Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753

24.185.205.143

Resolved

24.185.205.143 (talk · contribs)

What's to be done, if anything, about this odd one? The IP user began by posing a near-gibberish question on Talk:Mary Poppins (film). What we've seen since looks like classing trolling behavior. Not exactly on the order of ItsLassieTime or somebody like that. But just weirdness, and possibly starting to branch into other disruption. Any ideas? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a job for the Teahouse. Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, per [[WP:Watchtower]], you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate. If it's a new user, we should help them. If it's a troll, we should ignore them.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to ignore escalating (though childish) disruption. An admin has now lowered the Admiral Boom on the IP for 2 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

See, I told you there was no reason to get excited. The low-key approach is always the... erm. I'll just shut up now... if that's OK with everyone... --Shirt58 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to say anything more, I can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violation from user: EmJhay Sowkie

EmJhay Sowkie (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple Phillipines-X bilateral articles all with some form of copyright violation. at least one I got speedy deleted.

At least 4 notifications/warnings have been made with no change in behaviour [1].

number of the articles are lifted from foreign ministry websites or news articles including:

• Paraguay–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bolivia–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chile–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Palau–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Venezuela–Philippines relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Philippines-Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LibStar (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

user now indefinitely blocked. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this mess while working the CSD queue. I've indef blocked the editor, but would appreciate some help in cleaning up the remaining copyvios. It looks like just about everything he's written is a copy/paste from a news source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad someone else caught these I kept seeing them in the queue but was busy elsewhere. Ridernyc (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A nuke caught most of the "relations" articles, and I deleted the rest. All I looked at were copyvios. The closest to non-copyvio was one copied from the New Zealand government, but that one was still under a "no derivatives" license. The rest were either unspecified or explicitly marked as "all rights reserved." The "Philippines-Foo relations" seemed to be the problem, I didn't find any issue with the templates he's made, or edits to existing articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a sock, though I can't recall whom. There was a big to-do over an editor creating an insane number of "relations" articles, but it's been so long ago I can't remember the user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review

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 just blocked User: Badmachine indefinitely. I'm not the first admin to do or propose this--see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Badmachine Blocked and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#my user page. I gave Badmachine a clear final warning for disruptive behavior in this edit; this was in response to him suggesting that a stained glass of Jesus be used as the main picture for rapper Lil B, because, in his words, "thats lil b isnt it? ". This user, while sometimes making good edits to mainspace, is nothing but a bloody drama magnet outside of it, particularly in reference to his userpage. The specific behavior that prompted the indefinite block was the most recent incarnation of his userpage, which I deleted.

Now, why did I delete a userpage out of process, and block an editor who I know has been unblocked for? Because the most recent version of the user page made specific claims that a specific, living human being (or, possibly a fictional construct of Badmachine, but WP:BLP does not allow me to guess) was the perpetrator of child pornography, molestation, etc. Of course, no references were provided (yes, userspace is not article space, but nothing is exempt from WP:BLP). There is absolutely no conceivable way in my mind, given the vast amount of attention that has been paid to Badmachine's userpage before, that he could have possibly thought that this was acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, the userpage admitted two particularly relevant points: " Badmachine took up his current view that trolling is a necessary part of the evolution of Internet users into thicker-skinned people" and "Badmachine remains particularly amused by the hypocrisy stemming from the fact that Wikmedia hosts every sort of porn imaginable, yet prevents images of penises on his user page, despite Wikipedia's claim of being uncensored." This was WP:POINTy, to say the least. This user is only here to push our buttons, for the lulz, shall we say. The mainspace edits simply cannot make up for this disruption.

Could I conceive of a path for Badmachine to return to active editing? At a bare minimum, it would involve the permanent deletion of his user page, the removal of anything from his user talk page not added by another user or put there as a response to another user, and an understanding that any disruption anywhere would mean a return to a blocked status. Do I think it's worth the effort? Certainly not.

Finally, please note that I am now walking away from the computer (because I have to go home). I strongly suggest that no one undo this block without a clear community consensus. Should a community consensus arise at a later point, fine. Also, another admin should take a look at the deleted content, and determine if the specific claims about child pornography require WMF involvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please see User_talk:Badmachine#May_2012 - I've posted my own comments there. I've also restored the 'offending' userpage, which I can attest is Badmachine's own biography, and have redacted and suppressed material that may be required by policy. Feel free to judge accordingly. However, I strongly believe that whether Badmachine should be blocked for 'trolling' or whatev, he should not be blocked for posting his own brief life-story to his user page. This is just seriously wrong. Please read my own comments on his talk page. I cannot unblock myself, as he's an RL friend so that would be just wrong, but please take what I'm saying into consideration. I can't sit by and see him blocked indef for posting his life story - Alison ^❤ 08:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And I have deleted it again, because it still was a blatant BLP violation. Furthermore, you shouldn't have used the tools in this case Alison, since your COI clerly makes you involved (albeit with the best intentions). Voicing your opinion, like you did here, is perfect, but you should have left the rest to others. Fram (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Badmachine has been quite successful; we still get drama-threads like this one which absorb other editors' time. Giving extra attention is not the solution. Can't we get back to working on the encyclopædia's other problems? bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block As I noted at User talk:Badmachine on May 13, "No individual action warrants an indef block, but in totality it is clear that WP:HERE applies—Badmachine is just testing the limits of Wikipedia." It does not matter whether the user is a troll or not, the issue is whether what they are doing is significantly different from what a clever and patient troll would do (it's not). Prior to the current issue, the user's page has been deleted by user request four times (log). That should not be necessary. It is not reasonable to apply WP:AGF when a user displays a GNAA logo on their talk page and posts "More amusing to Badmachine is that the prevention of penises is at least somewhat justifiable, but that the addition of the GNAA logo to his userpage makes Wikipedians shit their collective panties" (that was on the now-deleted user page)—what the user fails to appreciate is that we are (mostly) adult, and we don't care about porn/GNAA/whatever, so long as it happens somewhere else because this is an encylopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block; nothing much against trolls in general. But their actions should not be welcomed here. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - the user is clearly here to troll & disrupt. GiantSnowman 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Wow, what exactly is wrong with all of you? I imagine it must be some sort of mental disorder. It's pathetic really. Allison comes and reverts a deletion, because she apparently knows the guy (hence the involvement I assume) and as such vouches for the veracity of the user page bio, which was termed offending and as such the obvious problem, so her involvement actually increases her weight of opinion in this particular matter. But that isn't what this is about, is it, no no. This is about the inabilities of many wikipedians to see past their own self-righteous ideals. Ideals that make wikipedia the crap that it is today...it was once a wonderful place, now it has devolved into a bunch of man-childs arguing over jokes made on TALK pages for god's sake and factual user bio's confirmed by someone who apparently knows the guy. Grow up. You people seem like something from a kids in the hall episode about a wayward mental facility in French Quebec. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hello, mysterious IP whose first edit is to AN/I! Thanks for making my point for me. bobrayner (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine has posted a link to a pastebin copy which is supposedly (I'm not doubting the veracity, just that, well, it is pastebin, so I can't confirm it) of an article from the Ohio Dispatch that confirms key portions of the original story--the perpetrator, the conviction, some details about the crime. It doesn't of course identify the victim. This may change some people's views of the block and/or deletion, so I wanted others to be aware of it. Also, the user had posted an unblock request, which User:Boing! said Zebedee declined. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the deleted user page also contained negative unsourced statements about other (possibly) living people, e.g. a member of his family. Fram (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm that the first few paragraphs of the Columbus Dispatch article dumped in the pastebin link are a verbatim transcription of the actual article published on the indicated date, page number, & etc, as can anyone who creates a free account at the newspaper's website, which is required to search its archives. The rest of the text is behind a $3 per article paywall. The article accessed directly via the newspaper's doesn't mention the "Jr." appendix to the given name of the perpetrator, btw, but that's only included in the file name or heading on pastebin, not in the body of the text provided there.

Not that I think any of this is relevant, unless we were to allow an article in mainspace about it. --OhioStandard (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)  late edit - note timestamp

• Regardless of the content of the user page, surely this is a case of WP:NOTWEBHOST - "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." GiantSnowman 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

In practice that is rarely enforced for active editors -- for example, how is your atheism relevant to the encyclopedia? Nobody Ent 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but there's a massive difference between a small userbox and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying focus on the actual issue at hand, which is the blp, not an archaic widely disregarded policy. Nobody Ent 10:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• In addition, it's not only the user page that's the problem here - that is merely one issue, among many. GiantSnowman 10:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• While WP:NOTWEBHOST does make some very broad suggestions about what is / isn't allowed, none of it is distinct. Looking back at Wikipedia:User_page it clearly states: "There is no fixed use for user pages, except that usually one's user page has something about oneself" Now I would consider a biographical page about the author fully about oneself as suggested here. While the other page (something that is hidden away and even refers back to User_page as the primary source of information on namespace content) clearly says it is not a social networking site and should have some relevancy to the encyclopedia. If you take this to mean he should not have his bio on there, then please, from your own, User:GiantSnowman I request that you remove "Hello, my name is GiantSnowman, and I live in North Yorkshire. I am an English Literature graduate who works in finance, and I occassionally blog for the Huffington Post. I am interested in politics, literature, film, and music; strangely, my edits on Wikipedia do not reflect this at all – instead I concentrate mainly on the beautiful game." as it too is fully irrelevant to the encyclopedia. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Again, there's a massive difference between briefly explaining a bit about me and listing what areas interest me, both on & off Wikipedia, and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Except it is a completely arbitrary (and nothing shown in either WP:NOTWEBHOST nor Wikipedia:User_page suggests that there is a limit on how much one may commit to their biographical data within their talk page. So the idea that his is massive and your's brief, is really of little relevance. Now the content of unsupported criminal accusations, would be an issue, except that isn't what this is. It is a statement, in his bio, that the man was subsequently convicted of said crimes and as such are not accusations, but a statement that a man was convicted for crimes prefaced in the bio. These are two extremely different cases. One is a risk of libel as no proof or lack thereof can be ascertained to meet legal requirements outside of a court, which would have to convict to give veracity to said accusations. So yes, ensuring that such accusations are not made is extremely good policy. However, to say one was convicted of said crimes, is not the same as it can be proven based on a plethora of documentation available to the general public. While his ability to keep it or not isn't as much a concern to me as how arbitrary the ideology of what rules he's violated disturbs me greatly. If there are rules that state definitively something he's done in that bio (without arbitrary definition as it has thus been) then I can fully see value in that. I've just not yet seen it. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I endorse the block, as it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia user space to make unsupported criminal allegations (whether true or not). I declined the unblock request largely because the request itself included a link to a screenshot of the user page containing the unsupported allegations. Badmachine has responded by saying he can go and get proof of his allegations and hopes that that will allow him to restore them to his user page. But I think that is largely missing the point - user pages are not meant as web hosts for this kind of thing, and editors' time should not be wasted checking the veracity of allegations made on user pages. But having said all that, I place great store on Alison's words, and I'm happy to accept her assurance that Badmachine is not intentionally trolling here - he has clearly suffered some events in his life that could cause serious damage, and I think we should take that into account. However, Wikipedia is not therapy, and I don't think Badmachine's detailed life events should be posted here. I've suggested that he posts a brief bio with no names named, and I would support an unblock if he agrees to post no more than that on his user page (and I think his giving us some idea of what he wants to do towards improving the encyclopedia would help). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I still find the ban unacceptable and the fact you keep calling them "allegations" of any sort shows a lack of understanding of what the term even means. There are no allegations in his bio, as the suggestion was that the man was convicted of the crimes and as such they aren't a suggestion of criminal allegations, ie. they're not a statement revolving around the act of the crime and it's assertion of it happening rather around the conviction and the preface of what for and not at all surrounding a plead for action based upon what you incorrectly label "allegations". Please see Allegation for further information. That aside, the suggestion of "brief" bio is a rather arbitrary term. For myself who can write novels about whatever subject I happen to be writing on, brief may find itself several pages. Which obviously many other wikipedians would too, considering the length of some of the talk page bio's I've come across. What I actually see here is a wikipedian who many have a problem with because he doesn't necessarily fall into their self-imposed clonal mold, he's from different circumstances, from a different mode of thought, but a wikipedian, a competent editor, and an otherwise decent person. This whole thing is ridiculous and I find the fact any of this happening a black mark on wikipedia's open and non-discriminating nature. Sad, very sad. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Honestly I think the user page is a sideshow and not really a major concern (i.e. could easily be fixed). The elephant in the room is the ongoing trolling as evidenced by the blocking admin. Badmachine exhibits the traditional usenet toll behaviour, as Alison noted, and can't seem to restrain himself. That is disruptive IMO. At the very least, for an unblock he needs to agree not to engage in that again. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • so it is okay for an admin to use a non-issue for the reason to pursue a ban to get people riled up so that his case that normally failed to reach a ban consensus would be easier to push through? That isn't very good behavior in and of itself. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Nobody is pursuing a ban - this is a block review. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I meant block, It's extremely late. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • BTW, concerning the word "allegation": If a person claims that someone else has been convicted of a crime, but does not provide proof of that conviction, then in that context it is an allegation - whether proof of the allegation actually exists does not change that. Calling it an allegation implies no ill-will towards the person making the allegation and does not in any way suggest falsehood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Note AGK has made a statement vis-a-vis checkuser. Nobody Ent 10:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Comment: I am typically quite sympathetic towards these types of things, but I also understand the poorly considered postings on the userpage in regards to trollish, legal allegations of pedophilia or child porn, and concerns regarding possible BLP issues. I'd also have to think a bit of research into the AGK post in regards to it now being a CU block as well would be needed; along with the great advice offered by Boing. Great respect to Alison, and sincere sympathy to BM - but a blog would likely be a better outlet for much of what was deleted. — Ched :  ?  10:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• So now that's settled, there's the issue of an admin using tools to undo a deletion (admittedly one done out of process) on the grounds of personal friendship with the party in question. That certainly shouldn't be waved away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  I don't see it as Alison "undoing" the required deletion, just implementing it in a different way - she did, after all, remove the actual offending parts. Perhaps she shouldn't have done so, but I don't see it as a big deal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What Boing! said. And there are few users, I think, who are as inclined as I am to object to genuine abuse of the tools. I'm not an admin, btw. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Alison probably shouldn't have done it - given her open COI - but there was certainly no admin 'abuse of tools' or anything of that nature, and it has since been quickly & cleanly rectified. GiantSnowman 11:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thumperwad is not correctly seeing the case here. What Allison did was restore that which she, herself, knows to be true and factual, which is due to the very fact she is friends with BM. Namespace in no way is required to meet the standards of the encyclopedic information, the original deletion itself was excessive and could have been handled with much lighter hands, removing, and perhaps locking his userpage until a discussion on the content allowable was made. A block / deletion was well in excess. Allison did nothing wrong here, this is a case where it is assumed that a friendship is a COI, where in reality the friendship provides inside knowledge of the veracity and thus non-disruptive in intent reasoning behind the bio. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you refrain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP is obviously a sock of the user in question. I'm surprised it's not blocked already. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That was indeed my immediate thought as well - both use double spacing, and these arew the IPs first contribs on Wikipedia - but the Geolocate doesn't match... GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• considering the userpage was previously a wall of penises, I'm finding it difficult to take the biography at face value. Don't feed the trolls. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • whether you take it in any way, is really of little consequence imho. As long as it doesn't violate explicitly any rules, namespace doesn't need to be cited. Not in most cases, nor in cases where you have doubts about it's veracity. However, Alison, who apparently is an IRL friend of BM, stated that it is all true, and personally I find that enough to take it at its word. That being said, I don't see how this is really a troll even if it were false, the wall of penises appeared to be a (though not sure it applies to namespace) a case of WP:POINT, but really neither does much to actually disrupt anything, except for some reason people allow it to take up there time by creating an issue where one really doesn't exist. That's like blaming little Debbie for being fat, because those little cakes are just so tasty. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, you are not allowed to make unsourced negative comments about living (or possibly living) people in user space, and even reliably sourced ones should be used with utmost caution, as the purpose of a userpage is not to post negative information about other people. Fram (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • and I've not argued against WP:BLP being a valid consideration in this case. In fact I agreed with that above. Although I think the block and deletion of the userpage was excessive and simply removing the offending material (which was only a small portion of the bio) would have been sufficient. from WP:BLP - "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", however later it is stated, "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Now, in the case of this block, it seems it defaulted to the latter, without consideration of the first step action appearing in the rule's heading. There was no removal of the offending sections of the bio, rather the entire bio was removed and a block instated. While yes, it is possibly a violation of WP:BLP, and as being even a possible violation removal is priority without considering of discussion on the matter, blocking is not the intended first response for a violation, nor even subsequent violations unless as stated the violation fo WP:BLP is persistent. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 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.

Bullying tactics from User:Seb az86556

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.

---

Constantly reverting edits and data links on my user page that I have inserted to record another editor's project investigating the suspected dozen or more IPsockets of my IP address. I have a personal interest in this project, of course, as it implicates me, as an editor. To understand how this system of reporting works I am watching closely to observe how another editor, attempting another WP:Bullying tactic to suppress my edits, alledges I can post from various cities hundred of km. away from each other. I have attempted to give notices and discuss this perceived harrassment with this user with several attempts on my and his talk page. He just ignores any comments, refuses discussion, deletes any discussion I make on my, or his, talk page and posts more threatening or belittling text. If this is the way editors, attempting to help out, are treated something needs to be done about the constant wiki-spam injected into readers pages about being able to edit articles. From the few dozen IP addresses I have observed, this is not the case and an Internet propagated lie to the public. It doesn't take a genius to see that IP editors are targetted in Wikipedia by a certain group of seasoned editors that will bully IP editors until they give up. User:Seb az86556 certainly fits this description. I have spent more of my latest edit time defending allegations inserted in to my IP talk page than I have editing. I have attempted to get assistance but constant "look at me" notices, from some, distract from this process time. From my past experiences in these matters the user in question will be the major deciding factor in this matter and therefore I have lost any faith in the system. I would like it to go on record and perhaps after hundred of complaints, about this WP:Bully, somebody will wake up and rescue the WP methods before it crashes as a useful tool. Thanks 99.251.114.120 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Seb az86556 (talk · contribs)
• 99.251.114.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Adding links only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody please notify Seb az86556 of this? I understand I am supposed to notify the editor involved. I do not know understand how to use templates and he will only inject more warnings on my talk page for vandalism. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You just copy the template from the instructions, paste it onto his Talk page, and sign it. I find it helpful to put it in its own section, but it's not strictly necessary. Anyway, I've done it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that anyone has done anything to you that was unwarranted. At least some of your editing pattern appears to be disruptive. You were blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights on May 9 for edit warring. That block was extended for personal attacks on the same day, and again extended on May 10 for a week because of inappropriate use of your Talk page during your block. Other than your global criticism of how IPs are treated generally - this is not the place for that - I don't see why you're here except perhaps to draw further attention to yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves, although I have looked through the IPs contribs somewhat. All I can recommend to the IP is "duck!". I'm pretty sure one of my famous heart to heart talks wouldn't do the trick here as I think the IP lacks the clue factor to benefit from it. As such, I will leave it to someone else to apply the proper inspection and remedy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:58, 22 May 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.

Adal Sultanate

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 user in the article Adal Sultanate keeps removing my input and reinstating it with his own bias revision and misrepresenting the reliable sources i have listed in the articles language section. i am requesting that admins add this page to the watchlist and do something about the users revision of my work Baboon43 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. Continue the discussion on the talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, take it to WP:DRN. ANI is for "incidents" requiring immediate attention of admins only. Since all the edits by both parties appear to be in good faith, interfering would be beyond the scope of ANI and thus improper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• You might also follow the links at the top of the talkpage to wp:WikiProject Ethiopia and wp:WikiProject Somalia they might be able to give a second or third opinion on their discussion pages. Penyulap ☏ 13:54, 22 May 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 by User: Historiographer

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: Historiographer wrote a personal attack using a racial slur Jjokbari: "Japanese users, who diminished to Korea-related articles like Kusunose, are kept always annoying deeds that. In those days, I'm also used to do that like you against these troublesome Jjokbaries".[2]] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So please leave a {{uw-npa1}} template or a personalised warning; a single statement is not grounds for blocking or other administrative attention. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for three month by an admin Future Perfect at Sunrise for "nationalist battleground attitude, chauvinistic attacks, edit-warring; also disrupting discussions with poor English". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have significantly changed the meaning of the users comment by taking it out of context, the remainder of the diff you point to paints a different picture. Penyulap ☏ 14:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a common thing to say "oh I used to get concerned about something, and now it doesn't bother me" For example, "I used to get concerned about people coming to my talkpage trying to troll me, but now I don't let it bother me"

The exact expression used, same diff, is "Please, Don't mind too." I don't see this as a personal attack using a racial slur, I see it as giving wise advice not to be upset, using the racial slur as an example of how upset you should not become, as in don't mind being upset (or engaging in racism), be like me and "Don't mind too." Penyulap ☏ 14:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for further information, and the admin who blocked may be busy as it's taking a while to respond. I went ahead and asked for the block to be reviewed, however, as it's the first time I've done so, I probably used the wrong tp, lol. Penyulap ☏ 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting rather amusing as the help pages, policy, guidelines only give advice on how to appeal your own block, not how to appeal someone elses, there is like, zero mention of it at all. Have to look into that one.

Meantime I am blatantly admin shopping, as the first one I got, I never even left the checkout with it before I noticed it was broken. I wouldn't mind a response on this one that I can at least leave the store with. Penyulap ☏ 15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The awkwardness is due to the fact that you can edit when you're appealing someone else's block, while blocked people appealing their own blocks have to go about it all on their own talk pages or through email. Please take it up with the blocking admin; if you disagree with his reasoning, please bring up the issue (calmly/peacefully/etc.) at WP:AN, using a header of something along the lines of "Block review requested". Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I had asked for clarification first from the admin, on their talkpage and on the users talkpage, I got a response to the second unblock request which was better than the first, I think it would be helpful here if I was to add your advice into the block pages, because maybe I am a complete idiot (or maybe there a few bits missing before I'm complete) but I couldn't see anywhere on any of the block appeals pages how to request further information or review of someone else's block. Penyulap ☏ 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving response to parallel thread at WP:AN. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 22 May 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.

RfA disruption

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 think it's time for someone to tell Malleus that he's said enough on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis. I dare not tell him myself since he's currently edit warring with multiple users on my user talk page, which probably makes me involved.

At the RfA, he's belligerently badgering various support voters (1, 2, 3, 4), asking baiting questions of the candidate, and even badgering the nominator below his nomination statement.

See all of his edits to the page here. Looking for an uninvolved admin to ask Malleus to stop contributing to that specific RfA, per this Arbcom remedy. Thanks. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think the term you are looking for is bludgeoning. That it was you that brought it here is surely to be a topic of discussion, which I don't look forward to. This might have been better handled on the talk page of a neutral admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I can assure that I'm not trying to simply get Malleus "in trouble". Yes, we've been having a bit of a run-in lately, but this complaint is unrelated. I stopped by Avic's RfA this morning to see how it was going, saw Malleus' abuse there, and decided that enough was enough. The RfA process is stressful enough as it is, Avic doesn't need a classic Malleus temper flare-up to add to the stress. -Scottywong| communicate _ 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions, hence my link. I just don't think bringing it here was the best solution, all things considered. I would have perhaps dropped a note on an admin's talk page that Malleus is friendly with, for their opinions on the matter, as he would be more likely to consider their opinions in the matter. But then again, I'm always singularly focused on getting the desired results with the least amount of possible side effects, so I tend to think differently than some. I doubt Malleus would consider my opinion in the matter or I would have already made a polite request on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have tried discussing it with him instead of running straight here, this is the 2nd time in two days you've brought Malleus to ANI.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[ec]Personally I didn't find Malleus' comments any more disruptive than the snotty remarks directed at some who opposed Dipankan001's RfA. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, the regular Scottywong vs. MF ANI thread. I'm not really interested in the ArbCom ruling, sorry. It probably would be good if Malleus stay away from the RfA (on second thought, I'm not so sure about that), but I don't see how his comments are over the line. There's edit summaries in that history that are probably instantly blockable for some and they're not his. Dennis, the talk page of an uninvolved admin--it's better to not pick a fight in the first place, IMO. If one disapproves of Malleus's tone, switch the channel. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Seriously Scottywong? You're bringing Malleus to ANI twice in 24 hours? Did you spend a lot of time trying to sort these problems out away from ANI? Did you consider that Arbcom Enforcement might be the best place to ask for Arbcom enforcement? Or are you just trying to stir the pot? Worm^TT · (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• And the drama continues. Drmies, Scotty should have dropped a line on YOUR talk page and got your opinion in the matter and allowed you (or someone similar) to decide if mentioning it to Malleus is appropriate. I have no problem with SW taking exception with MW's bludgeoning, but I question his judgement in bringing it here *knowing* that others would look unfavorably at it, thus undermining his case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No one would accuse me of being neutral in this matter, Dennis! ;) Battle lines are drawn anyway, and this thread also will continue and end predictably: after some comments back and forth someone will decide that the comments are not actionable and that this stirring of the pot serves no purpose. Mind you, I think I voted for Scotty's admin t-shirt, and I have no problems with them as far as I know, but adminship should come with a warning--that it's even more important to stay away from such unfruitful enterprises and from editors with whom one has had conflicts in the past. If he had asked me I would have said "don't do it." Scotty should realize that in this case there is no need to defend the defenseless, and that another such thread only stirs the shitpot and maybe even calls his judgment into question, as you suggested. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • And actually, you and I agree for the most part. They both voted against me at RfA, so I have no dog in this hunt. I like them both and just accept them as they are, even if they don't share the same feelings. My point (ie: solution) is that Scotty should be wise enough to let his concerns filter through a neutral party, since there is bad blood here. I do the same with you and others all the time. It is a reality check, so I know I'm not overracting. Let me be clear, nothing Malleus has done is actionable, even if he has been rather active. Scotty should have sought a second opinion before coming here, which likely would have resulted in his not coming here at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I tried] old chap Egg Centric 15:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I see no problems with Malleus's comments. He has questioned one or two supporters, in an environment in which opposers have been seriously badgered and abused for years with nobody even batting an eyelid. Malleus's comments have been civil too, and only got perhaps a little snarky in response to snarking from others. And I see one case in which he is responding to a personal attack from Shadowjams on Hipocrite. That RfA is not perfect, but singling out Malleus when there are examples of more objectionable behaviour there seems pointy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I don't particularly like this supporter badgering but it isn't any worse than the oppose badgering that happens all the time either. I have basically come to the conclusion that it is best to let Malleus be Malleus. He's an excellent content contributor and I believe dragging him here every other week (or two days in this instance) isn't exactly beneficial to the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• I do see a problem with Malleus' comments, but I also see that others have poked him sufficiently so that he can justifiably claim only to have been reacting. I find MF's worst contributions to be little worse than those of his accusers. If we drowned him in honey, rather than sousing him in vinegar, might he not sweeten up? Wouldn't it be a turn for the better even if we tried and failed, rather than assuming the worst and having ourselves proved right? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is exactly why this noticeboard is broken. "I find MF's worst contributions to be little worse than those of his accusers." Wikipedia civility and NPA policies don't mention that you're supposed to judge someone's actions relative to the actions of the person who is reporting them. If you have a problem with my behavior, then by all means, start up a thread about it and let's discuss it. Otherwise, let's discuss whether Malleus is being disruptive at this RfA, particularly considering his long history of disruption at this venue (as evidenced by his topic ban). I fully expected the predictable backlash from Malleus' considerable cadre of wikibuddies. Despite all of your assumptions of bad faith about me, I'm simply looking out for Avicennasis. This isn't about me, so please don't make it about me. If I had someone badgering multiple supporters as well as the nominator under his nomination statement at my RfA, I certainly would appreciate someone looking out for me, since clearly any attempt by Avic to stick up for himself at his own RfA is likely to generate a few opposes from Malleus' harem. Apparently no one else has the balls to stand up against Malleus, so if I have to take one for the team, so be it. Can we all just think about Avic for a moment rather than your allegiance to Malleus or whatever preconceived notions you have about me? Thanks. -Scottywong| talk _ 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • [ec] Come on Scotty--that RfA is far, far from being derailed. I make no assumption of bad faith, though I am saying that bringing yet another ANI thread was not a wise decision. FYI, I have a HUGE set of balls, a bunch of sets of balls actually, and this bit about "Malleus' harem" is, pardon my French, a load of bullshit--thanks for your good faith in my judgment and that of others, including those who are not on Malleus's dick (like Dennis Brown), as far as I can tell. I think this is getting the better of you and I urge you to go get some coffee in a place without WiFi before you make more insulting comments at those who don't agree with you. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  I suggest we focus on Scottywong's erratic behavior in recent weeks, including yesterday's dig at Malleus followed by today's dig and his insult of "Hippocrite", which was redacted with a misleading edit summary.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC) insult of "Hippocrite", which was redacted with a misleading edit summary.

  How was the edit summary misleading? He removed a part of a comment which he felt unnecessary, which is basically what he said in his edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Blade, please stop enabling Scotty's abuse of non-administrators. He removed his insult of Hipocrite, without apology. An unecessary part of a a comment would be the duplication "a a". But you knew that.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  "unnecessary" as in ""Ann, that was unnecessary!" is one colloquial way of saying "uncalled for", "gratuitous". I'm pretty sure I've amended my own posts with the comment "removing unnecessary sarcasm" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's how I read it, I'd never thought of it otherwise. Noted for the future how other people might perceive that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• ANI is not the first place you go to find resolution, you know this Scotty, it would be 2nd or likely 3rd. I expect this from new users, but not admins. I don't assume bad faith in you at all, I find that anyone replying multiple times is troublesome, even when it is not actionable. That isn't the point. Surely you are smart enough to know that since you two are "involved", that people are going to consider the messenger, which is why I suggested you filter through a 3rd party first, to make sure that your interpretation of "incivil" isn't colored by your own bias. Even if you are right, you have to realize people are going to question you, so it would be better served to allow someone else to bring it up if they agree with you in cases where there is obvious bad blood. If your goal is to find a solution to a problem, then these extra steps actually save you time and problems. Scotty, once you realize that you are continually shooting yourself in the foot, it is time to take your finger off the trigger. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Look Scottywong, if I had to choose a side of the fence in this issue, I'd certainly choose yours. I've had my share of flareups with Malleus in the past. It just seems that bringing the issue here causes more problems than it solves. What would you like to occur? Should we ban Malleus? Then we lose his content contributions. We could create a topic ban from RfA but I believe that would be more trouble than it is worth. Malleus cannot drag an RfA down on his own. Let him have his comments, supporters do not need to respond to any badgering. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since I mentioned ban, I would like to add that it was purely hypothetical and that I wouldn't only oppose it on the basis of the loss of content contributions. I don't see anything here that warrants a ban or a block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No one is asking for an outright ban of Malleus. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's your only choice, as Monty very wisely observes below. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

As Malleus and Monty have noted, that is the reason I mentioned it. Upon review of the two incidents I saw those as being the only two related outcomes and both have no merit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• First, it has become standard practice for editors to call out opposes at RFA that are poorly reasoned or wrong. It seems entirely fair that the same standards should be applied to support !votes, and RFA may be improved if supporters start providing more detailed rationales for support. Second, more generally, returning to AN/I for every little perceived misconduct of MF is just not a productive use of time. The overriding concern should be how do we best improve the encyclopedia, at this point it should be clear to anyone that MF is not likely to change his conduct as the result of reports to AN/I or short term blocks. Short term blocks that are unlikely to change behavior are inconsistent with the blocking policy. That leaves the community two realistic options, decide that MF as a major content contributor, minor bouts of incivility included, is a net positive to Wikipedia, or that the problems with MF outweigh his positive contributions and pursue a long term block. I personally think we are better off having him around. Monty₈₄₅ 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Ok, I just want to get this straight so that I understand it next time. It's ok for Malleus to refer to me as a "pretentious prig", because I made some comments to another completely unrelated editor earlier that day. And it's ok for Malleus to badger the nominator and various supporters at RfA (despite a recent arbcom resolution which clearly shows he has a history of disruption at RfA), because I was the one who reported it. And it's ok for Malleus to edit war on my talk page to restore obvious trolling comments, after I asked him twice to refrain from posting on my talk page, because hell, he's Malleus and that's what he does. I just want to make sure that this is the logic we're now using here at ANI, so that I hopefully can restrain myself from making such frivolous complaints here again. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  You keep claiming that there's some ArbCom restriction on my participating in RfAs, or some decision that I've disrupted RfAs; where have you got that idea from? Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Potstir.gif Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• If someone were to be referring one of the people we have an article on as a pretentious prig, how many people would descend on the person and claim horrible policy violations (c.f. the Andy Hawkins fiasco, where people claimed we were being too insulting by referring to his comments as infantile and trolling). How do we get from that to this when it comes to the people actually in the community, to whom at least in my opinion we have a greater need to show some decency? I'm of the view that neither approach is right on the matter, but clearly this is too polarized for a lot of people to take a rational look at what's going on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit in my watchlist, which related to this arbcom decision. The page did not begin with "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship" and the reverting editor was not an administrator so I reverted. That being said, I feel it relevant and I thought I would mention it here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Scotty linked to this, but therein lies the rub, Scotty is "involved" with Malleus, thus why I said he needs to filter through the neutral 3rd party admin and let them determine and take appropriate action. Coming here to do so was the mistake, as so publicly asking for a 3rd party, well, might be seen as pointy and hoping that one of the many will agree with him. Had he chosen to be more discrete, he might have found a more receptive audience, or been properly informed it doesn't apply. Again, he shoots himself in the foot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• My primary purpose wasn't actually to call attention to the arbcom case. I wanted to confirm that my restoration of the comments was correct in light of the decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I missed that obvious point. Yes, I think what you did was both bold and proper, as no uninvolved admin has chosen to exercise their rights to ban Malleus from participation, and even if they now did, this question was not disruptive and already existed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes all that's needed for a lie to take root is that it's repeated often enough. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Completely uninvolved comment: I don't see MF's comments as disrupting the RfA in any way. An RfA is, after all, a place where opinions are actively solicited. So, whether they're being given in a !vote or as a response to one should all be one and the same thing. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Scottywong and Malleus Fatuorum

I am proposing this at risk of drawing this incident out further than it already has, but I feel the best way to solve this problem and prevent future issues is an interaction ban between the two. Scottwyong does have a legitimate concern (i.e. Malleus calling him a "pretentious pig") but repeatedly bringing up the issue causes many more problems than it solves. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I suggest we force them to wed and share a 1 bedroom flat instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely unacceptable. If Sc ottywong as an administrator can't be trusted to behave with a degree of decorum then he should be desysoped, not pandered to. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unnecessary. I've asked Malleus to not contribute to my user talk page, and as long as he can control himself and respect that request, I don't think we'll have too many problems once he gets over this temporary episode of admin envy. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• My proposal wasn't only directed towards Malleus. Was the comment "temporary episode of admin envy" even remotely necessary? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• How much of this civility for thee, but not for me from our admin corps will we need to watch before one of you insists on accountability? Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Amin envy? - get over yourself - a worthless shiny badge - get yourself off the noticeboards and go do some mopping work with it in the Admin backlogs before we take it off you. - Youreallycan 18:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I have historically opposed the very notion of interaction bans on this project. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Re: "temporary episode of admin envy": Scotty, get a grip of yourself, man - you are not behaving the way an admin should. Go switch off, calm down, switch off the computer, have a week off - or whatever it takes to calm your anger. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Point: I believe the phrase was "pretentious prig" rather than "pig" - a huge difference I think. (noted at the risk of jumping headfirst into the former category myself.) — Ched :  ?  18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As in the famous cartoon character, Poky Prig. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ban on Scottywong commenting on Malleus

I would prefer desysopping, but let us start with the obvious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I see your point here, but I can't imagine anything being worse than a one-sided interaction ban (which is basically what this would be). Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ryan.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support desysopping - I support desysopping - the user has issues recently that were not resolved sufficiently imo and he is continuing along on a similar pattern of drama - not required in an admin - its easy to remove his additional privileges and then he will not need to adhere to such high standards of contributing. I support liberal desysopping give it, take it , why not - its just a website. Admins are just faceless users who have said the right things to get the shiny badge, if they stop saying/doing the right things once they have the shiny badge, simply take it back..Its no big deal, its not like he would be blocked or anything as severe as that, he would just loose his shiny badge. Youreallycan 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Again, completely unacceptable. You need to get a grip on the behaviour of your administrators, not continually be desperately trying to find excuses for their poor behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community acceptance that these two will never get along and should simply try to avoid each other

Not trying to be absurd here, truly, but nothing in this ANI is actionable, and at the end of the day, what we do here is try to find solutions. Fix problems. Sometimes there is no solution and you just accept it and move on. No one is getting blocked for any actions, an interaction ban might look good on paper but isn't going to be effective and will just become the basis for yet more actions in the future. Both parties would be doing us all (and themselves) a favor by trying to avoid each other and by filtering their concerns through a neutral third party before coming to the boards. I find them both equally rude to each other and other editors often enough, so we are left with a draw. If anyone wants to consider actions against another editor in the future, I highly recommend that they remain so civil in their dealings with them that the one-sided nature of the event is more obvious.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable. I've found in dealing with MF that if you treat him like a jerk, he'll treat you like a jerk right back. And if you communicate in a mature adult way, you get along fine. Most of the questions he raised at the RfA were fair questions that need to be asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  That's a fair summary. I treat you the way you treat me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'll accept this As I mentioned when I came up with the idea of the interaction ban, I was aware of issues that could cause. That being said, I still wouldn't oppose my ban proposal if other members of the community felt it necessary and it may be a necessary step to take in the future. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Just so you know, my absurd oppose wasn't a comment on your idea, it was a comment on the absurdity of the situation. If I wasn't clear, I would apologize. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No problem, I found it quite humorous, I intended to reply, but I seem to have run out of wit for the day. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per Bugs. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support and furthermore, I command everyone to go write or review an article instead of posting here any more. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  So I'm just supposed to grin and bear it am I? Not bloody likely! Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  No, you are supposed to do what you do so very well, write articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  I understand that grinning and bearing it isn't very appealing to you, but FAC is getting pretty backlogged and some of the articles have real problems with the prose. It would probably be like shooting fish in a barrel for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  Then find an admin to help. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I was tempted to support the underlying point, but the narrative "I find them both equally rude to each other" in the context of the referenced RfA leaves the implication that MF was rude to Snottywong. I didn't see it, so cannot support a finding that suggests he has. Did I miss it?)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• My comment was more general in nature, based on my own observations over a long period of time, and not necessarily related to any diffs provided or this one "event". The point was similar to my closing the previous ANI that Scotty had opened, found above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  So basically you were talking shit. Nice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Mainly because the same can be said of nearly anyone who calls Malleus' behavior into question. He responds to those with pointed insults, the other party brings a complaint, and then it becomes "these two just can't get along". When one user has so many such relationships, one has to wonder if the problem is still always equally mutual. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fortunately, we only have to consider if the problem with Scotty is equally mutual for the purpose of this exercise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think regarding it that way is a problem. It seems that no matter how many times this happens, we consider only the present two parties; and if taken that way, yes, it seems like an equally mutual issue. I'm not sure why we keep choosing to disregard the history, which paints a different picture. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• PS, who exactly is allowed to comment on Malleus' behavior and not end up being sent to a corner opposite him? The people who support him and would never bring a complaint like that, or the achingly neutral people like Sandstein and DGG who probably wouldn't comment on a behavioral issue if you punched them in the face? We're running out of people here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  And not before time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support/Oppose I support for the sake of stopping drama and I oppose for the sake of stopping drama. I rather wish someone would just delete this entire discussion, save us all a lot of trouble. Though, admittedly, this discussion is a perfect example of how Wikipedia, especially ANI, is organized into cliques that fight with each other. Many of the usual suspects are here in this discussion and, in my opinion, I wish they would just shut up and go away from ANI, forever, dear god. Silverseren^C 18:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Kind of meaningless. Both SW as well as MF are grown up (in terms of Wikipedia edits anyway) and can figure things out for themselves. Someone should just close the entire thread and throw it away. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 22 May 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.

Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal

We have a bit of trouble at Talk:Kosovo about an old move/merge proposal that has been sitting around for over three months and has gone stale with a "no consensus" situation. Some participants have tried to formally close it [3][4][5][6][7], in a non-admin, involved closure, which in a case like this I understand can be legitimate (there is no clear requirement move closures have to be done by admins, and in this case the "no consensus" outcome seems obvious). One newly arrived editor, Ottomanist (talk · contribs) has strenuously opposed the closure, reverting it several times [8][9][10][11][12]. The article is under Arbcom sanctions and a general 1RR, although it seems not quite clear whether the 1RR applies to the talkpage too.

Personally, I can somehow sympathize with Ottomanist, who argues that the process was hijacked by national interest factions and doesn't represent a legitimate consensus the way it is now. This is indeed the case (it's one of those cases that will never be solved properly unless editors with preconceived opinions determined by collective national interests are decisively sidelined; a whiff of Macedonia is in the air). I'm involved, as I !voted on the same side as Ottomanist earlier, but I agree with the editors on the other side that at this point it makes no sense to force the process open again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I agree, but I do not sympathize with Ottomanist. He's not a neutral party over there, and every single major discussion on Talk:Kosovo is bound to be "hijacked by national interest factions" to some degree - from both sides. I have seen ample evidence of "solidarity" within both the Serbian and the Albanian "factions", on that talkpage specifically and in general.

Imo Ottomanist's actions are, in fact, a good example of the type of behavior that makes-up a big part of the problem on that talkpage. The discussion was effectively over in early March, but because he disagrees with the result of the RM, he has kept it open for several months through talkpage edit-warring. I was rather amazed when he reverted Future's closure of the thread, and I'm reasonably certain he's actually hoping this report will help his cause as well - every vote counts, you know. That kind of fanaticism and WP:HORSE is just disruptive (although I think the WP:HORSE would actually have decomposed long ago in this case :)). -- Director (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't generally disagree with your assessment; just a factual correction: Ottomanist didn't "keep it open for several months". He only started editing last week. The move process was just sitting around stale for so long, but formally it was still legitimately open when he first tried to comment on it. (Actually, I remember somebody had tried to close it some time ago, and back then it was me who reverted the closure (once) because at that time I felt it was inappropriate to have a closure by an involved party.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Its really besides the point. Will someone just close that thing? Its been up since January. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As the thread has been closed by an admin (Future) [13], I've now re-instated the closure. User:Ottomanist is clearly opposed to closing the thread for POV reasons, and imo really ought to be warned and/or sanctioned for reverting an admin closure and edit-warring [14][15][16][17][18] against everybody else on the talkpage of a sensitive article under WP:ARBCOM probation. -- Director (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite banal now - everybody knows that Serbian editors act as a bloc. I don't see why impartial editors don't get on to this- the whole free, English-speaking world recognises that the Republic of Kosovo has the same borders as Kosovo. The issue is summed up best by one editor:

"We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality."

