hardly a matter for ANI. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lnks, that is someone blanking a section because they wish to push a POV. I'm not sure how you can interpret SkepticalRaptor's response as bitey. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an obvious DUCK of blocked sockmaster BookWorm44, pushing his material back into an article, just like his previous sockpuppets did. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BookWorm44. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP is also edit warring at What the Bleep Do We Know!?. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the IP was not edit warring on What the Bleep. Rather, bad sourcing was noted and removed, replaced with different sourcing, and that also was bad and was removed. Another revert was not made. I will try to find time to review the new source and see if it makes statements that support the text. So yes it was a revert but it was for a different reason the second time. And I am NOT the BookWorm44 person above. As for bringing it to AN/I, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Tell me exactly how well I would be treated without coming here? You guys know the answer precisely, and you shouldn't mind me shining a bit of light on the situation, increasing the profile you know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.95.226 (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that article was link-rot, and I think I have things repaired properly now. As for your edits as an IP, I'm of mixed minds. I agree that SkepticalRaptor was unduly harsh. However, given the number of banned and topic-banned editors that deal with the paranormal, I'm not very inclined to take the concerns of an anonymous-but-obviously-experienced editor very seriously. If you want to be treated with good faith, treat us with good faith: log in and let us examine your edits in context.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

RevDelete needed

I was on my mobile phone, and it logged me out before I made this edit [329]. Could I get a RevDelete of just the IP address? Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit suppressed. Next time, please use WP:RFO. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 17:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by multiple users on the Election article

Resolved

 – The issue is moot, as Florida has officially declared for Obama.

Couldn't decide whether to put this on AN/EW or here, but it hasn't been resolved yet after I requested it elsewhere.

Multiple editors keep insisting on adding that Obama has won Florida to the article, against consensus on the talk page. I requested full protection, that hasn't happened. I'd rather not go over 3RR (which if I already have I'd like to apologize to everyone), so can an administrator go revert and then full protect the page? Thanks. United States presidential election, 2012. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN.com still has it too class to call, and I would think that's a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and so does pretty much all other sources (FOX, NBC, ABC, you name it). That's why I'm requesting revert and full protect. The request wasn't handled at other places (RPP) so I brought it here because it continues to escalate. I can't revert or else I'll go over 3RR. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in my opinion this is a minor issue, and it's not happening so often that it's disruptive. The number of productive edits in comparison is much larger, and full protection impedes article improvement. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but what would you suggest for editors who come across the information being readded? I know I can't revert again for at least 20 more hours or so, and if nobody else is monitoring the page, then what should be done? That's the only reason I wanted protection, because it's editors who aren't listening to talk page consensus after being told about it multiple times. There's always the Template:editprotected that anyone can use if they absoultely need to. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Nyttend is on call, I see. Or (but I'm sure you don't want to hear me say this) you can not worry about it. It'll be called soon enough, Romney's campaign has conceded, no one believes what Wikipedia says anyway. No, don't go over 3RR, leave it to others and trust that strength comes in numbers. If if gets out of hand someone will re-ask this question, and the admins on the West Coast and in Japan will look at it afresh. Thanks for helping keep the place clean--and my apologies, on behalf of my colleagues, that your request was languishing a bit at RFPP. It's not a heavy-traffic area, as you know. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand Romney has conceded. But the news has said that there's a moderately good chance of there being a mandatory Florida recount, so why call it? I totally understand about the RFPP, no need to apologise there. I'll leave it to others, unless it gets out of hand. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that supporters of keeping Florida neutral greatly overstate the breadth of their "consensus;" there absolutely is a consensus to be careful and not call states early, but it isn't "early" after Romney has conceded. (Note: I have made 0 edits to the actual article although I support changing the article to reflect Obama winning Florida). That said, I'm fine with waiting a day as I'm quite sure that we'll see all the other news sources cited catch up and mark Florida as blue.

The comment about a recount is irrelevant, though; a mandatory recount is unlikely at this stage, and whether a recount happens or not, Wikipedia should report what the reliable sources write. (Which would mean potentially calling Florida for Obama if that's what the sources do even if the recount goes off after all.) SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend this discussion be closed; I think there's not much more to say here at present. It seems like edit warring has ceased for now. Additional arguments of whether this should change or not can go back to the talk page, not here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend we lop off Florida; it looks like a penis anyway on the US map. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is just a giant hanging chad. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it pass the Mull of Kintyre test?--Shirt58 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the electoral map is also posted on the United States elections, 2012 article, along with brief content about the presidential election. Thus please do not have this type of edit warring spill over to that article, or any other related page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the talkpage posters can't work out a reasonable compromise about that table, then it sounds to me like there is tendentious editing going on, and THAT should get intervention. An example compromise might be putting an asterisk in the table cell, pointing to an explanatory sentence giving the current numbers and saying Romney has conceded. The current state of the table is misleading IMHO. FWIW the NYT electoral map[330] says 100% of the ballots are counted and my calculation from NYT's numbers has Obama about 0.57% ahead, which is about the 0.5% level that triggers a recount in Florida. I guess it's possible some absentee or provisional ballots are still being counted, though. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Honestly, if the entire article had to be full-protected a couple of days to prevent BS (it would likely be protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION anyway) then so be it ... an encyclopedia doesn't need to have cutting edge news (if it did, my day job would be out of business!) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Auntie Beeb is saying [331] that it could be mid-day Saturday before Florida is decided. Pity they can't simply be removed from United States of America and their spot given to Puerto Rico (or the other usual "51st state" candidate, Alberta :) in the interests of restoring democracy. K7L (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, if Puerto Rico became the 51st state, Vermont would happily replace it and return Canada to its 10 province/3 territory glory (and the US back to 50 states) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources have reported that Obama won Florida, and the Romney campaign has conceded that it lost, is there really any point to claiming we have to wait for networks - for whom the story is no longer newsworthy - to call it? That's the situation found in a dispute on that page's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary to wait. According to a Dutch source ([332]) it is still an unofficial result and the counting is still in progress. The Banner _talk 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

'Every result is an unofficial result at this point. That's what calling states means. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Google-translation of the Dutch text: Florida is, 3 days after the election, still not finished counting votes, although the camp of President Barack Obama's Thursday already declared victory. The Banner _talk 14:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is the article being reported in American newspapers some time ago. You know they're still counting ballots in Arizona, right, and yet we'vbe coloured Arizona red. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize, that Arizona has been called by every major news network? No major network has called Florida for Obama: CNN, FOX, NBC/CNBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS. Oh, wait. All of those sources say that Florida is still uncalled. So, we can't add it, as it wouldn't be substantiated as in the other projections listed on the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

States are called, as was well-demonstrated on Fox News, when the available information indicates an extremely low probability that there are enough uncounted votes to make a difference in the outcome. That's how they could call Ohio, even though it looked close. In contrast, Florida has too many votes to count yet in various places, and there's too narrow a margin, to make a high-probability call. Maybe by this time tomorrow there will be enough votes counted that it can be called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"With only ballots from Democratic-leaning counties left to be counted, the final tally was not expected to change the outcome, Republican acknowledged." - New York Times, November 8. This is so incredibly stupid. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It, for the media, probably has to do with having other things to do which actually matter (until the stories are ginned up about the possible recount). At any rate, this encyclopedia with consensus follows the main-steam, preponderance of sources. It doesn't lead. And the rest of this discussion should be taken to the article talk page. Here, we just say don't edit war, follow policy, come to consensus, and be civil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN has now called it for Obama.[333] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• There's actually an answer to this question, and it doesn't have to do with this or that network "calling" a result... The Secretary of State of each state issues a written "certificate of election." When that happens, the election is over, the end, and the map can be colored in in permanent ink. Prior to that, there are just "apparent winners" leading to a foredrawn conclusion when the electoral college gets together and formally elects the president. I guess the issue has evaporated, but the map for Florida should have been pale blue with a footnote that Obama was the vote leader and apparent winner, subject to recount. The attempt to keep the state blank strikes me as a partisan effort to minimize the margin of victory in electoral votes and should have been whacked down on that basis... Carrite (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • There's more than one way to show it. I lean toward the Democratic side, but I don't see a problem with keeping it blank until a reliable source has called it. Obviously, the state's secretary's certification clinches the deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Social market economy - set back to a version of 2010|12|26

There was a discussion about some recent edits [334]. After that User:Mr. Mustard set back my changes [335] and I set back his [336]. I think that this is ok.