Ottomanist (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "everybody knows" Serbian editors oppose the move, pro-Albanian editors (like yourself) support it, and there are uninvolved editors on both sides. There is no consensus for the move. Not only was the thread closed by an admin, it was closed by an admin that actually supported the move. The RM has been up since January, there's been no debate for two months - and it is over. Nobody is "gaming the system", except you - by keeping the RM open until you have your way. Keep content disputes on the talkpage please. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll let the admins decide if there are two Kosovos or one. Ottomanist (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know, "there can be only one Kosovo!!", right? Please tell me you're not here trying to canvass admins? Perchance you are unaware that this is not the place where people "decide" on content disputes? Frankly I can not believe you are actually hoping to use a report on your behavior to close an RM in your favor. -- Director (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if there are one or two but I do know a lack of consensus. Closed it again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that Ottomanist is in fact not a new user, but rather a sock of Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as this [19] makes obvious (that and the unique combination of pro-Albanian and pro-Ottoman POV, which made Interestedinfairness stand out from other users in this area). He owns up to being a returning user [20], but won't say what was the name of his old account. The bit about being a casual user is malarkey, as Interestedinfairness was anything but a "casual user". As Interestedinfairness, he had racked up a block log, and also gotten a formal ARBMAC warning and a one-month topic ban from Kosovo, for disruptive behavior. Thus, starting a new account is problematic per WP:SCRUTINY. At a minimum, he should be compelled to disclose his former account on his userpage. Athenean (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Now it makes complete sense. After I attempted to close the thread, the user actually followed my contribs and reverted my edits on a completely unrelated article (Government of National Salvation) [21]. Sort of like "get away from my article or I'll oppose you on that one". "Casual user" my foot. Athenean, just post an SPI report. -- Director (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he did disclose the previous account, on being asked ([22]), so there's nothing much an SPI would be useful for. But of course I agree he's been disruptive, and I'm slightly curious why no admin has got the banhammer out yet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: the user is now edit-warring on the Republic of Kosovo article. To be precise, he's revert-warring to push his deletion of large chunks of data without consensus. He's also accused me on my talkpage [23] of working as a group with WhiteWriter of all people, my best friend [24]. -- Director (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

also I would like to remind parties involved that Republic of Kosovo is a 1RR protected article, any violation of that rule is instantly blockable that includes both parties--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I remember why I left. Judging by Greece's current financial crises, I'm surprised user:Athenenean is still here. User:Fut, I'm rather saddened that you're wiki lawyering here and trying to go by principle rather than accepting that anything Albanian related is hijacked. Moreover, Athenean - im not 'pro ottoman', just going by what the recent scholarship says, and off course this rejects nationalist historiographies as the only true interpretation. Ottomanist (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? "Judging by Greece's current financial crises, I'm surprised User:Athenenean is still here." And this looks like the tip of the iceberg ("Don't worry user:E4024, with Greece's current crises, I don't think they'll have money to keep presenting nationalist claims everywhere. P.S. There are loads of 'Greek' users on here colluding with other nationalists, so be warned. It's a real shame they've managed to hijack wikipedia like this." [25]). Can you write things like that on ANI? The guy is currently blocked for 1 week for breaching 1RR on the Republic of Kosovo, but I think he deserves an extension. -- Director (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR per week violation on Republic of Kosovo

Resolved

 – User blocked for 1RR violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottomanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Ottomanist violated 1RR per week on Republic of Kosovo article. Article was placed on probation per WP:ARBMAC, in order to stop this kind of questionable edits. this was first revert, where i reverted his edit, and moved to talk. This is second revert by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), and third, again by Ottomanist. User was warned on talk page about ARBMAC, but he insulted me. See see talk for more of that behavioral, and several other warning, after which he reverted again. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether users with a degree (such as my self) should bother spending time editing on here? I clearly posted on the talk page about editing the lead, which looked like a law essay about Kosovo's status. I edited the lead to follow wikipedia standards, keeping the information about its contested status, whilst adding a history section (properly sourced) and also something about the recent conflict in the 1990s.

Judge for your selves which lead better conforms to wikipedia standards.

We can't keep the RoK page in a state of confusion for ever. Ottomanist (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is basically a content dispute, but I'm verging on fully protecting the article for a little while. I'll give it some more thought later this evening if someone hasn't already done something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This was already reported above (Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal). The issue, as you might notice, is really one disruptive user, who shifted from one POV-pushing campaign to the next one. Imo it would be a mistake to have his non-consensus changes protected (keeping WP:BRD in mind). As regards the 1RR: practically all edit-wars can be classified as content disputes. The point is that the article was under WP:ARBCOM probation. -- Director (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost all editors here have at least one degree I should think. The school kids tend to stick to NPP, vandalism reversion, and so on. Egg Centric 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And that Ottomanist is a returning sock! I have just find out in the section Direktor presented above! --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He also told me to go away which was quite rude--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is more WhiteWriter pushing their POV agenda and then attacking anyone who disagrees. WP:BOOMERANG is way past due for this editor. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? This looks like you are trying to denigrate me here on wiki. I would prefer if you stop commenting on contributor, but on content, as that is WP:PA. --WhiteWriter^speaks 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Commenting on your behaviour as evidenced by your edits is, indeed, permitted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like here are, despite me, several users who agree that Ottomanist is obvious sock and vandal. Are they also pushing their POV? I even tried to inform the user about wiki guidelines regarding this article, but in vain... If you, Vecrumba, have any observation about my edits, talk to me, i would be glad to sort any possible problem. I never saw you, despite participation's on similar public noticeboards, talking against me, unrelated to reported person. Again, this is not place for this, if you have any objection, talk to me first. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) My point is that editors should work matters out on article talk.

No one involved at the Kosovo article should be allowed to file ANY administrative action against another editor involved there. I suggest that article restrictions such as 1RR (per week, isn't it?) also prohibit the filing of these actions by involved editors against each other. That will take the heat out of the system regardless who is, or isn't, "right." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that is actually, quite logical, and sometimes i agree that AN/I can be avoided. But this is just plain, obvious vandalism. And Ottomanist is already blocked, so this will only do good for wiki articles, for now. Lets hope that he will edit with more care after the block. Anyway, i am gone from here, if you have any other objection or proposition, i would gladly listen, so dont be shy to write me at home. :) --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

One more thing is relevant here I think. The user's personal attacks and ethnic insults.

• "Don't worry user:E4024, with Greece's current crises, I don't think they'll have money to keep presenting nationalist claims everywhere. P.S. There are loads of 'Greek' users on here colluding with other nationalists, so be warned. It's a real shame they've managed to hijack wikipedia like this." [26]

And then this on ANI:

• "Judging by Greece's current financial crises, I'm surprised user:Athenenean is still here." [27]

The last one was actually posted here - on ANI. He's making fun of a user for because his country is in economic and political turmoil. On ANI. The guy is currently blocked for 1 week for the 1RR thing, but frankly I think he deserves an extension. -- Director (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User Typebotmaster

Resolved

 – indef'd by Bwilkins Nobody Ent 23:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Typebotmaster (talk · contribs) is it an authorized bot?who is running it ?Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See this edit [28] - it is not a bot. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it this account is either:

1. A human user impersonating a bot and therefore a violation of WP:UAA because the use of "bot" in the username makes it easily mistaken for a bot, or
2. An unapproved bot as there is no indication that this account went through WP:BRFA.

Either way I see grounds for an indef block. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's get this indef block. I'd leave a message at WP:UAA but hopefully an admin here will see it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of reporting it to UAA, but after seeing that "FagTown" edit, I figured AIV would serve just as well. Whether it's automated or not is kinda academic at this point; looks like it's pretty ovbiously a vandal-only account posing as a legimate bot to evade scrutiny. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account – Toothpaste Town? FagTown? Are you seriously kidding me? This was a no-brainer for a block in any case. It should have been blocked back in March. --MuZemike 23:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Won't you take me to; Toothpaste Town! Won't you take me to; Toothpaste town! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit though, I'm a sucker for a good pun. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist-motivated vandalism by the user:星光下的人.

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.

---

Nationalist-motivated vandalism, of List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and of List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales, at [29] and at [30], respectively. Cannot write English properly, and many of his edits in the English Wikipedia were unhelpful, or even downright disruptive. Edit-summaries were often left blank, if they were not rants, and in Chinese, instead. Fairly nationalistic Userpage at the Chinese Wikipedia, at [31]. The user appears to be pursuing some fringe theories (possibly over the use of surnames) over Chinese historical articles, across the different language-versions of Wikipedia, or that he is in fact simply trolling. The User was indefinitely blocked, according to these, at [32] and at [33], in the Japanese Wikipedia, at [34], by the User:Vigorous action, at [35], for "Move-Vandalism" (ブロック設定を無期限に変更しました。ブロックの詳細(アカウント作成のブロック、自分のトークページの編集禁止) (ブロック破りを認めたため。荒らし: 移動荒らし。)) ([36]; [37]), and later also for suspected sock-puppetry [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]. I had reported this to the wikipedia:AIV, but was recommended, as it is too complex, to bring this matter up to here instead. I thank you. — KC9TV 08:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Blank edit-summaries and poor English are things we help editors with, not typically block them over. You have a rather bizarre definition of vandalism that does not match ours - and your massive overuse of vandalism templates is rather WP:BITEY. You've even been removing comments from your talkpage calling them vandalism when they're not. Have you attempted to resolve this issue with the editor themself yet in a polite, non-template-laden manner? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what you mean by a fairly nationalistic user page at the Chinese Wikipedia, there are userboxen about being against independent Tibet and Taiwan, and being pro PRC, but it certainly isn't over the top, nor would it have much bearing on changes to British royalty articles on English Wikipedia. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

For a Chinese, probably not. For a non-Chinese, probably a bit. I see. Well, it is always a little strange indeed when some one who is struggling with English suddenly goes on to edit the articles for BOTH the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, and enclosed ALL of the Duke's titles, even down to the title of H.R.H., as being "citation needed". Was he seriously attempting to seriously challenge the Duke's right to hold and use even the H.R.H. title? And why did he not do the same thing on the Chinese Wikipedia? And he is anything but a new user; old enough to get himself a block on the Japanese site for moving pages without consultation. — KC9TV 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If someone is cn-ing the article in it's defining language rather than the local server language they may be looking for a definitive reference. The obvious solution here is to give them several, which they may very well copy onto the local server. Penyulap ☏ 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do hope that all this is in fact nothing sinister, and I might apologise if it is. Well, anyway, but the edit to the entry of the Prince of Wales's titles was a little too skilful. Instead of tagging, he skilfully re-arranged the Prince's titles, so as to give the readers a possibly misleading impression that "the Prince of Wales" were not (or might not had been) the same person as "the Duke of Cornwall". [42] The Prince, Duke of Edinburgh, for example, probably DID say something rude about the Chinese. There were even some talk over the Internet, by some Chinese, of "boycotting" the Royal Wedding, back in the year 2011, because of that remark, but that was probably just simply Internet Trolling. I am not actually sure how all this play into this. If only he could just come out and say something in writing, even in Chinese. If he just doesn't like the two men, well, fair enough. — KC9TV 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you perform further experimentation on the editor by feeding him/her a few references ? and if so what happened ? Penyulap ☏ 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

He only tagged ONCE, and it was reverted, reversed or undone, and there are NO further edits in either of the two articles. I am not sure as to what his intentions on the Chinese Wikipedia, his home Wiki, are. — KC9TV 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but according to you he's a vandal that needed level 4 vandalism templates at least twice! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, but he DID ALSO mess up Prince Charles's (the Prince of Wales's) titles. Is my original statement "T.L., D.R."? Still, an edit-summary would be "nice", but there was none. Well is he, anyway? — KC9TV 15:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've come across 星光下的人 several times in articles relating to ancient Chinese states etc. Although he can be tricky to deal with and somewhat intransigent, I would not say that he's a vandal or up to anything "sinister". The major issue is that he doesn't speak English so it's hard to explain policy to him. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@Penyulap, User:99801155KC9TV did not engage 星光下的人 in discussion, even though it is clearly written on top of this page that one should "discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". User:99801155KC9TV simply slapped on 2 vandalism templates at User_talk:星光下的人 and then came here. Hanfresco (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Look the way I see this is not a matter of counting how many more languages 星光下的人 can speak than the complainant, the issue here is coming to ANI because "Citation needed" is too hard to understand as a request for a citation. Give him a citation as requested. Coming to ANI saying 'oh he has been blocked before and this is some kind of reason for blocking him again' is nothing but despicable. READ ENGLISH -> CITATION NEEDED. END OF DISCUSSION right there. Penyulap ☏ 15:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We so need to put up little fences here, IP filters to keep out asia, a little great wall for china, and a blasted big 100 mile (200km) high steel and stone monolithic division you can see from mars between the British and the Americans and their ENG:VAR, because I swear sharing this little English language is too hard for the lot of you. Penyulap ☏ 16:01, 22 May 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.

Just for the record, I have never "actually" requested for a block, not as such, not in words, and not by implication either, that is the sole prerogative and province of the administrator; although, as a mere and a most informal request, I shall be most grateful indeed if he, and perhaps his other friends as well, would think twice about "certain" articles. I, clearly not being a speaker of the Japanese language, would e.g. had been slaughtered if I were to go and make uninformed and unexplained changes to the article about the Japanese Emperor, especially upon the Japanese Wikipedia. He probably should also be mindful about the words of one of his own Userboxes that he had put up himself, "這個用戶希望有一個女朋友", which is perhaps best left untranslated. — KC9TV 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Blood on the Saddle

Cardiffmermaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) We have this self-confessed publicist for the group Blood on the Saddle trying to dictate what the article should say, cluelessly destroying the formatting of the article in the process, and replacing it with a copyvio wall of text - as apparently instructed by a member of the band. See the article history, and User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Blood on the Saddle. I've blocked now, but they're getting very strident. I'm off to bed shortly, so I'd be grateful if a few admin eyes could be kept on it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A frackload of warnings, and not a single attempt to communicate on ANY talkpage. Unfortunately good temporary block - hopefully we'll hear from them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the page should be protected for a while so they can't edit it beyond the block. If they see their attempts futile they'll walk away. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

While there is only one editor doing it, I think a block is the appropriate tool to use - but if other editors, or IPs, join in, then that might be the time to protect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The underlying problem, of course, is that the band's MySpace page, from which all of that copyrighted non-free content was ganked, appears to be the only place where the band's history doesn't stop in 1995, and no-one apart from whoever wrote that MySpace page acknowledges that the band has done anything in the 21st century. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Another consideration: for all purposes, the only source in that article that suggests notability is the LA Times one (the other two are primary sources to track their discography), and even then, judging by context where its used, the band would appear to be named in passing (given it was the same year that the band broke up) - but I have not seen the article to actually confirm. Irregardless, one mention that specifically talks about the band being local tells me this really isn't a notable group to start with. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false vandalism accusations by User:Nick Cooper

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:Nick Cooper will not stop leaving vandalism warnings on my page. I have repeatedly explained to him that disagreeing with him in a content dispute is not vandalism, and have asked him to read WP:NOTVAND at least seven times. He continues to leave false warnings on my page, and is now reporting me for vandalism [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both are well past 3RR. May be somewhat counterproductive, but not obviously trolling. Strong candidate for WP:LAME. a13ean (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 days, either editor will face a short block if they post to each others' talk pages again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The inherent problem is that 89.100.207.51 did not understand the remit of the page, deleted content, and then ignored all explanations as to why they were wrong. Since then, they have attempted to turn the page into what they mistakenly thought it was - and now claim it should be - rather than what it has been for over five years, and indeed from the day it was created. Apart from being downright abusive, 89.100.207.51 has consistently failed to offer any rational justification on the Talk page as to why the page should be changed, and has ignored all the explanations as to why it was created in the form it was, and what its remit is. It is also notable that the page is question is based on another one, but 89.100.207.51 has made no attempt to make similar changes there. I've explained all this numerous times, but 89.100.207.51 refuses to acknowledge or discuss any of it. I'm not sure what difference three days is going to make. It is also unfortunate that the page has been locked in the form 89.100.207.51 wants it to be, rather than the long-standing version that existed up until the point this dispute started. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that there was an editing dispute going on, instead of continuing discussion, you starting issuing vandalism warnings to the IP, the IP started issuing you warnings for issuing inappropriate warnings. Without weighing in on what the outcome of the underlying content dispute, it seems the IP editor was discussing in good faith, and even when other editors suggested you may be wrong, you disregarded that and kept on going at it the the IP and failed to adhere to WP:AGF. Step away from the conflict for a few days while the page is protected and then take a look at your own conduct. Monty₈₄₅ 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Which "other editors" are you referring to? The three who replied to 89.100.207.51's slanted RFC before anyone had had a chance to explain the actual background and remit of the page? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically Murry1975's comments. More generally, what I don't think your getting is that there is no definite remit of an article, it is by its nature determined by consensus. Also, regardless of the remit of the article, you need to understand that WP:Vandalism is editing with the intent to disrup Wikipedia, and I haven't seen anything to justify your classification of the edits that lead to the edit war as being vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 said that the article should have remained in its original state pending the 30 days of the RFC. 89.100.207.51 ignored that, and kept changing it back to the version they wanted, while claiming consensus long before the 30 days were up (and which aren't yet). 89.100.207.51 originally claimed that the content did not match the page name, but rather than propose or discuss a change of name, they insisted that long-standing content should be deleted. How is this constructive? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, what about the de facto consensus evidenced by an article being in an essentially stable form for many years, generally only edited as appropriate by editors interested or knowledgable in the field? Does that count for nothing, just because an editor unfamiliar with the subject stumbles across it, and manages to gain some short-term support amongst other previously uninvolved editors to change it? This dispute started because 89.100.207.51 removed content from the page twice ([54], [55]), which was reverted by Mervyn first ([56]), and then myself ([57]), with similar explanations in the edit summary, all on 27 April. 89.100.207.51 deleted the content again an 28 April ([58]), at the same time opening an RFC on what they though the remit of the page should be, rather than discussing the issue on the Talk page first. 89.100.207.51 gained initial support from three editors - none of whom had edited the page previously - before I reverted the page to its long-standing version on 2 May ([59]). No other editors offered an opinion after that point, apart from Mervyn, who disagreed with the RFC on 4 May, yet 89.100.207.51 started claiming "consensus" from 8 May, just ten days after opening the RFC. Nick Cooper (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling my editing "spitefully destructive censorship" [60] is abusive. If you don't want people to abuse you back, don't abuse them in the first place. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And that's enough to justify you saying "Go fuck yourself"? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. "Go fuck yourself" only expresses my personal distaste with how you're behaving towards me. Calling my edits "spitefully destructive censorship" adversely affects my standing in the community, as does your twenty or so deliberately false accusations of vandalism, and your refusal to pay attention to the twenty or so times that I asked you to read WP:NOTVAND and explained to you that disagreeing with you is not the same thing as vandalism . 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So where does your repeated refusal to accept the original and long-standing remit of the page fit in, and to even acknowledge let alone answer questions put to you? This cuts both ways. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The remit of a page is decided by consensus. Not by you. Not letting you have your way does not make me a vandal, and does not make it okay for you to call me a vandal. I repeatedly directed you to WP:NOTVAND. You know that I'm not a vandal. Yet you continued to post fake warnings on my page. Over. And over. And over.89.100.207.51 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[61] is utterly unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling my edits "spitefully destructive censorship" [62] is utterly unacceptable. That's what I was writing in reply to. Repeatedly calling me a vandal when he knew I wasn't a vandal is also a personal attack, as is saying that I'm "not man enough" [63] to say that he's right. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI - I just stumbled upon this ANI as I was closing the RM that prompted or fueled this dispute. I had already warned both user:Nick Cooper and user:89.100.207.51 on their talk pages [64], [65] to refrain from contentious discussions and badgering of other editors. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:09, 23 May 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:TJD2 has been continuously changing or removing sourced content

These edits all pertain to the article Falling in Reverse: [66][67][[68][69][70][71]Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have continuously reminded this user to consult the talk page about the genre, but they continue to revert my work without explaining their reasoning. This user refuses to discuss at the talk page, and made a revert which removed/blanked sourced information that had been since added, as well as an updated image. We have established on the talk page that FiR is Post Hardcore and not screamo. If a source said they were country for example, it would be unreliable and we wouldn't put it in the article; the same goes for screamo. This has already been discussed. TJD2 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see you discussing it either. There this section, "Links to proove FIR is metalcore", which basically consists of a bunch of guys wanking over what songs are in what genres and why they are experts. Allmusic is generally considered to be reliable for genres, and they list a bunch of genres including screamo. Edit-warring aside (I'm going to count reverts in a moment), Hoponpop appears to be correct. Besides, you keep removing a reference to Allmusic--on what grounds? No, those edit summaries that boil down to "shut up it's on the talk page", well, it's not on the talk page, at least no consensus that can be called reasonably argued on the basis of reliable sources. Oh, if a reliable source calls something country, it's country. You seem to be arguing from your own taste and convictions. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the history I see more nonsense: you, TJD2, accused Hoponpop of "blatant vandalism"--that's obviously false. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism as in removing information that had since been added (images, past members, etc.). At the time I saw it as vandalism but it was an admitted oversight on their part. I'm not arguing from my own tastes, I am simply pointing out that there was a discussion on the issue and the users involved came to a consensus. I was merely protecting that consensus. As a side note, I was not even involved in the discussion save the fact that they listed a song that wasn't by FiR as an example of pop punk. BUT I would gladly discuss the genre changes with Hoponpop if he was willing (though he is not). TJD2 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling something vandalism when it is not automatically escalates a situation. Your next step in content disputes is dispute resolution ... otherwise, I'm not sure what you're requesting from admin? A block for content arguments? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm requesting the user be temporarily blocked.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? There is no reason to temporarily block, as I was merely protecting the interest of the consensus reached on the talk page. Now that you're telling me it should be there, I'll protect that interest because it was ordered by an admin...it's that simple, no need to escalate the situation past this. TJD2 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you both have a lot to learn. I still don't see a new section on the talk page where you can hammer out a consensus. TJD2, we don't care what your definition of vandalism is: you will have to abide by ours, and as I've told you before there is no consensus on the talk page that I can see. You say you wish to discuss--well then, duh, discuss! Hoponpop, no one is going to block your counterpart right now. I'm asking that someone close this thread and I will keep an eye on this silly dispute. You all talk it over; continuing this edit war will lead to a block. Find some better sources than Allmusic, and pretend to be not fans, but objective editors. Basta. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lists of officeholders

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.

---

Dear fellow users, I'm involved in a problem which I hope can be solved here. This is the problem: Everyone of you know very well how many lists of officeholders are separated form articles about their offices. I attempt to apply that example at several articles, listed here:

• I want to separate List of Prime Ministers of Croatia from Prime Minister of Croatia
• I want to separate List of Prime Ministers of Serbia from Prime Minister of Serbia
• I want to separate List of Prime Ministers of Montenegro from Prime Minister of Montenegro

I did that following the example of other similar lists of officeholders which are already separated (by other editors, not by me) from articles about their offices:

• List of Presidents of Croatia is separated from President of Croatia
• List of Presidents of Serbia is separated from President of Serbia
• List of Presidents of Montenegro is separated from President of Montenegro
• Chairmen of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina is separated from Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina

One editor, User:DIREKTOR, is opposed to these changes. He told me I must discuss these changes before I can apply them. I have no problem with discussion and collaboration with other editors, but I thought I can apply the rule WP:BOLD in this case and edit above mentioned articles in the same way as many other articles on Wikipedia are edited. I'll appreciate any help to resolve this issue. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• None are in the 'Articles that may be too long MMM YYYY' categories, so splits are stylistic preferences of whether the list overwhelms/unbalances the articles. You've been developing other List of leaders in series by preference. You were bold, he reverted and asked you to get consensus first, you revert with commentary in your summaries rather than avoid an edit war by a discussion elsewhere, he reverts again, across multiple articles. What am I missing? Dru of Id (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As you said, these splits are stylistic preferences. I fully agree with that. I prefer to split list of officeholders from article about that office. Many articles are edited the same way, and my opinion is that its better than to have just one article with data about the office and with list of officeholders. I have no desire to engage in an edit war, so I stopped reverting and started this topic here. --Sundostund (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Whop, whop, whop, whop, whop, whop, whop, whop, … Oh listen! It's that boomerang again.

  I count three reverts apiece in a 24 hour period for the both of you at List of Prime Ministers of Croatia, where you're both abusing edit summaries as a talk page. And that's just one of the pages. If I (or another administrator) see either of you doing anything about this anywhere in article space before you've sorted things out at Talk:Prime Minister of Croatia#Sundostund's article split, then you'll lose your editing privileges. You both know full well not to edit war, by now, given your respective histories at Wikipedia. The only reason that I'm not revoking your editing privileges right now is that at 2012-05-23 11:26:32 DIREKTOR finally went to a talk page, and you finally followed. Stay there! Invite third opinions to the talk page from a WikiProject or Requests For Comment if you like. But stay there!

  Uncle G (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • If you look, you'll see that I started this topic here in order to find a solution for this issue. I want to improve these articles, not to wage an edit war. --Sundostund (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

@Uncle G. Correction: I'm not abusing edit-summaries, I'm trying to be thorough. I posted a thread on the subject. The first one I've seen. The user is edit-warring to split these articles indiscriminately for the sake of uniformity, regardless of whether a WP:SPLIT is justified in a specific article or not. The content dispute is besides the point, however. A massive modification affecting a dozen articles should be discussed, even were it not opposed - and it is. Revert-warring is not the method by which these changes should be advocated. -- Director (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• • DIREKTOR, I'm not engaged in any form of edit war. I reverted you a few times, then I started this topic to seek help from others to find a solution for our dispute. I just want to edit these articles in a way which I (and many other users) prefer. List of officeholders should be separated from article about that office, no matter how long (or short) that article and list are. --Sundostund (talk) 15:44, 23 May 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:AlexanderLondon

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.

---

Would somebody please look into User:AlexanderLondon (contribs). He has had 8 contribs in the past 3 years, all of which have been personal attacks against User:Jakew, including links to an off-Wiki attack page about Jake. His latest contrib describes Jake as "somebody who has a sexual fetish." The content of his contribs along this line express a probably willful application of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Wikipedia project. He has certainly been around Wikipedia long enough to know better, and the attempts to libel Jakew look to be escalating--I would not count out an attempt to post real-life contact info about Jakew. I think the sooner something is done, the better. Thanks. Zad68 01:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified AlexanderLondon and Jakew. Zad68 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I warned about this activity, he's been here for a long time. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What disturbs me as much if not more than the obvious personal attack is if you follow the thread, the beginning point of which is provided by Alexander, to the off-wiki content at CircLeaks, the information on those websites is incredibly inflammatory (anti-Jakew). I think this goes beyond a personal attack and should be met with more than just a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A couple of more things. First, not only is Alexander's comment a personal attack, it is also a BLP violation. See WP:BLPTALK ("this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space"). Second, if Alexander has a problem with the content of Jakew's edits, he can deal with it in the usual way through discussion, consensus, and WP:DR. Attacking the editor and pointing to off-wiki content that attacks the editor are a violation of policy and should be sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Zad68 for raising this issue. The "CircLeaks" smear site is regularly used by those looking for mud to throw (presumably that was why it was created); AlexanderLondon isn't the first to link to it, though he does seem rather determined. I regard links to it as both a BLP vio and a personal attack even without adding his own commentary (per "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor" in WP:NPA), and I deleted AL's attack of the 19th on this basis. He has now repeated the attack, and I've deleted it again. I note that he's also attacking me elsewhere. He's received at least two warnings about this sort of thing,[72][73] and (as Zad68 mentions) for the past 3 years seems to be operating his account for the sole purpose of attacking me. My own feeling is that this has gone on for long enough. Jakew (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like a simple case to block and ban as an attack account. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 23 May 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.

Will that block the underlying IP as well? Because I was wondering if this guy was doing the reverse of the usual: Maybe editing as an IP, and attacking while logged on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If they're sockpuppets of each other, it applies. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:205.221.227.251

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:205.221.227.251 has appeared to blank their (talk) page earlier. I reverted it, and as I looked at their talk page, it seems as they are blocked from editing. What is going to happen about this? :o — Preceding unsigned comment added by St*tic (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• All editors, including unregistered ones, are entitled to blank their talkpage per WP:BLANKING, St*tic. You can restore any special templates present like schoolIP if the removal included any of them. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

But not if they are blanking them by vandalizing it. I think they should be refrained from editing their talk page; because as you look at their history, it's nothing but warnings. :-) St*tic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

• Blanking them by vandalizing? St*tic, blanking is blanking is blanking. I see it, but if you look the warnings go back to 2005. It's no use to know that seven years ago high/middle-school pupils wrote poop! or something about friends in an article. Notices aren't meant as permanent badges of shame. Anyone can still see the history by clicking on it. It's not a big surprise to see vandalism notices on a school IP talkpage. ;-) They're currently blocked for 60hrs, so the talkpage is all they can edit. Blocks allow that so users can place unblock requests (not that one'd be granted here). Talkpage access during a block is sometimes taken away, but that's for things like using it to make personal attacks. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 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 198.228.200.157 Disruptive Editing on Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin

personal attacks, deleting others talk comments by IP 198.228.200.157 - see [74], [75]. The latter occured after being warned: [76], [77]. Short block requested. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to MBisanz. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Now 198.228.200.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) WP:EVADE block of 198.228.200.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), continuing the personal attacks and edit warring at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin - see [78]. Block of latest IP for block evasion plus semi-protect of Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin requested. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Its a bad candidate for protection, its a high visibility article, semi-protected article. Protecting the talk page will leave no way for new/IP editors to contribute to the article, and will make it harder for them to alert us to any potential issues, which given the nature of the subject is a problem. Further there have been recent constructive IP/new editor contributions to the talk page. Better to just play whack a mole with the socks for awhile. Monty₈₄₅ 05:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be a very small range. A 12-24 hour rangeblock would probably cause minimal disruption if it keeps up. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Either Rangeblock or block of latest IP would be appreciated. JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's 198.228.200.x 's latest foray.[79] --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just hit 198.228.200.144/28 with a rangeblock for 72 hours (that only hits up to 16 users), but my guess is that it needs to be a little bit wider than that. If the same person pops up, bring it back here and I or someone else can see if there's a viable larger range. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/198.228.200.158 says that this IP is coming from a proxy server. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it is a proxy server, it is not necessary for any user to use it for editing Wikipedia, since a user can use his own IP address instead of the IP address provided by the proxy server. Thus, if there are any more problems from an IP address of that proxy server, perhaps all the IP addresses of the proxy server could be blocked if need be. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:PROXY, it should be blocked, yes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Block set to one month as a proxyblock. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Rev Del needed on possible outing

A new account is making vandalism edits here, here, and here (and any new ones). That revert isn't especially sensitive, but probably should be rev-deleted, and the account blocked. Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Taken care of. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Shadowjams, in the future, please "Email this user" at User:Oversight, or email them directly to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. I'll suppress them from here in this case. Risker (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

hi dont does everybody think that military dictatorship is wrong why dont we do somehting about it come ON PEOPLE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.147.20.232 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You might be better off posting on the Overthrow Committee noticeboard, or getting in touch with WikiProject Coup. pablo 10:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:A:-)Brunuś

The User in question has been falsly Speedy-tagging pages that are clearly inappropriate for CSD. Also, created both an AFD and an MFD for the Main Page. Clearly something, but I'm not sure what, should be done. Achowat (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• [ec] Actually, their recent CSDs are not bad at all (the half dozen I looked at). That MfD is weird, yes. I also closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steponavičius per SNOW. There was a thread here earlier, at the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive752, which led to no action. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've notified the editor for you, Achowat, and then notified them. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Look at that. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Main Page Pretty gutsy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Time for some mop work -- see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#Over-zealous_speedy_deletion_tagging Nobody Ent 18:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) We just covered this here but there wasn't any action. [80] I tried to give all the benefit of the doubt, and I had left a message informing him that he needed to come here, but he refused. Once notices and warnings fail, we are left with few options in order to both get his attention, and prevent further disruption. I'm inclined to do a short block on him, as we are at the last resort here, and this is a problem he will not even address. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I think it's clear that s/he's just hitting Twinkle buttons to cause disruption. Achowat (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, there's a lot of very good CSD nominations. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The main page is never going to be a good CSD. Some good edits mixed in with trolling doesn't make the trolling any better. Nobody Ent 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To be clear, anyone is free to unblock him if they feel he will come here and discuss, no further permission is needed from me, as I'm giving it now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm--I can't say I like "wake up and smell the coffee" blocks. They also can't comment here, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Had it not been for the prior ANI that was just closed archived by the bot, and that he has been given every opportunity to help us understand, I would agree. At this point, the main purpose is to stop him from CSDing, including the main page MfD. Some of his CSDs ARE good, and I said as much in the prior (and even sent to AFD one that was rejected) but his efforts are clearly disruptive at this time, so I'm left with no choice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Righteous block -- main page CSD one day after blowing off an ANI invite? Obvious trolling. Nobody Ent 18:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• He is finally communicating on his talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A bit, yes. I've declined the unblock request and added a note. Could we mandate the user keep some sort of CSD log, like a lot of editors seem to use these days? Drmies (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I guess it can be proposed, but he would have to go and set it up in Twinkle himself (easy to do). I'm trying to assume good faith, but he surely isn't making it easy by his lack of response, or his eventual responses. I think first he needs to give some indication that he understands what the problem is, as he has yet to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• I encountered this user once (see Talk:HTTP referer#Reverted move). The lack of communication was irritating, but I decided it was probably due to problems with written English. I just mention that as a possible explanation for why the user is not responding in any meaningful manner. Johnuniq (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting and the category diffusion template

Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Alan_Liefting_and_the_category_diffusion_template

 – Nobody Ent 12:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review of User:Badmachine

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 everyone,

I really don't know where to start on this one, and I've kept away from WP for a full 24 hours in order to cool down. I'm referring to the block of Badmachine (talk · contribs) and this related ANI posting. Badmachine is someone I happen to know off-wiki - I just want to get that point out of the way first.

Badmachine posted a biography on his userpage earlier yesterday. It contained what most people have on their page; their interests, associations, early computer experiences, where you grew up, etc, etc. It also contained a short paragraph or two detailing how he was sexually abused as a child and how the perp had ultimately went to jail.

I am undeleting his userpage so it can be reviewed here - it can be deleted afterwards if needs be. I do not see it as being a BLP issue as Badmachine is pseudonymous here and no links are made to the RL identities of people. Sorry, Fram :/ In its original form, the name and location of the convicted child molestor and pornographer were detailed. I removed these myself and suppressed the edits as I'm more than aware of what WP:OVER states. Since then, Badmachine has produced newspaper reports which back up his story, but this is not what this is about here. Badmachine is a complex character. He's a good faith editor, IMO, but he's not your usual WP editor. I've seen him go through excruciatingly painful hip replacement surgery with the same sense of humour that he shows here. Not everyone will get it, but he is who he is.

I can personally attest to the veracity of his story as I know him personally. Contrary to what the blocking admin, Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) stated, it was not "a fictional construct ". I'm also mystified that the blocking admin immediately blocked his account, deleted his userpage and posted to ANI, yet failed to bring it to the attention of the Oversight team. That was ultimately done by Ohiostandard (talk · contribs), who I felt did so in a more sensitive and kind way. However, I'd got to the edits first and suppressed them myself.

The crux of the matter is this; Badmachine was blocked indefinitely for because he posted his story of having been abused as a child. This is exactly how it appears right now and his block log states "repeated, continued, self-admitted trolling". It might not be well-known to the average Wikipedia admin, but children who are sexually abused are bullied into silence. That how it works. They are kept down, shut up, bulled and silenced by those who have a power over them, and here we all are, repeating the same thing. The message is quite clear; if you were abused as a child, shut yer yap or we'll block you! Is this how Wikipedia works? Do we cast our humanity aside when we pick up our tin WikiBadge and gun? The original abuse, in a small way maybe, is just being perpetuated here. Some people mentioned WP:THERAPY already, and I'm not seeing that here - just a frank recollection of a person's life, is all - part of who he is. Recounting how you were sexually abused as a child is not 'therapy', or anything close. Am I just blind here or was this just a horrible, cruel block? If someone we were talking with recounted how they were raped, for example, do we punch them in the mouth?

It would be far easier for me to walk away from all this, just as everyone else has here - say nothing, keep my head down and maintain my credibility or whatever. But I can't, in conscience, not when I see someone who was blocked indefinitely and their userpage deleted because they related their story of having been sexually abused as a child. That's simply not okay. Banhammer him for being a 'troll' or for having a GNAA logo on his talk page, or whatever else - but not for this. I know there's a CU angle to this, too, and I've not even looked at that yet though I do recall checking Badmachine in the past and he was not socking.

I would like to see a fair, honest and considerate block review by the community here - not some four-hour review that occurred in the small hours of the morning, followed by a quick archiving. In total, all I saw is about for or five endorses and that's simply not enough here - Alison ^❤ 21:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've restored a single version of his userpage, so people can view and judge accordingly. Feel free to re-delete accordingly, once the discussion is done. As there are no RL names mentioned (any more), and that Badmachine is pseudonymous, there should be no BLP issues - Alison ^❤

It's difficult for me to take the sober story of sexual abuse seriously, considering that the userpage was previously a wall of penises. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I addressed this on his talk page with a swastika analogy. If you saw a user page full of swastikas, you may think it was a bad faith trollish nazi. If you found out the user was a devout hindu, you would think otherwise. It is exactly the same thing with a wall of penises. Egg Centric 21:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean we should ask him if he's gay? *scratches head* --Conti|✉ 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with being gay. It's to do with his philosophy of people hardening the fuck up, and an enjoyment of lulz (enjoyment of lulz is not the same thing as active trolling) which is perfectly well explained on his user page Egg Centric 21:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just old and crazy, but I dare say that Wikipedia is not the place to "enjoy the lulz", even if one claims that it's totally not at all trolling. --Conti|✉ 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with enjoying things? If you want to argue that a wall of penises ain't acceptable, then that's a different thing and they've been removed. But it wasn't trolling to have them in the first place, just a statement. If no one complained about it wouldn't be a problem so I don't think punishing him for it makes any sense at all. It's academic in any case as they're not there any more. Egg Centric 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously unblock - I hadn't seen the user page till now and wasn't entirely sure what was on it. You can't disbelieve it without saying Alison is a liar; therefore anyone who supports a block after viewing that is either saying Alison should be desysopped, or is an unfeeling automaton. Egg Centric 21:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"(...) but children who are sexually abused are bullied into silence. (...) and here we all are, repeating the same thing." I think you should seriously consider rephrasing that. It should also be noted, just for the record, that three different unblock requests from the user have been denied by three different admins. --Conti|✉ 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock Page is now in accordance with policy and they aint' supposed to be punitive, right? Nobody Ent 21:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I too had not seen the original user page with the BLP-violating material, but in its current redacted state it seems unobjectionable to me. I had heard about the wall-o'-penises but never saw them; while I have no time for such japes myself, I don't see that indulging in random silliness invalidates the autobiographical material posted later. I have no difficulty believing the account given, and it appears that both personal knowledge of BM and the public record support the account. My own user page contains just as much material which violates WP:NOTWEBHOST, so if BM were to make a further unblock appeal which contained an undertaking not to publish identifiable names I'd be willing to unblock (should the consensus here move in that direction.) If he'd agree to make more constructive edits and fewer that could be construed as trolling, that would be great too of course. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are we refusing to unblock a guy with AIDS-related dementia because he didn't remove something from his userpage before somebody pointed out to him it that was a problem, or are we refusing to unblock a guy because he decided to include unhappy parts of his life story on his userpage? Sheesh. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think for the most part his unblock requests have been refused because of a combination of a few things. Namely a) the user posting a bunch of penis pictures on his user page, and defending said action until the user page was deleted, b) the user openly admitting to enjoy trolling and c) the user then creating a user page in which he identifies, by name and location, people who (allegedly, though I personally don't doubt him there) have committed serious crimes. None of these are that problematic individually, but combined they paint a picture (whether accurately or not) of someone who is here to cause trouble, not someone who is here to contribute to the encyclopedia. --Conti|✉ 21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done a thorough investigation of his contribs (and ain't gonna), but I get the impression that outside of his rather odd ideas ab out decorating his userpage, his other activities have been aimed at making an encyclopedia. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock agree with Nobody Ent; I also have confidence in Alison's judgment and trust her. Acalamari 21:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock with restriction If I or you had that on one of our user pages we likely would not have been blocked. Point being that Badmachine was blocked for the totality of his actions here and not a single incident. Good faith is something that gets chipped away at over time, and the example of the Jesus image coupled with the user page stuff was just the proverbial straw on the camel's back. If BM is to be unblocked I would expect to see a statement acknowledging that some of his behavior has been unacceptable and a promise not to continue. I would also expect a quick reblock if behavior continues. And Allison, really, the "bullied into silence" hyperbole is really over the top. I seriously doubt anyone here cares about BM's past in regards to sexual abuse and I can almost guarantee that Q had no inclination to "silence" him in the manner you insinuate. The only thing you or BM should be talking about in an unblock discussion is the user's behavior; his sexual history has no bearing on his editing (and if it does in a way that leads to disruption it's not an excuse, WP is not therapy). SÆdon^talk 21:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I care about his past. That's because I have empathy. Egg Centric 22:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

His past has nothing to do with WP. Again, WP:NOTTHERAPY. People who care about his past can email him and forge all the friendships they want so long as it doesn't interfere with our only goal of building an encyclopedia. SÆdon^talk 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

While I can't prove this to you, because strictly speaking it has no proof and is only social convention, what with morality and ethics not having any agreed upon rational basis or known axioms (I hope that got all anticipated objections out of the way) there is a duty to remain human that is more important than encyclopedia building. Egg Centric 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll consider myself lucky for not having to normally make such considerations as I'm much more of a utilitarian than a deontologist (and thus generally reject the concept of duty). As an aside, I would say that you're wrong about ethics not having a rational basis, reason is exactly what we use to determine ethics, with the exception of very few schools of thought. SÆdon^talk

You can only use reason once you have taken both some facts and some rules as given. Egg Centric 22:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• The low-level disruptive trolling needs to be addressed too. In terms of the user page containing the personal and emotional biography - WP:NOTTHERAPY comes into play. Plus, the strange account registration pattern (the admitted ones). A message from Badmachine would be useful: undertaking not to troll any more, that he understands the socking policy and that Wikipedia is not overly interested in his biography (whilst obviously as individuals we are sympathetic) to the extent that it doesn't help advance the goals of an encyclopedia. In those circumstances, I'd support an unblock. Also, a mentor might be helpful. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• To add, I am disappointed to see Alison play the "censorship" and emotion cards. It was clear from the original block review message that the definite BLP violation was the straw that broke the camels back afte a sequence of long term low-level trolling. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock self admitted gay nigger my pony troll - with a desire to post penises on his userpage - Hello? - Youreallycan 21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm a bit concerned about Alison's involvement and actions here, although there is a strong chance that WP:IAR would apply in this rather unique situation. Her faith in these actions is clearly good, regardless. I'm personally willing to consider an unblock but I have a great deal of reservations. I don't question Alison's sincerity, or the validity of her statements, but there looks to be a long enough history of problems and jumping to a quick conclusion based on the emotional elements in his life isn't wise. It looks like some good faith mistakes might have occurred in the handling of the event, and I completely agree that a review is worthwhile. I have digging to do before I can offer more. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I am neither an admin nor at all involved, just a lurker, but I have to say the argument equating this action to a repetition of sexual abuse and the concomitant threatening into silence (which is not actually bullying, but is something far worse) is over the top. At some point, one becomes an adult and takes responsibility for how one engages with the world, and if the user has recently had hip replacement surgery then that probably happened a while ago. Whether the block is wrong or right is certainly debatable, though given that the user in question certainly has form it is hardly unexpected. However, suggesting that a block on an Internet community is in any way equatable to the silencing of a sexual abuse victim is uncalled for, IMO. Kate (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC) (Ed. for ec-related formatting fail)
• Unblock Badmachine. I didn't much care for the penises (mine is already too much too handle for most people including me) or the GNAA stuff (and no, Badmachine, I wasn't pooping my panties), but I never thought that he was nothing but a troll. Disclaimer: I once knew a guy who looks kind of like him. Thanks, Alison, for breaking a lance. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You can't handle your own penis? That must make masturbation really, really awkward. Moreschi (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This is why I need to move up the ranks--from mere member of Malleus's harem to pasha. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Although I think the first discussion of Badmachine had closed by the time the checkuser dimension emerged, I must nevertheless clarify that Badmachine had appeared to have created some socks, but that his contention is that they are unrelated (except one unused account). I am perfectly willing to accept his explanation, and my ability to assume good faith when it comes to socking is rather circumscribed. AGK [•] 22:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock. I was the one who declined Badmachine's first unblock request, but as I said, that was because it contained a link to a saved copy of the userpage with the name of the abuser and the story of the abuse. As I also said at the time, I would support an unblock if Badmachine agreed not to repeat it. He agreed, and so I still support unblock. As for claims that Badmachine has been trolling, I'm happy to accept Alison's word that that is not so - with her contributions to the project so far, she surely warrants some trust in this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock based on my own rushed investigation, the comments of Kim Dent-Brown, the trust I have in Boing! said Zebedee's judgement, and the hope that Alison will take an interest to insure we don't have that kind of BLP problem on his user page again. I would be lying if I did not say I have reservations about doing so, but since the initial "problem" is fixed, it will not likely break Wikipedia for us to extend a little more good faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, good grief... I have just done a few things that I seriously thought were in my past; I have reviewed the relevant "discussions" and edit histories in this matter - seriously, I cannot see the purpose of an indefinite block where it was not intended to be lifted once the issue was resolved. An indefinite block, and especially one that is endorsed by an "ANI discussion", which no admin is prepared to undo amounts to a ban, and this is what appears to have happened here. I am uneasy, however, that there is very little in the way of warnings regarding the userpage before the block or any subsequent meaningful discussion following (I even dusted off my OS priv's to check!) - and even the issue of "trolling" (which in the case of an earlier block appears to be mutual japing) is hardly substantiated. It appears - I may be wrong, I am out of practice - that the main issue is the prevalence of phallic imagery/commentary in many of Badmachines posts to his userpage and various talkpages... I must admit a personal disinclination to over exposure to dicks, which is why I do not read or edit WP much these days, but am fairly sure that dissembling dick to other consenting adults in a social context is not grounds for banning someone on WP. I take on trust that Badmachine's edits to content pages are within, or hopefully better than, the usual standards prevailing and therefore endorse *unblocking the editor while a reasoned and considered discussion over the issue of the editors userpage and his manner of interacting with other editors is conducted (over a reasonable timeframe, also). Finally, I would also note that I became aware of this matter from reading Alison's comments on a social networking site; my opinion in this matter, however, is my own. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock WP:NOTTHERAPY GwenChan 23:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock you guys are only paying this much attention to him because he simply had a GNAA userbox. I bet if this were anyone else who didn't have that userbox, you guys wouldn't care. --♣thayora♣ 23:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• (EC) Comment I tend to agree with Youreallycan that it seems like an obvious troll. But if its not, wouldn't Wikipedia is not therapy and Wikipedia is not a blog come into this? We are here to build an encyclopedia, not help people get over real life problems by working through it on their userpage. There areplenty of blogs and other sites where they can do this, but here IMHO this is not one of the places to do it. Heiro 23:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And this quote from the user page : "This was when Badmachine took up his current view that trolling is a necessary part of the evolution of Internet users into thicker-skinned people.