But now Mr. Mustard set back to a version of 2010|12|26, effectively deleting 28,505 byte and changes of dozens of users. None of these edits were ever challanged on the talk page. I don´t think that this is ok. I informed him about it, but he ignores it [337]. What shall I do? --Pass3456 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The set back to a version of 2010|12|26 is just a workaround till we will find a solution for our conflict. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

But it has nothing to do with our conflict.--Pass3456 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is the last version before you began to write your POV without a source in the article. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For two years no one had problems with these couple of edits I made two years ago. Not even you challanged them (until I posted this notice and you try it as an excuse). Moreover the fast majority of text you deleted isn´t even from me. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So name a actual version that is not controversial. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

That recent one. --Pass3456 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously controversial. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

By which arguments? --Pass3456 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

For example because the model was not implemented by most political parties in West Germany. This is absolutely nonsense. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

These are not my words. And it´s not a reason to set back every single contribution of the last two years. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure! --Mr. Mustard (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No I just set back to a version before my changes (see edit summary). But even that doesn´t seem to suit you. "And promoted by all political parties since 1959" ist precise. We can go back to the last user:Christian L Glossner version and correct that. -> Still no need to set back every single contribution of dozens of users over the last two years. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that verify that the model was promoted by all political parties since 1959? I can show you sources that state the opposite. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Why you discus this here?

Because it is completely senseless to discuss anything with you (as your german Wikipedia blog log [338] proudly demonstrates). Unless you are getting infinitely blocked in this Wikipedia too, you will defend the version of 2010|12|26 for always and forever. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, if you don't have sources to verify your statements it is completely senseless to discuss with you.--Mr. Mustard (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I give you a source if you agree on the proposed.--Pass3456 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I see WP:DRN was attempted first. (Good!) but was just shutdown. Best best is for Pass3456 to and Mr. Mustard to try to come to consensus, not on what the article should say, but what the points of disagreement between them are, and then initiate a WP:RFC NE Ent 19:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We don´t get third opinions any more since it is obvious that Mr. Mustard takes no advice. Attempts here, here, here, and several requests at Wikipedia:Third opinion with 0 responses. User:Christian L. Glossner probably worked on the article due to one of the requests but Mr. Mustard has deleted all of his effort with one edit and sero arguments. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What to do about a website that does not attribute its content to us?

For some time now, I've seen this one group of fansites (all operated by the same group) copy content directly from Wikipedia and claim it as their own. Recently, because an editor was not happy with the way that I dealt with WP:PLOT violating material on an article, he saw fit to move it to its own page which was then detected as being a copyright violation of the fansite, who is actually copying from us but not attributing. It would seem that I'm a member of the central website that manages these pages but I don't know how to raise the issue with them withou being a total asshole (and further distancing myself from the group due to prior actions I have taken here).—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the problem: Wikipedia doesn't own any of the material here. The individuals do, who have licensed Wikipedia to use it. It would literally have to be the people who own the copyrights for those exact passages that would have to raise the issue. Wikipedia has no authority to enforce the copyrights owned by hundreds of thousands of contributors, who may or may not want their copyrights enforced. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  It may be a good idea to list the site at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, to reduce the risk of future copyvio false-positives. bobrayner (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Please list the site at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks so as to avoid confusion when resolving future allegations of copyright infringement. (Incidentally, that project page also contains some suggestions for dealing with sites which republish Wikipedia content in violation of the licence.) —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  It's a whole series of websites though, so I think I'd have to end up listing at least 5 different URLs, all of which just wholesale copy and paste from the work of the editors here.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Nothing about a list of five sites sounds particularly onerous, Ryulong.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  Also there's the issue of giving http://www.rangercentral.com/, http://www.supersentai.com/, http://www.kamen-rider.com/, http://www.tokucentral.com/, and http://www.ultramancentral.com/ the recognition.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TelusFielder / 68.150.245.177

TelusFielder (talk · contribs) / 68.150.245.177 (talk · contribs) has been entering WP:BLP-violating material in the Asra Nomani article. The Nomani article has been a target of BLP violations for quite some time now, with various (typically IP) editors trying to dig up "dirt" on her and add it to her article. Recently TelusFielder / 68.150.245.177 has apparently read a series of Nomani's blog postings, decided he didn't like certain things she said, and therefore put a pejorative spin on them and added them to the article's "Criticism" section, along with some guilt-by-association and "criticisms" from the site www.loonwatch.com [339]. In the past he's used loonwatch.com to attack other individuals with whom he disagrees (e.g. [340]). I've removed his Nomani edits a couple of times, as has another editor. TelusFielder's response has been to aggressively revert the material back in, and to remove reliably sourced information from a different article, with the edit summary "Probably not even true". TelusFielder does not appear to have a good grasp of WP:V, WP:RS, and especially WP:BLP. Before blocking him myself, I've brought the issue here for further discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like someone likes to make judgements about other users huh? It's real funny, that this user above me threatened to block me from editing, right after I posted the links. Not even a discussion, just a flat out threat. Does that sound reasonable? Does that make any sense? Honestly, that is very unprofessional. Just because you have the ability to block someone, does that mean you block whomever disagree's with you? I hope other users chime in on this.

Now, lets go back to those sources. I quoted Asra's own words, I linked to an article she wrote, how she supported burning Qurans, how she supported racial and religious profiling. Actually, for the latter, there were some pretty good sources. As for loonwatch, I said that one was debatable, and after I stopped using it. But the user above me didn't care, they began deleting my edits. So I really don't know what this user's deal is?

As for Spellberg's article, anyone can easily see how biased that line was. In other words, she's saying that she's correct and other scholars are liars. That sentence is so poorly written. So, out of good faith, I decided to take it off. I hope other users take a look how this article is written, especially in the begining.

Also, this user deleted my post on his talk page because they thought it wa sa "personal attack". Again, someone please look into this and tell me it is NOT that?

Anything else you want to bring up Jayjg? TelusFielder (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Anything else you want to talk about

Assertations such as the ones you posted must have the best possible sources as Dawnseeker said in their edit summary, especially when it comes to BLP. I'm not quite sure about the dailybeast refs. That site is nominally associated with Newsweek and since I don't read American newspapers I can't say either way. The other two are definitely not RS, both being blogs. The dailybeast sources link to articles that Asra Nomani wrote but the placement in the criticism section would have implied to the reader of the wiki article that the sources were critiques of Nomani for holding such views, which is entirely not the case.

The removal of the sourced statement in the Spellberg statement was also inappropriate. Although not exactly the best written piece of prose, it could have been improved instead of wholesale removed. At the very least, it should have been brought up for discussion on the article talk page.