Badmachine made many new friends on the Internet, and some of those friends were Internet trolls. He became fast friends with people directly or indirectly associated with the Internet trolling organization GNAA." Does not fill me with confidence. Heiro 23:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw that, which is part of my hesitation, but that wasn't the reason for the block per se, so keeping the block might be (in effect) reblocking him here for a different offense without all the evidence being presented, which is troubling. There is a bit more prose to his other statements, suggesting he enjoys viewing trolls, but does't add to them. Yes, I know, but it is out there. I have no intention of trying to persuade you otherwise, but did want to note those points. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock I am personally offended by everything GNAA is and does; I am bored by penis photos. Neither of these statements justifies blocking someone who does not agree with me. The possible BLP issues were more problematic, but, with newspaper articles to confirm the names and deeds (even if there lacks reliable cites for the perpetrator's death), I'd not have been supporting any block. (In my view, those who have been convicted of child abuse ought to be named in the full light of day - or on a victim's WP page.) Certainly, now that all of the material being challenged is permanently gone from Badmachine's user page, thanks to Alison, leaving the block in place smacks of the vindictive. Unblock and move on. Bielle (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support Unblock This is a case of selective enforcement of rules WP:NOTAWEBHOST and using rules like WP:NOTTHERAPY to support their actions. It's obvious who has a chip on their shoulder here, and it's not User:Badmachine. I'll admit he's different, but I've seen nothing in article space that would support the need for a permanent ban. With the names removed, I see no problem other than the fact that a select group of people are going to drive away multiple veteran wikipedia editors who have contributed a ton (and have a ton left to contribute) because they're uncomfortable sharing an encyclopedia with a guy who talks openly about his AIDS. --Josmul123 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock - Badmachine is a good egg. He is a user who doesn't care about the petty drama started by the AN/I divas over things such as harmless userboxes, penis images, etc. Outside of a possibly "outlandish" userpage, I see no actual disruption of Wikipedia, and 100% of his main space edits are productive. All the whining over a userpage is especially irrelevant when his signature doesn't even link to it. He agreed to remove the possible BLP issue, and had a valid excuse for the accounts supposedly connected to him (which have no edits). Overall, this is pointless and our time would be better spent building an encyclopedia. Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Funny, your last edit prior to this one, about two months ago, is to an RFD that Badmachine started. I'm sure that was just a coincidence. --Conti|✉ 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - List of furry conventions and Brony are just gonna have to find a new editor. I'm sorry about his health issues, but we're talking about an ED flag-wavin', GNAA badge sportin' sort here. Not very often that I agree with YRC about much of anything, but he's on point here. Carrite (talk) 00:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment An editor above points out that s/he "became aware of this matter from reading Alison's comments on a social networking site." As current policy entreats "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate" I would be interested to see what has been written on aforementioned "social networking site." GwenChan 00:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support conditional unblock, because I believe in second chances. But this bad machine must be warned not to malfunction again. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Weak last-chance unblock, with conditions. I'm one of the people who declined to unblock badmachine today. I did that because, in reading his explanations, I felt that his story was changing too much, too often, and it seemed likely we weren't being told the truth about what he's been doing. I still feel that his dribbling out of a series of "...oh yeah, I did have another account" stories is a bit too convenient, and the way he represents himself on Wikipedia...well, let's say it doesn't ring with anti-troll vigor. In fact, it's distinctly pro-trolling, and when a user who expresses approval of trolling takes actions that resemble trolling, they're simply not going to get the same portion of good faith that other editors do. I respect that badmachine may be ill, and I respect Alison's word that badmachine isn't a bad-faith user, but I'm just having a hard time visualizing how badmachine adds up to the positive for the encyclopedia right now. It's not so hard a time that I would vigorously oppose an unblock, however - as long as we're told the truth, the whole truth about the user's alternate accounts, doppelgangers, Cyrillic-character nicks, and every other variation upon "I have logins other than 'badmachine'," and as long as he understands that Wikipedia is not here for him to blog or use as therapy or a source of lulz.

  I also, unhappily, question Alison's choice here in pushing a case in which she herself acknowledges that she is too emotionally involved, using accusatory, emotional language to tell the community our behavior is the equivalent of sexual abuse-related bullying, and I especially question her choice to restore a possibly-questionable userpage in these circumstances. Alison, you're one of our best, and you have piles of respect from me and many other users. However, given how strongly you feel about this user and this case, I don't think you should have made the call on whether the page should be restored for this thread. Irrespective of whether the restoration was called for - and I understand that you did it solely to provide information for people in this thread, not to push a POV about whether it ought to exist - your perception of this case is sufficiently affected by emotion that you should have been aware that you are not equipped to be making administrative calls here, even temporary ones. Not because it was necessarily wrong, but because it ran too high a chance of being so. Everyone makes mistakes, even admins, and that's not the end of the world. But I'm hoping you give some thought to whether this was the best way you could have handled things here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• in this case, it took Alison, who is indeed "one of our best", to fix a wrong that was only being perpetuated by repeated declines of my block requests. many thanks to Alison, and i will add a comment here on my talk page after i have read through all this. edit conflicts are very frustrating and yall are faster than me. :) -badmachine 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC) [edited 03:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC) ]

• Unblock - While Alison's screed sounds like a pitch for a bad Lifetime movie, there doesn't appear to be anything actually WP:UP-violating with the user page to warrant a block. And if this entire sob story is just one big GNAA-inspired troll, that'd make this even funnier. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked Badmachine per the clear consensus above. Personally, I think anyone who endorses the racism-for-lulz trolling of the GNAA ought to be thrown out of Wikipedia, no questions asked, but I recognize I'm in the minority on that point, and regardless, the block wasn't for racist trolling, it was for what appears by all accounts to be a good-faith but ill-conceived attempt to tell his story on his userpage. Letting the block stand would essentially be letting the right person be indeffed for the wrong reason, which is the wrong thing to do. That said,

1. Qwyrxian did the right thing by blocking for what appeared to be serious BLP violations, and the consensus here reflects that.
2. This is pretty much a last-chance unblock. Badmachine and his userpage have shown up at AN/I again and again and again, and much of the community is really sick of hearing about it.
3. Badmachine: Alison's a good person who has obviously put a lot on the line on your behalf. Maybe, going forward, you could try extra-hard to act in such a way that doesn't make things hard on her?

28bytes (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• The above unblock is fine, although I was just about to post that BM should first make a clear statement that no more trolling will occur. Alison has done a lot of excellent work and an unblock is reasonable given her support, but I hope she will take a firmer stand in the future than occured at User talk:Badmachine#Re: Lil B (of course the picture was offensive, and it should have been removed immediately). Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  While I understand your logic, the restrictions would be meaningless. I think it is likely very clear that if he trolls or exceeds other expectations of behavior in any significant way, his next block will indeed be his last. It appears there is clearly a consensus that supports this idea, even among those that supported to unblock, like myself. The restrictions may not be de jure, but they are de facto. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hrmph. The first time the community was asked to weigh in on a Badmachine block, I voted to lift it, feeling that he was hard done-by in a relatively petty dispute. But the drama just keeps on coming, and I’m beginning to question whether Badmachine genuinely gets it. This is not a webhost. This is not Livejournal, Facebook or Tumblr. This is not a political or confessions blog, and it’s not an advocacy forum. It is a encyclopedia, and it is ONLY an encyclopedia, and the sooner he wraps his head around that the better. In his shoes, I’d restrict my activities to productive edits, and leave my user page alone, for the foreseeable future. I don’t contemplate taking his side in a blocking dispute again, no matter who vouches for him. Ravenswing 03:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone can see my comments on my talk page and Badmachine's talk page. I hope they might make some people consider that unblocking after a 4 hour discussion, without even notifying the blocking admin of the discussion, might possibly have unexpected consequences. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the threats directed at Q by GNAA members, I recommend that if this user needs to be blocked in the future it should be handled by an admin who's WP user name can't be traced to their RL identity or handles on other sites. SÆdon^talk 02:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no actual threats have been issued. I was merely made aware of their presence. And perhaps I am being overly afraid--I simply worried, based upon their description and history here at WP. Hopefully nothing will come of this at all. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone see BLP problems with someone with an identifiable photo and whose identity is known to people (here and on other websites) posting that his "father, who was addicted to heroin, abandoned the family and divorced Badmachine's mother in 1971"? I wouldn't mind a short bio describing his problems without referring to other people or institutions, but this actual page is not what Wikipedia userpages are intended for or what should be accepted. I see no benefit in this unblock, and seriously doubt the wisdom of the restoration of that user page, never mind that Alison shouldn't have been the one to restore it. She could have asked uninvolved people to take a look first and restore it if they thought it reasonable, but she shouldn't have used her admin tools on it (again!) at all. Fram (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Threats have been received - I received death threats from GNAA on Twitter for not unblocking Badmachine. GiantSnowman 08:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suspect the entire user page is a story invented by its author: basically taking a list of some of the worst things that could happen to anyone, and applying them all to the same fictional character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the userpage is a fake. Alison is a trustworthy person and if she vouches for him that's good enough for me. Anyway, this is starting to look like wikistalking and hounding to me. So he had some dick pix on his userpage at one point, big deal. And a GNAA logo is no big deal either, IMHO. This is starting to look to me like people are stalking his edits and following him around looking for an excuse to drop the banhammer. Kind of like how people used to do the same to Giano, the only problem is the only reason they seem disruptive is because someone has it in for them and wants it to be disruptive. Everyone needs to chill out a little and move on to something else. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:06, 24 May 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: Bali ultimate) is consistently reverting legitimate edits with no policy-based reasoning and marking them as vandalism

Maybe this is the wrong place to report this I am not totally sure, so sorry in advance. But I don't know what to do about this anymore. I have attempted to make some edits on the article Palestinian people, complete with sources and explanations in the edit summaries. The user "Bali ultimate" has consistently reverted every single edit I have tried to make, as if he OWNS it and can simply say yes or no to whatever he likes or dislikes. He does not provide any explanations or policy-based reasons why he is reverting. His latest revert deleted sourced information, and his edit summary said "reverting ip vandalism". My edits were clearly not vandalism. I don't know what to do about this situation, and I don't want to engage in an edit war or argument with him. So I am requesting help from other editors or administrators who know how to appropriately deal with situations like this. Thanks very much! 74.198.87.22 (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is the diff of the latest revert, but there are several more: [81] 74.198.87.22 (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This user's edits appear to be problematic, particularly on an article evidently covered by WP:ARBPIA. As they hop between different IPs in the same range, their edits have been reverted by three different editors; RolandR, Malik Shabazz and Bali ultimate. At no stage have they used the article talk page except very recently to make accusations of WP:OWN regarding Bali ultimate after posting this report.[82] On the other hand, they have not informed Bali ultimate of this report, contrary to the instructions at the top of this page. Mathsci (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I edit from a mobile phone. My IP changes often. That's not my fault and as far as I know it is not against any rules. I have not violated any edit warring/reverting rules with the changing IPs, so please don't try to make me seem problematic based on that. You are also incorrect about the talk pages, I have been part of discussions on numerous occasions, and I have given proper reasons for every single edit I have made in the edit summaries. And since you saw my talk page comment about Bali ultimate, you should have seen that I explained clearly there why I did not notify Bali ultimate. I cannot post on his talk page. Why are you saying all of these false things about me? I don't even know you and have never interacted with you. I'm here to discuss Bali ultimate marking my legitimate edit as vandalism. Do you have anything to say about that? 74.198.87.22 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any edits by IPs in the range of this IP on Talk:Palestinian people prior to this report. Perhaps the article page should be semiprotected. Mathsci (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about discussions on talk pages of other articles. Whether or not the article should be semiprotected has nothing to do with this report. A user has labelled my edit as vandalism as his reasoning for why he reverted it. Have you taken a look at the edit? Do you support what he did? If so, can you please help me understand how my edit was WP:VANDALISM? I must be missing something. 74.198.87.22 (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

How can other users follow your IP hopping if you don't specify which articles you're talking about? Your conduct here seems quite unreasonable in an area covered by stringent arbcom restrictions. Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't expect anybody to follow my IP hopping because this isn't about me. Jeez I feel like I'm talking to a wall maybe this was a waste of time posting here because clearly nobody is listening to my complaint. You totally ignored my questions about Bali ultimate every single time I asked them, and try to turn this against me. If you think my conduct is unreasonable, please explain what rules I have broken and if you want, file a report against me. Meanwhile, Bali ultimate has marked my edit as vandalism when I added information with a WP:RS. As far as I understand from WP:VANDALISM, my edit was nowhere near vandalism and his action is totally inappropriate. How many more times can I say this before you will respond? Anyway, is there some other way to get directly to administrators? I notice that nobody who posted here so far is an administrator. 74.198.87.22 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Nor need they be, in order to post here. Ravenswing 03:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hrm. Far from not providing his reasoning, every edit Bali has made over the last month to that article comes with an edit summary. That the IP making this complaint might not like Bali's rationales is another matter, but certainly is a content dispute for the talk page and not for ANI. So ... when did the IP attempt to bring this to the talk page? Not until after he posted here. Ravenswing 02:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you look at the diff I provided? "reverting ip vandalism" is not legitimate reasoning to delete sourced content. 74.198.87.22 (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly a legitimate reason to revert vandalism from an IP. That being said, perhaps you are confused on a particular point. It's not that we haven't read what you're saying, and it's not that we don't understand what you're saying. We just don't agree with what you're saying, and we certainly don't agree with how this is being handled.

Beyond that, we recognize that you want this to be solely about Bali ultimate, but that's not how ANI works. The motives, behavior and actions of every complainant is subject to equal scrutiny, and WP:BOOMERANG is a frequently cited link. Ravenswing 03:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't agree with what I'm saying, and are telling me that my edit was vandalism, then maybe you could be so generous as to grant me the wish I have asked 2 or 3 times already and to explain to me how my edit was vandalism. I know that takes a lot of effort and is hard and time consuming, but you seem to have taken such a big interest in this case that maybe you'll find it in the bottom of your heart to help this little unimportant IP editor better understand the rules of Wikipedia. Since after all everyone at Wikipedia is all about positive collaboration and helping improve the encyclopedia for all. 74.198.87.22 (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A possible way forward is for the IP hopper to register an account here. That way his concerns can be discussed in a more appropriate venue, like WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You might like to take a look at WP:HUMAN. Incidentally, the page you cited isn't semi'd. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting link, it's certainly nice to know that there is a Wikipedia policy talking about the fact that people are allowed to edit as IPs and they can't be abused just for not having an account. Frankly, I'm being treated like total shit here and it's discouraging me from continuing to make edits in the project. So if that was the goal of all these people, then congrats I guess. At this rate I can't see myself sticking around much longer. If editors can blanket revert any contribution I make and totally lie about it, calling it vandalism when it isn't, and then they get supported by other editors, clearly there's nothing I can do. So I will stop contributing to this argument now, because it isn't going anywhere and nobody is addressing my concerns or helping me understand why my edit should be considered vandalism. I just hope that when an actual admin comes along they will deal with the real policies and do something about this, unlike the vicious editors who have commented here so far. 74.198.87.22 (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Given their contributions,[83] as a registered account their edits would certainly fall foul of WP:ARBPIA. They could just as easily by indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing (cf remarks above). Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure your link shows quite what you think it does. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a list of all the last 500 edits in the range 74.198.1.1/16. It shows this user started using that range for articles covered by WP:ARBPIA on 18 May. Mathsci (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@74.198. I'm surprised by some comments and particularly by certain suggestions. If edits are not vandalism they should not be referred to as such. It's hard to see how the diff you gave amounted to that. I'm not familiar with the topic so can't comment on the *content* of your contribs. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

On 19 May they violated the revert rule on Palestinian people.[84] You can read how they responded to the warnings below. Mathsci (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• "New" IP editors from both side of the ideological fence troll this topic area day in and day out, trying to get their wiki-opponents in trouble. WP:RBI and call it a day. Tarc (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Bali ultimate seriously knows this subject area. Look out, IP, there's a boomerang coming your way. See? Look /that/ way... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick, preemptory note - A few minutes ago I accidentally hit the rollback button on one of the OP's contribs to the talk page at Palestinian people. The rollback was totally unintentional and I reverted myself immediately. I've been through enough disputes at that article for my taste, so let's go back to me being a passive observer. Apologies all around. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop. We have no requirement that people register. We have no prohibition on people editing from Internet providers that change their IP addresses frequently. Stop abusing this person for doing things permitted by our policies and either sanction him/her for things that are prohibited by policy or leave him/her alone because s/he has followed everything properly. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please check your facts. This user has been active since 18 May.[85] Here is an example of another problematic edit summary by them when warned about revert warringwith a different IP in the range and a different user (RolandR). [86] There they wrote, "removing bullying nonsense by a POV warrior trying to intimidate other users attempting to improve the encyclopedia. making 1 revert is hardly cause for an edit warring warning. bullies get the hell away from me" WP:ARBPIA places a series of srticles under 1RR. They had made the following edits. [87] Not good. Mathsci (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, what a bunch of milquetoast horsepuckey. The I-P topic area is one of the most abused parts of this project, subjugated to massive propaganda campaigns both on-wiki and off. If an unregistered user comes there making controversial edits and then knows enough to go screaming right to ANI about wiki-arcana of WP:OWN and the like, that should set off the sockpuppet alarm bells of any competent, honest user who even has the slightest familiarity with what goes on in the I-P area. This is a shining example of the "WP:AGF is not a suicide pact" wiki-proverb. Tarc (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to address the edit warring issues, because I'm not going to get involved in the substantive disputes. It's simply that we explicitly permit people to edit from IP addresses (unless they're this guy), and unless someone's using setups like Tor, we don't punish people for using services that change their addresses. Kindly take up your accusations of horsepuckey at WP:VP/P, since the idea that anyone may edit is a rather basic principle. Nyttend (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Again look at the history and the subject area WP:ARBPIA before making hasty comments like this. If this was not an IP hopper, they would probably be topic banned or blocked by now for tendentious editing. At WP:AE in this area, administrators do look at misuse of sources. In this cases changing the lede by adding a claimed source in the first sentence is something that is not quite right. It's not too hard to see that the IP is POV-pushing and that is why they have been reverted by three users. Coming here, having picked out one of those users, is disruptive. Please read from the top. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I wouldn't mind seeing some actual, coherent argument that this is vandalism. Beyond that, I have no input. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have informed Bali ultimate about this report, since nobody else bothered. I have also informed RolandR and Malik Shabazz, since they also reverted this IP hopper's edits. (RolandR gave two explicit warnings about breaking the 1RR rule on an article covered by WP:ARBPIA.) Mathsci (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As Nyttend pointed out editing from IP addresses is permitted and services change their allocation of addresses. Particularly when an editor's explained they edit from a mobile device and their IP changes, phrases like "IP hopper" that imply bad faith & deliberate router resetting etc should probably be avoided. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, the IP made this report in bad faith. Edit warring tendentiously in an area covered by arbcom sanctions is not permitted. This editor is an IP hopper who has misrepresented his own editing and that of others. The edit summary that I placed in bold is a fairly clear sign that it is unlikely he will be editing wikipedia very much longer, unless he changes his approach. The easiest way is to semiprotect Palestinian people if he continues interacting with other editors in the way he has done so far. He has not used the talk page except for making aggressive comments about other editors. He should read WP:BRD instead of edit-warring on the lede. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Going by the link you gave it appears the editor has used Talk pages in that topic area to engage & collaborate with other editors. [88]. As for everything else, I'm confident the administrator(s) who address the substantive disputes in the report will examine actual evidence. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Not in this particular case (Palestinian people), which is what is being disucssed here. But Nyttend's comments are slightly misleading in this particular context. The template on Talk:Palestinian people shows that anonymous IPs are treated differently from registered users. They are subject to 1RR, whether they like it or not. On the other hand registered users can revert their edits under the 3RR rule. The IP range should probably be reported by those familiar with the area at WP:AE, instead of here. Mathsci (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I did indeed revert one of this Ip's edits as vandalism, because that's exactly what it was. In the course of a disagreement about whether Judaism should be listed as a minority Palestinian religion (a dispute in which the IP was clearly alone, and had already been reverted by Malik Shabazz and Bali ultimate), the IP replied with this edit,[89] listing Bahai, Buddhism, Christianity, Druze, Hinduism, Shia Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Samaritanism, Sikhism, Sufism Taoism and Zoroastrianism as Palestinian minority religions. This edit was clearly a textbook example of disruptive editing intended to prove a point, and therefore deliberate vandalism of the article. RolandR (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Luke 19 Verse 27 was blocked on May 18, largely for his behavior at this article. The cavalcade of IP addresses from the Toronto area began editing the article intensively after May 18. Ah, crowd sourcing.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Operationnation spewing overt antisemetic garbage

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 haven't gone through all of Operationnation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s additions to Wikipedia, but this addition on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion page is enough to warrant a very close look. If you're not familiar with neo-Nazi talking points...well, let's just say that, after reading this post, now you are. This comes directly out of the Aryan Nation playbook. (Uh-oh, did I just invoke Godwin's Law?!)

As a side note, what is the proper way to link to a user? What I used above is how I link to users on the COI page, but I'm pretty sure there's a better way to do that for most other pages, right?JoelWhy (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You need two sets of square brackets to link to an article. I've just added the extra ones needed. Britmax (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want as many links to show, just use {{user|Operationnation}} instead. This will show only their contributions and talk page next to the linked userpage. Doc talk 12:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And, for the record, I may have been wrong about this guy. Rather than being part of the Aryan nation, he may be part of some fringe militant black group. According to this recent discussion, "White skin was the curse God put on Moses' sister..."JoelWhy (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still wrapping my brain around the concept that there is a "gay's race." *mindboggle* KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And what about "Please refer to the cited scriptures for the reliable source"?[90] RolandR (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Are you saying that God is delusional?" That one takes the cake, IMHO. Dahn (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No comment. (tongue bleeding). KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Oh, that's common enough on religious articles. But this is the first time I've seen the claim that there is a race of gay people. (Not counting Pride footraces and such. Different kind of race.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, black, fringe, but I don't think part of any militant group. I'm pretty positive about the first two (fringe as in fringe ideas). I'm not sure he can adapt to our little ways. Hopefully he'll respond here. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys are hilarious. Only reason a comment is being posted is to acknowledge you made my morning and I'll humor you all as I don't really respect Wikipedia as a legitimate online "encyclopedia." Facts are very difficult for the controlled mind to absorb. "Black militant Nazi antisemitic" because I disagree with your indoctrinated opinions? Once again, 30-year Israeli Knesset member Shulamit Aloni talked about the "antisemitic" trick which she said her country and government uses anytime Israel is criticized in any way. Based on all your comments and reasoning, you may want to add to her Wiki page that she is "anti-semitic" and I challenge you to do so. I'll simply re-post the scriptures (though it appears you all do not respect the Bible as a reliable source), but God help you anyway. White skin = leprosy = curse from God. Number 12:1-10See also Exodus 4:6. Fake Jews are a synagogue of Satan. Revelation 2:9. And fact #3: 25+ million Russians died in World War II[91], compared to what is said to be 6 million European /Ashkenazi "Jews" in Germany, but the latter is called "Holocaust." Happy grazing all! Operationnation (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Indeed, it is certainly wikipedians that are hilarious. Your views are helpful, sincere, historically and theologically well founded, logical, and correct. Egg Centric 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd hoped for a better response, but that confirms my guess about his ability to be a constructive editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. — Scientizzle 16:23, 24 May 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.

Aggressive editing by User:Dahliarose

This editor has a strongly inclusionist agenda for primary schools and seems to have unilaterally decided that all of the private sector junior schools calling themselves "Preparatory schools" are all inherently notable. Many of them are actually very small and have insufficient sources to meet the GNG or make a worthwhile standalone article. Dahliarose has systematically removed merge proposal tags from these articles, often without doing anything to improve totally unsourced articles as [92] and [93] (notability is not inherited from alumni). This led to conflict with User:Fmph who put forward what seem to be reasonable arguments in talk page discussions but is reverted until simply saying goodbye on April 28 and not editing since. Fmph has previously made substantial and constructive contributions.

For my own part I had merged Great Ballard School to the local settlement page after it had been tagged for merge for several months without objection. I kept all the sourced material so nothing was removed. This was reverted on the basis that there are three notable alumni, one of whom is semi-famous. The page still only has one source, a standard inspection report, which directly discusses the subject, so it fails the GNG. It cannot be right for an editor to tear up other people’s legitimate work on a whim without first establishing notability. Such an overbearing attitude can only damage consensus building and collaborative editing.--Charles (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing this should take a look at User_talk:Dahliarose#Your editing for important context here. I had some limited involvement in the Dahliarose-Fmph conflict and while yes Fmph did make some reasoned arguments, and yes he did make some constructive contributions, one diff of him commenting on Dahliarose's talk page does not tell the whole story on that conflict - User talk:Dahliarose/Archive 3 - 2012 January-March says more. Fmph did not give a reason for leaving the project, and it might well have had nothing to do with Dahliarose, and even if it did that does not automatically make her guilty. As far as I can see, this is at least 80% a content dispute, and should be treated as such. CT Cooper · talk 12:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In regards to mergers, there is no discussion on the article talkpages, if someone proposes a merger, they need to outline their reasons for doing so. Although the reason may be apparent to you, it is not apparent to everyone else. A merge proposal template that has no reasons given on the talkpage is basically fluff that needs cleaning up at the next visit. Please open a discussion on the talkpage first.

ask for assistance at the wikiproject you will find it in the links at the top of the page, or follow the dispute resolution process, for example a third opinion Penyulap ☏ 13:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I’m not quite sure why the issues relating to this article are being brought up here. Charles redirected the article. I looked at the article and made an editorial decision that the subject was notable and merited a standalone article so I reverted the redirect and have discussed the matter on the talk page. I do not understand why Charles thinks this is “aggressive” behaviour. He is also misrepresenting my views. I do not believe that all primary schools and prep schools are inherently notable. However, User:Fmph and Charles both seem to subscribe to the view that all such schools are inherently non-notable and should be merged and redirected regardless of content. In practice, school articles get deleted because they fail to meet WP:N not because they are particular types of schools. In practice virtually all schools that are several hundred years old that come up for AfD invariably get kept because sufficient sources can always be found so it makes no sense to merge them or blank the content and redirect the article. Another editor and I have both raised concerns with Fmph about his drive-by tagging of school articles User talk:Fmph#Merge tags. I have also been trying to get clarification on the redirect policy Wikipedia talk:Redirect#4 Seeking clarification on when redirects are acceptable for existing articles. Dahliarose (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing evidence of anything requiring intervention. Nobody Ent 15:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Now my views are being grossly misrepresented by Dahliarose. I do not think "all such chools are inherently non-notable and should be merged and redirected regardless of content." It depends whether they have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the General Notability Guideline. Dahliarose's "editorial decisions" seem to mean she thinks she is the sole arbiter of notability. Most of these schools are not hundreds of years old anyway and many are tiny. --Charles (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The three articles that you cite above are all for schools founded in the 1800s which I think most people would regard as old. Notability is decided by consensus. Since I reverted the redirect on Great Ballard School two other editors have contributed to the article, neither of whom has seen fit to blank it, so the current consensus clearly supports a standalone article. However, AfD is the real test of consensus and all similar articles that have come up for AfD have invariably been kept. Dahliarose (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To get to the point, the only policy-grounded criticism that could reasonably be levied against Dahliarose and her handling of these school merges is that she engaged in edit warring. Only one problem with that though, it takes two to edit war, and the edit history in the example brought to ANI speaks for itself. CT Cooper · talk 15:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Both editors have taken the time to express themselves in the article, in the article's edit summary, and here at ANI. I suggest that if the pair of editors are both unable to use the talkpage of the articles concerned that they be topic banned from said articles so this won't happen again. Penyulap ☏ 16:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • A topic ban for both is unacceptable and draconian. One editor seems to me to wish to improve the articles by retaining them and enhancing them, the other appears to wish to merge them and remove them from individual sight. I declare an interest in that I have sought and found references for a good many of these articles. I acknowledge that some are very poor. I have not yet found one that cannot be saved by a diligent search for references, though I accept that some must exist. I confess that I do not understand the zeal with which the editor who raised this topic appears to wish to merge these articles. I would prefer to see them enhanced and only merged as an act of last resort. A further declaration is that I found comments made on the accused editor's talk page by the accuser to be hostile and perhaps threatening. I suggested strongly on the accuser's own talk page that standing away from the articles would be appropriate, together with the offer of an apology. I received no acknowledgement (when I looked last). (edited to add the talk page comment)

        I am reaching the unfortunate conclusion that it is challenging to continue to assume the best of faith of the accuser, though I grant that good faith has not yet departed, though it is in danger. I feel in my water that something pointy is just beneath the surface here on the accuser's behalf, and this accusation having been made does nothing at all to dispel that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

        • You created your account in 2006. If you weren't around without an account for long before that, then you caught only the tail end of the schools dispute. At its height there were two blocks of very polarized editors who stridently asserted, in reams of copied and pasted AFD discussion contributions and elsewhere, that "all X are/are not notable". Hundreds of school articles got nominated for deletion, with each block of people voting en masse with the same copied and pasted rationales, without any attention to the subjects at hand. (I really should have recorded which AFD discussion it was where a whole load of people voted keep for a school that didn't actually exist. There were one or two utterly stupid episodes like that.) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 17, a mere 26 AFD nominations in one day, is a good random example of how people at AFD completely ignored the subjects: "Delete nominator's account." "Keep notable." "Delete non-notable." "schoolcruft" "Keep schools."

          Addressing this by merger, and the edit tool instead of the deletion tool, was part of what calmed things down. Mergers can be done, undone, and discussed on article talk pages, all with the edit tool. And schools can be written about flexibly: in the articles on their localities, in articles on school districts, in articles on school organizations, and in articles on the individual schools, according to what actually suits the particular subject at hand. Cranking up the Wikipedia Conjugation really won't help. Those of us who lived through it the first time around have no desire to see the schools dispute back again.

          So let's not go down the "bad faith" route again, please. Uncle G (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

          • As someone who has been dealing with schools since 2007, I can say things have calmed down a lot since 2005, but while opinions have moderated somewhat and the debate is now far more complex than two sides, there is still an underlying tension which occasional bubbles to the surface. I do not dispute that Charlesdrakew or anyone else here has good intentions, although that is distinct from being a faultless editing. I do think editors are often too quick at loosing their assumption of good faith, and was critical when Fmph (talk · contribs) did it as the earlier linked archives show, and will be if it occurs here again. I also think the partisanship often present in these debates is unhelpful, and my heart did sink with opening sentence of this section. As I said earlier, this is a content dispute, and it will only be resolved with civil debate. CT Cooper · talk 18:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I still see plenty of schools articles at AFD. Anyway, User:Fmph left the project under a cloud - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fmph/Archive - and so does not seem to have clean hands in this matter. Warden (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I did find those accounts suspicious given there appearance shortly after Fmph left and the overlapping editing habits, although the reason I didn't bring it up here was because a connection wasn't proven, at least as far as I'm aware, and Fmph was never blocked or tagged. CT Cooper · talk 18:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And a lot of those at AfD wind up with "speedy redirect to [school district/geopolitical entity#education] per WP:OUTCOMES" (i.e. should have done that directly instead of going to AfD) results. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, usually its clear there isn't enough notability for an article. If there is borderline notability, results at AfD, as always, are variable--borderline cases of anything inherently will give variable results. It's not wrong to bring a disputed case there: it's much better then edit warring. It's much better than AN/I. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Word games yet unsourced

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

There are two word games Contact (word game) and I spy without any sources on the INTERNET (or bookshelf). But people play these games too.

The rules of these games were contributed by collaborators on wikipedia. But, they are not eligible to stay by Wikipedia policies. And indeed the content of the articles were deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_spy&diff=492518759&oldid=491043361 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contact_(word_game)&diff=485995359&oldid=482470856

Now, my question is, if there is a game played all over, let's say, Africa, and if somebody tries to write an article about it, what do we do? Protect the knowledge or stick to policy?

I request some editor with time to review the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdofindia (talk • contribs) 10:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

We protect the knowledge by following policy and finding sources. Here's one Nobody Ent 10:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

A search on "I spy" children's games, or the game name with folklore or childlore as the other search terms will likely turn up more; googlescholar (see WP:RESOURCE if need be) and googlebooks could be helpful. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 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.

BWilkins is OK?

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 at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard, I had a meeting [94] with BWilkins. Curiously, BW self-closed our talk. Can someone uninvolved take a look? Of course, no admin would disagree with BW. But still: where is the red button for User:RM bot? -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Without looking into the merits of your complaint about the bot, you may not be aware that admins can block a bot with or without a red button on the bot's user page. Some, but not all, bots can be stopped (not blocked) by anyone, whether an admin or not, who changes a subpage which the bot checks before each edit (e.g. from "true" to "false", or by adding a message to a talk page), but that is not a general bot requirement. Bencherlite^Talk 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest(ed) me and BW take 24h off [95]. -DePiep (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins closed the thread because your question had been answered. Hopefully you've learned that there is no requirement that a bot come with a big red stop button, and we can close this thread too. 28bytes (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I suggest editors check out Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and Wikipedia:Creating a bot if there is any confusion about the requirements for a bot. In the first page it says:

You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button' (template here) just in case anything goes wrong.

in the second one, it says under "Common bot features you should consider implementing":

It is good bot policy to have a feature to disable the bot's operation if it is requested. Remember that if your bot goes bad, it is your responsibility to clean up after it!

in other words, both of the make it clear that while it's recommended, it isn't required, in fact neither really mention admins vs non-admins. I believe it's actually fairly common that any emergency stopping is limited to admins, to stop vandals or confused autoconfirmed editors shutting off a bot unnecessarily, particularly when the bot's edit rate is such that it's unlikely to cause untold chaos in the time it takes to find an admin to stop the bot or when it's function make it a ripe target.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Only here now did I learn that any admin can stop any bot (Bencherlite above). Only now the advice "go to ANI" make sense. This is not in the "am I on the right page" list here at the top, nor was it in BWilkins answers at all. I still think me going to WP:BOWN was the best idea. When I noted (still in the quest for a red button) that the talk/link to a bot owners page does not help because of possible absence, the answer was like "yes, so does my bot talk page". Such reactions may be reconstructed as an "answer", but is no reason for BWilkins to accuse me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT plus closing the thread, based on "As I am a bot owner and an admin, the answer is correct" at that. By this threads title, this behavour is part of my question here. -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be anything which needs to be resolved. There was some discussion at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#RM bot stupid where BWilkins provided a very sensible answer to a question (despite the unclear wording of the question). The response to BWilkins was "Nonsense", with a claim that each bot must have an emergency off button. The matter is now here, where others have confirmed what BWilkins said. Please re-read both discussions as there is nothing further that needs to be said. BWilkins is ok. Johnuniq (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for attention. I parked the "Resolved" thing to prevent preliminary folding.

To be factual: 1) BWilkins did not mention the fact that any admin can stop a bot (I did not know as I explained here, nor does this ANI page header say so, and why would I be wrong questioning at WP:BOWN?), 2) BWilkins was arrogant & brutal on my talk page (I linked above, and I spelled the wronging). 3) BWilkins (with whom I never had such an issue before, so a strange spike this is), closed themselves the discussion. Finalising: Now is BWilkins's behaviour OK? As said in my OP: can there be any criticism of an admin when a base editor (like me) writes here? -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In most versions of English, the phrase "Not necessarily. You go to WP:ANI, you provide diff's of the problem, and admin takes care of it ... after all, stopping the bot usually involves blocking it" means "any admin can stop a bot". I will also pay anyone $1000 who can show me where I was at any time "arrogant and brutal" on DePiep's talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, let's try this again. You complained of the bot operator not putting in an emergency stop. This emergency stop button only respond to administrators as they shortcuts to the block interface. The emergency stop button is a block button. The button is not required since an administrator can block without it. Either way, that kind of shutoff cannot be enforced by you as you are not an administrator. Bwilkins may have not precise about it, but that is what he was telling you. There are subpages that control the run sequences of individual tasks to shut down or start up individual tasks. User:Cyberbot I has an enourmous control panel that controls a butt load of tasks that auto confirmed users can manipulate. It's got an emergency shutoff link in case the entire thing acts up but again, it only works for an administrator. If the bots need to be shutoff, and doesn't have control subpages like mine, then you go to ANI (here) so an administrator sees it and open the thread about the malfunctioning bots supplying diffs so they know what you're talking about. I hope this helps.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, I will answer your questions directly:

1. Yes, Bwilkins' behavior is OK.
2. Yes, there can be criticism of an admin; in fact, you just provided some (i.e. "arrogant & brutal"). I happen think your criticism is off-base, however.

I am now going to close this. There is absolutely nothing that administrators need to do here. 28bytes (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)1

So again: the thread is folded ("resolved" included) before serious answering. As I said: who could oppose BWilkins? King BWilkins says it themselves: I am admin, botowner, so I a right. -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think DePiep is or was confused about bot practices, and BWilkins was unnecessarily impolite in that discussion, which may have worsened the confusion. DePiep basically seems to think the red button (connected to some bots) lets non-admins stop the bot. In fact while anyone can press the red button, the button only stops the bot if the person pressing it is an admin. DePiep expects that non-admins should also be able to stop bots without getting admins involved. I have some sympathy with this, but it's not expected under current practices.

To repeat what others have said: DePiep, if you see a bot make an error and the bot operator isn't responsive, then post a WP:DIFF to ANI, saying exactly what the error is. If you can't figure out how to make diffs, then just describe the error as precisely as you can, making sure to say when it happened and on which page, so an admin can look into it and block the bot if necessary.

BWilkins, I think it would have helped if you'd observed that DePiep doesn't seem very knowledgeable about technical wiki stuff at the moment, and may be a non-native English speaker. S/he therefore would probably have benefited from a more patient explanation. DePiep was not exactly courteous him/herself, but it's still best to keep your own responses neutral and civil regardless of what the other person does. (revised). 67.117.145.174 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've never become uncivil, nor un-neutral. I even provided them with an example bot for them to try and use a red button to see if it functioned for them, in order to prove that it needed blocking in order to be stopped. I'll guarantee they never tried it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 25 May 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 on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

I addressed the following material to the neutrality noticeboard but it was ignored and received no response. Therefore I am addressing the issue here.

I am asking for assistance from administrators to investigate the article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for POV. The article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a Hindu nationalist militant paramilitary movement, is denying that the movement's well-known violent political behaviour towards Muslims in India and mostly focuses on its philanthropic efforts towards Hindus, stating in the intro that all statements on its violence are "alleged" - meaning that they are contested. This is not supported by mainstream sources. Efforts in the talk page to address the controversial aspects of the RSS have failed, the discussion descended into angry rebuttals, assumption of bad faith in violation with Wikipedia policy, and character assassination against Wikipedia users. The Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide on page 186 includes evidence compiled by the internationally-respected Human Rights Watch that says that during the 2002 Gujarat violence, "A plot to uproot the Muslim population of the state had been underway for some time: the RSS had circulated computerized lists of Muslim homes and businesses that were to be targeted by the mobs in advance." [96]. This has not been the first time that the RSS has incited violence against Muslims - it vouched for the demolition of Babri Masjid mosque in 1992 against fierce opposition by Muslims, resulting in the ancient mosque being torn down and eruption of violence between Hindus versus Muslims in which the RSS took part in anti-Muslim violence that resulted in the Indian government banning the RSS. The RSS has claimed that non-Hindus - including Muslims - are not considered by the RSS to be citizens of India and rejects any citizenship rights for non-Hindus, because it claims that the only "true" citizens of India are Hindus.--R-41 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The RSS is a highly controversial movement in India, for instance there are multiple books by scholars on fascism such as Stanley Payne, Walter Laqueur and others who investigated the RSS' connection with fascism - such as the former RSS leader's praising of Hitler's "purification" of Germany into ethnic German-only citizenship that he claimed should be a model for India to become a Hindu-only citizenship, as well as investigations that have uncovered that the RSS was inspired by Italian Fascist youth organizations. It is well-known to have participated in planned violence against India's Muslims, this needs to be stated in the intro, and material outright denying this needs to be removed from the article.--R-41 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this appears to be a content issue. The dispute resolution processes are in place to handle those, and the reliable source noticeboard is also useful there. We do not/cannot override WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want more eyes on the article, you can post a note (brief notes are usually better) on the Noticeboard for India-related topics. --regentspark (comment) 13:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Parrot of Doom

Could someone protect my user page for a few weeks please, to prevent an idiot IP from vandalising it? Parrot of Doom 11:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Semi'd for 3 weeks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Parrot of Doom 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Protection for Wombat page?

For some reason, anonymous users love to vandalize the wombat page (I suspect out of jealousy for them being just so damned cute.) Would it be worth it to give the page semi-protection? I should note that the northern hairy-nosed wombat is an endangered species, making it incumbent upon the Wiki community to protect these hapless marsupials. The vandalism is not a daily occurrence or anything, but probably a dozen incidents in the past few weeks.JoelWhy (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not enough vandalism to warrant protection yet but I have added it to my watchlist. In any case the place to request protection is at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex.JoelWhy (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

---

Where is the vandalism? Tom Pippens (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• There is no vandalism. I left them a note as well. But this does not require admin intervention, though I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who takes offense at such incorrect warnings. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, you aren't the only one. I find my self offering gentle reminders to editors daily at RFPP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Horrible, Horrible, Horrible Person (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Pippens (talk • contribs) (OK. Not unsigned, but completely messed up sig...)

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to do with your signature there, but it doesn't seem to have worked...and as already noted, this is not an AN/I issue. Try talking to the actual user first? --Onorem♠Dil 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the new definition of vandalism was "any edit in which another user disagrees with". --MuZemike 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No, that definition has been around quite a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I understand that the discussion is officially closed, I feel I have the right to respond to what is being said. What you have to appreciate is that humans have emotions. Above shows an edit I made to Bosingwa, whilst I appreciate that I shouldn't have labled it as Vandalism, that was not the first time that i've undone that edit. Since that edit, the same thing has happened at least twice more, with another editor having to undo an edit. As you can imagine, this can get extremely frustrating, particuarly when there have been edits inbetween, preventing me from reverting and forcing me to write the information out again. I respect that I shouldn't always lable stuff as Vandalism, but when you are undoing the same thing for the 5th time, you are not always thinking rationally. Also, I don't understand how those edits make me a 'horrible person'. All of those edits shown are good edits and whilst they shouldn't be labled as Vandalism, they all follow wiki policy and are all helping the respective articles to remain cosistant. I do not want to bring into account my life outside of wikipedia but I assure you that if you actually knew me, you would not consider me a 'horrible person' by any stretch of the imagination. To conclude: In the future I will try to avoid lebelling things incorrectly, I do a lot of good work on wiki and strive to keep wiki as close to the truth as possible. For example, in the Bosingwa article, yes there is a ref, but the ref is for a rumour. There has been no official announcement, therefore the information shouldn't be there, I was doing something very productive. Sorry that this is so long and apologies for writing this as I know the article was technically closed but I felt it was appropriate that I respond now as due to the short time period that this was over plus the exams which I have been undertaking, it was impossible for me to respond earlier. Kind regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

You're not a horrible person. In fact, some would question the opening of an ANI thread where -- as near as I can tell -- there was no discussion with you on your talk page. Just be aware that, on Wikipedia, using the term vandalism is limited to intentional disruption for the sake of disruption. Just don't do it anymore when involved in a content dispute. When you find yourself frustrated review your options at WP:DR to get some help on the content issues. Nobody Ent 14:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Also a good idea: responding on your talk page to comments, and explaining in edit summaries. That may head some things off at the pass. I'm going to move the box to include these responses. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 25 May 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:Estherboy

This is another single-issue account in which the user wishes only to be disruptive on the Sislej Xhafa article. In the space of the last few hours, I warned this person four times for inserting factually incorrect information and the user has persisted to ignore these cautions. Four is generous when it is clear from the outset what the person's intention is. Please be aware that this is not a content dispute, the naming format adheres to both consensus and biographical requirements and the birthplace details pertain to their English names and in turn observe historical accuracy. I presume that the individual has a pro-Kosovo independence bias as this normally influences such edits but this does not compensate for his behaviour and especially wrecking the article by replacing Peć, named so for a reason, with Peja which is not only the controversial and irrelevant-for-time variation but by clicking it you will see it is actually a disambiguation page. Please also note that when it came to the second caution, I had the courtesy to deliver a personal message instead of using the robotic template. I had hoped the user would begin to respond like a human being but this never happened. A short time ago, he violated his fourth warning with the very same edit, followed by this one since I began this note. Edit-wars, non-constructive editing, single-issue project, flouting consensus, refusing to discuss; I think you have enough reason to terminate this account five times over. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis, unless you can explain how Estherboy's additions are actually vandalism (defined as "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia") as opposed to a content dispute, I have a feeling that you're both in line for a WP:3RR block. -Scottywong| comment _ 14:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I won't accept that. I was vandal-fighting, no more a 3RR issue with me than when a user continues to cancel page blanking. His is a form of sneaky vandalism; how else to you define first replacing a city name link with a disambiguation page here, here, and here, before changing tact today by blanking the birth town and country here and here. The user did not use the summary to explain why he was removing factual information, has not used the talk pages and continued to edit in the same manner following my second message to him which acknowledged that an account was active and invited the user to discuss the matter. How do you, Scotty, go about dealing with a user who only blanks sections, the same old section time and again and does not talk; at which point do you realise that an account is being used for a single issue? Does it need one whole year of the same pushing? As for me, I have been here six years and engaged in countless conversations with many editors over these matters and there is widespread consensus on naming and presentation issues and these are what I have been observing with every aspect of my editing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It still isn't formally vandalism. WP:DR and maybe WP:AN/3RR are needed, but stop calling it vandalism - you know better (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

All right, vandalism it isn't and I'll refrain from calling it that. Be that as it may, constructive editing it isn't either. I'd like to point out however that although I verbally use the term "vandalism", I do so because it is by far the easiest expression when wishing to write and not think deeply and the term in all fairness covers a wide variety of actions. I last used the term "sneaky vandalism" because the edits were contrived to pass immediate obstacles such as change patrollers. Often they would not be able to detect non-constructive editing as it is not the obvious repeated characters. In my own defence I wish to make one point on this matter though: I left four messages and each in response to the user's contributions. One of them (the second) was a personal note but the other three, levels 1, 3 and 4 were all templates NOT for vandalism but introducing factual errors as it was clearly the most appropriate (switching Peć, WP and English recognised name, for Peja, disambiguation, meaningless in English sources). You'll find that the template notes themselves contain the word vandalism so it is not all me jumping up and down and using that term. On closer inspection, we have another User:Durresary|1 on our hands. Well if nobody wishes to take action, perhaps someone can explain to me how I am supposed to act when this user returns. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking this to WP:AN/3RR. I'm not going to personally block you for 3RR, because I personally think that would be silly and non-productive, but please try to report future problems before you have violated 3RR yourself. And, I can't promise that reporting this to WP:AN/3RR won't also get you a short block from another admin. You'd probably want to stress that you tried to engage in discussion with the user unsuccessfully, and admit that you mistakenly thought their edits were considered vandalism. -Scottywong| gab _ 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well, obviously each admin has his own way of dealing with things and there are those that would block users they suspect of violating 3RR even if other admins don't see it that way. If the user returns, I'll attempt discussion once more and realise that I'd have to stop at two. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Technically, you'd have to stop at 3, since a 3RR violation happens when you make the fourth revert in 24 hours. -Scottywong| squeal _ 19:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive 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.

---

user:182.177.19.45 is being incredibly disruptive, he is adding a User:Nangparbat sockpuppet template to User:Rvd4life userpage, having dealt a great deal with Nangparbat I can assure people he is not Rvd4life. He is also now calling me a sock of [97] Mrpontiac1. A block is in order. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lui2021 where I reported User:Darkness Shines.--182.177.19.45 (talk) 11:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't make personal attacks. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 12:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

An accuser of sockpuppetry is openly engaging in sockpuppetry himself. Beautiful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Look IP, what makes you think I am Pontiac? Just file an SPI Here Darkness Shines (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are are the banned Hkelkar (talk · contribs) from Texas, holly crap look at the number of blocks you have[98], and while you're still edit-warring it means you don't care to get banned because you'll just go make another sock account and start all over.--182.177.69.55 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Make your mind up, a while ago I was Mrpontiac1. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't play games, you're a sockpuppet of a banned editor. You created this ID less than a year ago and already have over a dozen blocks, and yet you're so careless by engaging in unnessary edit-wars with anon IPs. It means you don't care because as a professional sockmaster you'll just create another and another and another. Your behaviour matches that of Hkelkar from Texas, constantly filing SPIs, etc.--182.177.69.55 (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The only IP I have ever edit warred with is Nangarbat. You have no idea what you are talking about, and the most of my blocks were bad ones. I will happily explain each and everyone of them to you if you so desire. Now do me a favor and stop this, shit or get off the can. Go file an SPI. Darkness Shines (talk)

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:NoWikiNinja

Can someone please take away his email access? I'm getting bombarded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

•  Done (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#XfD_Topic_Ban_for_User:TenPoundHammer

 – Nobody Ent 21:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on BLP

There is currently an edit war going on at Michael Behe. It started at Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 1#Evolution Denialist, where a discussion has been taking place, so far without consensus. The phrase being debated was then also added to Michael Behe, by User:SkepticalRaptor, who said, without any apparent trace of irony, "Let's move on to fixing the neutrality on other religious nut jobs, like Behe."

The phrase in question is, "His ideas are considered evolution denialism and pseudoscientific." Now, quite apart from the ugly grammatical construction, this is a controversial edit, which should have consensus first. It has been added to the opening paragraph of the lead, when the lead already states that "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community." It seems to be overkill at best.

My understanding was that the should be a discussion and consensus first before this statement is added, and I have started a thread on the talk page. But the sentence has been added again, most recently by User:Saedon. Would an uninvolved admin check this out, and bring some oversight to the situation?

I should note, a number of editors (including myself) have made reverts in the last 24 hours, but no-one has made more than three. The statement is sourced, although the source has been questioned. My specific concern is about a sentence like that being in the opening paragraph of a BLP. StAnselm (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I am posting this here because it covers both edit-warring and BLP concerns. StAnselm (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit wars should be reported at WP:EWN, the rest is a content dispute, which should be discussed on the article talk page, and then taken to dispute resolution if necessary - or discussed at the BLP noticeboard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My specific question, though, is whether a controversial statement that has recently been added should remain while a content dispute is being discussed. And WP:EWN is inappropriate because no-one has broken 3RR. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have protected the article for one week and I suggest using that time to come up with a compromise wording. --John (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, but now it's protected with the wording that has been recently added and on which there is no consensus. Is that how it works? StAnselm (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It can do. If it was an outrageous slander I would have removed it. As it is I do not see a need to do this. If anyone disagrees I am happy to reconsider this, but the main focus now should be on crafting a compromise version. --John (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The wrong version?

I protected the article without reverting. This probably shouldn't have been brought here, but since we are discussing it, does anyone think it should be reverted? --John (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not in my opinion. The addition to the article doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP violation. There is an unanswered question as to whether the source used is reliable, but that shouldn't mandate it being removed pending resolution. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

What about WP:BLPSPS? StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Probably. Two thoughts occur on reading the sentence: 1) all of them? 2) by whom? The first source is a homepage/blog-esque page by Donald Simanek, a physics prof. Writing can reasonably be described as including digs at the listed enemies Deniers. Second source, which doesn't mention Behe by name, is a UCLA internal staff newspaper page by behavioural anthropologist Joseph Manson. It's in a section named "Voices" and seems to be an opinion piece (op-ed?). Are the sources adequate? Maybe, maybe not. On balance though, the unqualified wording of the statement and unanswered source reliability questions combined with it being disputed by the OP are for me sufficient basis to err on the side of caution and revert. I agree with John & Joe it doesn't jump out as an egregious BLP violation. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• If there is a serious question regarding the validity of a source used to validate a contentious or negative statement in a BLP, then the statement needs to be removed until the source and its use can be reviewed in the proper venues (e.g. BLPN, RSN, and/or the talk page). --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Perspicuous. I'd add the {{uw-3rr}} placed on the OP's page should probably be struck given the BLP aspects. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• BLP is a fairly serious policy. If there's any question about the sourcing for a controversial statement (and labelling someone's work as pseudoscientific and denialist is certainly a controversial accusation) it should be removed immediately. With BLP it's far better to err on the side of caution - remove contentious material and discuss re-adding it - than it is to leave potentially damaging material in the article indefinitely while it's discussed. I agree with 92.* that the 3RR warning should probably be withdrawn, given BLP protection is a specific exception to the 3RR bright line. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 03:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I regard "Evolution denier" as a extremely strong pejorative term, which implies a bigoted or contemptuous refusal to look fairly at the evidence, rather than a reasoned disagreement with it. I read Dr. Behe's 1996 book when it was published, though not his later works. I think he's wrong, as does the scientific consensus. But I also think it's perhaps the only modern challenge to the evolutionary view that is of sufficient quality to require being scientifically refuted in detail. His work has been used by people whom I would not hesitate to classify as "Evolution deniers"in the most pejorative of senses. But I don't think the evidence justifies using the term for him. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." The first reference is obviously to a self-published source and should be removed immediately. (I must admit, I missed it at first, since the citation refers to the publisher as" Lock Haven University". But page is from a user account on that website. StAnselm (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the input. I have undone the edit per what seems to be a consensus here that the version I protected was in violation of BLP. This, of course, will also be the wrong version for some. Nevertheless, let talk page discussion commence. --John (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If people here feel that strongly that the statement is contentious then it was a good idea to revert to the old version while we discuss. Technically, however, every version is the wrong version :) SÆdon^talk 22:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Berzha3 removing CSD tag

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.

---

Berzha3 (talk · contribs) created a page Luke liang which was tagged by another user for speedy delete. Berzha has repeatedly removed the CSD tag. When I warned him doing it again would result in a ban for 3rr (which is probably incorrect, as he's not removing substantive content) user:Awcamaro then suddenly appeared to remove it (single purpose account.) I realize that admin is still notified it is a CSD, despite the removal of the tag. But, I figured I should report the behavior here, anyhow.JoelWhy (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if the tag is gone it's not categorized as a CSD anymore. I'll have a look, since I seem to be unable to take a nap. *Sigh* Drmies (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• WP:SPI filed here [99] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, that was fun. I added A7, though it's tenuous, since there's a claim that he had a Porsche, and rich people should always have their way. Kudos to ukexpat for this: today's Barnstar for the Best Edit Summary goes to you. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The SPI should clean up the loose ends. Nice job, and in record time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Update Now he's resorted to personal attacks (well, a single attack) as seen here. Off with his head! Or, a stern talking to will do...JoelWhy (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you will have to worry about it much longer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• He keeps recreating the article, and if the sockpuppet accusation is correct, it will continue to be recreated. Perhaps a salting is in order. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • •  Done by Drmies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:41, 25 May 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.

Zombie movies? yes, no or all

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_zombie_films&action=history

Already stated in this wiki several times you can't count evil dead 1,2 as zombie movies, then say evil dead 3 isn't since there both about Deadites which is how about demons that take over people.

People have opinions that classic evil dead as zombie I accept that but the opinion is forced by trolls like Williamsburgland.

I will continue to defend them not being zombies because they have no need to eat flesh, they are talking beings that taunt people are we might as well call 'Trills' from 'Star Trek' zombies which doesn't make any sense, even if people see them as zombies then you can't say only certain movies had zombies when all the movies had the same deadites. My source is all the movies, I have seen every one of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnie42 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute to me. Why have you not opened discussion on this at Talk:List of zombie films? —C.Fred (talk) 23:00, 25 May 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 trying to provoke an edit war

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 believe this behaviour deserves to be reported on its own. User:Br'er Rabbit is trying to provoke an edit war. I removed a See also section citing WP:See also; the three links that are in the See also section can be found in the first and second sentence of the article. I explained my actions both in the edit summary and on the talk page. His only response was: "you should be blocked, soon." The user made no attempt to discuss it. He has no intention to do so. He did not revert my edit because he disagrees with it. He reverted it in order to provoke an edit war that would lead to me being blocked. I sincerely hope this kind of disruptive and degrading behaviour will not be tolerated. Surtsicna (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

/Merge/ w/#Removing a tag and refusing to discuss, above ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, don't. Deliberately trying to provoke an edit war is something that only you did, so moving it to the other section would not be proper. In fact, this is the first time in 5 years that I witness such behaviour. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

This is more of a Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance issue, and there is an ongoing discussion above as well. Would it be helpful if I simply told Rabbit that his summary was rude and senseless? I'm not likely to block over that one summary, however, I might reconsider you both if you keep reverting each other. Both of you need to stop reverting each other, read WP:BRD (hint: that second revert wasn't consistent with it, both of your second reverts). And Rabbit, seriously, don't do things like that in edit summaries. It isn't helpful, and while the one isn't blockworthy, I strongly suggest not making a pattern of this, as a pattern is. I'm not saying you should apologize, (well, actually you should, to be honest...) just move on to the actual content issues on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis. I read BRD many years ago; know the drill; know WP:Run to Mommy, too. Look further (above, for one, but at Drmies's talk and posts on this, too). And look at the articles being abused. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just trying to close this section, which is here only because your edit summary was incivil and gratuitous. You shoot yourself in the foot when you do do silly things like that. I'm not a fan of incivility, twisting the knife or salting the wound. It is disruptive. Now perhaps we can move along in a civil fashion... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're closing it, but your caution to BR seems a bit hasty and one-sided, given the damaging edits that Surtsicna was making. To focus on BR's edit summaries seems a bit much, especially given your lack of a caution to the other party beyond the ritual finger wagging at both sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

And if you are into cautioning people because of edit summaries, boy do I have someone for you!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

do tell... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(tempted to close it myself;) Per Wehwalt; there's a boomerang needful here. My edit summary is apt. Surtsicna is damaging articles in a quest for attention. It's all pointy spillover from the stuff that led to the thread above. I've been watching it for two days. (popcorn, please;) && {ygm}. Jack Merridew 00:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See "twisting the knife, salting the wound" comment. Content concerns are being handled elsewhere, it wouldn't be helpful for me to rehash it here. If they are headed to be blocked, don't antagonize the situation. That was not helpful. It causes drama, and I'm not a fan of drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw it. Surtsicna /needs attention/, I'm getting them that. See Elen of the Roads' comment in the /real/ thread (this one's the distraction thread;) She's calling them disruptive; fixing up the mess. I'd get on with more fixing, but you're being played by the OP. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, still don't agree. By so emphatically calling it "content concern", you refuse to consider it to be a conduct issue on the part of Surtsicna. That's your opinion, but to say it's as clear as all that--well, no it isn't. Take a breath or two. And look at the section header "trying to start an edit war". Now some people edit war to get their way, but very few do it for the sake of doing it. This whole thread is bad faith to begin with.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, I'm closing this. There is no proof (nor could there be any, beyond some odd outburst on Brer Rabbit's part) that there is an intention to provoke an edit war. (FWIW, I'm with Surtsicna on the manual, but that's beside the point.) I'm getting the feeling (I'm just being diplomatic: I got that feeling hours ago) that Surtsicna is not here to hunt bears. No action is called for or could be called for, ergo, close. Surtsicna, try to stay out of trouble. Stay away from ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 26 May 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 expresses angst

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.

---

Diff [100]. Reverted by bot, and simultaneously spotted by me. Probably completely harmless, but I'm passing the buck to admins. GwenChan 23:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've extended a greeting, will stay on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Been well over an hour since their last edit. I would assume they found something more interesting to do, but it never hurts mention it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:12, 26 May 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:RHaworth and heavy-handed use of WP:CSD#A7

Had one of these myself yesterday, and it seems I'm not the only one.

• Kraftwurx
• Tamara Brooks

This is not, IMHO, how CSD is meant to be applied, and certainly not A7. In addition, I see salting an article without discussion as particularly excessive.

I also see making a comment so incautious re Tamara Brooks that the admin later strikes it out themselves to be stretching policy ad absurdum; it just doesn't matter for the purposes of A7 if an obit writer violated copyright of an individual's CV. It certainly doesn't mean that the deleting admin then gets to shout COPYVIO!! and hide behind the full deletion urgency that we'd reserve for a copyvio on WP itself.

If the admin was so concerned about copyvio, then they wouldn't either be using their "Just go away and shut up" strategy of emailing copies of the final version of an article to anyone who objects its deletion. This clearly breaks the GFDL attribution requirement for such an article, so that even if the editor then re-worked the article and brought it to a good standard, even if the article hadn't been salted unilaterally, they wouldn't be able to re-upload it. Or if they did, there would then be a risk that they'd been entrapped into a copyvio for which RHaworth could then G12 the article on sight and potentially even block the editor as a copyviolator.

I don't believe that these two quickly-cited articles are unrepresentative of a general pattern of arrogant adminship. We've got far too much of that already. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As a separate issue, the time between nomination and deletion was excessively speedy for a minor issue of notability, rather than some libellous BLP issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Dingley is certainly correct on all the points he makes above, viz.:

• A7 was misused.
• Copyvio does not apply.
• If there were a genuine copyright concern, GFDL attribution requirements should have been followed.
• Mere hours elapsed between the nomination and User:RHaworth's deletion -- not enough time for anyone to look at the article. LeonardoCiampa (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) {{Andy Dingley:ANI-notice}} {{RHaworth:ANI-notice}}
• Nonsense. Of course copyright violation applies. You took someone else's writing and copied it into Wikipedia. You violated the copyright of whoever authored that WWW page, and you didn't write in your own words at all. We're writing a free content encyclopaedia, and you didn't give us free content. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me where you, personally, have recently attempted to resolve this issue directly with the other editor? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• That'll be those two links at the top. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And he replied "I did not find your argument convincing and certainly, you have never made any attempt to improve the article yourself. I have e-mailed you the content. Feel free to draft a decent version and submit it via DRV." Have you done so, especially the first? --Calton | Talk 13:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Just because you didn't agree with his reply does not mean OMG HE WAS WRONG I MUST TAKE IT TO ANI AND HAVE HIM TARRED AND FEATHERED. Besides, who actually tagged them as A7? The deleting admins role is not to be "heavy handed", but to review the content and tag, then delete if needed. One of those articles has already made it to a request at WP:REFUND, which is the next step in the process. "Heavy-handed" is this trip to ANI - not the admin actions, especially considering Dennis Brown's reply below (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't trust RHaworth's judgement. I haven't trusted it for some time. In particular, I consider him to be far too quick to use admin-only tools, like protecting pages or salting, rather than discussion. Three-drum boilers was a past case in point. There have been others I've noticed, but as they haven't been articles I've been heavily involved in, I don't recall which offhand.

        Speedy deletion is for deletion where there is either clear policy violation or an uncontroversial deletion. If it's controversial, we have AfD, not salt. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

        • Copyright violation is a clear policy violation. And that's what LeonardoCiampa's edit was. You've climbed on entirely the wrong bandwagon here by taking on LeonardoCiampa's doomed cause. LeonardoCiampa didn't write original content in xyr own words. Xe filched someone else's writing off a WWW site wholesale, merely changing a name for a pronoun here and there, and MadmanBot caught it. Xe's making a lot of noise over restoring a copyright violation that xe shouldn't have made in the first place. The whole A7 thing is just a red herring. This was a lazy substitution of copying for writing that has been rightly deleted on sight. I recommend that you climb off that particular bandwagon as soon as possible. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• After reviewing the articles just before deletion, Kraftwurx seems to be a very straight forward A7 without question, imo. Tamara Brooks is a bit more complicated, but I don't see a clear indication of notability. There were copyvio issues and the article had been tagged for such, even if the delete summary didn't say as much. Several hours passed between creation and actual deletion, making the argument that not enough time had passed a particularly weak one. I can't find a fault in the struck comments, either. In the end, these seem to be perfectly reasonable deletions, that were adequately explained when RHaworth was questioned. Emailing a copy of a article doesn't require you to violate GFDL in creating the new article, although that would be optional if you chose. You could simply use it as a basis to research, and I took that as a sign of good faith, not a desire to sidestep copyright law, particularly since it wasn't "published", but sent privately. If you want to present evidence that he has been acting improperly, these would not be good examples. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Several hours passed between creation and actual deletion,"

Personally I consider that to be precipitate. This isn't a BLP. There's no content on either of these that had to be removed, merely a question over whether it was justified to keep it. What's the rush? Why should the input other editors be excluded in this case? Some of us have jobs or real things to be doing, not just spending all day on WP.

As to the A7 for Kraftwurx, then obviously I disagree with that, but as my original comment noted - this is a new field, this is a new player in that field, we don't yet know obviously whether they're going to be important long-term players in this field, or if there is as yet sufficient sourcing to support this. However this is why AfD isn't the same thing as speedy and why A7 is quite specific over that. Now I would ask RHaworth why a contested A7, and from someone who (as I've already been dismissed for) has no past connection with the article, should be reason to not only instantly over-ride this contestation and delete, but also to salt the article without any discussion with others? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that deleting with 6 or so hours is not always optimal, but I just don't think it is particularly rushed. It would be on the low side of acceptable in my opinion. We just disagree as to the threshold here, which is fine and both opinions are rational, just different. Tamara Brooks isn't salted, only Kraftwurx is, I suppose because that was the 4th creation. The others were long enough ago that I would be on the fence as to the necessity of salting. It isn't abuse, even if you think it wasn't required. If you had a version in userspace that was ready to move over and was proper, I can't fathom anyone not being willing to unsalt it for you. Whether the bio should have been A7ed instead of G12'ed, or the other salted, those are legitimate questions. The problem is taking them to ANI, out of process. Referring to his actions as a clear indication of arrogance or you being unnecessarily confrontational doesn't endear or persuade others to your cause, either. Even if you were right, it is seldom fruitful so I fail to see the point of doing so. It is pointy and undermines your argument, and the willingness and ability of others to consider your perspective. Again, in this case, I believe he was acting in good faith and within the accepted norms. You have to ask yourself if you were. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis, one quibble with your above comment -- A7 doesn't require notability to be established, just that importance is asserted. Conducting world-wide and working on a Grammy-nominated album are credible assertions of importance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  I did say "clearly indicated" not "established". I would equate "indicate" with "claim", although I see why it might cause confusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  The problem isn't between the adjectives, it's between the nouns. A7 deals with assertions of importance -- whether the topic is notable or not is not in question at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  I got your point Sarek, that you think this one clearly does make the claim where as the assertion was less clear to me. I wasn't arguing against your interpretation, only clarifying my terms used. That I don't argue is often a sign that I agree. In the end, it was mis-logged and G12 was the real reason, as I mentioned. My primary consideration in this ANI is one of the admin's faith, not of criteria, since this isn't WP:DRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The deletions seem reasonable but salting is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor. If I'm reading the logs correctly, that's not the case here; the articles should be unsalted. Nobody Ent 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well you certainly aren't reading the logs correctly if you think that one of them actually is salted in the first place. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • 21:19, 22 May 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) protected Kraftwurx‎ ‎[create=sysop] (indefinite) (AfD decision) (hist) Nobody Ent 15:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yup. That confirms it. You're not reading the logs correctly. Hint: What's two minus one? Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Please, for the sake of those of us who don't have admin tools, please explain how you can tell that Kraftwurx isn't salted. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You know, as the person who actually posted the two links right at the start of this section, you don't even have the potential excuse for not looking at both articles, when someone says "one of them", that Nobody Ent did. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I think what Uncle G is saying is that only one of the articles is salted. Kraftwurx definitely is, but Tamara Brooks is not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Uncle G has clarified on his talk page that his point is that I used the plural when, in fact, only one of the two articles in question is fully protected. Nobody Ent 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
          • There you go. The simple phrase "one of them" isn't really hard to understand in the context of two articles. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Dennis - a second quibble. Kraftwurx has not been re-created four times. Comments like "I suppose because that was the 4th creation." are particularly unhelpful in a situation like this when salt is involved, because it's simply not true and it strongly implies a tendentious creator where there isn't one. It has been created three times, and one of those was an undelete by the deleting admin after a questioned speedy, so that it could go to AfD. Now personally I count this as two creations, not four.. No doubt I'm about to receive a cryptic maths lesson from Uncle G as to why one creation plus one creation is now three, yet it still isn't going to make four. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I stand corrected, three deletes. But deleting at AFD [101] is meaningful as it means it was deleted by consensus not by a single person. Again, I'm not saying it should have been salted, and I probably would not have without a request to, I'm just saying on the face of it, salting doesn't look like abuse here. It was a judgement call. Some admins might have, some wouldn't have. There are a lot of steps between "correct", "optional", "not optimal", "mistaken", "bad faith" and "abuse". I can't see inside his head or heart, I can only look at the evidence you present and that I can dig up. Without more evidence, I'm forced to assume good faith in his actions, based on his words and the sequence of events. Even if I were to make the jump and agree that it was a mistake (and I haven't), that is not the same as your claim of "arrogant adminship", which I don't see here. I'm sorry that this isn't what you want to hear, but I can't come to any other conclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Userification

Based on RHaworth's concession (on his User:Talk) that the deletion of Tamara Brooks is likely not A7-worthy, I have restored it. But in order to give a chance for LeonardoCiampa to incorporate the sources mentioned in that same talk page thread, I have userified it to his user space. I hope all see this as a viable compromise between letting it remain as it was, and forcing LeonardoCiampa to construct a new article from scratch. I'm posting this here as I have been BOLD and taken admin action in the middle of an ANI discussion, and want to be sure that this does not cause problems/confusion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC) (Struck. Mooted by what's below. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

• You restored a copyright violation. I recommend that you immediately undo that very foolish act. Never undelete copyright violations, and think before you do anything like this at AN/I again. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I missed that in the history. Re-deleted, trout applied. Sigh - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Thank you. (Note to onlookers: This is how one avoids AN/I wheel wars.) Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Is there any real need to move the history back into place at Tamara Brooks? I agree that it should remain deleted, but it's currently deleted at the userified spot. Is this going to confuse the above discussion much, or can the deleted history just remain where it is? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd just leave it gone where it is and not waste any more of our administrator tools on it. Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• One of the difficulties of contested deletions like this is the bias it gives to admins (who can see the content) vs. editors (who no longer can). It appears to be claimed in this thread that Tamara Brooks should have been deleted as a G12 copyvio. Yet it wasn't, it was deleted as A7. TexasAndroid has my sympathy here - how could they be expected to know it was a copyvio (I certainly don't, I can't see it) if the deleting admin has instead used the much lesser condition of A7?

It's claimed that Kraftwurx should have been deleted as G4. It was also salted as "AfD decision". Yet the AfD didn't decide that. Nor is it (yet) general practice to salt immediately upon one AfD. It would be a particularly bad idea to G4 articles six months after an AfD, when the original question was over whether the article was premature. It's interesting to sometimes look at the talk pages of some very obviously notable topics and to see just which were AfDed or even deleted a few years ago, decisions that look particularly odd with hindsight. Almost as odd as the response to a challenged A7 not being an AfD or any attempt at discussion, but instead immediate deletion and salting.

If RHaworth's judgement is so beyond question, why is he applying A7s to things that clearly aren't A7s, as whether you think they're more or less worthy for retention than this, A7 is not the appropriate condition. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you fricking kidding me? Salting typically occurs because of repeated re-creation. Kraftwurx was deleted twice, then AFD'd. The AFD was the "final straw" - in other words, "the community agrees it should be deleted". The creation after that was the FOURTH - SALT was necessary, because the community decided - indeed, there was another CSD category that should have been used. The other situation is one where multiple CSD categories existed - the most strict should have been the one used. However, when an Admin sees the CSD's, we delete usually based on what that tagger provided - this time, A7 did in fact fit. Copyright would have been better, but A7 was still valid. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of the lowly editor here who has neither the wisdom nor the log access of a lofty admin, please explain how this makes four creations.

Also please explain why Kraftwurx deserved deletion as a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: three. Your massive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is affecting my reading :-) It doesn't change the argument whatsoever. A7 was valid as tagged by the original editor, even though a better one was available. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Two. Not FOUR. Not even Three. One of those was a technical re-creation just so that it could go through AfD, rather than speedy. It was done by the deleting admin, not the article author. We are NOT starting to count those against authors as tendentious creators.

Also please either lose the abusive attitude towards me, or start proof-reading your postings more carefully. You've claimed that I haven't discussed this, even when I'd given you links. You've mis-counted the creations in a manner that significantly misrepresents the creating author. You've claimed that an article is a copyvio when there's either no evidence for this, or you're not even paying attention to which article you're out to delete. Putting a smiley after an accusation doesn't change it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're not willing to read, then there's no use even discussing. By the way, you are the only one abusing anything and anyone here. Really, filing an ANI report on someone who merely actionned CSD's .. you make it sound like they nominated it .. and even then, it's not an ANI'able incident. Now you're abusing the people who tell you you're dead wrong, and even show you where. Must be a slow news day in your neighbourhood today (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins: From my reading of this thread, you seem to be the only person claiming that the Kraftwurx article was a copyvio. The core of the deleted Kraftwurx article is three sentences of prose. Using Google, the references cited, and the company homepage, I cannot locate a page that they were copied from. If you claim that something is a copyvio, I think it's reasonable to expect you to support that claim on request. Bovlb (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I have never once stated that Kraftwurx was a copyvio. As such, I have no need to support a claim I never made (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"(Speedy deletion for) Copyright would have been better, but A7 was still valid." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please don't forget the words before that ... I clearly change to "the other situation" - meaning away from Kraftwurx - and onto the second deletion issue. Don't cherry pick to try and make some invisible point: obviously you're simply confusing people by doing so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As he is no longer making the claim, let's just move on, shall we? Bovlb (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As proven, I have never claimed it - made up, out of context shit should never have been brought up in the first place, so yes, please move on - ridiculous attempt at a red herring (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an explanation. Bovlb (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Did the same editor create the article each of the three times? Nobody Ent 23:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

They created it twice. There are also accusations on the AfD that they have some sort of COI. These are good reasons to delete it, but they're not reasons that can be investigated capably or transparently through a rapid speedy. The two creations were six months apart and non-admins can't see how close they were (as text). A third re-creation was a technical admin undeletion, so that it could go through AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Two creations six months apart? It's a stretch to call that "repeatedly." Nobody Ent 23:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the deletions were six months apart. I can't see (AFAIK) the creation dates. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was originally created by User:Bcn0209 on 2011-11-27T18:28:10, and subsequently re-created by User:Cwaldo39 on 2012-05-22T21:46:50. The text of the two creations is substantially different. Bovlb (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

It's interesting that WP:SALT is specific to recreation by an editor (singular). Perhaps Uncle G would care to deliver another of his little lectures (deeply patronising, if not plain abusive) on the importance, or not, of cardinality in this thread. A policy triggered by an action "repeatedly" used by one editor is seemingly OK if it's applied to actions of multiple editors, so long as we double count them, then claim that it was the community that decided this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor. must be a singular and can't be a plural, as only one editor can create each instance of the article. It doesn't say "the same editor", which would have been easy to say if that is what it meant. I had to go back and read that just to be sure, as that was an interesting idea, but I think flawed here. In my reading of English, it doesn't qualify how many different editors were involved in the different "new" versions, which makes sense. If 10 editors make the same article 1 time each, or 1 editor makes the same article 10 times, the problem is the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider two creations six months apart "repeatedly." Can someone please unprotect? RHaworth has declined but will not object to someone else doing it. Nobody Ent 00:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask Andy this: If I were to unsalt this (and I'm not saying that I am), what exactly do you expect to do with the article? If it was replaced with the same content that was there, I have to admit I would feel compelled to put my own CSD tag on it. Have you managed to source it better or add content that demonstrates it has a snowballs chance of passing AFD? I'm asking, is there a better version of this article ready to be put into place, or is this a purely academic exercise? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

False dichotomy. The standard condition of most article names is unprotected, per the assume good faith / anyone can edit Wikipedia ideal. Log out (if you have mop in hand) and look at Kraftwurx -- is their anything to tell a user not steeped in Wiki-trivia what the heck to do? Had I had to figure out how to do an unprotect request and wait for the backlog to clear I'd doubt I'd have bothered creating Print butter or Charley Morgan. Nobody Ent 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Given Andy's response to "I have e-mailed you the content. Feel free to draft a decent version and submit it via DRV" was to come here and whinge instead of something productive, I think you have the answer to what he really wants. So no, it's not a false dichotomy and unprotection isn't needed: Andy just needs to do it in a User subpage -- if he's actually serious. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not about Andy. It's about the unknown future creator of Kraftwurx. I didn't know I was going to create Print butter until about half an hour before I did. Nobody Ent 01:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Then "unknown future creator" can feel free to draft a decent version and submit it via DRV, then. Except "unknown future creator" isn't the one whinging here, it's Andy Dingley. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Andy Dingley is whinging here because of RHaworth's actions, not over Kraftwurx specifically.
        • This was tagged as A7. That's reasonable - articles have to make some claim of significance and maybe this one didn't. However IMHO, a contested speedy for A7, by an independent editor in good standing, ought to be accepted as just such a claim of such significance. Particularly when it's an obscure field that most editors don't have knowledge of, and when the A7 is marginal - this isn't some crappy pokemon article. Admins might be omnipotent, but they aren't omniscient. This didn't happen - instead RHaworth acted to delete it immediately, no discussion, to salt it and with their only response (after being repeatedly prompted) was to send a copy of the text. I saw this as more of a brush-off than any attempt to build a collaborative encyclopedia - still the same blunt rejection of the contested speedy, but hiding behind a defensible "thankyou for your enquiry" rubberstamp.
        • RHaworth appears to be using A7 as a default for a number of articles, no matter what their real issue is. Whether the article is deleted or not, this makes it hard for other editors (and in this case, at least one admin) to work properly around them.
        • Reactions since have been unimpressive. Miscounts of article creation and authorship, that place the article in a bad light as tendentious. Patronising comments about whether an article was salted or not. Cherry-picking of aspects of two different articles, so that Kraftwurx can be tarred by association as a copyvio, when that's certainly not true. Yet again, we have WP taking the line that admins are infallible and anyone complaining that they're not should be attacked instead.
      • I don't want to write Kraftwurx, I want to read it. They're in a field that's extremely interesting at the moment, a field that WP should be covering. Kraftwurx also have some "secret sauce" of their own (the management of outsourced digital manufacturing, rather than the manufacturing process itself) that's novel to them. At a time when the whole manufacturing industry is running around after these novel techniques, WP is deleting the articles or re-writing them to an even worse nonsense (this is a problem across the whole WP article grouping for 3D print etc.). It's not about whether Kraftwurx is notable to WP, it's about whether WP can be a competent resource for this serious commercial field. So far it can't.

        @Dennis - I don't intend to do anything with this article and I'm not required to. There is no requirement on contesting a speedy, especially not an A7, that the editor has to adopt or own the article before they have any voice against the speedy. It would be rather a bad thing too if there was. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

        • I'm not questioning your right to question a speedy. I'm only addressing my willingness to reverse another admin, out of process, for which I have to justify to the community as well. I don't go undoing and wheelwaring with admins, but would have considered unsalting for the purpose of creating a new article. That is the best I can do and myself stay within policy here. We normally don't use ANI for discussing unsalting, that would be DRV or RFPP, and considering the totality of circumstances, I can't unsalt without a forward moving reason. Others may do as they please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Switching discussion to DRV or RFPP would likely be considered shopping. Nobody Ent 11:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
            • And DRV is the place to go if you *have* an article to put there, and RFPP is the place to go if you don't, assuming the admin won't himself. ANI is the place to go if an admin acted improper, and it doesn't look like there is a consensus to demonstrate this, thus we are in limbo I suppose, at least for the day. What I'm failing to see it he urgency in this matter that requires we unsalt this now, without giving the salting admin the benefit of the doubt and perhaps a day to mull it over. At the very least, this pounding is an ineffective way to achieve one's goals. If my concern was truly only to get the article unsalted, this is not how I would be going about it as it is not likely to be successful and is only adding drama in an ANI that was started based on one editor's claim that an admin was acting arrogantly. Nobody, even if you disagree with my conclusions, you have to see the logic in not ramping this up and taking it to the proper venue, after a day or two. This only makes me regret offering a compromise, and less likely to do so in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
              • DB, you're missing the point -- what I'm saying is that posting on DRV and/or RFPP now would be likely be considered by some (if not yourself) as forum shopping, which is itself a form of escalation. I don't consider ANI the 'place to go if admin acted improper' and the words at the top of the page certainly don't say that. Blocking admin didn't say they opposed unsalting, just that they wouldn't do it -- but it was okay with them if we could find someone else. Just as Willie Sutton robbed banks for money, discussing an issue on ANI is pretty good place to find an admin someone.Nobody Ent 18:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
                • He didn't say it was ok, he said "I am not willing to do it but if you can persuade one of the admins taking part in this discussion to remove the protection, I shall not re-protect it.". That is only saying he will not wheel war or labor the issue. There is a distinct difference. Obviously he disagrees with it or he would unsalt it himself. I find that there is no need to read between the lines with RHaworth, he uses enough precision in his words that I try not to read more into them. As to ANI being the place for an admin acting improper, usually that would be an incident, and I would maintain that this is one available remedy. For example, Andy brought it here because he felt an admin acted improper, I don't begrudge him for that, I just think he is mistaken. I appreciate your passion Ent, I truly do, and I hate being on the other side of the aisle from you, but I don't see myself being persuaded. I will hold no grudge against anyone you can convince, but I'm certain it will not be me on this issue, and I hate to see you waste your time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, it's you who is attacking people, here. (Calton is a bit, too, which isn't really a good response.) You are picking a fight with everyone, right from the get-go, starting with falsely attributing "shut up" to someone who never said any such thing or anything like it and getting worse from there. You'll be picking on Nobody Ent next. It's a rather silly way of approaching other people in public. It is a rather disappointing comparison to see that LeonardoCiampa, whose cause you unwisely appropriated as your own, has in the meantime quietly and without any fuss understood the problem and gone about writing in xyr own words. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I respectfully disagree. WP:RFPP's backlog is not that bad most days, I've been taking an interest there myself to insure this. I'm not willing to move backwards, only forward. As I don't think RHaworth was demonstrating (to use Andy's own words) a "general pattern of arrogant adminship", I don't feel my "correcting" him is proper or warranted. If RHaworth felt the salting was in error, he would correct it. If others want to reverse RHaworth, that is their decision. I am willing to unsalt out of process if there is an urgency due to an article ready to be installed that isn't simply recreating material already deleted at AFD and CSD, avoiding a CSD#G4 problem. In the interest of objectivity, I will be happy to let you, Nobody Ent, be the sole arbator in determining what is and isn't acceptable as meeting this criteria for the purpose my unsalting. If there isn't an article to be installed, then your point is moot for today, as there is no great urgency, and no reason to work out of process. In that event, WP:RFPP is the solution, which should be able to consider the merits in less than 24 hours. This is truly the best I can do. You are always welcome to ask others. As I'm off for the evening, I will have to revisit this tomorrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• The reasons for unprotecting have nothing to do with RHaworth's alleged arrogance (not that I've seen any of that). Out of process is having the page protected: "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing, so that anyone can add material and correct errors" Nobody Ent 02:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• You've confused "dogma" with "purpose". --Calton | Talk 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Nobody Ent, I don't see valid justification for the salting. It doesn't matter if Andy is raising the issue politely or throwing a tantrum and screaming blue murder, the issue exists in either case. Ignoring a valid complaint simply because the person filing it hasn't been ideally polite is somewhat childish. Certainly, an article creator could jump over AFC/DRV/RFPP hurdles to create an appropriate article at this title (assuming they even knew to use those venues, since there are no instructions at Kraftwurx at all to help editors), but they shouldn't have to when these hurdles were put in place inappropriately to begin with. As Nobody Ent said, the default state of any unused article title is 'available', what is the valid justification for this title being different? – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 04:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• For speedy deletions, I apply create-protection when necessary, but there are only a few times when it is necessary: the first is when an editor persists in repeatedly trying the same impossible article after adequate warning. The length of the protection is merely that needed to stop them. Another is where multiple people , normally fans of something, try to create an article on something we have thoroughly determined is not notable nor likely to soon be notable. This can sometimes be for a fairly long period, and is the sort of case which might require DRV if the person does become notable--and DRV reverses such cases very quickly when there is decent evidence. I do not think this case warranted protection. But if the admin wouldn't remove it, I don't see why it wasn't simply taken to DRV. DRV has a reputation as being a particularly tricky arena, but it's better than AN/I because it gets focussed attention.