On the flip side, I wouldn't have said TelusFielder's post on Jayjg's talk page was a personal attack, per se, uncivil perhaps but not really an attack.

On the whole, Jayjg was entirely correct in leaving that warning. TelusFielder should accept the warning and be careful in future with controversial insertions into BLPs. Edit warring it back in was a definite no-no and should have taken it to the talk page for wider discussion, where it would have been plainly obvious that 2 of the sources failed RS and the other two would have needed careful discussion on their use and placement in the article. Discuss more, not edit war. Blackmane (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate discussion closure

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few days ago I started an Afd for Personal (album) because I was unable to find sources for it. Status (talk · contribs) obviously followed my contributions and commented on the Afd, stating that the topic had some notability and should be kept or redirected. I was, quite frankly, astonished to find Status' best friend on this entire project Hahc21 (talk · contribs) to have closed the Afd three days early, with the rationale "The article meets both GNG and NALBUMS." This closure was completely out of line for multiple reasons. Firstly, he clearly presented his opinion when he closed the Afd by stating that it meets both GNG and NALBUMS. The discussion showed absolutely no evidence that the album met these guidelines, as both editors pointed to the album charting as evidence for notability which is not a requirement for WP:GNG. Then, just seven minutes after the discussion was closed, Status was hasty enough to created a DYK nomination for the article, seven minutes later. Obviously there was some sort of WP:COI involved for him to close the discussion and his friend to get credit for a DYK. I undid the closure with the rationale "Keep closure in error" (which it was). He then notified me on my talk page, acting like he is an administrator and has authority over me; stating, "If you are not happy with my close, come to my talk first and we can discuss reopening it or not. Going ahead and reverting a close without being an admin or asking me to do so first is not the way to go." I then responded to this, telling him not to talk down to me and act like he's some admin with power, and explained why the closure was wrong. The closure was also reverted by IP 86.44.24.94.

I request that this user be forbidden from making non-admin closures from here thereafter. Till 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Hahc21 (talk · contribs)'s contribs, you could see he closed a bunch of AfDs at the time; he just didn't randomly close one that I had expanded. Such absurd claims these are. I saw the AfD had been closed, and decided to nominate it for DYK, as I had been nominating several articles I expanded within the past few days for DYK, check my contribs. Whether or not it was closed at the time I would have been nominating it. You can nominate DYKs for articles that are under AfD, it just won't be promoted until the AfD has been closed. As for everything else, I think it's a bit ridiculous and extreme. Statυs (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus has been pretty consistent closures should be done by admins; as the closure has been reverted I don't think any further action is needed. NE Ent 23:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, such consensus is true, but I am good doing non-admin closures [I have made 68 closures, by the way]. I understand that Till might be mad because the outcome from that AFD is leaning to keep and he is interested in seeing the article deleted. Also, as Status said, I closed 4 AFDs within an hour and 14 AFDs since yesterday night. Assuming that I ramdomly closed the AFD is "original research." — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The best practice is that non-admin closures should be reserved for XfDs that have very clear outcomes that could not reasonably be questioned. The one that is the subject of this thread did not have such an unambiguous result, certainly not at the time you closed it early. I don't think any formal action is required in this thread, but please be more conservative in making non-admin closures only in appropriate cases. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for your comment, Newyorkbrad. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I am confused as to why it is being hinted at the IP user is either myself or Hahc21, when he accused another editor of being the IP just yesterday, not even a full 24 hours ago. Statυs (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

? No one is accusing you or Hahc21 of being the IP. Till 01:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also this isn't personal or about you, it's about the flawed Afd closure. Because policy says that I have to notify you. Till 01:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

When you add "Status' best friend on this entire project" to it, it adds a certain personal flare, don't you think? Statυs (talk) 01:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The closer claims that he has made good non-admin closures in the past but just seconds after searching his list of closures, I immediately found another controversial close done just last month. He shouldn't be closing Afds that have an even number of !votes as "no consensus", that is for an administrator to decide. Further, he didn't even write in the closing comment that it was a non-admin closure. Again, can't some sort of ban be placed on him making NACs from now on? And claiming that I'm angry because it will be closed as keep is quite ridiculous, to be honest with you. Till 01:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I guess I will just warn you once: The enforcement you are trying to apply over me won't happen anytime soon. I have made mistakes at AFD, I know, but what you are requesting is just ridiculous. Why should I be banned from closing AFDs when only 2 of my 68 closes have been considered as controversial and that matter was handled by an admin [who served as my instructor, sort of I should say] long time ago? Just because I closed an AFD of yours? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  Here are some more. You are not an administrator so stop trying to be one. Till 02:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  Uhm... make that THREE. That we know of. And your tone in the preceeding post confirms my conclusion in my post below. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  I know I am not an administrator, and I am not willing to be one anytime soon. My first RFA gave me what I need to know about myself and my work here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It may be luck of the draw, but I have to say that I have noticed this editor three times in the past few weeks, all in the context of serious lapses of judgement.

The first was with regards to a non-admin closure as no consensus that was later reversed, with a final admin decision as delete: [[341]]. The editor should have known not to mess with a hotly contested AfD that clearly needed closure by an admin.

The second was stepping out of his role as a DRN volunteer to throw his weight around on the talk page for Australian Christian Lobby, probably because he was disappointed that no wanted to particpate in the DRN. He made a bad call about sources and article content in this case.

The third was today, when he !voted in an AfD using WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, none of which were reliable for establishing notability (press releases and concert announcements). See [[342]].

I'm sorry, but I think this editor needs to hit the policies and guidelines a lot more carefully before he enganges in activities like non-admin closures and DRN. Based what I've seen, I don't think he's ready for that level of responsibility. It would be a good idea for him to find a mentor if he wishes to continue semi-adminsitrative activities, and to refrain from them for a reasonable length of time to insure assimilation of the policies and guidelines, say three months. After that point, his competence should be assessed by his mentor and two ininvolved admins, and should he be deemed competent for the task, he could resume at DRN and non-admin closures.

Frankly, this editor has gotten a bit cocky and overestimates his own competence, and that is not good for him or the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