There's also been some discussion about what deletion reason to use when multiple ones apply. Like others, I use the most serious as the primary reason, but I also add the others. If it's copyvio and A7, or , more commonly for the sort of articles I work on, copyvio and G11, I of course use copyvio as the primary reason. But I add the other--particularly so the ed. won't respond, but I give you permission for it. A fuller explanation at first avoids problems later. However, like most other admins, if something seems clearly an A7 I don't usually look for copyvio also (I sometimes do for G11 in some topic areas if the wording makes it obvious, because they so often are).

just one other point. When editor a tags for speedy, and admin b deletes it, the burden for errors in deletion is that of admin b. Admins are there to check, & are appointed on the basis that we know what needs checking and how to do it. I look on the tag as saying, "hey, i call this to your attention". Making the judgment on what to do is my responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

But in cases like this, where the consensus is split as to whether or not the article should be salted, the admin has salted (in good faith), and he refused to unsalt, do we force his hand at ANI? I would conclude that we don't, and instead handle it in other venues, as we have shown there is no urgency in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not disagree. DRV is the correct venue. Only if an admin continues doing some particular sort of thing that is regularly reversed at DRV, then is the time to come here. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity at WP:SALT - discussion elsewhere

That wording "repeatedly recreated by an editor" seems ambiguous. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#SALTing_-_wording_seems_ambiguous in the hope it can be clarified. PamD 07:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Child-p*rn-like image

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.

---

While I am not familiar with the specific policies on :en, I assume that the picture (attention! graphic) that has been added[102] a moment ago by single-edit user Implying implications (talk · contribs) to article Ecchi might be considered as child-p*rn. --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh... cartoon porn yeah. Child? I don't see it. Japanese often leave out the hair in their cartoon porn, in case that's your only evidence. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the filename (girls ...), freely choosen by the uploader, and there is 18 USC § 2256, which defines minors as any person under the age of eighteen years. Besides, the username of the uploader to Commons (User:Comemierda), likely identical to the above mentioned editor, doesn't suggest Japanese origin. --Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

When's the last time you saw the word "woman" in relation to porn? See for instance Girls Gone Wild. Not that I would be familiar with such things. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The account seems to have been created for the purpose; ditto for the differently-named account which put the image onto commons. I can think of one editor who sometimes makes pointy edits in this area, but they're not currently blocked and don't strike me as the sockpuppeting type... bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I know plenty of women who refer to each other as "girls" on the stated grounds that "women are old". Meanwhile, "come mierda" is Spanish for "eat sh*t", and I'm surprised no one caught that and blocked the guy immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Both editor ID's have been indef'ed on commons. Someone could do that here, too, if they were of a mind to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So ruled per Bugs. Thanks Bugs. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 26 May 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.

Removing a tag and refusing to discuss

I have been editing Wikipedia for a few years now and I have seen a lot. However, I have never encountered a clique users who simply refuse to discuss. Therefore, I have no idea how to deal with this - that is why I came here. Please see the following edits: [103] and [104], as well as [105] and [106]. There seems to be a clique of users that prevent the rest from changing anything in the article and they do so by refusing to discuss anything. Please see the discussion I started about this. Four other issues have been raised as well, with users trying to improve the article being reverted without any explanation, let alone a reasonable one. I have been unsuccessfully begging for reasonable arguments. If I ask why that fact (a piece of trivia) is notable, the answer I get is 'because'. In the words of an experienced user who I respect very much (and who happens to have brought many articles to FA status): it doesn't matter what you say or do at those articles - you will still be misinterpreted, misrepresented, hated and vilified, because even attempts to find a middle ground or help are immediately attacked unless you are a part of the favored clique. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Just something to consider -- this is a featured article. That tends to mean it has a lot of competent editors work on the page, and that it's generally a relatively well composed page. Not saying changes can't be made, but I am saying a lot of people have reviewed the page and found it to be of an exceptional quality.JoelWhy (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing the article's quality. I am just shocked to see that I am simply not allowed to propose a change, much like several other users on that talk page. See Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#"King Don Francesco I", Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Bias, Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Excess ordinal use, etc. Those are all issues noticed after the article appeared on the main page. Those issues remain unresolved because the mentioned users refuse to provide any sensible arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies was Today's Featured Article on last 23 May (two days ago). Editor Surtsicna has insisted on removing the sourced information that she was a descendant of King Louis XIV of France. Met with opposition and no support, he has added a "relevant" tag into the text. His edit was reverted by three different editors.[107][108][109] He reverted them all.[110][111][112]

I tried to reason with him, reaching him on his talk page. As you can see on the conversation between us both I was kind and polite to him. I gave up when I realized he was following my history log. Others tried to talk to him (Astynax and Limongi) but they also gave up. It's useless. See here. He won't listen to anyone. There is not a single person who agrees with him and he still doesn't care. I'd like someone to ask him to stop, please. --Lecen (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that I was watching his history log. It is a pretext used to justify the lack of "politeness" after realising that there are no arguments against my proposal whatsoever. Anyway, here is my share of politeness. You can see me begging there for arguments and explanations. There are users who agree with me but I do not blame them for not speaking up. In fact, a user considered reporting Lecen but decided not to because the article was being displayed on the main page. As can be seen at Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, there are currently four users attempting to discuss with Lecen and experiencing the same thing I am - battle ground mentality for which he was already blocked for seven days in January 2012. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is there some reason that WP:BRD isn't being followed here? I suggest this page be full protected, the reverting has been going on for a couple days. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• "I hereby start a formal discussion about…" Way to piss people off ;) Seems to me the "clique users" is acting as stewards of a Feature Article (often used by /poor/ cliques, but not ours;). Too bad Drmies got the last revert in with a really strong message; Jack would have waded in. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've looked further, and suggest others do the same. Surtsicna seems to be being quite disruptive on a fair number of articles. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Mary of Teck, more... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  Please note that User:Br'er Rabbit was recruited by Lecen. The edits referred to as disruptive by User:Br'er Rabbit were [113] and [114]. Yes, changing the width of the picture from 250px to the default 215px is what he called disruptive. He then followed me to the article about Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil, and reverted this edit saying that it was unhelpful. (Even though I cited WP:See also as reasoning and he provided no arguments whatsoever). It appears that he only reverts my edits in order to start an edit-war, so that I eventually get blocked. For the first time in a long while, I actually feel bullied. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  And I've suggested to Drmies that you be blocked. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Surtsicna appears to have a history of disruptive edits and edit-warring across various articles. In this specific article, he continually tried to impose his POV despite the objections of several editors. None of the opposing arguments were deemed sufficient [by him], so he kept unilaterally imposing his will. I hope we can resolve this issue asap, so we can get back to discussing more productive things. Limongi ^(talk) 23:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I've just spent ten minutes fixing Surtscina's move of Elisabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary to Elizabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary....reason given There doesn't seem to be a reason to spell her name Elisabeth. Obviously not tried looking in a book. In moving Surtscina left behind half a dozen double redirects (that AvicBot 'fixed' and I've just had to unfix), and made not the slightest attempt to edit the article which refers to the lady as "Elisabeth" throughout. AGF is all well and good, but that's crawling towards disruptive in my view.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks; see parallel drama below @#User trying to provoke an edit war. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I closed the thread below. You'll have noticed by now I warned Surtsicna for edit-warring over that citation note. Indeed I was asked on my talk page to block this person, but hey, I just came back to this lovely board after pooltime, cocktail time, TV time, dinnertime, kidstobedtime, so I don't want to be the one blocking at this moment. Given Elen's comment above, I'd say this editor is skating on very thin ice, and the pool temperature is 86. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to note

I just wanted to note that, at least in this discussion, Surtsicna has a fairly decent point. Why are certain ancestors chosen to be included in the article over others? Saying that they're in the source is irrelevant, as there are other sources that point out other ancestors of Cristina as well (one of which Surtsicna linked to). Why these ones specifically and how can one say that they are the most relevant to include? Seems like in terms of ancestry, it should be all or nothing, discuss all of the relevant, notable ancestors in the lineal line or discuss none of them (all of them is clearly preferable, since ancestry is important). Any picking and choosing of what ancestor to mention is just plain bias, even if you are "just following the sources".

It seems like there is some sort of clique thing going on here. I'm not defending Surtsicna's edit warring, but I am pointing out that this is not so cut and dry as it seems and that Lecen, Astynax, and Limongi did not provide a proper response in that discussion in regards to the question of ancestry. Silverseren^C 03:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a valid point, Silver seren. We got an explanation on Talk:Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil; I hope we can look forward to one on the Teresa article that explains how this ancestor is special, so to speak. But the edit-warring point remains, and the rather POINTy second thread is there as well, plus the move (Elisabeth-->Elizabeth)--and see Talk:Elisabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary, a proper consensus reached on a previous move initiated by Surtsicna, where this move was done without consensus. So they know how to do it properly, begging the question of why they didn't do it properly this time. (That s/z thing is a big deal! I had to fight over it for my Elisabeth.) Anyway, "cut and dry"--that's rarely so. But here we have a. a matter that probably shouldn't have been taken to ANI and b. well, I hate to say it, a pattern of editing against consensus. There may well be a clique, but clique building is part of consensus building, and this (that is, the original matter) should have been dealt with differently. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The moment you falsely accused us of being a clique, Silver seren, you made me lose any good will to think about wasting my time discussing this issue. Perhaps you're unaware, but Astynax and I are the two editors who wrote the article from top to bottom and brought it to FA standard. The other editors whom you accused of being part of a clique are members of the Empire of Brazil task force, people who are actually interested in the Brazilian imperial history, unlike Surtsicna, who's trying to pick a fight with anyone who cares. Louis XIV is mentioned because Teresa Cristina is a member of the House of Bourbon and he is the most famous Bourbon, regardless if French, Spanish or Italian Bourbon. --Lecen (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Louis XIV is mentioned because Teresa Cristina is a member of the House of Bourbon and he is the most famous Bourbon, French, Spanish or Italian" - I thought that might be the case, and thanks for providing the answer. No offense, but that response (albeit somewhat obvious) might have diffused the situation if provided on the article's talk page earlier in the process. Thanks again, JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe, did you see the article's history log? Surtsicna began by simply removing the sourced content merely because he didn't like it. We reverted what he did. It was I the one who talked to him on his talk page. He didn't bother to talk to any of the article's usual contributors nor to create a discussion on the article's talk page. When I gave up on him, he insisted on removing the content, other intervened and only then was that he created a thread on the article's talk page. When he was met with opposition from everyone, what did he do? He started adding tags to the article, claiming that one gave him a good reason. He forgot to remember that it was he the one who should give any reason and to wait for consensus. We tried to talk to him, he didn't listen. --Lecen (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Am I the only person here who believes that it doesn't make sense at all this entire mess only because of the information that said that Louis XIV is the ancestor of a dead 19th century Brazilian empress? Was it truly necessary to one single editor start an edit war in an article he never cared and report several other editors at the ANI? I wonder if five editors are just wrong and only one is correct. He should have been blocked two days ago. There it is. I said it. --Lecen (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.2: Just saw the "User trying to provoke edit war" below. It seems Surtsicna wants to see anyone who disagrees with him blocked. --Lecen (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to be so aggressive. I was merely making a point that the responses in that discussion were along the lines of "This is a Featured Article, featured articles can't be changed" and "That's what's in the source, we only use what's in that source". That's what i'm viewing as the issue here. If all of you had made the explanation that you did above in that thread discussion in the first place, instead of invoking some sort of Only This Source Clause and some Featured Article Invulnerability Clause, that discussion may have gone completely differently and we likely wouldn't be here right now. Silverseren^C 05:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

user:RHaworth and heavy-handed use of WP:CSD#A7

Had one of these myself yesterday, and it seems I'm not the only one.

• Kraftwurx
• Tamara Brooks

This is not, IMHO, how CSD is meant to be applied, and certainly not A7. In addition, I see salting an article without discussion as particularly excessive.

I also see making a comment so incautious re Tamara Brooks that the admin later strikes it out themselves to be stretching policy ad absurdum; it just doesn't matter for the purposes of A7 if an obit writer violated copyright of an individual's CV. It certainly doesn't mean that the deleting admin then gets to shout COPYVIO!! and hide behind the full deletion urgency that we'd reserve for a copyvio on WP itself.

If the admin was so concerned about copyvio, then they wouldn't either be using their "Just go away and shut up" strategy of emailing copies of the final version of an article to anyone who objects its deletion. This clearly breaks the GFDL attribution requirement for such an article, so that even if the editor then re-worked the article and brought it to a good standard, even if the article hadn't been salted unilaterally, they wouldn't be able to re-upload it. Or if they did, there would then be a risk that they'd been entrapped into a copyvio for which RHaworth could then G12 the article on sight and potentially even block the editor as a copyviolator.

I don't believe that these two quickly-cited articles are unrepresentative of a general pattern of arrogant adminship. We've got far too much of that already. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As a separate issue, the time between nomination and deletion was excessively speedy for a minor issue of notability, rather than some libellous BLP issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Dingley is certainly correct on all the points he makes above, viz.:

• A7 was misused.
• Copyvio does not apply.
• If there were a genuine copyright concern, GFDL attribution requirements should have been followed.
• Mere hours elapsed between the nomination and User:RHaworth's deletion -- not enough time for anyone to look at the article. LeonardoCiampa (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC) {{Andy Dingley:ANI-notice}} {{RHaworth:ANI-notice}}
• Nonsense. Of course copyright violation applies. You took someone else's writing and copied it into Wikipedia. You violated the copyright of whoever authored that WWW page, and you didn't write in your own words at all. We're writing a free content encyclopaedia, and you didn't give us free content. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you show me where you, personally, have recently attempted to resolve this issue directly with the other editor? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• That'll be those two links at the top. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And he replied "I did not find your argument convincing and certainly, you have never made any attempt to improve the article yourself. I have e-mailed you the content. Feel free to draft a decent version and submit it via DRV." Have you done so, especially the first? --Calton | Talk 13:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Just because you didn't agree with his reply does not mean OMG HE WAS WRONG I MUST TAKE IT TO ANI AND HAVE HIM TARRED AND FEATHERED. Besides, who actually tagged them as A7? The deleting admins role is not to be "heavy handed", but to review the content and tag, then delete if needed. One of those articles has already made it to a request at WP:REFUND, which is the next step in the process. "Heavy-handed" is this trip to ANI - not the admin actions, especially considering Dennis Brown's reply below (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't trust RHaworth's judgement. I haven't trusted it for some time. In particular, I consider him to be far too quick to use admin-only tools, like protecting pages or salting, rather than discussion. Three-drum boilers was a past case in point. There have been others I've noticed, but as they haven't been articles I've been heavily involved in, I don't recall which offhand.

        Speedy deletion is for deletion where there is either clear policy violation or an uncontroversial deletion. If it's controversial, we have AfD, not salt. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

        • Copyright violation is a clear policy violation. And that's what LeonardoCiampa's edit was. You've climbed on entirely the wrong bandwagon here by taking on LeonardoCiampa's doomed cause. LeonardoCiampa didn't write original content in xyr own words. Xe filched someone else's writing off a WWW site wholesale, merely changing a name for a pronoun here and there, and MadmanBot caught it. Xe's making a lot of noise over restoring a copyright violation that xe shouldn't have made in the first place. The whole A7 thing is just a red herring. This was a lazy substitution of copying for writing that has been rightly deleted on sight. I recommend that you climb off that particular bandwagon as soon as possible. Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• After reviewing the articles just before deletion, Kraftwurx seems to be a very straight forward A7 without question, imo. Tamara Brooks is a bit more complicated, but I don't see a clear indication of notability. There were copyvio issues and the article had been tagged for such, even if the delete summary didn't say as much. Several hours passed between creation and actual deletion, making the argument that not enough time had passed a particularly weak one. I can't find a fault in the struck comments, either. In the end, these seem to be perfectly reasonable deletions, that were adequately explained when RHaworth was questioned. Emailing a copy of a article doesn't require you to violate GFDL in creating the new article, although that would be optional if you chose. You could simply use it as a basis to research, and I took that as a sign of good faith, not a desire to sidestep copyright law, particularly since it wasn't "published", but sent privately. If you want to present evidence that he has been acting improperly, these would not be good examples. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Several hours passed between creation and actual deletion,"

Personally I consider that to be precipitate. This isn't a BLP. There's no content on either of these that had to be removed, merely a question over whether it was justified to keep it. What's the rush? Why should the input other editors be excluded in this case? Some of us have jobs or real things to be doing, not just spending all day on WP.

As to the A7 for Kraftwurx, then obviously I disagree with that, but as my original comment noted - this is a new field, this is a new player in that field, we don't yet know obviously whether they're going to be important long-term players in this field, or if there is as yet sufficient sourcing to support this. However this is why AfD isn't the same thing as speedy and why A7 is quite specific over that. Now I would ask RHaworth why a contested A7, and from someone who (as I've already been dismissed for) has no past connection with the article, should be reason to not only instantly over-ride this contestation and delete, but also to salt the article without any discussion with others? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that deleting with 6 or so hours is not always optimal, but I just don't think it is particularly rushed. It would be on the low side of acceptable in my opinion. We just disagree as to the threshold here, which is fine and both opinions are rational, just different. Tamara Brooks isn't salted, only Kraftwurx is, I suppose because that was the 4th creation. The others were long enough ago that I would be on the fence as to the necessity of salting. It isn't abuse, even if you think it wasn't required. If you had a version in userspace that was ready to move over and was proper, I can't fathom anyone not being willing to unsalt it for you. Whether the bio should have been A7ed instead of G12'ed, or the other salted, those are legitimate questions. The problem is taking them to ANI, out of process. Referring to his actions as a clear indication of arrogance or you being unnecessarily confrontational doesn't endear or persuade others to your cause, either. Even if you were right, it is seldom fruitful so I fail to see the point of doing so. It is pointy and undermines your argument, and the willingness and ability of others to consider your perspective. Again, in this case, I believe he was acting in good faith and within the accepted norms. You have to ask yourself if you were. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis, one quibble with your above comment -- A7 doesn't require notability to be established, just that importance is asserted. Conducting world-wide and working on a Grammy-nominated album are credible assertions of importance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  I did say "clearly indicated" not "established". I would equate "indicate" with "claim", although I see why it might cause confusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  The problem isn't between the adjectives, it's between the nouns. A7 deals with assertions of importance -- whether the topic is notable or not is not in question at this point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

  I got your point Sarek, that you think this one clearly does make the claim where as the assertion was less clear to me. I wasn't arguing against your interpretation, only clarifying my terms used. That I don't argue is often a sign that I agree. In the end, it was mis-logged and G12 was the real reason, as I mentioned. My primary consideration in this ANI is one of the admin's faith, not of criteria, since this isn't WP:DRV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The deletions seem reasonable but salting is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor. If I'm reading the logs correctly, that's not the case here; the articles should be unsalted. Nobody Ent 14:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well you certainly aren't reading the logs correctly if you think that one of them actually is salted in the first place. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • 21:19, 22 May 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) protected Kraftwurx‎ ‎[create=sysop] (indefinite) (AfD decision) (hist) Nobody Ent 15:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yup. That confirms it. You're not reading the logs correctly. Hint: What's two minus one? Uncle G (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Please, for the sake of those of us who don't have admin tools, please explain how you can tell that Kraftwurx isn't salted. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • You know, as the person who actually posted the two links right at the start of this section, you don't even have the potential excuse for not looking at both articles, when someone says "one of them", that Nobody Ent did. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I think what Uncle G is saying is that only one of the articles is salted. Kraftwurx definitely is, but Tamara Brooks is not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Uncle G has clarified on his talk page that his point is that I used the plural when, in fact, only one of the two articles in question is fully protected. Nobody Ent 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
          • There you go. The simple phrase "one of them" isn't really hard to understand in the context of two articles. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• @Dennis - a second quibble. Kraftwurx has not been re-created four times. Comments like "I suppose because that was the 4th creation." are particularly unhelpful in a situation like this when salt is involved, because it's simply not true and it strongly implies a tendentious creator where there isn't one. It has been created three times, and one of those was an undelete by the deleting admin after a questioned speedy, so that it could go to AfD. Now personally I count this as two creations, not four.. No doubt I'm about to receive a cryptic maths lesson from Uncle G as to why one creation plus one creation is now three, yet it still isn't going to make four. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• • I stand corrected, three deletes. But deleting at AFD [115] is meaningful as it means it was deleted by consensus not by a single person. Again, I'm not saying it should have been salted, and I probably would not have without a request to, I'm just saying on the face of it, salting doesn't look like abuse here. It was a judgement call. Some admins might have, some wouldn't have. There are a lot of steps between "correct", "optional", "not optimal", "mistaken", "bad faith" and "abuse". I can't see inside his head or heart, I can only look at the evidence you present and that I can dig up. Without more evidence, I'm forced to assume good faith in his actions, based on his words and the sequence of events. Even if I were to make the jump and agree that it was a mistake (and I haven't), that is not the same as your claim of "arrogant adminship", which I don't see here. I'm sorry that this isn't what you want to hear, but I can't come to any other conclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Userification

Based on RHaworth's concession (on his User:Talk) that the deletion of Tamara Brooks is likely not A7-worthy, I have restored it. But in order to give a chance for LeonardoCiampa to incorporate the sources mentioned in that same talk page thread, I have userified it to his user space. I hope all see this as a viable compromise between letting it remain as it was, and forcing LeonardoCiampa to construct a new article from scratch. I'm posting this here as I have been BOLD and taken admin action in the middle of an ANI discussion, and want to be sure that this does not cause problems/confusion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC) (Struck. Mooted by what's below. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

• You restored a copyright violation. I recommend that you immediately undo that very foolish act. Never undelete copyright violations, and think before you do anything like this at AN/I again. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I missed that in the history. Re-deleted, trout applied. Sigh - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Thank you. (Note to onlookers: This is how one avoids AN/I wheel wars.) Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Is there any real need to move the history back into place at Tamara Brooks? I agree that it should remain deleted, but it's currently deleted at the userified spot. Is this going to confuse the above discussion much, or can the deleted history just remain where it is? - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I'd just leave it gone where it is and not waste any more of our administrator tools on it. Uncle G (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• One of the difficulties of contested deletions like this is the bias it gives to admins (who can see the content) vs. editors (who no longer can). It appears to be claimed in this thread that Tamara Brooks should have been deleted as a G12 copyvio. Yet it wasn't, it was deleted as A7. TexasAndroid has my sympathy here - how could they be expected to know it was a copyvio (I certainly don't, I can't see it) if the deleting admin has instead used the much lesser condition of A7?

It's claimed that Kraftwurx should have been deleted as G4. It was also salted as "AfD decision". Yet the AfD didn't decide that. Nor is it (yet) general practice to salt immediately upon one AfD. It would be a particularly bad idea to G4 articles six months after an AfD, when the original question was over whether the article was premature. It's interesting to sometimes look at the talk pages of some very obviously notable topics and to see just which were AfDed or even deleted a few years ago, decisions that look particularly odd with hindsight. Almost as odd as the response to a challenged A7 not being an AfD or any attempt at discussion, but instead immediate deletion and salting.

If RHaworth's judgement is so beyond question, why is he applying A7s to things that clearly aren't A7s, as whether you think they're more or less worthy for retention than this, A7 is not the appropriate condition. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you fricking kidding me? Salting typically occurs because of repeated re-creation. Kraftwurx was deleted twice, then AFD'd. The AFD was the "final straw" - in other words, "the community agrees it should be deleted". The creation after that was the FOURTH - SALT was necessary, because the community decided - indeed, there was another CSD category that should have been used. The other situation is one where multiple CSD categories existed - the most strict should have been the one used. However, when an Admin sees the CSD's, we delete usually based on what that tagger provided - this time, A7 did in fact fit. Copyright would have been better, but A7 was still valid. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, for the sake of the lowly editor here who has neither the wisdom nor the log access of a lofty admin, please explain how this makes four creations.

Also please explain why Kraftwurx deserved deletion as a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: three. Your massive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is affecting my reading :-) It doesn't change the argument whatsoever. A7 was valid as tagged by the original editor, even though a better one was available. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Two. Not FOUR. Not even Three. One of those was a technical re-creation just so that it could go through AfD, rather than speedy. It was done by the deleting admin, not the article author. We are NOT starting to count those against authors as tendentious creators.

Also please either lose the abusive attitude towards me, or start proof-reading your postings more carefully. You've claimed that I haven't discussed this, even when I'd given you links. You've mis-counted the creations in a manner that significantly misrepresents the creating author. You've claimed that an article is a copyvio when there's either no evidence for this, or you're not even paying attention to which article you're out to delete. Putting a smiley after an accusation doesn't change it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're not willing to read, then there's no use even discussing. By the way, you are the only one abusing anything and anyone here. Really, filing an ANI report on someone who merely actionned CSD's .. you make it sound like they nominated it .. and even then, it's not an ANI'able incident. Now you're abusing the people who tell you you're dead wrong, and even show you where. Must be a slow news day in your neighbourhood today (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins: From my reading of this thread, you seem to be the only person claiming that the Kraftwurx article was a copyvio. The core of the deleted Kraftwurx article is three sentences of prose. Using Google, the references cited, and the company homepage, I cannot locate a page that they were copied from. If you claim that something is a copyvio, I think it's reasonable to expect you to support that claim on request. Bovlb (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I have never once stated that Kraftwurx was a copyvio. As such, I have no need to support a claim I never made (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"(Speedy deletion for) Copyright would have been better, but A7 was still valid." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please don't forget the words before that ... I clearly change to "the other situation" - meaning away from Kraftwurx - and onto the second deletion issue. Don't cherry pick to try and make some invisible point: obviously you're simply confusing people by doing so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As he is no longer making the claim, let's just move on, shall we? Bovlb (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As proven, I have never claimed it - made up, out of context shit should never have been brought up in the first place, so yes, please move on - ridiculous attempt at a red herring (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an explanation. Bovlb (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Did the same editor create the article each of the three times? Nobody Ent 23:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

They created it twice. There are also accusations on the AfD that they have some sort of COI. These are good reasons to delete it, but they're not reasons that can be investigated capably or transparently through a rapid speedy. The two creations were six months apart and non-admins can't see how close they were (as text). A third re-creation was a technical admin undeletion, so that it could go through AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Two creations six months apart? It's a stretch to call that "repeatedly." Nobody Ent 23:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the deletions were six months apart. I can't see (AFAIK) the creation dates. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was originally created by User:Bcn0209 on 2011-11-27T18:28:10, and subsequently re-created by User:Cwaldo39 on 2012-05-22T21:46:50. The text of the two creations is substantially different. Bovlb (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

It's interesting that WP:SALT is specific to recreation by an editor (singular). Perhaps Uncle G would care to deliver another of his little lectures (deeply patronising, if not plain abusive) on the importance, or not, of cardinality in this thread. A policy triggered by an action "repeatedly" used by one editor is seemingly OK if it's applied to actions of multiple editors, so long as we double count them, then claim that it was the community that decided this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is useful for articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated by an editor. must be a singular and can't be a plural, as only one editor can create each instance of the article. It doesn't say "the same editor", which would have been easy to say if that is what it meant. I had to go back and read that just to be sure, as that was an interesting idea, but I think flawed here. In my reading of English, it doesn't qualify how many different editors were involved in the different "new" versions, which makes sense. If 10 editors make the same article 1 time each, or 1 editor makes the same article 10 times, the problem is the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider two creations six months apart "repeatedly." Can someone please unprotect? RHaworth has declined but will not object to someone else doing it. Nobody Ent 00:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask Andy this: If I were to unsalt this (and I'm not saying that I am), what exactly do you expect to do with the article? If it was replaced with the same content that was there, I have to admit I would feel compelled to put my own CSD tag on it. Have you managed to source it better or add content that demonstrates it has a snowballs chance of passing AFD? I'm asking, is there a better version of this article ready to be put into place, or is this a purely academic exercise? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

False dichotomy. The standard condition of most article names is unprotected, per the assume good faith / anyone can edit Wikipedia ideal. Log out (if you have mop in hand) and look at Kraftwurx -- is their anything to tell a user not steeped in Wiki-trivia what the heck to do? Had I had to figure out how to do an unprotect request and wait for the backlog to clear I'd doubt I'd have bothered creating Print butter or Charley Morgan. Nobody Ent 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Given Andy's response to "I have e-mailed you the content. Feel free to draft a decent version and submit it via DRV" was to come here and whinge instead of something productive, I think you have the answer to what he really wants. So no, it's not a false dichotomy and unprotection isn't needed: Andy just needs to do it in a User subpage -- if he's actually serious. --Calton | Talk 01:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not about Andy. It's about the unknown future creator of Kraftwurx. I didn't know I was going to create Print butter until about half an hour before I did. Nobody Ent 01:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Then "unknown future creator" can feel free to draft a decent version and submit it via DRV, then. Except "unknown future creator" isn't the one whinging here, it's Andy Dingley. --Calton | Talk 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Andy Dingley is whinging here because of RHaworth's actions, not over Kraftwurx specifically.
        • This was tagged as A7. That's reasonable - articles have to make some claim of significance and maybe this one didn't. However IMHO, a contested speedy for A7, by an independent editor in good standing, ought to be accepted as just such a claim of such significance. Particularly when it's an obscure field that most editors don't have knowledge of, and when the A7 is marginal - this isn't some crappy pokemon article. Admins might be omnipotent, but they aren't omniscient. This didn't happen - instead RHaworth acted to delete it immediately, no discussion, to salt it and with their only response (after being repeatedly prompted) was to send a copy of the text. I saw this as more of a brush-off than any attempt to build a collaborative encyclopedia - still the same blunt rejection of the contested speedy, but hiding behind a defensible "thankyou for your enquiry" rubberstamp.
        • RHaworth appears to be using A7 as a default for a number of articles, no matter what their real issue is. Whether the article is deleted or not, this makes it hard for other editors (and in this case, at least one admin) to work properly around them.
        • Reactions since have been unimpressive. Miscounts of article creation and authorship, that place the article in a bad light as tendentious. Patronising comments about whether an article was salted or not. Cherry-picking of aspects of two different articles, so that Kraftwurx can be tarred by association as a copyvio, when that's certainly not true. Yet again, we have WP taking the line that admins are infallible and anyone complaining that they're not should be attacked instead.
      • I don't want to write Kraftwurx, I want to read it. They're in a field that's extremely interesting at the moment, a field that WP should be covering. Kraftwurx also have some "secret sauce" of their own (the management of outsourced digital manufacturing, rather than the manufacturing process itself) that's novel to them. At a time when the whole manufacturing industry is running around after these novel techniques, WP is deleting the articles or re-writing them to an even worse nonsense (this is a problem across the whole WP article grouping for 3D print etc.). It's not about whether Kraftwurx is notable to WP, it's about whether WP can be a competent resource for this serious commercial field. So far it can't.

        @Dennis - I don't intend to do anything with this article and I'm not required to. There is no requirement on contesting a speedy, especially not an A7, that the editor has to adopt or own the article before they have any voice against the speedy. It would be rather a bad thing too if there was. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

        • I'm not questioning your right to question a speedy. I'm only addressing my willingness to reverse another admin, out of process, for which I have to justify to the community as well. I don't go undoing and wheelwaring with admins, but would have considered unsalting for the purpose of creating a new article. That is the best I can do and myself stay within policy here. We normally don't use ANI for discussing unsalting, that would be DRV or RFPP, and considering the totality of circumstances, I can't unsalt without a forward moving reason. Others may do as they please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Switching discussion to DRV or RFPP would likely be considered shopping. Nobody Ent 11:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
            • And DRV is the place to go if you *have* an article to put there, and RFPP is the place to go if you don't, assuming the admin won't himself. ANI is the place to go if an admin acted improper, and it doesn't look like there is a consensus to demonstrate this, thus we are in limbo I suppose, at least for the day. What I'm failing to see it he urgency in this matter that requires we unsalt this now, without giving the salting admin the benefit of the doubt and perhaps a day to mull it over. At the very least, this pounding is an ineffective way to achieve one's goals. If my concern was truly only to get the article unsalted, this is not how I would be going about it as it is not likely to be successful and is only adding drama in an ANI that was started based on one editor's claim that an admin was acting arrogantly. Nobody, even if you disagree with my conclusions, you have to see the logic in not ramping this up and taking it to the proper venue, after a day or two. This only makes me regret offering a compromise, and less likely to do so in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
              • DB, you're missing the point -- what I'm saying is that posting on DRV and/or RFPP now would be likely be considered by some (if not yourself) as forum shopping, which is itself a form of escalation. I don't consider ANI the 'place to go if admin acted improper' and the words at the top of the page certainly don't say that. Blocking admin didn't say they opposed unsalting, just that they wouldn't do it -- but it was okay with them if we could find someone else. Just as Willie Sutton robbed banks for money, discussing an issue on ANI is pretty good place to find an admin someone.Nobody Ent 18:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
                • He didn't say it was ok, he said "I am not willing to do it but if you can persuade one of the admins taking part in this discussion to remove the protection, I shall not re-protect it.". That is only saying he will not wheel war or labor the issue. There is a distinct difference. Obviously he disagrees with it or he would unsalt it himself. I find that there is no need to read between the lines with RHaworth, he uses enough precision in his words that I try not to read more into them. As to ANI being the place for an admin acting improper, usually that would be an incident, and I would maintain that this is one available remedy. For example, Andy brought it here because he felt an admin acted improper, I don't begrudge him for that, I just think he is mistaken. I appreciate your passion Ent, I truly do, and I hate being on the other side of the aisle from you, but I don't see myself being persuaded. I will hold no grudge against anyone you can convince, but I'm certain it will not be me on this issue, and I hate to see you waste your time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, it's you who is attacking people, here. (Calton is a bit, too, which isn't really a good response.) You are picking a fight with everyone, right from the get-go, starting with falsely attributing "shut up" to someone who never said any such thing or anything like it and getting worse from there. You'll be picking on Nobody Ent next. It's a rather silly way of approaching other people in public. It is a rather disappointing comparison to see that LeonardoCiampa, whose cause you unwisely appropriated as your own, has in the meantime quietly and without any fuss understood the problem and gone about writing in xyr own words. Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I respectfully disagree. WP:RFPP's backlog is not that bad most days, I've been taking an interest there myself to insure this. I'm not willing to move backwards, only forward. As I don't think RHaworth was demonstrating (to use Andy's own words) a "general pattern of arrogant adminship", I don't feel my "correcting" him is proper or warranted. If RHaworth felt the salting was in error, he would correct it. If others want to reverse RHaworth, that is their decision. I am willing to unsalt out of process if there is an urgency due to an article ready to be installed that isn't simply recreating material already deleted at AFD and CSD, avoiding a CSD#G4 problem. In the interest of objectivity, I will be happy to let you, Nobody Ent, be the sole arbator in determining what is and isn't acceptable as meeting this criteria for the purpose my unsalting. If there isn't an article to be installed, then your point is moot for today, as there is no great urgency, and no reason to work out of process. In that event, WP:RFPP is the solution, which should be able to consider the merits in less than 24 hours. This is truly the best I can do. You are always welcome to ask others. As I'm off for the evening, I will have to revisit this tomorrow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• The reasons for unprotecting have nothing to do with RHaworth's alleged arrogance (not that I've seen any of that). Out of process is having the page protected: "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing, so that anyone can add material and correct errors" Nobody Ent 02:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• You've confused "dogma" with "purpose". --Calton | Talk 03:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Nobody Ent, I don't see valid justification for the salting. It doesn't matter if Andy is raising the issue politely or throwing a tantrum and screaming blue murder, the issue exists in either case. Ignoring a valid complaint simply because the person filing it hasn't been ideally polite is somewhat childish. Certainly, an article creator could jump over AFC/DRV/RFPP hurdles to create an appropriate article at this title (assuming they even knew to use those venues, since there are no instructions at Kraftwurx at all to help editors), but they shouldn't have to when these hurdles were put in place inappropriately to begin with. As Nobody Ent said, the default state of any unused article title is 'available', what is the valid justification for this title being different? – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 04:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• For speedy deletions, I apply create-protection when necessary, but there are only a few times when it is necessary: the first is when an editor persists in repeatedly trying the same impossible article after adequate warning. The length of the protection is merely that needed to stop them. Another is where multiple people , normally fans of something, try to create an article on something we have thoroughly determined is not notable nor likely to soon be notable. This can sometimes be for a fairly long period, and is the sort of case which might require DRV if the person does become notable--and DRV reverses such cases very quickly when there is decent evidence. I do not think this case warranted protection. But if the admin wouldn't remove it, I don't see why it wasn't simply taken to DRV. DRV has a reputation as being a particularly tricky arena, but it's better than AN/I because it gets focussed attention.

There's also been some discussion about what deletion reason to use when multiple ones apply. Like others, I use the most serious as the primary reason, but I also add the others. If it's copyvio and A7, or , more commonly for the sort of articles I work on, copyvio and G11, I of course use copyvio as the primary reason. But I add the other--particularly so the ed. won't respond, but I give you permission for it. A fuller explanation at first avoids problems later. However, like most other admins, if something seems clearly an A7 I don't usually look for copyvio also (I sometimes do for G11 in some topic areas if the wording makes it obvious, because they so often are).

just one other point. When editor a tags for speedy, and admin b deletes it, the burden for errors in deletion is that of admin b. Admins are there to check, & are appointed on the basis that we know what needs checking and how to do it. I look on the tag as saying, "hey, i call this to your attention". Making the judgment on what to do is my responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

But in cases like this, where the consensus is split as to whether or not the article should be salted, the admin has salted (in good faith), and he refused to unsalt, do we force his hand at ANI? I would conclude that we don't, and instead handle it in other venues, as we have shown there is no urgency in the matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

We do not disagree. DRV is the correct venue. Only if an admin continues doing some particular sort of thing that is regularly reversed at DRV, then is the time to come here. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity at WP:SALT - discussion elsewhere

That wording "repeatedly recreated by an editor" seems ambiguous. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#SALTing_-_wording_seems_ambiguous in the hope it can be clarified. PamD 07:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Child-p*rn-like image

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.

---

While I am not familiar with the specific policies on :en, I assume that the picture (attention! graphic) that has been added[116] a moment ago by single-edit user Implying implications (talk · contribs) to article Ecchi might be considered as child-p*rn. --Túrelio (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh... cartoon porn yeah. Child? I don't see it. Japanese often leave out the hair in their cartoon porn, in case that's your only evidence. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the filename (girls ...), freely choosen by the uploader, and there is 18 USC § 2256, which defines minors as any person under the age of eighteen years. Besides, the username of the uploader to Commons (User:Comemierda), likely identical to the above mentioned editor, doesn't suggest Japanese origin. --Túrelio (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

When's the last time you saw the word "woman" in relation to porn? See for instance Girls Gone Wild. Not that I would be familiar with such things. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The account seems to have been created for the purpose; ditto for the differently-named account which put the image onto commons. I can think of one editor who sometimes makes pointy edits in this area, but they're not currently blocked and don't strike me as the sockpuppeting type... bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I know plenty of women who refer to each other as "girls" on the stated grounds that "women are old". Meanwhile, "come mierda" is Spanish for "eat sh*t", and I'm surprised no one caught that and blocked the guy immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Both editor ID's have been indef'ed on commons. Someone could do that here, too, if they were of a mind to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

So ruled per Bugs. Thanks Bugs. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 26 May 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.

Removing a tag and refusing to discuss

I have been editing Wikipedia for a few years now and I have seen a lot. However, I have never encountered a clique users who simply refuse to discuss. Therefore, I have no idea how to deal with this - that is why I came here. Please see the following edits: [117] and [118], as well as [119] and [120]. There seems to be a clique of users that prevent the rest from changing anything in the article and they do so by refusing to discuss anything. Please see the discussion I started about this. Four other issues have been raised as well, with users trying to improve the article being reverted without any explanation, let alone a reasonable one. I have been unsuccessfully begging for reasonable arguments. If I ask why that fact (a piece of trivia) is notable, the answer I get is 'because'. In the words of an experienced user who I respect very much (and who happens to have brought many articles to FA status): it doesn't matter what you say or do at those articles - you will still be misinterpreted, misrepresented, hated and vilified, because even attempts to find a middle ground or help are immediately attacked unless you are a part of the favored clique. Surtsicna (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Just something to consider -- this is a featured article. That tends to mean it has a lot of competent editors work on the page, and that it's generally a relatively well composed page. Not saying changes can't be made, but I am saying a lot of people have reviewed the page and found it to be of an exceptional quality.JoelWhy (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing the article's quality. I am just shocked to see that I am simply not allowed to propose a change, much like several other users on that talk page. See Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#"King Don Francesco I", Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Bias, Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies#Excess ordinal use, etc. Those are all issues noticed after the article appeared on the main page. Those issues remain unresolved because the mentioned users refuse to provide any sensible arguments. Surtsicna (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies was Today's Featured Article on last 23 May (two days ago). Editor Surtsicna has insisted on removing the sourced information that she was a descendant of King Louis XIV of France. Met with opposition and no support, he has added a "relevant" tag into the text. His edit was reverted by three different editors.[121][122][123] He reverted them all.[124][125][126]

I tried to reason with him, reaching him on his talk page. As you can see on the conversation between us both I was kind and polite to him. I gave up when I realized he was following my history log. Others tried to talk to him (Astynax and Limongi) but they also gave up. It's useless. See here. He won't listen to anyone. There is not a single person who agrees with him and he still doesn't care. I'd like someone to ask him to stop, please. --Lecen (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not true that I was watching his history log. It is a pretext used to justify the lack of "politeness" after realising that there are no arguments against my proposal whatsoever. Anyway, here is my share of politeness. You can see me begging there for arguments and explanations. There are users who agree with me but I do not blame them for not speaking up. In fact, a user considered reporting Lecen but decided not to because the article was being displayed on the main page. As can be seen at Talk:Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies, there are currently four users attempting to discuss with Lecen and experiencing the same thing I am - battle ground mentality for which he was already blocked for seven days in January 2012. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is there some reason that WP:BRD isn't being followed here? I suggest this page be full protected, the reverting has been going on for a couple days. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• "I hereby start a formal discussion about…" Way to piss people off ;) Seems to me the "clique users" is acting as stewards of a Feature Article (often used by /poor/ cliques, but not ours;). Too bad Drmies got the last revert in with a really strong message; Jack would have waded in. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've looked further, and suggest others do the same. Surtsicna seems to be being quite disruptive on a fair number of articles. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, Mary of Teck, more... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  Please note that User:Br'er Rabbit was recruited by Lecen. The edits referred to as disruptive by User:Br'er Rabbit were [127] and [128]. Yes, changing the width of the picture from 250px to the default 215px is what he called disruptive. He then followed me to the article about Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil, and reverted this edit saying that it was unhelpful. (Even though I cited WP:See also as reasoning and he provided no arguments whatsoever). It appears that he only reverts my edits in order to start an edit-war, so that I eventually get blocked. For the first time in a long while, I actually feel bullied. Surtsicna (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  And I've suggested to Drmies that you be blocked. Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Surtsicna appears to have a history of disruptive edits and edit-warring across various articles. In this specific article, he continually tried to impose his POV despite the objections of several editors. None of the opposing arguments were deemed sufficient [by him], so he kept unilaterally imposing his will. I hope we can resolve this issue asap, so we can get back to discussing more productive things. Limongi ^(talk) 23:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I've just spent ten minutes fixing Surtscina's move of Elisabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary to Elizabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary....reason given There doesn't seem to be a reason to spell her name Elisabeth. Obviously not tried looking in a book. In moving Surtscina left behind half a dozen double redirects (that AvicBot 'fixed' and I've just had to unfix), and made not the slightest attempt to edit the article which refers to the lady as "Elisabeth" throughout. AGF is all well and good, but that's crawling towards disruptive in my view.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks; see parallel drama below @#User trying to provoke an edit war. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I closed the thread below. You'll have noticed by now I warned Surtsicna for edit-warring over that citation note. Indeed I was asked on my talk page to block this person, but hey, I just came back to this lovely board after pooltime, cocktail time, TV time, dinnertime, kidstobedtime, so I don't want to be the one blocking at this moment. Given Elen's comment above, I'd say this editor is skating on very thin ice, and the pool temperature is 86. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to note

I just wanted to note that, at least in this discussion, Surtsicna has a fairly decent point. Why are certain ancestors chosen to be included in the article over others? Saying that they're in the source is irrelevant, as there are other sources that point out other ancestors of Cristina as well (one of which Surtsicna linked to). Why these ones specifically and how can one say that they are the most relevant to include? Seems like in terms of ancestry, it should be all or nothing, discuss all of the relevant, notable ancestors in the lineal line or discuss none of them (all of them is clearly preferable, since ancestry is important). Any picking and choosing of what ancestor to mention is just plain bias, even if you are "just following the sources".

It seems like there is some sort of clique thing going on here. I'm not defending Surtsicna's edit warring, but I am pointing out that this is not so cut and dry as it seems and that Lecen, Astynax, and Limongi did not provide a proper response in that discussion in regards to the question of ancestry. Silverseren^C 03:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's a valid point, Silver seren. We got an explanation on Talk:Pedro, Prince Imperial of Brazil; I hope we can look forward to one on the Teresa article that explains how this ancestor is special, so to speak. But the edit-warring point remains, and the rather POINTy second thread is there as well, plus the move (Elisabeth-->Elizabeth)--and see Talk:Elisabeth of Poland, Queen of Hungary, a proper consensus reached on a previous move initiated by Surtsicna, where this move was done without consensus. So they know how to do it properly, begging the question of why they didn't do it properly this time. (That s/z thing is a big deal! I had to fight over it for my Elisabeth.) Anyway, "cut and dry"--that's rarely so. But here we have a. a matter that probably shouldn't have been taken to ANI and b. well, I hate to say it, a pattern of editing against consensus. There may well be a clique, but clique building is part of consensus building, and this (that is, the original matter) should have been dealt with differently. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The moment you falsely accused us of being a clique, Silver seren, you made me lose any good will to think about wasting my time discussing this issue. Perhaps you're unaware, but Astynax and I are the two editors who wrote the article from top to bottom and brought it to FA standard. The other editors whom you accused of being part of a clique are members of the Empire of Brazil task force, people who are actually interested in the Brazilian imperial history, unlike Surtsicna, who's trying to pick a fight with anyone who cares. Louis XIV is mentioned because Teresa Cristina is a member of the House of Bourbon and he is the most famous Bourbon, regardless if French, Spanish or Italian Bourbon. --Lecen (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"Louis XIV is mentioned because Teresa Cristina is a member of the House of Bourbon and he is the most famous Bourbon, French, Spanish or Italian" - I thought that might be the case, and thanks for providing the answer. No offense, but that response (albeit somewhat obvious) might have diffused the situation if provided on the article's talk page earlier in the process. Thanks again, JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Joe, did you see the article's history log? Surtsicna began by simply removing the sourced content merely because he didn't like it. We reverted what he did. It was I the one who talked to him on his talk page. He didn't bother to talk to any of the article's usual contributors nor to create a discussion on the article's talk page. When I gave up on him, he insisted on removing the content, other intervened and only then was that he created a thread on the article's talk page. When he was met with opposition from everyone, what did he do? He started adding tags to the article, claiming that one gave him a good reason. He forgot to remember that it was he the one who should give any reason and to wait for consensus. We tried to talk to him, he didn't listen. --Lecen (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Am I the only person here who believes that it doesn't make sense at all this entire mess only because of the information that said that Louis XIV is the ancestor of a dead 19th century Brazilian empress? Was it truly necessary to one single editor start an edit war in an article he never cared and report several other editors at the ANI? I wonder if five editors are just wrong and only one is correct. He should have been blocked two days ago. There it is. I said it. --Lecen (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.2: Just saw the "User trying to provoke edit war" below. It seems Surtsicna wants to see anyone who disagrees with him blocked. --Lecen (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No need to be so aggressive. I was merely making a point that the responses in that discussion were along the lines of "This is a Featured Article, featured articles can't be changed" and "That's what's in the source, we only use what's in that source". That's what i'm viewing as the issue here. If all of you had made the explanation that you did above in that thread discussion in the first place, instead of invoking some sort of Only This Source Clause and some Featured Article Invulnerability Clause, that discussion may have gone completely differently and we likely wouldn't be here right now. Silverseren^C 05:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Legolover26

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:Legolover26

Blocked for username, impersonating an administrator: [129]. Next edit will notify. Dru of Id (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• They are not blocked for username. They added that fake template themselves. Time for Drmies to get medieval on them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know impersonating an administrator was not allowed. I removed the admin logo from my page. But impersonating a banned person is allowed, right? Legolover26 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please read WP:UP. Misleading by using improper templates would not be an approved use of your user space. And honestly, I find it difficult to believe you really thought impersonating an admin was ok. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Why would you think that impersonating an admin was allowed ... and just for the record, would you care to explain why you did so? Ravenswing 21:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm confused. What's the problem with the username? They removed that icon already, so I don't see the problem here. Legolover, I don't understand your question either. Are you asking if it's OK to walk like Bambifan101 or talk like Dragon2016?? You have my permission, if you can figure out either one, but I don't think that's what you're asking. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry. I removed the admin logo and the banned template from my page. Now is there anywhere where I can find a list of wikipedia rules, concise and all in one place, so that I do not break any again? Legolover26 (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can find the rules in the Help section. The rules can be quite complicated, so people routinely violate rules without realizing it until a more experienced user points it out to them. (I've certainly made my fair share of such mistakes.) But, impersonating an admin? Come on, that's just common sense. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it for a second that this was an innocent mistake.JoelWhy (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:HELP is a good place to get info. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so our goal is to create and maintain articles. Anything that is disruptive, misleading, confusing or otherwise not toward that goal has the potential to be a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say the rule you broke here was don't tease the bears. —Tamfang (talk) 20:15, 25 May 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.

Webcomic COI

Veled (talk · contribs) seems to have an axe to grind. Before May 7, Veled was only a very sporadic editor. I nominated Last Res0rt, an article they edited heavily, for deletion. They viciously defended it in the AFD, but it still closed as "delete". Afterward, they came out to !vote in other webcomic AFDs I started: 1/0 (web comic), Dominic Deegan: Oracle for Hire, Jack (webcomic), Sequential Art (webcomic) and ‪The Whiteboard‬. Whiteboard and Last Resort were both closed as "delete", while the others are still open.

Another user called out Veled for COI since their interests are similar to those of the Last Res0rt author's, and they responded "there is no proper way to respond to alleged COI". I just find it strange that, after years of near-inactivity, this user has crawled out of the woodwork to clash with me on webcomic AFDs. They also seem not to realize that consensus has proven that Web Cartoonist's Choice Award and Ursa Major Award, per consensus of prior AFDs, are not notable awards sufficient for WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Truth be told, if Veled has an axe to grind solely because he's chiming in on multiple webcomic-related articles, wouldn't that mean you have an axe to grind, solely because you're filing multiple webcomic-related AfDs? Well, now, I don't actually figure you hate webcomics ... simply that you stumbled across one article you thought wasn't notable, filed on it, found another that wasn't notable, filed on that, and then thought to yourself "Darn, I'd better look over this whole bloody mess." But if you'd like AGF to apply to you, there's no reason it shouldn't apply to someone who genuinely believes in the notability of these articles.

  Now if Veled is misapplying WP:WEB - although I'd much rather see a consensus there instead of inferring one from AfD votes - that's one thing ... but I don't believe it's an ANI-worthy deal. Ravenswing 21:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• He does seem to be misapplying WP:WEB, as many of his arguments present trivial mentions ("Such and such webcomic creator will have a booth at some non-notable con", "I read webcomics, such as X Y and Z") as if they were reputable third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• So what makes this any more a matter for ANI than the hundreds of other editors who vote on specious grounds in AfDs? Ravenswing 21:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• The likely COI? The single mindedness of the account, which has done literally nothing but !vote in AFDs for the past few months? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a policy against that somewhere? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• I find that someone voting just one way in a bunch of similar AfDs, without doing any other editing, a valid ground to rebut the person's POV. I do not find it - and so far you have no other support for the assertion - good enough to warrant blocks or topic bans. Ravenswing 10:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why not just leave this for AfD in the normal way. . TPH, you've found it necessary to first, bring objections to an article here to be discussed at an/i, and second, to ask an admin who you expected would be sympathetic to you to close the AfDs .If consensus agrees with you, the articles will be deleted; if consensus agrees with the other side, they won't be. I suggest to you that, like most zealous efforts here, it may be self-defeating. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Let the AfDs run their course. Assume that whoever closes them will exercise due diligence by discounting specious arguments (i.e., those not grounded in policy). If you think their arguments are particularly nefarious, then respond to them directly, and/or tag them with {{spa}}. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

ThingstoFollow attacking other users and making hate lists

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.

---

Thingstofollow will not leave Jac16888 and me alone and keeps send us rude messages and warning us of personal attacks!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 06:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Thingstofollow

Duplicate thread

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

This user has made numerous personal attacks. It started tonight with this. The user proceeded to edit war on that admin's talk page (see history) to add more personal attacks. This edit summary was also quite unacceptable. After a final warning, the user proceeded to keep adding a hate list to his own talk page (see also [130]). I request a block of at least 1 week, if not indefinite.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

also Thingstofollow has a history of uncivil behavior, he called one user an idiot and said 'so fix it retard' in an edit summary--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 06:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Has been blocked indef, had I been awake I would have done it myself, since he's either a troll or just doesn't get it--Jac16888 ^Talk 09:09, 26 May 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.

Hounding by IP 41.242.118.144

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 wonder if someone could have a word with anon IP 41.242.118.144 (talk · contribs) for repeatedly hounding me on my talk page after I have asked him/her to stop. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked, not just for hounding Cresix, but for personal attacks like this one. I note that this is a shared IP belonging to a South African ISP.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done 1 week. Also 2 weeks of semi-protection via the request at RFPP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:28, 26 May 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeilN

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.

---

Please block this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NeilN he or she has been reverting true information and art from articles. He or she also starts fights with people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbsowlerd (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 May 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 Block Request

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 69.211.127.185 keeps adding un-cited text to the Park City, Illinois page about it being known as a police speed trap. I've reverted twice and don't want to violate the 3reverts rule. I'm requesting an admin to pick this up and deal with it appropriately. Cheers, Dkriegls (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC) resolved Dkriegls (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)not for ANI, this is a content issue which has now been resolved. Article talkpage discussion is good, though you didn't notify them of the ani complaint, you need to do that in future. Penyulap ☏ 19:22, 26 May 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 Block Request

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.

---

Users user:OpenFuture, user:Earl King Jr. and user:Tom harrison keep deleting fully cited text from the [[resource-based economy] article. (This request only concerns the section of the article titled 'Alternative Use' [i.e., alternative use of the term 'resource-based economy'.])

I've reverted twice and don't want to violate the 3 reverts rule.

From looking at the talk page, user:OpenFuture, user:Earl King Jr. and user:Tom harrison seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012, 12 March 2012 and 25 May 2012‎, respectively.

From the day of their first involvement in the article to date, the only edits they provided have been deletions/ reversions of fully cited edits, always reverting the article to its skeletal, bare-bones, un-encyclopedic form.

Starting on 12 May 2012,‎ I began the process of providing several additional reliable sources, and began to cite from these sources. Essentially all these citings have been deleted/ reverted by the three users above, always reverting the article back to its skeletal form.

This is the article including the citations: [131]

This is the article after a typical deletion: [132]

I'm requesting an admin to block these three users from continuing to censor the article.

Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that you tried to resolve this dispute on the article's talk page, and then employed the standard dispute resolution procedures, before coming here? Can you provide some diffs to these past attempts? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried extensively to resolve this dispute on the article's talk page, and I'll be happy to provide diffs to these numerous attempts, but I've not tried the standard dispute resolution procedure. Do you feel I should employ the dispute resolution before coming here? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that this appears to be a dispute over content, yes, of course. Hie thee to WP:DR. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me as if at least one of your sources is Talk:Resource-based economy/Translations/Globes which you translated. Any other Wikipedia pages you used as a source? Also why is this vandalism? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I translated two sources from Hebrew to English and used both as sources. The other one is Talk:Resource-based economy/Translations/TheMarker. The policies I followed are WP:PAIC#Foreign-language_quotations and WP:Translation. Note that the first policy fully applies to the translation of a foreign-language source into English, but the second policy (WP:Translation) does not exactly fully apply, because WP:Translation is focused on the translation of foreign-language WP articles into the English WP; it does not discuss the translation of foreign-language sources (primary or secondary sources) into English. However, WP:Translation is the only other WP policy I could find on translations (in addition to WP policy on Foreign-language_quotations). WP:Translation even encourages students to work on translating foreign-language WP articles into English as student projects. (However, as I said before, translating foreign-language WP articles is not the same as translating foreign-language sources.) In other words, from both WP policy on foreign-language translations and WP:Translation, it seems that WP policies call for the community to assume good faith in its editors when it comes to translations from foreign languages into English. And I currently don't see a problem with using a WP talk page as the physical location to store the translation. (If I'm wrong on this, please let me know.) One of the editors on the talk page of resource-based economy repeatedly claimed that because I've stored the translation on a WP talk page, then the translation is a WP article, and WP articles cannot be used as sources. I explained in response that storing a (translation) of a source on a WP talk page does not turn the source into a WP article, and that the only issue of importance is the reliability and quality of the source (and verifiability, etc.), not the source's physical storage location. (Again, if WP policies indicate that I'm wrong on this, please let me know.)

Regarding your second question, perhaps I should have used the term censorship instead of vandalism. The reason I'm asking to block the three users is because the evidence shows they are only interested in blocking the development of this article, i.e., censoring it. They had ample time to find reliable sources, and cite from these sources (from looking at the talk page, user:OpenFuture, user:Earl King Jr. and user:Tom harrison seem to have been involved with the article since at least 26 February 2012, 12 March 2012 and 25 May 2012‎, respectively). Instead they only engaged in reversions of citations from reliable sources, and in voicing their opinions on the talk page, while ignoring my pleas to base their comments on WP policies, and ignoring the substance of my comments.

This is a content dispute not something that needs to be handled here. If you feel they are edit warring you should take it to WP:ANEW. Otherwise you should discuss why you think the version you want should be in the article on the article's talk page. GB fan 19:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but no one mentioned this topic above here where OpenFuture complains about personal attacks by IjonTichyIjonTichy. I don't why, but I have a feeling they don't get along.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 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.

Sock IP needed talk page access revoked

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 talk:86.169.80.113‎ Would someone be so kind as to stop Nangparbat from editing this talk page, I do not appreciate the last edit summary anyone would see is my being called a racist. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the edit summaries, but please stop engaging him on his talk page. I don't think a revocation of his talk page privs is really warranted at the moment; if he keeps insulting you after you've disengaged, then I'll reblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:47, 26 May 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.

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar

This spammer pollutes talk pages. Isn't there a text based (not url based) black list for edits? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. All the Talk additions come from static IPs in Croatia (two I checked anyway). There isn't that I know of, but happy to be corrected. There is an editfilter though... --92.6.200.56 (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently he Canada now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • • (Oops, looks like I screwed up with the IP geolocation lookup, that IP was from Croatia as well. To correct myself, so far all IPs are from Croatia.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • ...which now kind of begs the question: Is he using a proxy? Has he physically moved to Canada? Or is there more than one person involved? The IPs 78.2.79.80, 85.114.62.130, 78.2.55.142, 78.2.110.71, 78.2.98.212, 78.2.104.52, 78.2.71.253, 78.2.55.63, 93.137.33.90 and 78.2.119.173 are from Rijeka, Primorsko-Goranska, Croatia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• I don't see the point of specifically filtering a string of text, because the string of text can then be changed to anything. If I was Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar and my trademark opening was filtered, I'd change my trademark opening to "Writer from Croatia, G. Kravar" or something. I mean, I'm in agreement with STC, but there's probably other solutions as well. Has anyone tried to specifically approach this person and tell them about WP:NOTFORUM and whatnot? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• Notice: It looks like his spamming isn't confined to Wikipedia: Wikipedia search "Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar", Google search "Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar". There's also a few in article namespace, e.g. Mile Budak (current revision). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 21:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• This may or may not be important, but I came across this self-described writer's website (in Croation, but Google translate helped with that). but he appears to have a list of the things he injected into the talk page articles. He also describes himself on the same page as "a permanent staff of the World encyclopedia Wikipedia" Here's the link, via Google translator Interestingly though, all the items there are dated April 24 2012. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• You can add 77.2.68.77 to the list. [133] for example.... Oh, 'Canadian wikipedia editor Dave Brodbeck has had just about enough of this....' Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

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:RJC is trying to introduce WP:OR on American Academy of Financial Management article. We can edit content based on WP:RS, can we interpret violating WP:POV and edit content based on WP:RS?EconomicTiger (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR, RJC's edits accurately reflect the facts presented in the Wall Street Journal article. In any case this is a content dispute to be discussed on the article's talk page, not brought to AN/I, since there's nothing for admins to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 27 May 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 user IjonTichyIjonTichy

IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs · email) refuses to engage in constructive discussion (and even admits it) and instead resorts to personal attacks.

Not only is there the normal accusations that those that oppose his changes (mentioned in the above link) doesn't read what he says, or know Wikipedia policies, and all that normal stuff, he yesterday called us [immature and lazy. I warned him about personal attacks but they continue today calling me childish, juvenile and Orwellian (interesting mix).

Something needs to be done so that IjonTichyIjonTichy understands that he needs to stop the insults and engage in constructive discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy needs to be more mature and stop calling other editors immature, but it's hardly the stuff for ANI. Based on the topic below that IjonTichyIjonTichy brought and has been effectively dismissed as a content dispute, I think I'd focus on the content issues and dispute resolution rather than on the sniping and escalating the drama at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Its beyond a content dispute. Open Future is correct but its not just about name calling. IjonTichyIjonTichy is spamming the article in question with original research and appears to be an advocate devotee to the subject of the article who will not give others a debate even but insists on returning the same obscure and o.r. stuff over and over into the article. that is my opinion of what is going on. If anything he could have a time out on the article.. maybe stay away from it for a while since zero people there agree with his edits. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. And all of these issues could be ironed out if IjonTichyIjonTichy engaged in constructive debate, instead of namecalling. I'm dissapointed that no admin is willing to tell him that. He obviously doesn't listen to us. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

report use of abusive language and threat

User:Sitush has used the f* word (foul abusive word) [134] directed to me on talk page of the article Talk:Saint Thomas Christians. He is very aggressive and gets annoyed and aggressive whenever people do not agree to anything he says and ironically he then goes on accusing users of engaging in POV edit. He keeps on accusing me of being involved in disruptive editing when actually he is in dispute all over the wikipedia [135] and now he has used an f* word on me. He complained about me to an administrator who without bothering to check all the details threatened to block me [136]. The administrator also threatened to block User:InarZan for no reason whatsoever [137] as he is a relatively new editor on the page without any disruptive editing. I have been caught up in edit conflict with a cohort of editors with agenda who systematically remove any mention of Jewish heritage of the Saint Thomas Christians even though I have given citations, quotes and page numbers from peer reviewed research papers. They delete anything I state regarding the Jewish heritage of the said people and then they accuse me of being disruptive and threaten that I would be banned from the page [138]. User:Sitush uses threat of blocking and indefinite banning from editing page in order to prevent me from editing [139]. I have provided numerous peer reviewed citations and complete quotes from page numbers for my addition of statements. Yet this user together with a cohort of 4-5 editors deletes anything that I post regarding Jewish origin of the Saint Thomas Christians. They remove all the peer reviewed citations that I cite on the pretext of "no consensus" [140]. Yes there is no consensus. How could there be consensus when people with agenda gang up together. Does that mean one should never write about the Jewish origin of the Saint Thomas Christians even though there are plenty of WP:RS from peer reviewed research papers along with quotes and page numbers?? I took the issue to WP:DRN [141] but did not get any external feedback. I put up a lot of references and quotes regarding the matter on the dispute resolution noticeboard in discussion to one of the editors. After there was no response to my post on WP:DRN I put up those new sources and points to the article. This was removed [142]. I am sure the cohort of editors would gang up again on this page against me as they did on the WP:DRN accusing me of disruptive editing and discredit me [143]. But then I realize that for them to gang up against me is natural anyway. They are not even allowing me to make a comment on the talk page and declares any statement of mine as disruptive [144]. But there is no problem with one of their cohort using such an abusive foul language. Their partisan stance is self evident. thanks Robin klein (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the situation there, and as is typical the problem lies not with Sitush, but rather the editors who are fighting with him. Sitush didn't make any ban threats, I did, because both Robin klein and InarZan have shown a complete lack of ability to neutrally write on the topic and a propensity to toss out obfuscatory screeds of text that say a lot but fail to actually address the point. My surprise isn't that Sitush said "For fuck's sake", it's that it took so long; the level of deafness is absolutely staggering. If this weren't at ANI, I'd just unilaterally apply article bans to Robin klein and InarZan myself, but since it's here I'd like to hear other admins' opinions on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blade. I have been reading the article's talk page and my eyes are bleeding... Robin, you show a troubling amount of WP:IDHT... I suggest you withdraw this complaint before it boomerangs on you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Same here. I tried to read this a while ago, since I was looking into some troubling edits by JacobYohannan (talk · contribs). Such a topic ban for Robin klein would be fine with me, and possibly for Inar Zan as well. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Robin Klein and Inar Zan. Agree with Blade, Salvio, and Drmies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dunno about the article mess but to get upset over 'a for fuck's safe' seems a bit overdone. Or, to put it crudely, for fuck's sake for fuck's sake is a generic phrase not directed at anyone in particular. --regentspark (comment) 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly support a topic ban for Robin klein and Inar Zan, looking over things. Among other things, an editor so touchy as to go ballistic over the mere presence of the word "fuck" in a response should be editing in calmer places. Ravenswing 22:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay I apologize if I have been harsh to anyone at all. I apologize again if I have offended anyone. If you think I have been unfair to anyone at all and I shall withdraw this right now. How do I do this. What is the right procedure to withdraw this? Should I just delete this. Is that the right procedure. thanksRobin klein (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from sub-continental caste and group articles for Robin klein and InarZan per the community General sanctions on caste. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Robin Klein and InarZan across social-group articles per WP:GS ([145]). This has been going on way too long -- on looking through contribution history a few hours back, I figured that I'm involved too as this related mess has been going on at multiple articles including Nedumpally and for years now. Given the discussion on general sactions, TBotNL or Salvio should be able to enact this on their own, rather than wait for consensus. —SpacemanSpiff 05:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Dear User_talk:SpacemanSpiff I have never edited the page Nedumpally as you say. Please check the history of the page. Much of the page is edited by User:Ashley thomas80. Are you going to make me a scapegoat for edits I have not made? thanks Robin klein (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Can you people give me some reason for categorizing me with User:Robin klein? We are not together in any sense and each one should be judged for their own activity. Punishing me for the fault of someone else whom I barely know is not at all fair. I have never engaged in any edit wars, personal attacks, etc. When User:The Blade of the Northern Lights accused me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I asked him an explanation which was not given. I shall repeat it:

  Dear Admin, would you mind explaining why you should think of putting a topic ban on me? Have I engaged in any disruptive editing, personal attacks or edit wars, anything? You mentioned WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT which as far as I know applies to those editors who have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input. Here what brings me under this guideline? Which viewpoint I am keeping against any reached consensus? - InarZan Verifiable 09:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  Your behaviour has been disruptive, in my opinion, but not in the same way Robin's has. From your contributions to the talk page, you appear intent on pushing your own POV, [146]. That said, regarding Robin and speaking personally, I'd consider this a warning and would rather not impose a topic ban yet. Since any admin can unilaterally impose them, pursuant to the general sanctions in place, I don't think this should prove to be too burdensome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Obotlig

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 editor has begun inserting unsourced claims on articles of various Norse gods, claiming them to be alive and part "of the sole legitimate government of the planet Earth": 1, 2, 3. The editor also claims removal of these edits constitute BLP-violations and libel 1, 2. When warned about inserting this unsourced nonsense the editor replies with this: ":This is absurd. What source does there need to be for people who are obviously alive being alive? Perhaps you would like a demonstration? How big of an asteroid do you want?"

I am not quite sure what is at work here, perhaps a compromised account, perhaps a mental breakdown or perhaps just ordinary trolling. Any way it seems to be a user that presently has WP:COMPETENCE problems. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have stopped modifying the content of the articles and I will not post any more material to the article talk pages. If questions of mental competency were to be widely applied there are quite a few editors who believe very peculiar things, or have obvious intellectual inadequacies. I will leave article space alone completely. Please do not block my account. I am the owner of this account and the only user of it since creation. Obotlig (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. Just out of curiosity, how long have you known Skaði? [147] Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• I have a personal relationship with Skaði... DeCausa (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Obotlig, if you're never going to edit article space again, why do you need an account? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

He could do work with files.--Rockfang (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't mean I would never edit any articles again with this account again. I will stop this and any tangentially related edits in this vein to article or article talk space. I don't really intend to edit any articles on the English wikipedia in the near future, but should I edit any here or on other wikipedias I will not introduce material you (plural) are likely to find incredible, bizarre or unsourced. I have known Skaði for a very long time, she is my wife. Obotlig (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess this can be closed as resolved with the assurances from the editor that they would not introduce such material again. However based on statements like the one above, I would suspect Wikipedia:NOTTHERAPY applies, and at least some watchful eyes on the editors contributions in the near future would still be useful. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF, WP:NPA. Obotlig (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:COMPETENCE. The repeated insistence that mythological figures are not only alive but that you are in fact married to one leaves only the conclusion that you are trolling at best. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Obotlig, I must admit I am tempted to block you for disruption; however, before doing that, I'd like you to answer two questions: first, can you provide a reasonable explanation for your edits and, second, have you ever edited under any other account? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've stopped the edits; I won't do it anymore. It was a lapse in judgment. If I may be deluded about one thing, and have agreed to completely stop editing about it, but am otherwise fair and agree to the same truthiness of things as the majority of editors and reliable sources, I would appreciate being able to continue editing within the guidelines of Wikipedia. The reasonable explanation for the edits is that I know women who claim to be Frija and Skadi, I believe them, and other similarly credible and seemingly sane women claim to be similar figures from Norse mythology, and are able to repeatedly demonstrate more than human cognitive abilities, and are in appearance more than human seeming (they have a remarkable beauty and presence). Let's assume I am deluded or being tricked. I will leave the topic alone completely. I felt an obligation to protect the apparent reputation of those persons but obviously it is going to be viewed as absurd. I understand that. I have also edited with the account User:Fixentries but I wanted a fresh started and not to be persecuted by parties that may have been antagonized or baited by off-Wikipedia activities which could reasonably be linked to that account. That is the honest truth. I will admit the apparently delusional thinking and cease any behavior in that regard in article or talk space. I don't wish to seem like I am whining, but I wonder if there would be such a rush to block me if I had beliefs relating to the authenticity or historicity of figures in other religions, had a lapse in judgment, and agreed to stop promoting those beliefs. Similarly I fear retaliation for political or social beliefs I might be perceived to have even if I am not inappropriately promoting them in articles. Thanks for offering the opportunity for me to explain myself. Obotlig (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  For the moment, personally, I am satisfied that will not be trolling any longer and, so, a block would not be preventative. Also, thanks for disclosing your previous account. As far as I'm concerned, for the moment, this complaint can be closed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:08, 27 May 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.

Unionville, Ontario updates

I am not sure how this should be handled, as I have never run into this before, but it looks to me as if an administrator should intervene... What is happening is that two unregistered users, 184.146.105.231 (talk · contribs) and 174.112.166.229 (talk · contribs), have been having a war constantly changing the page for Unionville, Ontario, for the last month or so. While there are some valid disagreements about facts, which need to be resolved, the former user has also been violating other guidelines. Representatives of the Unionville Villagers Association feel that the article should be amended to reflect official policy, and are working on this, but in the meantime, we would like to put an end to this war! The history can be viewed at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unionville,_Ontario&action=history .

I believe strongly that unregistered users should not be allowed to update Wikipedia, period, but, given that official policy is to allow them, can these two be blocked or banned, or can the page itself be protected so that only registered users can make changes? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection for a couple of weeks, at least, would be beneficial to the project, imo. Seems there's some kind of boundary dispute going on, with the IPs pushing from one side or the other. They'll probably get bored if we semi the article, and doing so would give established editors time to investigate and present the sources in an NPOV way. --OhioStandard (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about semi. Given that the "Unionville Villagers Association" want a particular version, then full protection might be useful, at least until there is some sort of discussion at Talk:Unionville, Ontario which is where the facts should be resolved. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable - thanks, guys! Could someone semi-protect or protect the Unionville page, and semi-protect the talk page for Unionville (if it isn't that way automatically), so that the debate doesn't just migrate there? Ohiostandard, thanks for the link to the 2011 article - I thought this was a new debate - didn't realize it was already a year old. :-)

By the way, AFAIK, at this time, UVA doesn't have an official position - the situation is very complex, and we will have to figure out how to summarize it accurately, but clearly! Jpaulm (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So what is the next step to start to get this resolved? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

St. Clement's School AP US History students have been making Wikipedia a lot better. But...

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 some other editors take a look at User:SCS AP US. This is a role account created by the instructor of an AP US History class at St. Clement's School in Toronto. The students have been assigned various articles at User:SCS_AP_US#Student_Selections. They've done fantastic work expanding the articles and the last thing we should do is discourage them. The only big problem is that they students have also been assigned to go to the articles' talk pages and post scholastic, speculative questions like "What would have happened if Abraham Lincoln hadn't become President...?" This should probably stop, per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:TALK. Also, "SCS AP US" probably violates Wikipedia:Username policy although I don't think it is really overly promotional.

Other editors besides me should weigh in here and see if further action is needed. Maybe using the talk pages as a forum should be tolerated in this case, just so as not to discourage the contributions from these students. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, the instructor should counsel the students away from using the talk pages in that manner. If he doesn't, it's not unreasonable for other Wikipedia editors to close the discussion and advise the students separately.

As for the account name, this may be a case where the transparency of the name outweighs the strict read of the username policy and it should be allowed, even if we have to ignore all rules to let it slide. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 26 May 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 talk:Articles for creation/Genocidal holocaust of indigenous peoples

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.

---

See also: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and the lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D.; Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark; Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark (Legal Scholar).

Ok, this is getting a bit silly now. It strikes me that Evarose3 (talk · contribs) is attempting to create a walled garden of Vanispamcruftisement around Bruce Clark. I originally worked with WLawpsh (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruce Clark -- The relevant conversation can be found here. Evarose3 has taken the reins on this subject and has written various submissions (as shown above) which have all, so far, been declined under the varying mandates of: non-notable bio, essay, and NPOV. This has involved numerous reviewers and there is fairly long-winded conversation at User talk:Matthewrbowker#Bruce Clark -- the result being: 'sorry, but I don't think your submission is suitable at this time'. Despite this Evarose3 continues to try and force the subject into creation and argues vociferously with any reviewer who declines. Xe has also made a personal attack at my talk page diff, and tried to launch a mediation case (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bruce Clark (legal scholar)) against SarahStierch (talk · contribs) for declining . I think it worth discussing Evarose3's conduct on the basis of disruption, tendentious editing, personal attacks and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Pol430 talk to me 10:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

+1 Thanks for opening this case up and I'm sorry it has come to this. I chose to disconnect myself from Evarose3's actions due to the non-urgency at hand, personal attacks, and the accusatory and odd overtones. I'm not a know it all, but, as a person with a Native American studies degree who has spent 10 years of my museum career often focusing on Indigenous studies it's been even more frustrating because I'm well aware of the subject matters she is discussing and it's been nervewracking to follow. I do think that Evarose3's behavior is worrisome and peculiar and has seem to affected enough people in the community that this should be looked at by admins. Sarah (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any warnings for personal attacks on User talk:Evarose3. That user is new to Wikipedia; why haven't you used any user warning templates (or equivalent self-written texts) before coming toWP:ANI? I also don't see how you can fault them for going through the normal dispute resolution channels, such as mediation. I don't deny that they seem to be pushing a POV, but it looks like the normal WP:AfC and dispute resolution procedures are keeping this in check. The question of disruption should be dealt with, IMHO, once you have provided evidence that they've been educated about our policies on same, and that they have continued the disruption afterwards. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been keeping it watchlisted as I was asked by another editor on IRC to modify a somewhat botched attempt to move the page by Evarose3. I won't say I've read it through, but I have seen nothing that in my mind makes it likely it will ever be approved at AFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pejorative terms are being bandied about by a clique of editors against my writing that the record of communications simply will not support. Where is it written in Wikipedia policy that editors can gang up using unproven accusations which by repetition acquire a veneer of conventional wisdom and established truth? Is it not also open to question whether what binds the gang in solidarity is a mutual desire to suppress awareness the genocidal holocaust of indigenous peoples is a fact of history? Is there a fair trial process for me or do editors simply get away with emotional slander against unpopular topics?--Evarose3 (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what it means, "Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.." The notice states I am to notify all users by that device but I do not understand that device. Can someone tell me what to do or ensure themselves that all interested parties are kept abreast of the discussion?--Evarose3 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Evarose, that notice was just to inform you about this discussion, you don't need to do anything further about it now you are here. I will leave a message on your talk page making some suggestions about how you might proceed. Can I ask the OP of this thread what they are looking for? This seems to me like a relatively new user in need of some help and guidance, or are you asking for admin powers such as blocking to be invoked? In which latter case, I think now is not yet the time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There's no need for admin action here, and as I said, I do have his submission watchlisted. I don't think it will pass AFC in its present form, eventually he will do something else, hopefully more useful, or will go away. He is being a bit abrasive, but nothing I felt like calling him on, not everyone enters Wikipedia knowing the proper tone (indeed, some of those who have been here for years lack that knowledge).. It is not greatly worrying me.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well, close this as no action. I don't believe this user will move on from this issue and will continue to disrupt AfC for some time to come. Presumably we can now assume that Evarose is aware that personal attacks are not acceptable and repeatedly trying to force your views on others and create inappropriate article is likely to viewed as disruptive, and could potentially lead to a block? Pol430 talk to me 11:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is a serious disruption, by all means bring it back. I suspect, though, that AFC reviewers are perfectly capable of taking care of it. If he bypasses that, he'll learn about AFD instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I'm an AfC reviewer and I think we are struggling to 'take care of it' which is why I came here for assistance. I appreciate the various points about the editors potential lack of familiarity with certain policies, hence why I'm happy to drop the stick. Pol430 talk to me 12:12, 27 May 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 Creation/Genocidal holocaust of the indigenous nations

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 topic by nature too hot for Wikipedia to handle? If not, then I suggest the treatment given it in my current draft submission meets Wikipedia policy even without recourse to the 5th pillar, and certainly with such recourse! Nevertheless I feel seriously intimidated from persisting with merely stylistic improvements due to the destructive throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater criticism left standing in the recently closed attempt to censor my writing. If it is too hot to handle for Wikipedia to handle, please just come right out with it and I can stop futilely trying. Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 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.

Nangparbat

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:86.129.44.145 Please block this IP, he is again following me around calling me a racist. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 27 May 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.

Talk Page Access

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 revoke talk page access for Learnsales932. They're misusing their talk. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Misusing talk by personal attack to the admin who blocked them.--Chip123456 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a personal attack - however, I wanted to action the unblock request :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Look at edit history. It was a mild attack, but it was enough.--Chip123456 (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, they now love Bwilkins. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

An administrator will take the appropriate action as and when required, no need to go posting on AN/I, it is for other serious issues. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:57, 27 May 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 discussion on who defines scopes of wikiprojects

I don't know which notice board this request should go at so pardon me for posting it here. I am not requesting administrator intervention but I would like to dra attention to an interesting discussion on principles at Talk:Evolution, where a group of editors have seemigly taken offense at that article's having been added to the purview of WP:RELIGION. It raises the question of whether wikiprojects are allowed to decide their scope on their own or whether local concensus at a given page can remove or add specific pages from the projects domain of interest? Input is requested. I personally don't give a damn either way but I think the principle is interesting to clarify and I do find it quaint and slightly provicative that some editors feel so strongly about the page having any ties to the concept of religion or the related wikiproject.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting question, but the discussion should be centralized elsewhere to take it out of the hothouse of the evolution/religion nexus. The question also came up a while ago when WikiProject Conservatism expanded its scope, and -- although less generally (i.e. non-Wikpedia) controversial -- when WikiProject United States decided that anything and everything that had anything to do with the U.S. was a legitimate part of their project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember the WP:Conservatism discussion. BUt where would be the place to centralize such a discussion? Is there a meta Wikiproject:Wikiprojects?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

But of course. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. Dru of Id (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem that arose at Talk:Evolution is that the decision by the religion project people to include it in their wikiprojects led to the list of "Categories" at the bottom of the Talk:Evolution page including the religious ones. That makes it look as if Wikipedia regards evolution as being part of religion. It's an ugly result of a possibly quite innocent action. I'll admit to not understanding the technicalities in this area. Must it work this way? HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

People who are experienced on Wikipedia know that categories like Category:FA-Class Religion articles actually means "FA articles bannered by, and therefore of interest to, WikiProject Religion". The category is clearly marked as an "administration category" and the actual article on Evolution does not appear in the Relgion category tree. It's the same thing with Talk:Freddie Mercury ending up in Category:GA-Class Tanzania articles, even though the sole connection is that he happened to born there. But I agree, the wording might be potentially misleading to a new user, assuming they get as far as the talk page and then click on the categories. Not sure what, if anything could be done about it, apart from renaming those talk page categories, e.g. Category:GA-Class WikiProject Tanzania articles. Projects have the right to define what is in their scope, i.e. of interest to them, so the addition of project banners can't really be restricted. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an absurd situation. Wikiprojects are for organizing editing around a specific topic. When WP:USA added a banner to all US birds, WP:BIRD validly asked whether they were actually planing on working on the bird related stuff. The answer was no. Evolution isn't different from that. WP:RELIGION is focussed around editing about religion. Yes, the rejection by many religious people of reason and hence evolution is of interest, but that is covered in a slew of other articles dealing with the denial of evolution. And yes, those articles DO have the WP:RELIGION banner on their page as they actually pertain to it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Careful with the accusations of "rejection of reason", please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It does look silly but there is the section Evolution#Social and cultural responses which could well be of real interest to and be edited by editors in the religion project. Dmcq (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you add WP:archaeology to the bible because there is a section on archaeology and the bible in the bible article? If we are going to mention each and every wikiproject that is marginally mentioned in an article, the whole function of wikiprojects is lost. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we do need to be careful, though. IIRC there was a controversy a little while ago on another article (something only of interest to religious wikiprojects to the extent that it is incompatible with some of their beliefs; something like Big Bang or Atheism or whatever). Somebody started an RfC then notified a whole bunch of religious wikiprojects, hoping to get plenty of the right kind of voter... bobrayner (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

JovanAndreano : user making OR edits everywhere

Hello,

Since a few days, a newly registered user -JovanAndreano-, is making OR edits on many articles [148], and he doesn't seem to have the intention to stop that even is he was warned 4 times [149] by 3 different users and reverted many times (by different users) :

[150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165].

This is clearly vandalism and it must be stopped.

I ask you to intervene by blocking this user and/or semi-protecting his target articles.

Thanks in advance. --Omar-Toons (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified. Dru of Id (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Omar-Toons, having reviewed the first few edits (I haven't finished yet) You are violating policy, not JovanAndreano. You are violating policy and guidelines in a number of ways

• WP:3RR
• Not using the article talkpage to discuss matters before going to war
• Not understanding what is wp:vandalism and what is not
• You need to use citation needed templates rather than removing text.
• OR may be OR or it may be uncontroversial statements, or researched statements, and you'll never ever know if you don't ask or research. I suggest asking, using the talkpage in this case, because the other editor already knows where to find the information, you simply haven't asked. Penyulap ☏ 15:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, the only saving grace you have seems to be bringing yourself to ANI for a chastisement.

You don't need to, but I would suggest returning the text to those articles, and if you feel that the text is controversial you tag it with citation needed, or google it, or best of all, ask JovanAndreano who may well know, although he or she may well be upset by the constant violation of 3RR by now, so maybe google it is better.

In future, definitely use the article talkpage after the very first edit of this kind that you make. I haven't seen you do that. Penyulap ☏ 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't quite call it "vandalism", as pure POV-pushing - replacing the word "Berber" and "Berbers" with "Amazigh" and "Imazighen" and introducing occasional NPOV language. Omar Toons and others have made notes of the problem in their edit summaries, but the user JovanAndreano ignores them and just reverts. I am not sure which article talk page you suggest - he's doing the same one thing across a gazillion articles. Being a new user (apparently), he should probably be reached out to in his own user talk page. But he apparently ignores that too. Maybe he would respond more readily to a breather and a longer talk? Walrasiad (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but this user was reverted by many contributors, not just me.