OMG. I did not expect this. Lack of judgement? Three months? Two admins? Mentorship? I don't undertand this. I am a mentor myself and I have worked in some policies by myself too [As well as 97% accuracy at AFD while !voting]. Sorry but I don't get any of this. I will refrain myself from answering here, as it may make more harm than good. I have already apologized for the AFD close, so I have nothing else to say. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just follow NYB's advice. Additionally, if you NAC close an AFD and someone questions or reverts, then that's prima facie evidence it's not an appropriate Afd for non-admin closure. NE Ent 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dominus' proposal, refraining from making NACs for a period of three months seems suitable. Till 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, Hahc21 made a few bad calls in AfD closures. That's it. I'm sure he will remember this for next time. That does not equal to being banned from doing non-admin closures. Additionally to Dominus Vobisdu, how does "The third was today" relate to the closure of AfDs? Now you're just going off topic. And FYI, that wasn't even today, that was several days ago. "Frankly, this editor has gotten a bit cocky and overestimates his own competence"? He appears to be pretty level-headed to me. Statυs (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of Hahc21's phrasing comes across as a little off, so I'm thinking he may be appearing more combative than he intends to be. e.g. "I will just warn you once" strikes my (Northeast USA) ear a bit oddly; specifically the use of the term "warn" in this context. I think if he agrees to be a little more judicious in which Afd he closes and agrees not edit war if someone reverts a close we should close the thread and move on. NE Ent 02:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not combative at all. Also, I try to be as polite as possible. I apologize if I made some aggressive comments. Till is being a bit aggressive lately and I couldn't avoid writing such things. Also, I never edit war =/ I agree I have made some mistakes at AFD and I have, by myself, looked for admin help when I know I may breach some hot water. Why I should be a bit mad or upset? Because this went too far. A message from Till saying "Hey Hahc21, I reverted your close because i think it was inappropiate and it's not inside NAC" would have done the trick, but no. He just reverted without giving me a notice or something. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to fail to grasp the gravity of making innapropriate closures, and the consequences thereof. And yes, your tone does come across as combative and defensive, and fobbing off responsibility for your actions on Till is not an appropriate response. You can expect to see this matter revisted if you continue to make mistakes, which I hope you do not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no big gravity on this [nothing that cannot be easily reverted, although that's not an excuse to make mistakes of course]. Also, I know I am responsible of my acts. Sorry if I was a bit too harsh here, you may note I never wrote like this back at DRN. Although, It seems like you have a disturbed vision of me, like I am some kind of disruptive newbie or something like that, which I am not [of course we all make mistakes, whichever how long we have stayed here]. I am pretty sure this won't be revisited, mainly because it wasn't before, and mainly because of other things you may notice as time goes by. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think that most closes by Hahc21 have been pretty reasonable, so a ban from NACs seems unnecessary. As someone who has closed a lot of Afds over the past three months, I've found that it is often difficult to predict which closes will be "controversial"--someone will get upset about pretty much anything. That being said, I'd suggest Hahc21 limit his NAC closes to snow keeps of discussions open over 167 hours. (Till has been unhappy with my deletion work in the past, so I guess this should be taken with a grain of salt.) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

My dissatisfaction with your previous Afd closes is irrelevant and not germane to this thread. The proof lies within the many links that I have provided above which demonstrate the user's inability to exercise sound judgement while closing Afds. Till 03:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that 4 of 68 NACs are proof of "inability to exercise sound judgement"... — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It sure is. If you're doing non-admin closures, you had better be 68-for-68. Perhaps one error could be overlooked. Four is absolutely inexcusable. NAC's should only be done when there is no chance whatsoever of erring. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's actually seven, including the one that ignited this thread. One two three four five six. And these are only the ones that have been brought up in this thread. Till 07:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

@Haha21: If you don't agree that stepping in to close the AfD on Rashmi Singh (author) was a major lapse in judgement, then you shouldn't be doing non-admin closures, period. What in God's name possessed you to step in to an AfD like that? And yes, it's a big deal. Other editors spent many hours working on their arguments for AfD, and here you come along and flush all that work down the toilet.

For the simple reason that you're trivializing what you have done, you've convinced me that the ban proposed above is the best move for hte project, and hope that the administatrors here reconsider. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the ban is the way to go, I will accept it. I guess I have said above that I have made mistakes and I looked for administrative help when it happened [my first NACs were very controversial, indeed]. If that's not enough, and the work I have happily made at AFD trying to give a hand is not good enough by community, then I will step out of AFD completely right now. I guess that this has gone too far, and before a ban is proposed on me, I will do it by myself. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to propose one yourself, when we're already !voting on one below (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for the vote. I can enforce myself not to edit AFD-related pages. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's no need for a !vote, then I'll be happy to close the vote as enacted by the community - you've shown your unwillingness to abide by the policy until a !vote had already started - you can't wiggle out of a restriction like that. A closure of the !vote right now will be considered to be a community consensus, and will be registered accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I agree. — ΛΧΣ21™ 12:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban from making non-admin closures. Till 09:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction from NAC's in any forum. The editor has been shown the policy, and is in this very thread refusing to abide by it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction form non-admin closures. It's disturbing how the editor seems to think this is a trivial and to minimize the impact his errors in judgement have made. His responses indicate that he just doesn't get it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support indefinite restriction, per all of the above concerns. The user attempting to put a stop to this !vote while it's in progress doesn't sit well with me either. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ip trolling Mathsci

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

211.222.107.50 (talk · contribs) NE Ent 12:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This was almost certainly Mikemikev who currently appears to be back in Korea. There have been a whole series of these scattered around. I tag them when they are obvious but NE Ent takes the view that, even when obvious trolls, they have every right to edit. Deskana has kindly semiprotected the two user pages affected and run a checkuser. Professor marginalia has also tagged some of the ipsocks. At this stage it is not worth making an WP:SPI request. If and when named socks appear, it might help in identifying them. Here is a selection of the ipsocks, all editing from S. Korea:

• 211.222.107.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 211.222.107.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 116.122.206.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 112.171.196.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 112.218.41.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.37.255.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.37.255.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 121.173.252.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 121.67.169.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 211.222.107.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 211.119.59.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Mathsci (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Actual statement: [343]. Per Mathsci's request I have unwatched their talk page and will make no further suggestions to him on any Wikipedia forum. NE Ent 15:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Deskana helped immensely. Tagging IPs is helpful for identifying future named sockpuppets, if any. NE Ent's huff is noted. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the tagging of ipsocks. It's routine maintenance. Those IPs weren't even used by anyone else, so it's entirely uncontroversial. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Putting aside the merits of what should or shouldn't have been done, you unfairly mischaracterized what NE Ent said, and only added to that by dismissing it as a "huff".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I've accepted a long time ago that sometimes my unsolicited suggestions to folks are helpful, and sometimes they're not. As this is obviously a not situation I'd prefer to just let it go and encourage everyone else to do so also. NE Ent 15:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good on you! --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Checkusers will not publicly confirm IP's as being connected to registered accounts. It may or may not "feed the trolls" by tagging their accounts. Obviously, that template was created for a reason. But it might be better to keep a list of suspected socks offline (i.e. on your PC) and then watch their behavior. If they misbehave, they can be turned in for that misbehavior. Then the question of socking doesn't enter into it, and everybody's happy (except for the blocked user). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's better for them to be publicly tagged. There were incidents in the past when Mathsci reverted some IP sock and then some "super-AGF" editor reverted Mathsci. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

He should definitely tag them, then. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The tag that says "an editor has expressed concern that this may be a sock" could be reasonable in the short term. The question would be, how long should it stay there? IP's can bounce around. If I were to get onto a public library and see something like that on the user page, and it had been posted long ago, I might think wikipedia is run by bozos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Then visit WP:OPP sometimes. Having a tag on their IP page, which most IP users don't ever check out is definitely less intrusive than an outright block. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since Mikemikev is almost certainly geographically displaced (no recent edits from UCL or ICL), it's hardly surprising there was no correlation when deskana ran a CU. On the other hand it is known that, when not in London, Mikemikev occasionally works teaching English in the Far East. Mikemikev is a completely different kettle of fish from A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. He's active on Stormfront and similar sites. Sock accounts have had to be removed without any possible trace by arbitrators because the usernames were blatant outing; that also happened with diffs on WP:ANI; and diffs mocking the death of Slrubenstein were removed by Alison, etc. The hate image added on my talk page by the Mikemikev sock Comicania was dealt with by MRG and Philippe (WMF) on Commons. So it's just a question of keeping track of things. Who knows how long he'll be in S. Korea. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

AwesomeMachine

This bit of extremely offensive trolling on Talk:Barack Obama alerted me to the existence of AwesomeMachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is either completely out of touch with reality or the longest-standing vandalism-only account on Wikipedia. Amazingly, he's posted nothing but hoaxes and talk page trolling on and off since 2006 without getting blocked. szyslak (t) 12:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty massive BLP violation as well, and I have indeffed due to its severity. Anyone else can reduce if they disagree (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! szyslak (t) 12:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

6 1/2 years, but only a page and a half of edits. Either a very-infrequent editor, or a sockpuppet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Can the talk page edit be redacted as well? KTC (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have RevDel'd it appropriately (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. KTC (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It was subsequently suppressed. I am not sure why. I have contacted the relevant oversighter about this. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the oversighter in question, but I'll say that having taken a look at the edit, whoever suppressed it was absolutely correct to do so imo. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Elizabethcochran00 pushing POV on Amber Lyon BLP

User:Elizabethcochran00 has been contravening the BLP policy by using the Amber Lyon article to push a personal point of view that is not supported by the sources given or offering negative content devoid of sources. The editor is attempting to use the article as a coatrack for negative content about CNN, the former employer of the subject. The improperly sourced content, defamatory content, and inappropriate tone has been removed from the Amber Lyon article numerous times to no avail. Editor has been warned about the inappropriate edits to the article and has chosen to go beyond the fourth warning to continue editing in the same manner, disregarding the warnings offered. While the editor may hold the subject's opinions of CNN as truth, we cannot replicate this position in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to advocate, present propaganda, or promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. Other editors that have attempted to address these issues include User:Silver seren, User:Binksternet, User:Claramince, and User:Hpx5900 (presumably User:207.237.92.219). While I acknowledge there could likely be socks participating in editing this article, it is not yet clear to me which are connected. Elizabethcochran00 and User:XP Ali have been editing in tandem, but the latter stopped editing after the final warning. I appreciate your help. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 16:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 31 hours as an initial action. I reviewed the article and the user appears determined to insert their POV against consensus and is willing to edit war to get there. Not collaborative at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-hounding from User: DAJF

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good evening. I am a wikipedia user "Sysmithfan", and I constantly being harrassed by User:DAJF. His annoyance has been going on since August 2012. He follows me practically everywhere. He always changes/reverts the pages that were just edited by me, including: Toshinobu Kubota, Mamoru Miyano, Koe ni Dekinai, and most recently Kreva (rapper). He taken place in dicussions/debates including [344] and recently crossed-over to the Wikipedia Commons to participate in my discussion, which had nothing to with him.[345]. In August 2012, I told him to stop following my edits, but to this day, he continues.[346]

When he was recently approached about his wikihounding, he stated that most of the pages were on his "watchlist". While most of these pages I have edited may be on his watchlist (maybe!), I find the need to "watch" my image uploads unnecessary. Furthermore, he would have to be following my edits because most pages I have created, are under the assumption to be on his watchlist. To justify his claim as not wiki-hounding, he also stated that I do not follow most of Wikipedia rules, which is a false allegation. If I edits are wrong, why is he the first person to change this, and not another user or admin. The bottom line is, he is Wikihounding me. This has happened too many times for it to be a coincidence. Please stop him from following me. Sysmithfan (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in the diffs you provide above of hounding. Some are pretty old (August). Some, like the AfD discussion, doesn't even seem to be a real dispute between you and DAJF. In the Commons discussion, DAJF wasn't the only editor who questioned your image uploads. As for the other articles, I looked at one, and the dispute was also in August - and a silly one at that, about date formatting. I can see you don't like DAJF editing the same pages you edit, but that isn't sufficient for a charge of hounding. Perhaps if you provide more recent evidence, that would be helpful. I'm still reeling from DAJF's statement that he has over 12,000 pages on his watchlist. And yet he seems to find the time to "follow" you around. I'm surprised he has the time to sleep.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DAJF did not begin the questioning about upload at the Commons, but he did follow me there after I made a reply. Futhermore, I have not problem with DAJF's editing, but I do have a problem with him following most of my edits. I can also do not understand why you denote my claims as hounding considering most of time I edit a page on his so-called "watchlist", he follows behind me by adding something. I am well aware of the fact that he has been on Wikipedia longer than me and the number of pages he edits everyday. I am simply stating that most of his edits that coincide with my own, is a little more than a coincidence. Especially considering the fact that he has added most of image uploads to his watchlist. For what purpose is that? As well as following me to the Commons discussion and participating there. There is no way he would have known about that without looking at my contribution history on a daily basis. Sysmithfan (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

My watchlist stands at 15,985 articles right now, Bbb23.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I already knew you were a glutton for punishment, Kevin. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your latest round of "wikihounding" accusations seem to be based around you edit warring over a copyright violation you inserted in Kreva (rapper), to wit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kreva_(rapper)&diff=522349244&oldid=522314971. It most certainly is a copyright violation to directly copy text from http://www.syncmusic.jp/wordpress/?p=1880. Inserting it again will result your being blocked from editing. There's nothing wrong with someone monitoring problematic editors and removing problematic edits. The way to avoid such things is to cease being problematic. I'm going to go remove that text again.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've now indefinitely blocked Sysmithfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 06:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats User:ChanceTrahan

User:ChanceTrahan issued implicit legal threats in this edit, the blanking of an AFD page. Actions strongly suggest that this is a sock- or meat-puppet of IP User:75.70.221.14, which had been blocked for legal threats in matters regarding the same page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Kww got him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There were some BLP problems associated with the article, most notably that it named the founders without providing any reliable sourcing as to the names of the founders. I've gone through the article history with a meataxe as a result. If anyone can provide a reliable source about the identity of the owners, I'll restore the information and associated history.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There's more background on the dispute and the site owners here, and in associated posts (NB: It's a blog). Bottom line, it's not just a Wikipedia issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User Sayerslle editing on the Houla massacre

This is my first time bringing something up here, so please accept my apologies if this is the wrong forum. I have encountered Sayerslle (talk) at the Houla massacre page, where Sayerslle has been arguing that an account of the massacre based upon a report by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung should not receive mention in wikipedia's article.

Many editors have weighed in on this subject, but Sayerslle's contributions have been particularly counterproductive because they have been aggressive ([347]), [348]), sometimes incomprehensible ([349]), have often assumed bad faith ([350]), and at least on this occasion devolved into insulting ad-hominem ([351]). Sayerslle has called the account from the German paper, which he had never heard of before ([352]) equivalent to a "fringe theory" ([353]) or "pro-Assad" ([354]), though the paper is the largest in Germany and one of the most respected in the world. Sayerslle called further mention of it in the press "regurgitation" ([355]). Recently, when another editor and I with sharply divergent viewpoints began to reach a compromise, Sayerslle responded with what I suppose was meant to be irony ([356]), and then made obviously partisan edits in disregard of most of the talk page, while accusing me of violating neutrality ([357]).

Lastly, about every one of Sayerslle's edits are terribly written, and while this isn't a crime, I can't help but feel that it reflects the value of the edits overall.