On the article Lixus : How do you call the replacing of content as he did? Isn't that a falsification of History?

On the article Berber Revolt : He was reverted, successively, by 4 users ;

On the article Volubilis : He was reverted by 3 users (falsification of History, again) ;

Other OR/Falsification of historical facts on : Ptolemy of Mauretania, Victor Maurus, Alcazar de Jerez, Iarbas and Septimus Severus. In these articles, JovanAndreano was reverted more than one time by more than one user, so except if you think that all other users are wrong, that sources are wrong and that this user's ideas are the absolute truth, nothing can explain these edits.

If you think that we can let a newly registered user change the historical information on some articles, then there is no doubt about the fact that many people can't trust Wiki content.

Maybe it is not clearly WP:VAND (Sneaky vandalism), then it is WP:DIS, consider it as you like.

Omar-Toons (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

He is starting to use sources, but the sources he uses suggests that he is not going off of RSs to begin with. Some have been repubs of WP articles. In another case the source did look good, however (in changing 'tribe' to 'kingdom'), so I left that edit. I suspect this is mainly a new user who thinks 'anyone can edit' means they can treat the articles as if they were their own. He didn't even realize at first that he was being reverted, and didn't understand why his edits didn't show up. (This was back in early March.) As with other newbies, I think he just needs to be guided into using the discussion pages when reverted, providing RS's, etc. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Tftobin making personal attacks against User:Jakew (mostly) after repeated warnings against making 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.

---

Tftobin (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly harassing and making personal attacks against Jakew (talk · contribs), despite repeated warnings from fellow users to stop, in part making repeated references to an off-Wiki attack site against Jakew. Recently, AlexanderLondon (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked in large part for directing edits at Jakew making references to this same site, I brought that to WP:ANI, review that here. AlexanderLondon contacted Tftobin directly about the attack site, although Tftobin clearly knew about it before AlexanderLondon brought it up. Review history and diffs:

• 22 April - Tftobin makes veiled reference to Jakew being associated with someone who has been arrested "on child porn charges;" this is an allegation the attack site makes. diff
• 22 April - Jayjg reverts the edit and warns Tftobin against personal attacks (#1). diff
• 22 April - Tftobin responds to IP 209.6.34.138, who had posted a personal attack against Jayjg on Tom's talk page, by calling Jayjg "a prick." diff
• 23 April - Jakew warns Tftobin against personal attacks (#2). diff
• 10 May - Tftobin makes personal attacks against Jakew in response to a post from Jakew. diff
• 11 May - Rip-Saw warns Tftobin against personal attacks (#3). diff
• 23 May - AlexanderLondon posts on User_Talk:Tftobin a personal attack against Jakew (diff), referencing the off-Wiki attack site. Tftobin replies at User_talk:AlexanderLondon with some general negative comments about other editors, diff. (I bring AlexanderLondon to the attention of WP:ANI and he is subsequently indef-blocked; he requested to be unblocked but the request was declined.)
• 23 May - Bbb23 warns Tftobin against personal attacks (#4) for Tftobin's edit. diff
• 26 May - Tftobin implies that the information on the attack site must be true, because if it were not, wouldn't Jakew sue? diff
• 26 May - Yobol and myself warn Tftobin against personal attacks (#5), and I ask Tftobin to take down his statement. I was just going to leave it at that but then I started doing a little digging and found that he has been warned four times previously. #5 from Yobol and myself on 26 May
• 26 May - I bring this to WP:ANI.

There is a continued pattern of personal attacks continuing after warnings, including today's attack after the 4th warning. Zad68 03:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified: Tftobin, Jayjg, Yobol, Jakew, Rip-Saw, Bbb23 Zad68 04:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding: 27 May - Tftobin took down the edit from the article talk page. diff. Zad68 04:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Tftobin is the one being harrassed here. Jakew is the main problem because he's provoking other editors by his patronising editing style on circumcision and related articles and their talk pages. He does not allow anyone to make edits to these articles. When someone points out a problem on the talk page he dismisses the concerns by pointing to a previous discussion. When somebody brings reliable sources which he disagrees with he makes up some lame excuse. Jakew is even in the midst of an edit war as i'm typing this. This has been a long-term problematic editing pattern stretching back years. The concept of compromise is missing in his dictionary. Jakew has an erroneous understanding of the conept of "nuetral" and "due weight". I believe this discussion should focus on Jakew's behavior too if Tftobin is going to be scrutinised. If Jakew does not get cautioned then this problem will persist for many more years. Pass a Method talk 07:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, tftobin has been an extremely knowledgeable and articulate editor for the circumcision articles. He and one editor appear to have a history on other websites, both routinely jibe each other in locker-room style. tobin has the intellignecer to get the better of those witty exchanges, it would be punitive to block him for his satire. Robert B19 (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA says "Comment on content, not the contributor". It's a really simple rule, and I am constantly puzzled by the difficulties that some editors seem to have in following it. I'm also rather concerned by Tftobin's legalistic response here, where he says: "Was I actually talking about anyone by name". I'm not sure that's a loophole, but in any case we shouldn't be looking for loopholes by which we can attack people. We shouldn't be making personal attacks in the first place; there's absolutely no need for it. Jakew (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

These personal attacks (and the ridiculous assertion that Tftobin is the victim here - seriously?) speak to the toxic atmosphere surrounding that page. It would help if administrators would sanction/remove editors who can't abide by the rules to help improve the editing environment for the rest of us. Yobol (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard wading through the history of the exchanges between these editors. In particular, I have trouble with Tftobin's style in his comments. I can't decide if he's simply sloppy or sly, but I lean toward sly.

• Taking one of the examples above, toward the end of April, Jayig criticized and reverted Tftobin's comment about a person's arrest on child porn charges as having BLP problems. Several hours later, an IP proxy (since blocked) started a new topic just below Jayig's topic. The title of the new topics was odd: "LOL! Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC) you're LOLing at the little guy's circumcision." The comment by the IP was: "we get it, champ... you're LOLing at the little guy's circumcision." Tftobin's response was: "Anything but. He's Jewish. I respect that. I also know he had no choice in having it done to him. He was 8 days old. I am not a cruel man. I may think he's a prick, but that's for his actions, no more, no less." Who are the two editors referring to? Jayig? Someone else? (The IP posted identical posts on several Talk pages, but I'm focusing on Tftobin's response.) When Tftobin says "his actions", is he referring to Jayig's reversion and warning? I also don't think it's accidental that Tftobin uses the word "prick" in the context of circumcision. He seems to delight in double entendres - I saw another comment that said, "There isn't a fig leaf of neutrality to be found in these parts" ([166]). Not accidental (word play on "fig leaf" and "parts"). Perhaps Jayig can shed some light on these comments.

• I have the same problem with the comment Tftobin made on AlexanderLondon's page after the block, a comment I reverted. Although I accepted Tftobin's explanation that my reading of his comment was incorrect, I didn't do so enthusiastically. In Tftobin's comment he criticizes Jakew in the first paragraph (he calls him the "aforementioned editor"), claiming Jake has a conflict because of his outside activities. Tftobin says that Jake (without referring to him by name) gets "riled up" when others mention Jake's "patron saint". He then says that Jake (still using pronouns) "has a lackey who comes to his defense, even when it is not needed. He reads all of these user talk pages as well, and his lackey comments on them. It is comical to watch how he obeys, then flaunts, the wikipedia rules. It's a constant dance." It is against that backdrop that Tftobin then says in the next paragraph, "Lies get exposed." Now, one can interpret that sentence to refer to some studies mentioned in the preceding sentence, which I believe was Tftobin's point in his defense, or one can read, as I did, that the statement was intended to be broader and embrace Tftobin's criticism of Jake in the first paragraph. As I also explained to Tftobin, even if the use of the word "lies" is narrowly interpreted, Tftobin's comments about lackeys was also inappropriate.

• Tftobin's comments about Jake and defamation was completely inappropriate. Again, it was sly. Someone posts something about you that is arguably libelous. The fact you don't sue must mean it is true. First, that's obviously only one of many interpretations of what the absence of a lawsuit means, and not necessarily the most plausible. Second, it's an oblique way of agreeing with the statements ("they must be true").

Conclusion. This whole editor drama connected to the circumcision article is unhealthy. It's particularly damaging to the project because it overshadows the objective of improving the articles by a continuous focus on editor conduct. I believe Tftobin should be topic-banned, broadly construed to prevent him from editing any articles related to circumcision, including their Talk pages. Whether the ban should also include interaction with certain editors, I don't know. At this point, I won't comment on whether a block would be more appropriate than a topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, good idea. Given Tftobin's continued history of personal attacks (despite warnings) against other editors in this subject area, and the large fraction of Tftobin's Talk:Circumcision edits that are off the topic of improvements to the article, I'm also concluding that the project would be better off if he were not editing in this subject area. For what it's worth, I note that Tftobin's editing history meets the definition of WP:SPA. Zad68 15:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• ...although I'm not sure how this resolves the original problem of the continued personal attacks after warnings. Zad68 16:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• A little more context about the "prick" comment. After Tftobin posted it, Jakew responded: "Don't describe other editors as a "prick", Tom. It's a fairly blatant personal attack." Tftobin then removed the word "prick" from his comment and said: "If you don't want to see it, don't read my talk pages. Can I, or can I not discuss another editor here? Because I see people do it all the time. Where are the rules on talk pages, so I can understand them. I am not being sarcastic, I am serious." See ([167] here). After Jake told Tftobin where to look, Tftobin removed the conversation from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• That happened on 23 April. The page Jakew referred Tftobin to, WP:TALK, says pretty clearly under "Behavior that is unacceptable": "No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person." Placing this into the timeline above, we can see that although Tftobin was directed to the correct policy page regarding Talk pages, and that page covered Wikipedia policy on personal attacks, the personal attacks continued, accompanied by warnings from other editors. This just seems to be another piece of evidence that WP:NPA is not a policy Tftobin is willing to accept. Zad68 16:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• WP:NPA is crystal clear on this point. The very first sentence is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia" In bold. We do not treat talk pages any differently than any other page here. Reading through the last WP:DRN filing at [168], then reading through the talk page archives of the article (which are quite plentiful), gives a slightly different picture. The DRN started fine, but degraded quickly, due in part from a lack of available oversight, leading to frustration as it simply became another version of the talk page, with no outside opinions. The talk page is mainly civil, even when in heated discussion, just a lot to read. The majority of Tftobin's contributions and comments are okay, but the diffs presented here do present issues that can not be ignored. He has only had 3 edits before January 2012, so still relatively new. A topic ban would be easy, and I will remain open minded, but I'm not convinced that is the best solution at this time. An interaction ban is likely unneeded. I would like to hear Tftobin's interpretation of WP:NPA and how it applies to him before offering a solution, if he is wise enough to come offer it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

reply (Tftobin discussion)

• If I might say a word in my defense, I was utterly sincere when I was referring to "Lies get exposed, and corrected, over time.", I was talking about the interpretation of the three African studies by the WHO and UNAIDS, not about any individual.

"There is an excerpt from Talk:Circumcision/Archive72: Every single editor on this page (or indeed any page) has the right to be free of personal attacks and insinuations, Tom. That applies to everyone, whether or not they've made personal attacks themselves. We all share responsibility for enforcing the applicable policies, so if you think something needs to be said about a particular comment (and you're sure it's a violation), you can and should say something in direct response to it. But bringing it up later on, in an unrelated thread, is inappropriate. I like to think I'm reasonably fair when I cite policies, but having said that I'm quite sure that I'm not as fair as I could (and should) be. I'm sure that's the case for all of us, too. We're human, and we have human failings. That doesn't mean that we should have to tolerate personal attacks. Wouldn't you agree with that? Jakew (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with that, Jakew. In return, I would ask that the rules be applied consistently, applicable to everyone. Wouldn't you agree to that? Tftobin (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I'd agree, Tom. Jakew (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Then I extend you a handshake, Jakew. Tftobin (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) " Several interceding entries. Then: "When you say "Assuming the authors are reasonable", you seem to mean "Assuming the authors agree with Rip-Saw", and I'm afraid your conclusion is still your conclusion, at the end of the day. I agree that it would be inappropriate to insert the words "all men" in the article. However, since nobody has done so, it seems a moot point. You're actually objecting to using the same language as the source, and to describe that as an "interpretation" seems creative at best. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Jakew, this statement above is the exact kind of personal attack I never want to see again. This is what I see, as the seasoned editors getting away with a response, for which they would slap a less seasoned editor if the tables were reversed. Please, abide by the guidelines, if you don't want to be attacked by others. Considering the speech you gave above, and I believe it was sincere, this is conduct unbecoming. Tftobin (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC) " I am curious why the personal attacks of others are ignored, and mine are tallied. An editor agrees to no personal attacks, and attacks on the same day. As I said on the talk page, I have had my personal comments outside of wikipedia posted as quotes on the talk pages. If this isn't dancing with harassment, what is? The reason I brought up the story on the conviction of Vernon Quaintence on child porn charges, was because a wikipedia editor had coauthored a brochure for his site, admitted it outside of wikipedia, and was trying to minimize it. Is a veiled reference really an attack? Was citing Vernon Quaintence's conviction really an attack, because if it was, the same reference was posted on 9 May. "Obviously we would have to add another pro-circ site. In light of the founder's recent infamy 1 2 3, how about http://www.gilgalsoc.org/?" by Tremello as reference 1, also in Talk:Circumcision/Archive72.

I may have expressed it poorly, but I was actually coming to Jayjg's defense, against the anonymous attacker. I find it generous, against the backdrop of his behavior towards me, between the outside quoting, and the constant sniping.

Is it fair to count my words on May 10th as an attack, when an editor had implied that I was a hypocrite, with the "wouldn't your argument be an example of the fallacy of tu quoque?" remark? At worst, that is tit for tat.

As for calling me sly, excuse me? Am I the only person who can be construed as being sly on that page? If I was really only being sly, why would EggCentric post, "Whether clever is the right word or not (they're certainly not stupid) they're at least knowledgeable enough to use the letter of wikipedia guidelines against the spirit of wikipedia to keep the article pro-circumcision. Egg Centric 14:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)" Tftobin (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is going to be a cleaning of house because of personal attacks, it needs to not turn a blind eye to other personal attacks, and treat them all equally. If you decide to ban one editor from circumcision for personal attacks, it would be a real imbalance to ban only one. I am in no way excusing my own bad behavior, let's make that clear. If someone was to go through and tally up, as has been done to me, but with an unbiased eye, my numbers would come out light compared to some. In an RFC, outside editor JonRichman had this to say: "I think that this is another example of the worst kind of RFC situation: rwar in a teacup with WLawyers circling overhead. I actually have read the discussion (once only!) and my profit on't is, That I know better than to read it again."

Whatever the outcome of any of this, there is a serious problem with the circumcision page, and the talk:circumcision page, which doesn't seem to go away. Tftobin (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Tftobin, your long quote from the archive is unpersuasive to me. I don't see the implication that you are a "hypocrite". I don't see anything except honest disagreement on both sides. On the other hand, some of your comments (certainly not all) are far more offensive without having to read anything into them. I think part of it is your perception that Wikipedians (perhaps me and others) are not being evenhanded in their treatment of different editors. I think you should stay away from that viewpoint, no matter how sincerely you believe it. It's inherently counterproductive because it comes off as whiny and immature. Focus on your own conduct. If you act responsibly, then you won't have to worry about what others do. If you believe someone is attacking you, take the high road and don't respond, as you say, tit for tat. Then you won't be here defending yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the talk page was mainly civil. It was very snippy at times, but I make allowances and expect a little heat for a controversial subject. Your actions here, however, did cross the line a few times (not every diff he links has me concerned as much as others). I'm not inclined to block or suggest a ban today, but let me make one thing clear: Many admins won't block for ongoing incivility. I will. I'm not going to today because I think there is more than meets the eye. Also, many of the discussions are very productive, even if heated. Let me make another thing clear: If someone is rude to you, that is not a license to be rude back. WP:NPA doesn't give you an exception simply because someone was rude to you first. Tftobin, you need to do yourself and us a favor and read WP:NPA carefully, and consider this a last warning, as you may get blocked for any BLP issue or personal attack in the future, without benefit of an ANI or warning. Everyone else involved pushes civility a bit at times, but not as far over the line, so I would ask they be careful to not bait the situation and also go the extra mile to be civil, please. We are all adults here, surely we can move forward.

Also, there are problems that need fixing over there, and perhaps you could get someone well versed in policy, and who is uninvolved to mediate and have a more formal discussion over a few weeks. Similar to DRN, except they are actually there at the talk page. I know DRN failed due to lack of interest, which caused a lot of this confusion, so you all need to recruit someone, in my opinion. This isn't so much a formal dispute mechanism as much as it is one that might actually work. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed in that I see no indication that Tftobin understands that his comments violate WP:NPA nor an indication that he will not do so in the future. All I see is justification and pointing fingers at others. Is yet another "warning", after so many others, really going to change behavior when the editor has not even acknowledged the bad behavior in the first place? Yobol (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yobol, I am sorry you are disappointed. I assure you that I understand that my previous comments violated WP:NPA. Many times, I was responding in kind. I would appreciate if you would acknowledge that other wikipedia editors stepped over the line into WP:NPA often, if not constantly. In the future, I will either abide by WP:NPA, or not participate in the discussions. As to the editors who cross the WP:NPA line without benefit of being cited by ANI, that will change. I hope you can see by this, that I have learned that I cannot continue WP:NPA whether or not others do. WP:NPA is too tempting. It makes one feel better temporarily, but solves nothing in the long run, and just makes an untenable situation that much worse. It is not discussion, when one party spits in the other's eye. I hope this puts your mind at ease. You have been kind to me in the past, in protecting my talk page, and your kindness has not been forgotten. I give you my word, man to man, I will not engage in WP:NPA any longer. Tftobin (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Tom, thank you for this. This was exactly the result I was hoping for: An apology, an acknowledgement of wrongdoing, and a promise to abide by Wikipedia policy regarding WP:NPA going forward. What I want is for everyone at Talk:Circumcision to focus on the content and abide by Wikipedia policy. Discussion there has been impossibly unproductive recently and we have to get back to discussing improvements to the article content in conformance with Wikipedia content policy, and nothing else. With the article now full-protected for a little while, and everyone very aware of the policy regarding WP:NPA, I believe we might be closer to having the right conditions for productive discussion. I am requesting that this ANI be closed. Zad68 23:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for your patience, and civility, Dennis Brown. I am not saying this because it allows me to come back here. I may. I may not. I'm not at all sure I want to continue. I am saying, "I appreciate your kindness" and "thanks for not totally blocking my words and experiences out".

Second, I would like to express my utter frustration with the whole process. I've done WP:COIN, and even with multiple publications and a website with non-neutral views, without a medical degree, I was told it was not enough...after I was first told it was not a problem, and pressed for a second time. The suggestion was made that I tally the decisions, and see if they were non-neutral. That leaves me powerless, because I am non-neutral as well, and my opinion would be regarded in that light. These were solutions that were no solution. There was also a dispute resolution with an editor, which ended in less than a handslap. Next, came an RFC, which had one comment. We've just gone through the ANI. I have asked what the next step is. Is it the Arbitration Committee? I am told it is to open a new RFC. With an RFC which was ignored, but had valid points, and another RFC being ignored on another page, I am left to wonder is wikipedia a frustration factory, or is there some value in subjecting myself to this process, over and over.

I also have a target on my back. Tell me those who would like to see me gone, to revert to the way things were, (which was far less democratic), aren't itching to push my buttons, to get me expelled. Do I fight back, by tallying the number of times they engage in uncivil behavior and/or personal attacks, and put in an ANI after so many offenses? Would that begin to level this very unlevel playing field? The only people I know who are well versed in policy, are not the people I would ask to come to mediate. The one person who came to mediate, made it clear he would not be back, for understandable reasons. Is there a point to mediation, when one can simply refuse to negotiate, over and over, with no apparent consequences? Tftobin (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching the page and think my point was sufficient. The next step is if he personally attacks someone, I will block him without requiring a discussion at all. I'm hoping he will simply get my points, tone it down, and contribute well. I've seen him do it, so I know he is capable. He is new enough, and has acknowledged enough that I felt this was the best solution. If another admin feels the need to override my decision, they will. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

And to answer your question Tftobin, you fight with logic, patience and determination. Those are perfectly acceptable. Making it personal isn't. This is an encyclopedia, after all, we have to draw the line somewhere when it comes to the limits of interaction, and personal attacks are not acceptable, even when you are frustrated, or even if you are correct about some content point. Wikipedia is a great place. Frustrating at times, but once you get the hang of it, it is fun and fulfilling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• comment I think the smear campaign towards Tftobin above is wrong and harrassing and the editors proposing it should do some self-scrutiny. All the above supposed PA's are relatively mild and is even understandable considering the harassment he's been facing by some editors i will not name. Some of the diffs even consist of him stating factual statements. Pass a Method talk 22:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your comment is mostly unhelpful. First, I was the one who suggested the topic ban. I don't need any "self-scrutiny" on this issue as I have no axe to grind here. I was unaware of the existence of the circumcision and foreskin articles before these recent posts to ANI. Second, what's the point of claiming Tftobin is being harassed without providing any evidence of that harassment? Meh.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be much more smoke than heat here? --BozMo talk 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Tftobin's edit above of 21:45, 27 May 2012, I am now requesting that this ANI incident be closed. Thank you. Zad68 23:11, 27 May 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 super-obsessed user Homeostasis07

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.

---

Homeostasis07 is a super-obsessed user with one goal: to put his original research essay Loudness War of Garbage's page Not Your Kind of People. He has a problem with a supposed bad mastering of the album and a certain Emily Lazar. The page was reverted multiple times already: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Not_Your_Kind_of_People&action=history

He's also all over Youtube, Amazon etc. He even twitted Garbage with this supposed problem.

Anyone can stop this maniac? Deepblue1 (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly been edit-warring with passion, but he seems to have stopped after being warned, mercifully. The page history is lousy with socks reverting him, it must be said. From a cursory review I think his paragraph probably is original research, but that's not something we would deal with here. Talk it over on the talkpage, and if you don't get anywhere (as seems likely), you can take it to WP:NORN or WP:30. Moreschi (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

An original research tag only pertains to information that is not properly sourced, whereas each individual statement made in the section was supported by relevant sources - including one very handy source, an interview with the album's own engineer which testified to the album's compression, dynamic range compression and unorthodox EQ'ing. There was no issue with the article as it stood, you and Garbagemty simply section blanked the article on numerous occasions because the content was of a critical nature. You need to be aware that Wikipedia is not an advertising site for any band, and that all notable content - whether positive or critical - should be included in an article. Also, your claim regarding my supposed multi-site platforming of the issue is untrue. I'm not a registered user on either Twitter, Amazon or Facebook [the latter being a claim you made elsewhere], and so had no means of raising the issue there. They are clearly different people, but you simply refuse to believe that this is an actual issue. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:SYNTH, as your understanding of what constitutes original research seems off. But I repeat: this is not ANI material. No one is getting sanctioned here apart from the SPA/socks, who will get blocked. Take it elsewhere, people. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 27 May 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.

Persistent addition of inappropriate wikilinks

99.90.225.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I am here to report an issue with user 99.90.225.159. The sum of this editor's activities on Wikipedia is reviewing lists of band members (in articles on musical groups) and cast members (in articles on films) and putting wikilink brackets around any names that don't already have them - without checking to see if the links go to articles on the people in question or not.

As seen on his user talk page, he has been warned about this at least five times already. I have added warning #6, but given that he completely ignored the first five editors, I see no reason to think he'll listen to me. Moreover, he has been a lot busier at this careless wikilinking than those six warnings might indicate; I have just finished reverting dozens of wikilinks that go to a disambiguation page, a nonexistent article, or the wrong person entirely, all of which apparently escaped the notice of the editors on duty at those articles. And that's just reviewing his edits over the past month. I'm not sure what I should do here, but I'd really like to have this pattern of editing stopped.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Red link says that this is fine. We want red links if there is even a minor chance that an article might be written some day, as it encourages others to create that article. Half the articles I created were due to stumbling across red links. Had they not been there, then I wouldn't have known that I needed to create the article. Some discretion is needed, but in general, red links are helpful. They may have had other unhelpful edits (this an IP, not necessary the same person for the last 6 months) but I don't see the red links as a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed that there's no problem with red links per se; the problem is that the user is not checking whether the non-red links he is adding go to the correct article. Without doing this the user is creating more problems than he is solving. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Exactly as Psychonaut said. As for it being different editors using the same IP address, I think if you review the editor's contributions, you'll agree that multiple people consistently performing such similar edits is well beyond the realm of coincidence.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree it looks like the same person throughout, and it does seem that they're putting brackets around names without actually checking where they lead. This reminds me of the problem I raised here, so I know how frustrating it can be for other editors, particularly when the person concerned seems unresponsive. I would suggest attempting to initiate some dialogue with them (something friendlier than the existing warnings, which encourages them to respond). If still no joy, I think we should consider whether WP:CIR applies. January (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So what we have is someone trying to help, but it's a disambiguation problem, moreso than anything else. They don't realize that there are dozens of John Smith's, for example. Rather than spank them, did anyone suggest how they could double-check/determine if they're linking to the right person? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That said, a wikilink in a good place, but pointing to a disambig page is better than no wikilink at all. And speaking of John Smith, think I will go there, see What links here and just fix some of those myself. My good deed for the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See?! ANI can be a place where useful stuff occurs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspected canvassing

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), with whom I am in disagreement over a particular matter, posted this notification to the NPOV noticeboard recently. Whilst believing frequent visitors to the page are likely to perceive the overt bias of the post, I also felt that the wording of the notification may be in breach of WP:CANVAS. Thus, I duly informed said user whilst at the same time removing the offending part of the notification in the interests of neutrality. He objected and immediately reverted me. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like Nicholas was canvassing with the last sentence of his post and that you had no right to remove it per WP:TPG. Instead, you should have followed the guideline: "The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I take on board Bbb's comment and accept that I may have acted inappropriately. However, I did inform Nick immediately. It is only now, faced with his unrepentant restoration of his canvas that I now raise the issue here. Please also note that this issue has been around the houses, having been posted to BLPN almost three weeks ago, and closed without a definitive consensus on the issue. Probably feeling out!voted at the talk page, he attempted to canvas support for his position. Is it not the case that the canvassed !votes should be discounted? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OC, the discussion on the talk page of Donald Tsang's biographical article is not a !vote, so rest assured that I don't feel "outvoted". My comment on the NPOV noticeboard is an objective statement of fact, and not an appeal to gather support. In any case, I am here to write an encyclopedia and not to fight any battles. I will defer to the general consensus here and will amend my statement if the need arises. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, avoid any sentence which could be indicated as specifically promoting any position. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OC, I understand your point about striking the !vote, but I can't find anything in the canvassing policy or in WP:!vote supporting such an action. Perhaps it is done in practice, don't know. Canvassing is mentioned in the !vote guideline, but it doesn't say what should be done if it happens. My belief is the last sentence in Nick's post was campaigning. I also disagree with him that the discussion on the Tsang Talk page isn't a straw poll, even though polls are disfavored in "article development". I suppose you could add a comment to the poll about Nick's canvassing, but it seems a bit inflammatory in the circumstances (at least to me). I think the best solution to this spat is for Nick to strike his comment and acknowledge he was canvassing, even if that wasn't his intent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

IP user with issues

user

last article diff last diff-user page. Will roll back the article edits but not sure if it's proper for me to do the same with the user's page. Thanks, We hope (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Taken care of, it seems. As for the user talk page, that's a matter of personal judgment. In this case, I think George Ho would have been grateful. If it's obvious vandalism, revert. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A very large number of new, unsourced articles about Tibetan villages

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 the past few days I've noticed a very large number of articles like Valuxai, Togqên, Tiangacun. All of these seem to be about villages in Tibet. All of these articles are unreferenced with no obvious clues as to their subject's notability. There's no obvious way of verifying these images, we do not even have the location of these centres of population. I'm tempted to nominate the lot for speedy deletion, however I wonder if there's some policy or purpose for keeping these unreferenced stubs? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All seem to be: X is a Y in FOO. Content of another: "Xiayanjingxiang is a village in the Tibet Autonomous Region, in China." The creator's userpage lists fifty-one. I see a speedy of one--"Doxong"--was declined on a technicality (villages not listed under A7). Uhh a similar matter (un/under-sourced quantity of substubs on places, related to China) has come up here recently... --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC) ^{(formerly: User:92.6.200.56)}

Yes, I suppose the whole lot could be listed as an AFD discussion. It might just be better to have some words with the originating editor and ask him/her not to bulk-add unsourced articles. I just wanted to be sure of the policy before I approach an editor or begin some kind of deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting some push-back against notability tags[169]. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Has anyone tried to just verify the information? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Google maps took Tiangacun, Tibet and points to [170] Granted, Google maps isn't the greatest sourcing tool, but it does rather show this one exists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In my (limited) experience, AfD discussions on populated places invariably come out on: all populated places that are referenced in a reliable source are inherently notable. Even if not all contributors agree, then still a sufficient number do to result in "no consensus". If I was to encounter the name Xiayanjingxiang somewhere I might look it up on Wikipedia, and then even the scant information that it is a village in the TAR is more satisfying than a red link. As I see it, the main issue is the lack of sources.  --Lambiam 23:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not one for ANI, one for AfD. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Or one to try to verify, again. I tend to prefer geographical areas in an encyclopedia as long as we can determine that they are not hoax or bogus, and that they simply exist. WP:BEFORE requires we make a good faith effort before going to AFD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd ask the King of Tibet, User:Dr. Blofeld. He has all kinds of geographical gadgets that can separate the wheat from the chaff, plus a ton of knowledge. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I will go do that if you haven't already. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tiangacun appears to be real, and have an (unlinked) interwiki page at zh:唐古乡, population 5,000. Teeny-weeny. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good source (NSB): TIbet (西藏) is second in from the left on the bottom row; drill down, you get the prefectures, then the counties, then the townships, then the villages; should be all there; see also AfD Zhujiecun, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:17, 28 May 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:SkyTree90 engaging in edit warring on Yamanote Line

I have a concern with this user's behaviour. The editor seems to be interested in edit warring on the article Yamanote Line, incivil, and also may be a sockpuppet of User:TheRationalDude. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you not using the talk page? It is very simple, please discuss issues regarding the line on the talk page. There is not a single consensus on yamanote line's talk page suggesting it should be considered suburban...it is also included on the list of metro systems which is equivalent to rapid transit (the page even says so). If you want to discuss technical issues please use the talk page. As for the therationaldude, that is my account which I forgot my password too, which is why I haven't logged on it since I logged on this one. In fact I would like to report C3F2k for making edits with "The consensus was reached 6 years ago; too much stuff has changed since then".....since when is "too much stuff has changed since then" a good reason to edit? What has changed? Did the yamanote line suddenly add new suburban stations, cut frequency and add grade crossings? Once again please use the talk page. SkyTree90 (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen you discussing about it either. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I made a post in the talk page, and asked you to post there. I also discussed it at length on the list of metro systems. Simply saying "too much stuff has changed since then", is not any reason to suddenly say it is a commuter rail. Please use the talk page...isn't that what it is for? SkyTree90 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You reverted my edits, and also broke WP:3RR. For that reason alone, I think you should be blocked for edit warring. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You did not discuss anything about it being a commuter rail, ignored my request to discuss this on the talk page, and simply said "too much stuff has changed". Once again, please use the talk page. There is no consensus anywhere on the talk page that is a commuter rail. The list of metro systems also lists it as rapid transit. So once again I request you to please discuss this in the talk page with me. That is what it is for. I am not sure why you do not use the talk page. SkyTree90 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are my responses. 1) When I meant "too much stuff has changed", I meant in terms of Wikipedia policy. 2) You have still edit warred and you do need to realize that's bad. 3) I know what talk pages are for. C3F2k (Questions, comments, complaints?) 22:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Therefore, please use the talk page to discuss this issue. That is really all you should have done. There has been no consensus that it is commuter rail, there is however a consensus that it is rapid transit...both on the yamanote line talk page as well as the list of metro systems. If you want to discuss why you consider it commuter rail please present your case or a compromise on the talk page. You also edit warred so I am not interested in a "you are bad" type of argument, I will concede I edited more than 3 times but I was not aware of such a rule. Thanks for bringing it up and I apologize to wikipedia for breaking such a rule SkyTree90 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a complaint about breaking WP:3RR, but indeed, the editor has never even been warned or advised as to what 3RR is? Always assume ignorance please. I have provided a very belated welcome template. Both of you need to stop discussing in edit-summaries, and discuss on article talkpages (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! SkyTree90 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:Jason_Collin

During the last week of April, this user created autobiographical articles under a couple of variant names, had issues with speedy deletions, eventually leading to a temporary block. Since then, he has been instead developing the autobiographical article on his User Talk pack (after stripping out the previous content about the Speedies and the Block). It has gone through well over 100 edits, additions of various photos, etc. Given the variety of birth names and places that it has gone through, it can not be described as solidly reliable. It has also acquired various claims of relationships with celebrities who are wikilinked and logged as brother, sister, ex-spouses with the subject. Attempts to engage with the user have been ignored. This Talk page does not seem to be fulfilling anything like its normal purpose, of aiding in discussion on the construction of a reliable encyclopaedia, and indeed may be heading in the opposite direction, by adding WP:BLP issues regarding other people. AllyD (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've zapped the WP:FAKEARTICLE per WP:BLP and left a note... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Long-term abuse, needs all contributions checked.

I just finished cleaning up after a three-day rampage by 70.138.99.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) of adding factual errors to articles and attempting to rewrite history. (Yes, I filed at AIV.) My concern for AN/I is that this same IP editor has been making contributions to the same types of articles since November 2010, and has only been blocked three times for it, and the articles this person likes to edit are obscure ones about songs and albums, so I suspect that many factual errors and removals have gone "under the radar" since that time. I caught several un-reverted changes from 13 April 2011, in fact. This editor likes to make subtle changes, like change "lead vocals" to "[[singing|vocals]]" but the fact remains that this is mostly subtle vandalism. The editor is also obsessed with the notion that Alyson Court created the TV show Big Comfy Couch, when she is indeed not credited with this. Any help here would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just being paranoid here, but the concentration on childrens' characters looks like the banned prolific socker User:ItsLassieTime all over again. Hopefully not. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any similarity in the articles or topics visited by these socks, and ItsLassieTime was known to use talk pages and edit summaries on occasion, which this IP editor does not. By the way, my AIV request has been quietly declined with the rationale "no need for this when there is an open AN/I issue", and the editor has continued to edit past the most recent "fourth warning", and this most recent activity is within one day of the last block expiring, so I leave it in the capable hands of the kind admins patrolling AN/I to do the right thing. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That IP is in fact just off a three-months block and immediately resumed vandalizing. The Garbage Skow (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had multiple experiences dealing with this IP and Elizium23's description is accurate. A lot of factual errors have been introduced by it. The IP should be blocked for good, and to the extent possible, every edit it has made should be backed out. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 Blocked for a period of one year Some of the edits look good (mostly gnoming), but many introduce factual errors. Deliberately introducing even one factual error is grounds for a block. This is almost certainly the same person as earlier this year and nobody else seems to be using the address, so block length escalated. There is enough evidence that I think bulk reverting is indicated (leaving that for someone else), but if a third party says that any particular edit checks out, please do not edit war over it. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion & copyvio

This IP user was blocked last night for 1 year (blocked proxy). They are back today as this IP user doing the same thing which got them blocked in the first place -- copyvio. I've reverted their additions but someone may want to block.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Judging by use of proxies and user talk page spamming, this is almost certainly another sock of Joe Circus. Jakew (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 2 weeks (Copyright violations: Block evasion of 200.35.144.72) by Reaper Eternal.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be a proxy operating on port 3128. I'll leave it to a more experienced proxy checker to verify my results and up the block if necessary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed, reblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• 41.237.230.86 is also him on an open proxy (confirmed with nmap). Lots of interesting open ports. This needs elevated block.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

User:A:-)Brunuś

...has spent their morning CSDing template documentation. I was about to mass-rollback, but was concerned that it would rollback everything, not allow me to specify date ranges.

Anyone want to investigate? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor has been the subject of two recent ANI discussions on this issue, here and here. He was blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. His Talk page is replete with notices indicating problems with occasional short (and often odd) responses from him. Why is he allowed to continue editing here? As for the mass rollback, if you determine that a few of them were poorly created, I see no need to look back at every one. (I notified him of this discussion.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Is this a competence issue? I'd recommend removal of Twinkle for its misuse and consider banning him from templates or CSD (AfD) of anything.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think TW can be removed; a TW ban may be possible. Tiderolls 15:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Update: he's now indeffed - his edit-warring to keep his welcome to Jimbo around pretty much shows me that there's a gigantic lack of WP:CLUE. His reason for tagging template documentation for deletion is apparently "because someone created subpages". Seriously. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

While G2 would not be an applicable criteria, it appears that the version of the sandboxes that the bot restores does not transclude the documentation. If the documentation is going unused it probably should be deleted. Potentially reasonable goal, using the wrong bureaucratic process. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

My problem does not center on the tagging as much as the lack of communication. The user may actually have a valid reason for their action but if they are unable to explain it to me then I have concerns. Tiderolls 15:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bwilkins -- why open an ANI at 1102 am on an editor that you're going to indef at 1141 am before they've even commented at the ANI? Nobody Ent 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The additional behaviours outside of the tagging that happened after. My original entry was to deal with the CSD tagging only (on a technical basis, not behavioural). I then saw new, inappropriate behaviours that led to the block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

this? It's the only edit they made between ANI and blocking times.Nobody Ent 01:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not saying that this is Bwilkins' reason, but my experience last time was that I tried, and tried to get them to come to ANI or talk on their talk page and they refused, and kept on speedy tagging, forcing me to block. This editor will NOT talk until blocked, in my experience. No comment as to timing (he didn't edit after being notified), just saying there is a clear history of refusal. Bwilkins did note that he found the Jimbo revert, which was bizarre at the very least, and may have been the proverbial straw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I spent the morning going through his contribs, which is how I found the first Jimbo welcome message. I was concerned about all the template CSDs, but saw that someone else mentioned it. I notice he likes to dig through user pages and CSD subpages as well. Much of what he does is perfectly in line with our goals, but much is disturbing and aggressive. For the record, I did the last block on him last week, which is why I've been monitoring him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I grudgingly support the indef block. User is indeed incommunicative until blocked and competence may well be an issue (deleting the main page?). His unblock request cites Asperger's, but I don't know if I should believe that or if that matters. He hadn't mentioned it before and continued in the exact same vein that got him blocked last time. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  Speaking as one who has it myself, Asperger's Syndrome is not a valid excuse. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I addressed this on his talk page (but didn't "review" since I'm too involved), and no, the reason doesn't matter, as disruption is still disruption. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but I've been involved since day one with him, and as much as I hate blocking in general, I just can't see another solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unblock declined - I pointed him to other Wikiprojects to build bones of Fido for the WP:STANDARDOFFER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. User is not doing anything positive to the project, and is completely incommunicative (until he uses Asperger's Syndrome as an excuse for his actions). Remember, he was blocked previously for this until he was indeffed... 'Nuff said here. →Bmusician 02:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppet at Occupy articles

I have already filed a SPI case here. More can be seen by the almost dozen other sock puppets in the User:CentristFiasco archive here. The same edits to the Occupy article/s, the same User pages created. It's an obvious duck(CentristFiasco -- Associate J.), but with the backlog at SPI, I don't expect to hear anything for days or weeks there. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• MuZemike already duck blocked him, less than 90 minutes after filing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. MuZemike is a good bird(not a duck). I didn't mean to cast aspersions at anyone volunteering at SPI(Clerks or CU). I just saw the list with the note atop and jumped to a conclusion. Thanks again. Dave Dial (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They are actually all good guys, just understaffed and overworked. It takes more work to determine a sock than it does to create one. I've been debating training over there myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

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.

---

• Arthur Rubin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Disruptive_editing
• Article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recovered_memory_therapy&action=history

Arthur Rubin is calling good faith edits based on policy "near vandalism" and asserting that he can blanket revert all edits, including good edits, just because some of the edits are disagreeable to him. The guy has a long history of disruptive behavior and warnings from what I can see. He is no stranger to these boards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=arthur+rubin&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+noticeboards+%26+archives&fulltext=Search

He has been around a long time. He knows comparing good faith edits to vandalism is disruptive. He knows blanket reverting is disruptive. He knows lying about policy is disruptive. I will not be bullied by or lied to by him just because I'm a lowly IP editor. I do not want to engage further with him and let myself get baited. Could an admin familiar with his conduct history take a look and perhaps provide a clear warning? Thank you. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP address: since you say you've been around the block for a while, would you perhaps mind linking to other account names/IP addresses you have edited under, and where you acquired your knowledge of policy, procedures, and ANI? At the moment you are setting my spidey-sense off, but I'd prefer it if my nasty suspicious mind was laid to rest before looking at this matter in more detail. Plus, it's just generally nice to know where everyone is coming from. Moreschi (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what all the IPs I've edited under are. They should all originate from Niagara Falls, Boston, and Manhattan. I think they should all be Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner/Adelphia, and Earthlink IPs. There are also university IPs but I'm not willing to disclose those publicly for obvious reasons. My knowledge has come from various links provided by other editors and searching. I typically find policy pages by typing Wikipedia: and then the first couple letter of what I want to find. It gives some suggestions. Sometimes it takes a few clicks around. The disruptive editing and behavior pages have links to the admin boards though it is a bit confusing about what exactly goes where. The account I made is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Donewithanonlynching which I have not used and probably wont because it is a little inflammatory in retrospect. I think I made a similarly named account a couple of years ago that has a couple of edits but I don't remember the name of it. I think that covers the bases but if I can give more info or there are more questions please tell me. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If an editor makes a series of edits, many of which are unacceptable, it is often easier to revert them all. It is not necessarily inappropriate to do depending on the circumstances. It requires some judgment as to how intertwined the edits are and whether you believe the edits were made in bad faith (broadly speaking). Your comments here and on Arthur's Talk page do not speak very highly of your attitude, i.e., accusing Arthur of lying, bullying, etc., not to mention whining about being a "lowly IP". My suggestion is you make edits to the article incrementally (one at a time) and then, if Arthur or another editor reverts you, you can deal with that change on the article Talk page. Or, if you prefer, you can discuss the changes you've already attempted on the Talk page, but focus on the content, not on the editors or the attitude. Although not required, I also suggest that you create an account so you are not IP hopping when making changes - makes it very hard to have any continuity in a discussion about your changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to create an account, nor should I have to. If you've been around then you'll perfectly understand why I occasionally get testy about how you folks treat IP users. That's really here nor there though. As kindly as I can put it at the moment, you should actually know a policy and how it's been applied before deigning to pontificate and posture. Editors have been blocked for refusing to stop performing blanket reverts like that. Mischaracterizing edits and misleading about policy have been treated as aggravating factors leading to longer blocks and less tolerance for misconduct. Could I have used a better tone regardless? No doubt. Does that have anything to do with his conduct and history? Absolutely not.