The cumulative effect of all this is to create a hostile atmosphere; most editors who were involved no longer contribute here. I can't see, in any of these edits, how the encyclopedia has been improved, and it is disconcerting to feel editors are not interested in creating encyclopedic articles, but rather propaganda of some kind. Perhaps I was wrong, but I indicated that sentiment here ([358]) after a group of editors began deleting all mention of the Zeitung account. Any help in dealing with this or adding perspective (if my own is off) would be appreciated. -Darouet (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and User:IBobi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:IBobi continues to edits to support the goals of his employer Internet Brands after Internet Brands has launched lawsuits against members of the Wikimedia Movement [359]. Wondering if he should be banned under the WP:NLT guideline? I would count this as an on Wiki threat [360] but it is more the real life actions that are a problem. He states his affiliation here [361] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a block on that basis. Additionally, based on his edits today, it's not the last we're going to be hearing about IBobi. If the account isn't blocked now, we need to keep an eye it. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indef'd, given the NLT aspect. Feel free to revert me without input from me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

edit-conflictedNot sure that we should be banning any employee of a company in conflict with us per-se, even if their employer's actions off-wiki are quite despicable and they certainly are. The reference to consulting the WMF laywer might be simply a reference to their complaint that the trademark has been misused in the past by X and Y and whoever, see their lawsuit. But maybe I'm trying to AGF a little bit too much. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable too. 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IBobi also supported the legal threats against 8 admins on WT by a user called IBLegal. Thus he has a history of making legal threats. Can dig up the diffs if people wish to see them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Philippe has unblocked the account, in staff capacity. --Rschen7754 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Philippe clarified that this is not an office action, but a personal decision. He wants us to de-escalate the situation. The way I see it, IBobi hasn't done any actual harm yet. He can bitch all he wants that we're planning to remove the links to his website – just ignore him. If he does anything truly disruptive we can block him again. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Three admins had declined unblock requests, including you. I think the situation was well in hand. Tiderolls 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much not a fan of Philippe's unblock, but for the moment, I'm willing to take a "what's done is done" attitude. IBobi (and the admin corps) have been advised that because this was an IAR unblock, not an OFFICE one, if he continues his disruptive behavior he can be reblocked without fear of (much) WMF wrath. While I wouldn't encourage any admin to do that re-blocking unilaterally if he continues (as it would technically be a violation of WP:WHEEL), I rather think that if the POV pushing/COI editing continues, the issue can be dealt with by a noticeboard thread and the block reinstated then. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With Philippe conceding in a consensus-finding-discussion that he would not oppose anyone reblocking on any ground (albeit he doesn't recommend it, of course ;-) , I figure that a block would definitely not constitute WP:WHEEL warring by any sane interpretation of that text. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

See also: #Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT

IBobi (talk · contribs) is an employee of Internet Brands, a company presently suing several Wikimedia volunteers over their efforts in creating the new WMF project Wikivoyage, and countersued by the WMF as well (see [362]). However, he is still actively participating on Wikipedia discussions, arguing the company line. This seems like a clear violation of WP:NLT, and I think it would be in Wikimedia's best interest to preventively block him until the conclusion of the lawsuits. Jpatokal (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Just realized there is already a discussion on IBobi's talk page about being blocked for WP:NLT (and another discussion right here on WP:ANI), including a determination by WMF legal counsel that "we do not consider iBobi to be the threatening party in the NLT situation" and a reversal of a previously imposed block. However, this does not equate to the WMF saying he should not blocked, so I would still like to see a wider discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: This edit by IBobi sounds rather a lot like a veiled legal threat. Jpatokal (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, Jani, give it a rest. We just went through this. Admins, please check my Talk page for current discussions and results prior to taking action on this spurious request. Thank you.--IBobi (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing spurious about it, idle threats are a dime a dozen but frivolous litigation that gets noted by the New York Times is crossing the line a wee bit here when it comes to WP:NLT. I have no idea why any WMF project has any templates, interwikis or outbound links of any kind to a company who does this sort of thing, but as far as your editing here the policy is clear: don't do it. K7L (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should catch up on my Talk page.

The reasons for the links and templates are pretty clear: Wikitravel is by all measures the premier travel wiki in the world, and has been for nearly a decade. There's been historical cooperation between our communities. We helped Wikipedia grow through links, and vice-versa. Fair enough?--IBobi (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This "historical cooperation" consists of you blocking any user attempting to mention Wikivoyage anywhere on your site, as well as directing frivolous litigation against volunteers here. You are also clearly operating a single-purpose account and acting with a conflict of interest which suggests you're not here to write an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not our communities IBobi. You do not represent the (original) Wikitravel community who cooperated with us. The people one would consider representative of the Wikitravel community (to wit, the (ex-) WT Admins) are no longer working with you.

Despite the above, I do note that [User:IBobi|IBobi]]'s contributions list is very very short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IBobi . I submit that it would be a stretch to find anything there that violates Wikipedia policy.

IBobi: User:Fluffernutter gave you the standard sage advice: you're welcome to edit on en.wikipedia. However, do note that it is recommended for people stay away from topics to do with their employer or passion, as it is hard to remain neutral on those topics. In your case that means you would be wise to stay away from things to do with Internet Brands or Wikitravel.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, my primary concern is WP:NLT and any possible legal repercussions of discussions with people who are engaged in lawsuits against the WMF and its users, and my secondary concern is WP:COI. If IBobi was merely a random Wikitravel fan boy (a beast almost as mythical as the Caonima), his edits would not be bannable; but, of course, he isn't. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RTFL(inks) would show that WMF Legal Counsel states that IBobi has made no legal threats. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) (But we do get that via Hearsay, I'd love to actually read a statement by WMF legal counsel themselves)

If it wouldn't constitute wheel warring, I'd definitely block here. IBobi claims to be the Community Manager of Internet Brands — that definitely sounds like a high-up position in the company. While individual officials presumably aren't parties to this case (without having looked at it, I'd guess that the main plaintiff is Internet Brands, and any other plaintiffs are presumably other corporations, not individuals), their place as company officials means that they're too close to the suit to be immune from the spirit of WP:NLT. Whether the account named IBobi has made any legal threats on-wiki isn't particularly relevant here. Of course, my argument will break down if the Community Manager be a Dilbert-type job; I'll happily retract my willingness to block if I see evidence that the Community Manager isn't a high-up official. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about a slippery slope! If IBobi is contributing , and as long as he/she doesn't reference the legal aspects of the issue, then I don't see how we can block him/her from editing for NLT. Ibobi should just be aware that making any mention of the legal on-goings, or even the litigating company in general, puts him/her in a vulnerable situation with a very short rope. Standard WP:COI principles should apply, nothing more. Ditch ∝ 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem... he is not contributing in any meaningful sense and is not here to write an encyclopaedia. He is here for the single purpose of advocating for the interests of IB, a commercial for-profit, therefore WP:COI and WP:SPA. That he's here as an IB employee to advocate over three thousand {{wikitravel}} links be retained (instead of being replaced en masse by a 'bot, as everything on that site is already on Wikivoyage) indicates that his aim is to advertise his site here, a WP:ADV and WP:SPAM issue. He seems to endlessly claim to have some number of page hits, as if that in and of itself justifies a link which offers no new info to the encyclopaedia's users that isn't already available elsewhere. As such, he's editing for IB's interests, not Wikipedia's interests. WP:NLT is only part of the problem, although I won't downplay that as this is a clear violation there too. K7L (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely different discussion however. And one that frankly the WMF has brought on itself by endorsing the whole sordid WV/WT shenanigans. You do realise why that given that IB's case hinges on interference with their business, removing all the Wikitravel links would be a bad thing to do at this point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IB doesn't have a case. The content is the property of its authors. Read the license. The original contributors have every right to walk away and take their content elsewhere. That's the way it works. And no, Wikipedia is under no obligation to retain links promoting any external, for-profit website. What you call "interfering with their business" is called "fair competition" in the rest of the world. Deal with it instead of crying that WMF owes some random for-profit commercial site a few thousand links of free advertising (which it does not, per WP:ADV and WP:SPAM). K7L (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

At the present time the best option is probably to leave him enough rope to hang himself with. No need to be hasty. If current trends continue he'll provide plenty of justification for a block shorty.©Geni 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if WMF were doing exactly that... or letting this run until the opportunity arises to invoke Godwin's Law. So be it... K7L (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It is not really common to find a user who knows where the drama boards are but has zero contributions in the article space. At this point, Wikipedia would not lose anything if User:IBobi gets indeffed again. (It probably will not win anything, either).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This odd editing pattern isn't just on en: - a glance at meta:user talk:IBobi shows at least one complaint about this user editing other people's comments in meta: discussions on WMF taking on the Wikivoyage project - an issue in which IB has a financial stake as owner of WT's domain. Edits like this (which autonumber comments made in reponse to "oppose" votes as if they were themselves votes against the proposal) are a bit dodgy. I'm not sure how closely we watch this sort of cross-wiki activity (for instance, the question of whether policies like NLT apply there has come up) but it is worth noting. K7L (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel existed first. There has been historical cooperation between Wikitravel and Wikipedia. Both sites have benefited from the other. If anyone would like to deny that the reason these links are being proposed for deletion is out of sheer malice against a 9 year old wiki that serves 250,000 travelers per day, let him or her step forward and make a case. The idea that the "new" WMF travel wiki is not a mirror but a fork is salient here; once the fork is up and running and receiving editorial contributions from WP editors, it becomes a different site, with different resources for travelers than Wikitravel. This has in fact already begun, as the (for the time being) independent site Wikivoyage has forked Wikitravel's original content and that content is being changed in situ. So, what is the justification for denying Wikipedians, and the general public they are supposed to serve, links to *both* of these unique travel sites -- one of which has built and retained said links for *years* with no mention of removing them, until its content was forked? Look to the people proposing this change for your answer. They have left a wiki they helped build; that's all well and good. But they harbor resentments about their former site and now that they have a new sandbox to play in, they want to take a shit in the old one -- no matter how many users they harm in the process. If you're supporting removing those links, that is who you're throwing your lot in with.

But I'm apparently not supposed to talk about any of this.

Whether you agree with my points or not isn't even relevant to this page. This is about an account block that was proposed by Doc James, a guy who simply does not want this *discussion* to take place, because he prefers one site over the other, for whatever his personal reasons are. If this community is going to allow stifling of *discussion* on a technicality (one that is only being taken advantage of by a very dubious interpretation of WP policies), where is the openness? Where is the philosophy of sharing? Does that go out the window because some people don't like the idea of an independent wiki that's supported by advertising? We get it. Ad-supported and donation-supported are different. Does that make a wiki's resources less beneficial to those who come there?

How many ad-supported wikis has the WMF forked lately? Ever? How many WT/WV/WMF/WP situations like this have you dealt with before? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess zero. This is new ground for all of us. It perhaps requires a new point of view. Believe me, nobody came out of this smelling like a rose. The only thing I have proposed, as respectfully as I could, is for the WP community to be able to *hear* all points of view, and decide on a course of action after being well-informed. Those who supported the formation of this fork site have consistently tried to suppress that. And they're doing it again, by suggesting this ludicrous block, and threatening to reinstate it if I have the temerity to continue the discussion anywhere on a WP talk page. Support them if you will. But I don't think it's in the best longterm interests of Wikipedia, Wikitravel, or the public they both serve.--IBobi (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia was founded in 2001, wikitravel in 2003. So your claim that "wikitravel was first" is erroneous.

I'm referring to WT vs the new (or old, for that matter) WV site; please familiarize yourself with background before spouting off on who is wrong about what.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• There has been historical cooperation between wikipedia and wikitravel communities. Note, however, that those who could be considered representative of the wikitravel community no longer reside at the wikitravel website. I do not believe you represent the wikitravel community. Instead of you leaving, everyone else did.

Those who speak of "the WT community" frequently make the mistake you're making -- thinking that the community and the admins are the same thing. They are not. The community consists of all readers and editors of Wikitravel. There are dozens of admins; there are tens of thousands of registered users; there are hundreds of thousands of editors; there are millions and millions of readers. That's the Wikitravel community. Your view is hopelessly myopic, but representative of that perspecitve of the former admin community who believe that they = the project. The project is doing just fine, thank you.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The links in question are being shifted to point to the new location of the previously-known-as-wikitravel community. It would be unfair to point those links elsewhere.

The links had *nothing* to do with the admins. They were and are there to serve the public, both of WT and WP, who may make user of them in their research on both sites.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• AFAICT we recognize only one (previously-known-as-)*travel community.
• The people who built the-wiki-previously-known-as-wikitravel hold their own copyrights. They are merely moving their content to a different location, after which the community continues as before. This is despite efforts by yourself to damage the community.

The wiki previously known as Wikitravel is called Wikitravel. It's found at www.wikitravel.org. Honestly, what in the world are you talking about?--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have been granted every chance to talk about this in appropriate forums, you were granted as much space as you wanted to put forward your position. You had time and communications capacity on your side, and you blew it spectacularly. I know this full well, I watched you do it. If you would like to request another chance, feel free, but do so in an appropriate forum. En.wikipedia is NOT an appropriate forum (or -in fact- a forum at all)

Past discussions took place elsewhere because they dealt with discussions taking place there; this discussion is about WP and is taking place on WP.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care to figure out what you're talking about wrt ad-supported or donation-supported or whatever your story of the day is. You are now typing on en.wikipedia. At large, the en.wp community couldn't care less what kinds of squabbles have been going on some insignificant little sites outside this community. Here you are required to adhere to en.wikipedia policy. No more, no less.

Take your own advice and see my previous comment.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think Doc James has some very valid issues with you. I believe it would be unwise to mention those issues on this wiki, as that might lead to a block.

Nope. Talk to WMF legal.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• On this noticeboard, the actual policies that apply here are discussed daily, sometimes hourly.
• You might think no-one came out smelling like a rose, but that is your personal reality, not the reality of hundreds of community members across wikimedia and wikitravel. What I saw was one obstinate person in particular auger in an otherwise perfectly salvageable situation, even while ignoring viable advice by many many experienced admins on their own home wiki, as well as even advice from the wikimedia community.

My advice to you is to talk to some of your own WP people who are not so firmly embedded in your own little thought bubble.--IBobi (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• The en.wp community in particular doesn't care what you have to say unless it has something to do with writing an encyclopedia on a wiki. I have personally never seen you do that before, but I'm willing to wait and see. :-)
• I support the wikipedia and previously-known-as wikitravel communities. You have (unwisely) positioned yourself as an opponent to the (now ex-)wikitravel community. The reason they are (ex-) is because you made it that way, by your own choices. I'm not sure you can reverse that choice now; but either way, it's not my problem anymore.

Short version: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are here for any other reason other than to edit a wiki-encyclopedia, please leave. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia, you are most welcome to stay. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a debating society. Are you here to contribute? I mean, we have lots of articles needing references, lots of dead links that need fixing. Maybe write a WP:DYK... —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if he's looking for an article in need of maintenance, en:'s article on Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español has been flagged {{outdated}} for a year now. EL is a fork of the Spanish-language Wikipedia which originally split in 2002 (before any version of WT existed) over concerns that Wikipedia was going to take the commercial route and plaster ads onto content (which didn't happen, we instead ended up with the Wikimedia Foundation non-profit structure). This article does need to be brought up to date, so maybe a self-proclaimed expert on travel and forks would be able to understand enough español to take a peek? K7L (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to own employers website as spam?

Just noticed this... IBobi's only mainspace edit [363] modifying the page on Mordor to add a link to a joke page on his employer's website, WT. The edit was promptly reverted, but inserting external links to some web site into articles while employed by the owners of that very web site looks a bit WP:COI and WP:SPAM to me. K7L (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Given IBobi's responses in this thread, it's becoming increasingly clear that he is here on Wikipedia solely to plug Wikitravel and pursue a vendetta - a paid vendetta, even - against the community that left Wikitravel. He's shown no interest in editing on any topic other than pushing Internet Brands' POV on discussions related to Wikitravel, even when asked point-blank to do so, and he just keeps telling us that he's here to make sure The Truth (tm) gets told. I'm really not seeing any benefit to the community by letting him continue to push his job's POV (or his own, for that matter). I propose that he be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia until such time as he can commit to editing here in a non-COI/POV-pushing manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Really the only downside of this is that we run the risk of IBobi claiming that he's being persecuted by the community for being a dissident. Well, that would put him in the same category as plenty of other agenda-pushing timewasters. So, yeah, support plonking him on indef until he actually wants to contribute to Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not Yet. He hasn't really *done* much of anything at all yet on this wiki, let alone something wrong: Special:Contributions/IBobi . That's kind of a requirement for a block, imo. (blocks are not preventative or preemptive) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Blocks are not meant to be meted out as punishment, but they certainly are meant to be preventative.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Teach me to type while sleepy: I meant that blocks should be handed out for existing, current, ongoing disruptive behavior, as opposed to potential future behavior. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ADV and WP:SPA. He's operating a single-purpose account to advertise his (or his employer's) commercial business, while contributing nothing worthwhile to the objective of writing an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support doesn't do anything to benefit Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also support making a request to the stewards to lock the account. --Rschen7754 23:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  That is not what locking is for and such a request would be declined. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  meta:Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock does list "Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects, such as making repeated legal threats..." among the valid grounds. So far, he's only hit two wikis (en: and meta:) but he might just qualify on WP:NLT grounds. K7L (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  ...and you run afoul of the "grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects" prong. IBobi's only other project, as you note, is Meta and he's done nothing which would earn him an indefinite block there - indeed, his presence there has been rather explicitly accepted (see here) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  Where do you see "explicit acceptance" there? His "contributions" there have been equally useless and distracting. Jpatokal (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. IBobi's sole purpose here is to promote the inclusion of links to his employer's website. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and so he should not be permitted to edit any page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:SPA. –sumone10154^(talk) 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• steady now Less than 50 edits on this project. Lets leave it a bit longer.©Geni 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not yet - as per Kim Bruning. If he does end up doing something that clearly merits a block, it will be easily enough done at that point. Enough rope, etc. polarscribe (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kim Bruning and my own inclination after reviewing the circumstances. My76Strat (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, NOTTHERE and lots of drama. Max Semenik (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of the passions of those opposed, there isn't currently a policy against paid editing, and users should be blocked for violation of policies, not essays such as NOTTHERE. Until a pattern of disruptive editing has been shown and lesser sanctions have not been effective in alterating such a pattern, indef block discussion is way premature. Nobody Ent 13:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PROMOTION is a policy, not a guideline. WP:NLT is also policy. K7L (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He might not have done any one specific edit that is worthy of a block, but it is clear that it is a one-purpose account, there is a conflict of interest and his corporation is making legal threats against Wikimedians. There is no opportunity for good faith editing. JamesA ^>talk 06:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:NLT. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I completely agree that being an SPI is not grounds for blocking, nor is having a COI (we all have conflicts in one area or another), when looking at the totality, I see an editor that is defiant against criticism and has no intention of contributing in a neutral fashion. Because the editor has made it clear by their words and deeds that they will pursue a conflicted agenda, then the only way to prevent the disruption is via a block for an unknowable period of time. I've worked with a lot of COI editors (I was one when I started in 2006) and support paid editors having the right to edit here if they can follow the guidelines and policies. This is not that situation. This is an editor who is afoul of WP:DE in more than one way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should AGF and be more welcoming to all at the site "anyone can edit". - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Couple of points here: COI/SPA/ADV/PROMOTION/etc. are designed to prevent people from putting information into the *public-facing editorial space* of Wikipedia -- not for participating in *discussions* on neutral pages. I have NOT done that (while it can perhaps be argued that the single Mordor edit falls into that category, that is a completely different matter from what is being discussed here -- that is also an edit that is directly relevant to that page and supportable; a link from WP Mordor to WT Mordor is valuable to the public, and should not be reverted simply because it comes from a representative of WT; if it's opposed by editors of that page on other grounds, so be it; that single edit is also not grounds for blocking). What is being touted as a reason for blocking is the discussions I've participated in to *preserve* (not add to) legacy links that have existed for *years* between WP and WT, which are being proposed for removal out of malice toward WT by a small group former admins and others, who not only want their changes done, they want them done without full disclosure to this community why they are being requested, and the harm that is being done to the public served by WP by enacting them. All I'm doing is providing background, and opposing their request with reasoned, polite argument. That is worthy of a block? That's just completely misguided. The NLT facet has already been debunked by the WMF legal team and is off the table.--IBobi (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • First of all, those guidelines/policies apply anywhere on Wikipedia. While you have not been editing the article space much, what's concerned is that you are opposing removals and participating in these discussions in favor of Internet Brands' interests; tell me, are you here to improve our articles in a personal, individual capacity?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you find that suddenly and spitefully removing links to a long-established and unique resource that serves 250,000 users per day is not detrimental to the mission of Wikipedia? Again, while I appreciate the "letter of the law" approach when it is being used generally, applying it to this specific case is shortsighted. There are extenuating circumstances.--IBobi (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the project was forked and the contributors moved their content elsewhere, it doesn't appear to be all that unique. - SudoGhost 21:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If the content was that good, why are the links being removed? Please don't dodge my original question, because I do not believe you are doing this other than to promote your organization's interests. The fact that it might be helpful to Wikipedia changes nothing about that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you find it renders that question moot, Jasper?

Honestly, we can all "support" and "oppose" this til we're blue in the face. This community is, with notable exceptions, as hopelessly biased in this issue as I am being accused of being. This will ultimately be resolved through non-community channels.

Meantime, it would be depressing if WP compromised itself merely to score points among its own inner circle. Look into your heart! Search your feelings: you know it to be true. That'll do, pig. That'll do.--IBobi (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying Darth Vader is Babe's father??? Definitely gonna need a rs for that. NE Ent 23:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not supporting a block merely because there is a conflict of interest. It is however true that when an editor is here for the sole purpose of promoting their company, it does raise a few questions. I have no doubt that this editor is here for that sole purpose; judging by their edits they are not here to improve Wikipedia, they are here solely to promote their company. I don't think that by itself warrants any action if it results in a benefit to Wikipedia. I have no doubt that many well-written and neutral articles have been written by editors that have a conflict of interest in some manner, and that benefits Wikipedia. However, when that editor is representative of a company that is effectively creating a chilling effect by suing Wikipedia editors, I see no benefit in that. When an editor's sole purpose is not to improve article content, but to ensure that Wikipedia articles contain their links in order to drive traffic to their website, I see no benefit in that. Since the editor has demonstrated a singular purpose on Wikipedia, and the improvement of Wikipedia does not appear to be a side-effect of this purpose, I'd have to support an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 21:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:NOTHERE and WP:PROMOTION. The editor has amply demonstrated beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt that his sole purpose here is and always will be to promote their employer' commercial interests, and has not or has indicated that they have the slightest intention of contributing positively to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.