This is a long running pattern as far as I can tell and I only took about 10 or 15 minutes to look at his block log and search these boards using the search form above. If you could be bothered to put in the small effort you would see the same thing. I really should have just walked away and forgotten about it. I read enough of these boards to more than know better than think most admins would bother to look at his history and actually do anything about it besides lecturing the anonymous editor. I won't be bothering to check this thread anymore. If Moreschi or another clued in admin has any further questions or warnings for me, they can be left on the account page mentioned above. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the log of Arthur being blocked. I've looked at it. It has a number of blocks for edit-warring in 2008. Then there's nothing until 2012, at which point he was blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and misuse of rollback. He was unblocked when he "agreed to wait for consensus". In any event, my suggestions to you as to how to proceed still stand. Even assuming you have a right to be "testy", it doesn't help you achieve your objective here to be so. Based on your comment about not checking this thread, I'll close this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 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:E4024, again

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.

---

Several days ago, E4024 (talk · contribs) received a "final warning" [171] regarding his disruptive and incivil behavior (previous ANI thread here [172]). Unfortunately, if predictably, he has resumed precisely the behavior he was warned against, namely edit-warring [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] and insulting other users in his edit summaries [178] (a jab aimed at me), [179], [180], [181]. He even has the gall to threaten me, if ever so politely, on my talkpage: [182]. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, however, this user seems unable or unwilling to discuss content issues in talkpage, immediately making things in a discussion personal. This can be seen here [183]: I open the thread, he replies, I reply, and then BAM! he forgets about content and goes on about my "problems" [[184]. There is nothing about content there, and he did this completely unprovoked. After seeing comments like these [185] [186] (and many others), it is my distinct impression that this user is too steeped in Turkish nationalist ideology and too aggressive a personality to participate in building a neutral, collaborative encyclopedia. He has been warned several times before (Qwyrxian's warning above is one of many), and while he makes all the right noises after being warned (lots of "please"s, "thank you"s and "all the best"s), he soon resumes his previous behavior when he thinks the storm has passed. Clearly warnings don't work, it is time for something more drastic. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two weeks enforced vacation feels about right - so enforced. Moreschi (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely sounds right. Thanks. Athenean (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. After DeCausa enquired about the term "copin" which E4024 used in his reply to Moreschi to refer to you and other editors, a possible Gay slur from the French word "copain" for "boyfriend", E4024 corrected his misspelling to "copain" and erased DeCausa's edit. And he did this after DeCausa told him that "copain" was a possible gay slur. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If he's using slurs, I'd suggest the block either be reset or increased. And if he persists on continuing to use them, revoke his talk page. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@Dr. K., I'm a bit lost. How is copain or copin a possible gay slur? I don't see either listed in the gay slur list. Also, copain doesn't mean boyfriend, it's a casual word for friend (more than an acquaintance but less than a friend, but not romantic in any event - the French don't use the word friend as much as English-speaking people).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak French but that's what DeCausa told E4024. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is a slur but either way he's probably allowed a bit of extra leeway rant-wise after being blocked. Personally I do not think he will return with an improved attitude, and if not an indef block is likely to be looming in his immediate future anyway. Moreschi (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I did raise this on Moreschi's Talk, but on reflection it's probably best ignored and put down as a "heat of the moment" thing. Arguably I'm culpable for "stirring it" with my post - but I was genuinely puzzled because it seemed pretty obscure, in the circumstances, to use quasi-French. (In answer to Bbb23: I do speak French and no it means boyfriend. Even if I'm incorrect, he changed it in response to my post, which shows his intent) DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nawr, probably nothing sinister there: Copains are just males one likes, quite similar to "mates" in the UK, and "pals" or "buddies" in the US. Copain can mean "boyfriend" too, of course, but without any other context to imply it, one shouldn't assume so. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, particularly in the context. But see my post above. Probably best ignored. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite? Suggest you go ask at fr.wikipedia and see what they have to say. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

He spelt it "copins". I said to him, in terms, did you mean "boyfriends" because if so it's spelt "copains". In response he changed "copins" to "copains". (a) it's clear what he meant (b) I work for a French business and use "copains" all the time to refer to my female colleague's partners...and surprisingly they seem to know to whom I'm referring. DeCausa (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Google translates "copain" as "boyfriend". In any case I can follow Moreschi's logic, but it still seems to me that the context is clear: Calling Athenean and other editors "boyfriends" is a clear gay slur, IMO. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely the logic everyone here is using. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jeremy. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a man. I have a male friend. He can properly be called my copain without any implication of romantic interest between the two of us. As OhioStandard would say, this other man and I are pals. As for DeCausa's comment, that's not been my experience in France, although I suppose it might be understood in context. If I wanted to refer to someone's romantic partner, I might say ami/e or petit/e ami/e.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

FFS: the context is I said to him he's mis-spelled the word for boyfriend in French and he changed it to conform with the spelling I claimed meant boyfriend!!! Sheesh... DeCausa (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What's FFS mean - for French sake? No need to get all tied up in a knot, I've read the diff, and it could be interpreted the way you interpret it, but it could be interpreted differently. What a surprise that editors interpret things differently, compounded by the fact that we are interpreting a mix of French and English.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity...for fuck's sake (maybe a British accro?). I think there's too many people around here tonight (myself included) with time on their hands...Good night all. DeCausa (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Good night. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What would be disturbing is if he used the word copine, which is the female equivalent of copain, to refer to males.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This has turned into a French tutorial on human relations. Awesome. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Very WP in its tangentialness! DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be an encyclopaedia if it weren't also educational, even tangentially. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, Google translate translates the plural copains as "guys". WordReference, a more reliable and informative source than Google translate, gives three translations for copain: "friend", "crony", and "boyfriend". In the context in which it was used by E4024, "the accuser and his copains", the most likely intended meaning is "cronies". That is not a gay slur. The interpretation as "his boyfriends" in this context is far-fetched.  --Lambiam 02:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Putain putain, c'est vachement bien. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There you are. Under the nose of the civility police you are uttering all these profanities but since very few in the civility police corps are French speaking you get away with it. Maybe you're on to something. While you're at it perhaps you should inform a few of the chronic targets of the civility brigade about this new almost undetectable method of swearing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:02, 29 May 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:Daniel Case disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point

Van Cortlandt Park – 242nd Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line) has been move warred several times because of a lack of consensus. User:Daniel Case is the most recent move warrior, but because of his assertions [187] [188] that "consensus doesn't matter", he has become a liability to Wikipedia. I warned him to undo his latest move war in violation of consensus, but he again asserted [189] that consensus doesn't matter. He seems to be operating under the misconception that Wikipedia is a Bureaucracy and the MOS is policy, but neither is the case. He should be blocked to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia until he can collaborate with other editors. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Background

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation and the station naming convention spells out the consensus of how the hundreds of article titles have been formed. The naming convention is the result of much discussion over how to handle these similarly named (and often ambiguously named) stations.

At issue is the spacing of the endashes in the titles. The station articles were developed beginning in 2006 and 2007, with the naming convention being developed in mid-2007. In 2009, it was pointed out to the project [190] that the MOS recommended spaced endashes, and a discussion was started to see if the naming convention should be changed. Consensus developed supporting this and several hundred articles were moved to new titles. Over the course of about two years, thousands of links were also updated.

Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed.

Now, TwinsMetsFan, Daniel Case and Dicklyon are all under the impression that because the MOS guideline has changed, they can ram an extremely disruptive arbitrary change through, without the consensus of those editors it affects. The project has considered this change for several months, but no new consensus formed. Therefore, the current status quo should remain.

One article was even renamed following the current consensus during this time. [191]

Can another administrator look at the naming convention, and recommend a non-disruptive and collaborative solution? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of who has correctly interpreted this style question, move warring is inappropriate. I've protected the page. Please discuss further moves on the talk page. - jc37 19:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree the move warring is not the way to handle this, but it takes two to war, and the complainer is the other one here. The "consensus" he points to is from the days when the MOS recommended spaces around en dashes in such contexts. That all changed last year, in a large wide community effort to decide on what the guidelines for en dash should say. In the new scheme, the spaces are not recommended. There is generally not a consensus to allow local groups to make their own style recommendations, so it's time to update these titles. Dicklyon (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things–there has to be more to this story so I await more input and — or – all I can say is, GEEZ, ANOTHER dispute over dashes and such? Unbelieveable how much people fight over these things, so let's just go file ANOTHER arbcase and settle the fights over MOS once and for all, if that's even possible. PumpkinSky talk 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant discussions are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation/New_York_City_Subway/Station_naming_convention#Outdated_naming_convention and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_York_City_Public_Transportation#Update_naming_convention.3F (the former article is where the guideline update is, and the latter is where Acps100 moved the discussion to get more eyes on it). Acps110 seems to be the only one objecting to updating the naming guidelines for the subway stuff to agree with the MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the MOS was updated by a wider set of the community, I would support updating the article names to reflect the updated guidance on dashes. WP:CONLIMITED would seem to apply here, and the project (actually one member of the project) should yield to the wider consensus and remove the extraneous spaces around the dashes in the article titles. That's just my $0.02 on the matter, Imzadi 1979 → 19:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Full agreement here. As this is related to an arbitration case, ignoring the guideline can lead to some very serious consequences. --Rschen7754 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would declare invalid any vote if it may force millions of edits. Wikipedia is done by volunteers, their time is expensive. Vcohen (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This has WikiProject Ownership written all over it. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to call a certain line in the proposer's paragraph personal attacks. It is extremely rude from a personal standpoint to call someone a liability and be OMG BLOCK NOW without any justification, and that everyone should listen to your demands immediately. That's about the jist of the problem here, not the problem at hand. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 20:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, i like spaces around dashes. But the MOS decision was otherwise, and this is the sort of purely formal matter where settling upon a consistent style is better than having one's own way. there's no one right way, and to insist on doing something in a non-standard way when there is no real substantative reason to is disruptive. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• In principal, I've never objected to the use of endashes, whenever they're appropriate. If the MTA were to rename Sutphin Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line) station as Sutphin Boulevard – Hillside Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) station, I wouldn't object to the use of an endash for a second. Having said that, they're kind of hard to make, and a lot of editors get too uptight about them. While we're at it, somebody on the commons added one to Flushing Main Street (LIRR station) and that doesn't have a dash, hyphen or endash. Also for the record, the renaming of Atlantic Avenue – Pacific Street (New York City Subway) as Atlantic Avenue – Barclays Center (New York City Subway), as much as I hate the idea, has nothing to do with the subject. MTA just changed the name of the station. ----DanTD (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Response from Daniel Case

I appreciate all the support I've gotten from knowledgable and experienced editors like DGG and Mitchazenia (among others) who, it should be noted, are close personal friends through our shared active involvement in WM-NYC (in fact, one of them was going over this with me in the flesh yesterday while visiting my house).

I don't like edit warring of any kind, especially when, as in this case where the warring requires the administrative ability to move over redirects, it becomes wheel warring. We as administrators are supposed to be above that so that we may, with minimal hypocrisy, intervene in such disputes to protect the encyclopedia. I therefore deeply resent that Acps110 put me in the position where I had no choice but to do so.

So, I reiterate my previous accountings of this dispute, especially since PumpkinSky said there had to be more (There is):

• At the end of 2010 I finally began processing pictures I had taken during Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes the Subway almost two years earlier, with the intent of adding them to articles and improving them. I was especially interested in doing so for Van Cortlandt Park–242nd Street (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), as it's one of the stations listed on the National Register of Historic Places. As a member of WP:NRHP, I wanted to improve it and the nomination was available as an excellent source that had thus far not been used. I was able to develop it to the point that I (as with many other articles) successfully nominated it for DYK. It has reached a standard that I would like to see all our NYC subway station articles, indeed all our articles on mass-transit stations anywhere, reach.

• I participated in the en-dash RFC last summer, as did many other interested Wikipedians, including some of those who have contributed here. This is what Acps110 refers to when he says "Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed." He has been provided with a link to that discussion at least twice (his talk page two months ago, the article talk page two days ago) but apparently, judging by his initial refusal to acknowledge it and his subsequent dismissals of it, has not bothered to read it.

• Since I generally consider my main reason for being here to create and improve content, as well as those front-line administrative tasks that should be a regular responsibility of anyone with the tools, I had not kept track of its outcome and assumed that the requirement that en dashes between spaced elements themselves have spaces on either side had been kept. That impression was, as it turned out, incorrect. In March, TMF moved the article to unspaced. Fifteen minutes later he was reverted by Acps110. I was perplexed at first, but after briefly discussing this with TMF, I understood. I later reverted Acps110's move and left a note on his talk page. He did not respond, there or on my talk page, and I erroneously assumed the matter closed.

More later, I have to eat. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK ...

• A discussion was opened at the project's naming convention talk page. No one responded to TMF except for Dicklyon almost two months later, who announced he was changing the policy. Within hours, Acps110 removed the discussion to the main NYCPT talk page where, he said, it would attract more readers. It did, but they mostly discussed a side issue, and it petered out after two weeks.

• Two weeks later, Acps110 declared no consensus and moved the article back to the spaced dashes. He also reverted Dicklyon's change in NYCPT NC policy without, as far as I can tell, asking or even telling TMF or Dicklyon that he was doing so (an interesting tack to take for someone who claims (inaccurately) that consensus is one of the five pillars. But I digress ...) And ... you know the rest.

More later ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)

In conclusion

While I generally try to avoid these sort of drama bursts, I admit that I have seen my name dragged out to AN/I before. When you take a very proactive role in fighting vandalism, reviewing unblock requests and other front-line tasks, it comes with the territory. But ... this is the first time someone's devoted several paragraphs at an AN/I to argue that I should be blocked (a decision that even the hardcores here know usually ought to be left to the participants).

I have to admit that, at first, rather than being disgusted, I'm amused by Acps110. With his Consensus über Alles position, he seems to be a living relic of Wikipedia circa 2003. Encountering an editor like him here and now is like stumbling across some old hippie organic-farm collective in 1985. Or going to a Dead show at that time, man! I didn't believe such people still existed here.

But, that glow of nostalgia cannot hide the fact that there's still a problem. Wikipedia, he wishes to remind me, is neither a battleground nor a bureaucracy. Fine, but he needs to remember that it isn't anarchy, either.

He is correct in one small thing: MOS is not policy, it's a guideline. I allow that I was mistaken in asserting the former. But it is still a guideline with wide acceptance by all editors, a guideline that we generally allow the kind of broad exception that Acps110 seeks only with consensus from a wide group of editors, not just those in a tiny band of the rainbow. If not we would not have had the lengthy discussion of how to amend the en dash section that we did.

Had I come across his recent history in a dispute between two other users, I would have the following concerns with Acps110's editing:

• I am having a great deal of difficulty trying to find a good-faith explanation for so many of Acps110's actions. Particularly the change to the NYCT naming conventions policy page. It seems he was waiting to close the discussion TMF started about changing the policy, a discussion in which what little that was mentioned was relevant went solidly against retaining the current naming convention in light of the MOS change many months prior; and as Dicklyon noted above no one had spoken in favor of retaining it. Acps110 claimed he was waiting for some sort of resolution that not only settled on changing policy and (ultimately) renaming all the non-compliant articles. If so, staying out of the discussion entirely and doing nothing to keep it going is a strange way to do it. Slinking back two weeks after the last post and declaring that no consensus was reached is thus a very thin reed to base your subsequent revert to a project policy page on.

  Similarly, in this AN/I he opened it with a harsh, accusatory and inarticulate indictment of me, then followed the same drive-by pattern of eschewing the ensuing discussion.

  And then there's resuming the move war in spite of my attempt to discuss it with him almost two months earlier with no apparent reply. I do not see what justifies that. I really wonder if this stealth tactic (which I admit I have resorted to in some disputes in the past; that's how I can see it this way) is a way of gaming the system to ensure the preservation of the status quo.

• He clearly fails to assume good faith on my part. In my experience, when the other editor says they're following policy, it's worth it to stop, discuss and check out what they're justifying it with. They might just be right. And you can respect them in the morning, and they you.

  I provided him, as I have shown, multiple times with the relevant links, assuming he would want to inspect them. He completely ignored them then, and only recently has tried to desperately stab for reasons why it just doesn't matter, all rooted in higher, more abstract policies rather than the more nuts-and-bolts aspects of the MOS where a more productive discussion would have taken place.

• For all this heat, he has shed little direct light on why, exactly, he opposes the move. Gathering from the above and this, he does not seem to want to have to do the work. Vcohen seems to support him in this.

You're right, I want neither to do this work nor to have to do it. Vcohen (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, they're both wrong. After the adoption of the current fair-use criteria in 2006, a lot of people and a few bots did a lot of work finding and (often) deleting third-party copyright images that did not comply. I know ... even though I opposed that policy (and still do to some extent), I was one of them. It wasn't fun, but we got it done.

We do not refuse to implement policy changes the community has decided on just because it will be hard work.

• During the intervening weeks from when the March move war occurred and the present, Acps110 does not seem to have made any attempt to open a discussion at the appropriate MOS talk page about possibly creating an exception for NYC subway station names. I can see where you might be able to argue that. But that would have been the proper way to handle this. MOS:FLAG evolved from this sort of discussion, so it's not impossible to succeed.

• I also find this sentence very telling: "Somewhere along the way, the MOS guideline changed." The level of disengagement this so indifferently reveals is disturbing. The guideline did not "change" by itself, as if it were some chameleon in the deep woods. It was changed by the community through a long discussion process which IIRC was advertised in the main watchlist notice for a while. Many editors took part. If you missed it or otherwise disregarded it, that's on you at this point and you forfeit the right forever to call it undemocratic.

  Acps makes it sound as if it were a random event somewhere, when in fact it's how the community does things.

• Lastly, there is the abusive, incivil tone, with some personal attacks scattered in: I don't know what you are smoking, but ... It really pisses me off" and the language above, as noted by Mitchazenia.

I would not presume to suggest what action should be taken. I have no issue with the page protection; I was considering the possibility of requesting it myself. I understand that there are possibly ArbCom sanctions that might apply, so I have set forth the above. I leave to those uninvolved in this dispute to discuss and come to whatever decision they see fit ... God knows I've been on the other side enough myself. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:HassanLechkar

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

This nice fellow has just provided me with my monthly death threat via edit summary [192], which hardly bothers me. However, given the content of his userpage, some of his other edit summaries, and the fact that he created a rather elaborate page from scratch in a single edit, List of programmes broadcast by ETV Kids (Southeast Asia), I'm led to believe this is a kid who's been blocked and is now rather clumsily socking as his father, putting back the content he initially got in trouble for. I guess the article is a copyvio or improper cut-and-paste, but I can't figure out the specifics. Anybody recognize the user or article from the last go round, probably about two weeks ago? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked... regardless of the history, no one should have to put up with that. Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:222.181.161.248 's abuse

New user posting threats and accusations of what might be seen by some as racism on my talk page. May be a sock, may not be but a warning would seem to be in order. I am thick(albeit pale)-skinned enough not to be offended but I would think it a good idea if this editor was not permitted to launch his vitriol at editors who may be more sensitive than I am Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• a) Don't forget to sign your post on their talkpage, b) I don't yet see where you tried to resolve the issue directly with them, c) I don't see any "abuse" in their post - a little uncivil, but nothing to block about, d) you have full authority to warn them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Benetkaci

Benetkaci (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user is assuming ownership of an article he has created, Benet Kaci. All edits of 29 May 2012 involve blanking of biographical information and several summaries in which I have been accused of vandalism each time I have restored the details. Introducing foreign language text in place of English here (English name: Đakovica) and responding to invitations for discussion like this. He has provided no information as to why he is blanking the birthplace entities and I explained their importance in the text he removed from his talk page. This is a user impossible to work posiviley with. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Brief note for BWilkins, please be aware I have not accused the editor of vandalism, and I have avoided sending template messages (except for ANI) because they contain the term "vandalism" within. I know you have dealt with grievances like this in the past so I didn't wish to place myself in a wrongful position. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you directed that at me ... I never made any such suggestions :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evlekis distorts the informaiton and changes the naming of the city of my birth, alleging it is word for the English, while I've put the name of the city according to official data of the municipality where I live. He also states names that do not exist such as Yugoslavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benetkaci (talk • contribs) 13:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting. The editor claims to be the subject. It is possible, nothing preventing it but I don't think it makes a difference does it? Historical accuracy still applies as do English names for places. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: I have Welcomed the user (using Welcome-coi as opposed to Welcome-auto). I have temporarily full-protected the article. We appear to have a new editor, who is the subject of an article they created (bad, bad, bad...but not blockable). The subject appears at first glance to be possibly slightly notable - but someone else can verify - so I have not tagged it for deletion, or even speedied. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be the best decision. Mind you, I shouldn't complain given that I was the last person to edit. I know from experience that a freeze on a page is not a sanctioning of that particular revision which is why I have asked the new editor to start afresh on the talk page of the article. I have made a short start to it anyhow. I wasn't so much seeking a block but I wanted to draw attention to something that was going on far longer than it should have done (I too was in the firing line for reverting). The editor however mentions the statistics per local authority publications but again, there is still this question of endonym vs exonym. In Germany there is München but in English it is Munich. There is a lot that can be said but I am really hoping the editor does not have a bad taste in his mouth and will join the discussion, I have some ideas that can prove amicable and favourable - especially if he is the subject. Thanks for sending him the welcome note. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton 29 copyright violations

Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a habit of uploading copyrighted photographs taken by people other than themselves and claims it as own work. This issues with copyright may also apply to their text based contributions since for example most of Brett Whiteley Studio article is from Brett Whiteley Studio web page. Also back in October 2011 Merbabu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tagged the use page with {{sockpuppet|Jackp}}, going by the behaviour of both editors and the areas they edit (stalker) it seems possible but may not be enough. Bidgee (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the sock puppet suspicions, that's based on uncanny editing habits that include boasting about Sydney being a global city, and a film editing streak. Also, Adelaide and South Australian topics. Both editors have contributed a lot to Chloë Sevigny and other female actors, and also horror films including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. --Merbabu (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Any Admins going to do something or we just let them continue? Bidgee (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ashton 29 has previous socking history. I'm uncomfortable with sockblocks outside SPI myself, but I dare say that there are editors more familiar with that who will block on the provided evidence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the sock puppetry evidence; the copyright issues are enough for me. Multiple times, this person has uploaded images published on various webpages claiming they are his or her own work. This can't be permitted to continue. I've indeffed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:KoshVorlon

KoshVorlon (talk · contribs) recently started a handful of AFDs of list articles, which included Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful coups d'état and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of assassinated people (2nd nomination), which just stated as the rationale "Per WP:NOTDIR WIkipedia is not a list" [sic] and "Delete per WP:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a directory" [sic]. Unsurprisingly, both AFDs received nothing but "keep" !votes, most of which criticized the nomination for being a WP:VAGUEWAVE and for not understanding what WP:NOTDIR itself says in its own introduction ("Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles...").

After eight unanimous keeps, all of which cited relevant guidelines and policy to explain why the nomination was incorrect in claiming NOTDIR forbade all lists, an admin closed the coups d'etat AFD as a WP:SNOW KEEP. KoshVorlon had not further participated in the discussion to rebut any of the comments or to elaborate his rationale. He nevertheless twice reverted that admin close,[193],[194], inexplicably claiming that it was "contrary to consensus" and so was invalid, and that the editor who reverted his improper undoing of the close was himself violating WP:TPO by, in the process, removing a comment KoshVorlon had added when it was "open" (which was only because KoshVorlon himself had opened it).[195]

In the other AFD, we again had nine keep !votes, and again criticism of the substanceless nom. When KoshVorlon finally responded,[196] it was to claim that NOTDIR forbade all lists, that this was policy and we had no ability to override it, and that our comments were inappropriately attacking his nomination. "As consensus has decreed Wikipedia articles can't be lists, you should all be showing consensus why it should stay or else it goes." Three commenters responded, explaining why he was misunderstanding NOTDIR, quoting the relevant intro that he somehow missed, and pointing to numerous guidelines regarding lists (not to mention WP:FL) that clearly would not exist if there was a consensus against lists.[197] KoshVorlon responded by claiming, well, okay, lists of links to articles are okay, but "This is not a list of links to articles, it's simply a list," which NOTDIR policy forbids.[198] Which is simply false anyway because every entry in the list has an article link, as was immediately pointed out.[199]

Most recently, he has been edit warring to hide critical comments in the open AFD by multiple editors in the assassination list AFD as "ad hominem" attacks,[200],[201],[202] still also claiming that his view of NOTDIR was correct and that no one in the AFD had shown cause to override that "consensus".[203] All of these have been criticizing his conduct and comments in that AFD and so are in my view appropriate; in any event, it is inappropriate for him to hide entire comments he does not like.

As I and a couple other commenters have observed, this is either trolling or an epic-level inability to read and understand policy, including that which he himself is citing, or an inability to even accurately read the content he is proposing for deletion. I've seen that many of his recent edits, at least, have been vandal reversions that I can find no fault with, but I can't help but wonder how the issues that have arisen in AFD must color his other contributions. Regardless of whatever he is thinking, the clear tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and completely selective quoting of policy is a problem regardless. We have a definite issue whenever an editor is unilaterally insisting upon his view of policy regardless of everyone else agreeing with him, and obviously his reversion of the deletion close rather than posting at DRV is contrary to policy. I think the pending AFD should be SNOW-closed as keep, a temporary ban on starting AFDs, and we should first see if he will consider mentoring and prior review of his posts in Wikipedia space before considering a broader ban there. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Did not read this all, but affirm the AFDs seemed misguided at the time. JJB 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We wouldn't be here if that was the only problem. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Snow closed Afd, support Afd ban, and a minnow to OP for edit warring over {{hat}} -- putting a hat template on a subsection attracts attention to it per beans, so edit warring over it is just silly. Nobody Ent 14:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• KoshVorlon clearly has some misunderstandings with respect to WP:NOTDIR and WP:AFD in general, but I really don't think it has risen to the level where any action is necessary, whether it be topic bans or blocks. He has nominated a whopping total of 4 articles in the last 2 weeks, and before that it was a year since his last nomination. I think Kosh needs someone to explain some things to him on his talk page (which appears to be happening already), and then go about his day. This isn't an ANI situation yet. -Scottywong| confer _ 14:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• If you can't take the heat, don't take an article to AFD. The last comment he hatted was clearly nothing that should have been hatted (although none actually deserved hatting, just basic "pepper" in an AFD). I'm not sure that a ban is needed, but more than a minnow is required. I don't have a problem with bringing it here, although it is borderline, but someone needs to explain several things to him, including when to to revert a closing admin (ie: not when you are the nom), when to hat (not just when someone disagrees or offers a strong objection to the nom) as well as the obvious WP:BEFORE, which includes reading the policy on lists first. The hat warring was particularly WP:LAME. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I hatt'ed out the comments because the Afd was turning into ad hominem attacks which are inapropriate for any board.

C'mon, don't you think you're going a bit overboard here? We already have a policy that forbids lists, I submitted a list for deletion. The next step is showing cause for it to remain, rather than doing that, you and the other individual I hatted launched into ad hominen attacks on the nominator. In fact, you're still doing that now, referring to my AFD comments as "trolling". Check my contributions, I don't troll here. I remove vandalism and occasionally nominate articles for deletion.

BtW - that close you referred to up top where I stated TPO was violated, really did happen:

I was writing and at the same time, the NAC was being performed on it. So yes, my comments got removed while it was opened.

 KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  14:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Kosh, as Scotty points out, you don't submit a lot to AFD, so let us explain: I would suggest your threshold is a bit low when determining what is an attack and what is a peppered observation. While the comments were more incivil than they needed to be, you hatted the vote part, hatted one that wasn't an attack, and got into a lame revert war. Lists are not forbidden, or we wouldn't have a policy that covers them. Most people would agree (and have) that the AFDs were ill nominated. Then you reverted a close of an article you nominated at AFD, which is improper. I don't think you were trolling, but I do think you don't understand the guideline on lists. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, but I do think Scottywong has got it right here, this isn't quite ANI level yet. Given that fact that Postdlf was also edit warring, I think he might do best by having a cup of tea and a little break from Kosh. Kosh, your recent nominations have been problematic, as was your edit war, for reasons I've explained on your talk page. Hopefully we can all move on without too much more fuss. Worm^TT≡talk≡ 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That's nice to think, but I think the previous comment from Kosh points to a rather deep problem here, not simply an AFD-specific problem: he is still insisting that when a non-admin undid Kosh's own reversion of an admin's close of the first AFD, that this was itself a non-admin close, and that when this restoration of the close removed a comment that Kosh added only after he himself had reopened the AFD, that this violated WP:TPO. So he can find talk page guidelines and knows the phrase NAC, but cannot find or understand deletion policy that you do not revert admin closes but instead discuss first and then start a DRV. This demonstrates a pretty serious inability to understand and apply policy on the same order as his misinterpretation of NOTDIR in the face of unanimous disagreement, which he thought entitled him to revert the admin's close in the first place. I don't like conflict on WP, and I was hoping this would either go away or someone else would start an ANI, but we do the project a disservice when we just let things drop when they are clearly unresolved and there is clearly problem behavior that he is showing no sign of yet understanding is a problem. postdlf (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis we do, WP:NOTDIR. This is policy and thus community consensus. The AFD never showed that this consensus must change. When a consensus exists, and anyone wants to change it, the onus is on them to show that it must be change. This didn't happen in either AFD. And yes, I know I submitt very few AFD's... so,yes, I'm not over-experienced in that area so I won't be submitting those articles again.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have advised KoshVorlon on three occasions in the last few days (here,here and here) that WP:NOTDIR does not forbid lists; other people have also done so. But he continues to insist that WP:NOTDIR represents a consensus by Wikipedians to forbid lists, despite the total consensus to the contrary of the Wikipedians who have discussed the issue with him. He has also made the bizarre assertion that List of assassinated people is "not a list of links to articles" (in that article's AfD discussion) when it manifestly is a list of links to articles. I am concerned by his total failure to listen to what people are saying to him and I cannot understand the assertion about the list of links, though I acknowledge that the behaviour does seem to be on a small scale at the moment and the user seems to also be making worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if any sanctions are appropriate. Dricherby (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's not IDHT.... Please note WP:NOTDIR says:
  
  

Wikipedia articles are not:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.

It's here in black and white. Just so we're clear.... I will not submitt any afd on any article that's a list since we seem to disagree that policy says what it says. I will not comment on any afd that's submitted as a list as well. That sound good ?  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  15:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Your signature is getting a bit out of hand again, as it spans multiple lines when you post. Can this be reined in a bit? Y'know we've been to ANI about this before as well. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• My concern in the AFDs was that somebody could so fundamentally misunderstand a policy which is right there in black & white, ignoring the fact that other editors, including myself, provided a number of examples which demonstrated that his policy interpretation was completely wrong. Anyone can screw an AFD nomination or misquote a policy by accident, I know I have. The fact that KoshVorlon's nomination was faulty is not an issue as it was obviously in good faith. But to repeatedly insist that the sky is green when other people are showing you that it's blue.... Competence is a requirement to edit Wikipedia and if an editor in unable to comprehend policies even after reading them and having them explained then perhaps it's better if they part ways with the project. I take no pleasure in saying that and I believe KoshVorlon means well with his editing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • From your bolding, you're not reading it as intended: (Lists or repositories of) loosely associated topics ~. Wikipedia has list articles intentionally; what it is trying to avoid is lists of trivia. Dru of Id (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I explained the distinction between "(Lists) or (repositories of [stuff])" and "(lists or repositories) of [stuff]" when KV asked about it on my talk page. I'm reasonably sure he read what I wrote there because, after I made it, he made a minor edit to his own comment there (perfectly acceptable; just fixing a couple of broken links). But, still, he insists that his interpretation is correct and doesn't even acknowledge that other people (exactly the "consensus" that KV holds so high) have stated otherwise. Dricherby (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate the undertaking not to get involved with AfDs on lists (assuming this extends to WP:PRODs, as well). That allays my most significant concern. Dricherby (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hadn't thought of that, but I'll add Prod's to that list too. Kosh ^{Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj} 17:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of comments from talk pages

• And now a separate issue, though related to the hatting in AfDs. In this edit to a talk page, KoshVorlon removed the (unsigned) comment of another user and a subsequent (signed) comment of a third user from a talk page with the edit summary "rm Garbage". However, the comment was certainly not garbage in the "patent nonsense" sense of WP:SD#G1; it was merely an implausible assertion. A further comment has been removed at [204].

  Also, abusive comments that VorlonKosh posted to an IP user's talk page (though he subsequently thought the better of it and deleted them). Dricherby (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

First, it's polemic, second it's using the talk page like a forum, third, it's an attack on a living individual, fourth, | it falls under General Sanctions, broadly construed . The original poster put it right back in and I advised I wouldn't touch it again.

The second item you mentioned is not recent, but yes, I admit that was harsh,that's why I redacted it. the "rm garbage" means just was it says, garbage was inserted into an article. I used "garbage" rather than "vandalism" as vandalism has a specific meaning, I tend to use this term except when it's unambiguous to avoid the drama above.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 11:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I most certainly was not the original poster [205]. I did respond to the comment here: [206]. The original post was over the top for sure, but calling my post 'garbage' is way out of line, again, unless I am missing something. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the next time you want to accuse me of violating WP:FORUM WP:BLP or any other policy here at ANI I would request a notification. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not "inserted into an article": I am specifically talking about your deletions from talk pages. I see nothing in the Obama article probation (my emphasis) GS that refers to deleting material from talk pages. Please read WP:TPO: "you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" (emphasis in the original). Deleting prohibited material (libel, personal attacks, etc.) and removing harmful posts (personal attacks, trolling, vandalism) are usually fine but note the specific exclusion: "This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial" (emphasis in original). Specifically, calling Obama a "f***ing liar" is simple invective, in my opinion; even if you disagree, it would suffice to have deleted those words, rather than the whole comment. It is not for you to decide what topics can be discussed on talk pages: whether or not Bin Laden died in 2006 is clearly relevant to the talk page on that article, regardless of your (and my) opinion that the claim lacks credibility. It is also not for you to decide the truth or otherwise of the comments you deleted from the other talk page I mentioned. If you believe that something in an article is wrong and it's unsourced then deleting it is usually reasonable; the same does not generally apply to talk pages. Dricherby (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

DBrodbeck --- Your correct, I was responding to Dricherby, but yes, I should have alerted you as well. Big-Ass Trout accepted for that.

Dricherby, calling Obama a "f*cking liar" is BLP. BLP applies everywhere, and rather than stir more drama about how I read policy (and believe me I get it, I read it more incorrect than correct) I 'll just leave it at this. I see a BLP, I'll remove BLP. BLP trumps TPO. I let it remain rather than stir more drama, and yes, I'll let someone else pull it from that article.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"BLP" means "Biographies of living persons". "F***ing liar" is not a biography. While I would not object to the removal of those words from the comment, I see no justification for removing the whole comment. Dricherby (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically calling out someone as a "liar" is debatably a BLP vio, especially in the context of the comment. BLP applies everywhere. That said, the entire comment was inappropriate trolling. Deleting or archiving it was appropriate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with IP 84.45.222.192, et al

I wish to get an admin opinion about on contributions by an IP editor (User:84.45.222.192) who is engaged in a slow edit war at Cardinal Langley Roman Catholic High School (page hist) and has now reached the stage of personal abuse (see here) (The editor in question has been informed of this notification). This editor, who has also apparently edited under the names User:Cobulator and User:Woodseats44 (see here), has a history of disruptive editing (contributions here and here), particularly at Lincoln Cathedral. I am questioning whether he will ever respond to persuasion, and am wondering if it’s time he was given a three-line whip. Failing that, I would request some page protections to give everyone concerned a bit of peace. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked editor 48 hours for this refactoring [207], among other reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  Any admin that feels I was too generous, or find additional reasoning to extend this block, feel free. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PA by BozokluAdam

I consider this a clear violation of WP:PA by BozokluAdam (talk · contribs). He is insulting me on my own talk page and he calls it a "friendly advice". Beside the direct insults against me, his posting (like almost all of his edits) is filled with racist rants. --Lysozym (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please file at WP:WQA, as I believe this is a bit out of the range of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? Let me just highlight a few direct quotes:

• Persian vandal
• you don't need to be so racist as you don't carry out a pure blood
• You might be afraid of 38-million Turkic people in Iran, but the assimilation zeals of Persian vandals can boomerang against your country

How is that not racist and a violation against PA?! Keeping in mind that I am not even Iranian. --Lysozym (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The first one, by adding an ethnicity in front of "vandal" could be. The second, by referencing non-"pure blood" might be. The third, not at all. Again, however, violations of WP:NPA are typically handled at WP:WQA as they do not generally end with blocks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding...although I have engaged the editor on their talkpage, I'm trying to find out where you attempted to resolve this directly with them in the first place... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not discussing with an editor who is not interested in improving this encyclopedia and who is telling other users to "fuck off". I made my points clear in the talk-page of Hazara people. BozokluAdam is a "man on a mission", driven by an ethnocentric agenda - against all scientific and scholarly works. Just go through his edits. He does not have reliable sources, does not have much knowledge or understanding of the subject he is claiming to be an "expert" in. And when confronted with justified criticism, he starts to insult and to repeat racist nonsense (such as "there are 38 million Turks in Iran", "Turkish blood", etc). He is even indirectly trying to justify the Armenian genocide, by claiming that the Armenians betrayed the Turks ("... Turkic dynasties and states have been tolerant and democratic against other people as far as they didn't betray ..."). So how do you want me to "resolve" this dispute with him?! How wwould you react to someone who is denying the Holocaust, who speaks of "German blood" and "German superiority" and that "Germans have been tolerant to those peoples who did not betray them"?! --Lysozym (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm with Lysozym on this one. This is a garden-variety pan-Turkic chauvinist. We've had those coming out of our ears for years, and like all the rest, this one is just here to flame and revert-war. I've blocked him for two weeks for disruption (this one certainly merited it if nothing else) and will certainly block him indefinitely if he doesn't at least try to comply with policy upon return. Moreschi (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Me too. This editor was on my talk page trying to get one or two of his counterparts blocked (see the 3RR warning I put on their talk page). Of course, his IP opponent was pushing the same buttons, just on an opposite panel. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive and uncommunicative IP at Secular humanism

There has been a longstanding introductory sentence to the article - "The philosophy of secular humanism... embraces human reason, ethics, and justice while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.." 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) first sought to remove the reference to "justice" (first example here), and, on being reverted, sought an WP:RFC for the change here. There was some support from other editors that the reference to "justice" needed to be better sourced, but agreement that the RFC was premature. The IP did not comment at all - and has not done since - on other editors' responses to the RFC. The IP then - here - rewrote the introductory sentence, adding in supposed sources (in fact, in some cases irrelevant and certainly not balanced). Again, despite requests from other editors that these changes be discussed on the talk page, the IP has not done so, but instead has reinstated their RFC request. Other editors have made the point that the references added are partial, and inappropriate for the lede, but have restated their willingness to discuss improving the article, particularly through better and more balanced sourcing to support the opening sentence. As it seems to be impossible for the IP to be effectively blocked, is the only solution to protect the page? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth should I be blocked? I researched the topic, I found a broad range of sources, I added them to the article. Why is it that you're unhappy with that but perfectly willing to accept a completely unreferenced lede? "Other editors" haven't "made the point" that the references are partial. You have made the claim that the references are partial. The "supposed source" as you like to call them were completely relevant. Why do you think that they're unbalanced?89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ledes are not supposed to be referenced; they are supposed to summarise sourced text in the article. Editors agree that the definition of the term needs to be better sourced in the article text. The way to do that is to discuss sources and article text on the talk page, and then agree a lede through consensus - not by adding random, barely relevant or irrelevant, sources, to the opening sentence, and changing the longstanding wording agreed by consensus. Consensus can change, but it needs to be done through discussion on the article talk page. You have not yet contributed to that discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing random, irrelevant or barely relevant about the sources. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the sources, please do so at the article talk page. This page is about your behaviour. You need to withdraw your unilateral edits to the opening sentence, and discuss your suggestions on the talk page, with other editors, to move towards a new consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So... You can complain about me adding "irrelevant" sources, but I can't say "but the sources are relevant"? I don't think that's the way it works. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You've been properly advised that you can discuss the sources and the changes you wish made to the article on the Talk page. Until then, stop insisting on editing the article. I reverted your latest change.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Ghmyrtle's point above, as far as I can tell (and I'm no expert), an IP coming here through a proxy server (dynamically assigned by an ISP), can still be blocked, even if it is not completely effective. One possibility is a soft block. Normally, page protection is reserved for disruption by multiple IP addresses, not just one. Thus, if a block of this particular IP is warranted (say for edit-warring), but after the block, they come back, then at some point page protection would be the right route. Otherwise, we would be penalizing a much broader number of IPs than the particular one assigned by the proxy server.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of dealing with this. The ip is having problems on a lot of articles. Take a look at his talk page's history. Nearly every edit is him being warned, or him reverting the warning. On Secular Humanism in particular, he has continually inserted his own novel definition, edit warred to keep it in, and actively refused to discuss his change on the talk page. His only participation to talk has been to argue that he doesn't have to discuss it. He has also created an RfC (despite refusing to discuss the matter himself), and is edit warring to keep it open. Every editor who has so far commented agreeing that it should be closed, but up to now, I've been the only one to actually close the RfC or engage him on his edit warring over it. Since I'm not interested in being disruptive, his edit warring has been "winning" to keep his content in the article and his inappropriate RfC on talk. Combined with other disruptive editors I've dealt with very recently, it's exhausting... can someone else please step in? (I appreciate Ghmyrtle and Bbb23 correcting the lead. Can someone else block 89.100... for consistently edit warring (or warn him again, or semi the article), and close the improper RfC?) Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

And in case someone doesn't want to look through his contrib history themselves, here's a few diffs. History of one article, showing 17 combative reverts within just the last 50 edits, spanning back to April,EW warning on April 15, EW warning on May 18, and edit summaries like this are not appropriate. Those are just the first 4 things that popped out at me in less than a minute of looking.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly have I "actively refused" to discuss on talk or "argue that I don't have to discuss it"? I weighed in on discussion here [208] here [209] and here [210], then waited for others to weigh in. I also discussed the issue with you on your own talk page here [211] and here [212]. By delisting the rfc, you prevented fresh pairs of eyes from getting a chance to look at the article. And how is an rfc inappropriate when the regular editors have failed to write an appropriate lede? A responder to the rfc has now inserted referenced info relating to secular humanism and justice into the text body, which nobody had done before the rfc, and which was what the rfc was to draw attention to. Keeping editing of an article exclusively to regular editors is a recipe for WP:BIAS. I never inserted "my own novel definition". I researched the topic, and added three differing descriptions referenced to reliable sources. It wasn't my definition. It was the definitions I found in published sources. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That is grossly misrepresenting facts. Your first diff was to open the RfC, your first edit to the talk page ever, and your second and third diff are you arguing that the RfC was justified. Every editor has told you that you're handling this the wrong way. You've responded to them by edit warring without discussion. That's disruptive.

Don't take credit for Donald's work; he agreed your proposal was inappropriate, and he actually took the time to collaborate on a solution and found sources to support it. Considering that everyone agrees the RfC was unjustified, and it's only open due to your insistence on edit warring, and the issue it intends to address has already been handled, it would be a measure of good faith for you to listen to their advice and close it. Short of that, I think a block for consistently edit warring across multiple articles is warranted (or a final warning to that effect), and someone else should properly delist the RfC.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting anything, grossly or otherwise. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Saying "A responder to the rfc has now inserted referenced info relating to secular humanism and justice into the text body" is not claiming credit for someone else's work, and you know that it is not. It's saying that someone else added referenced material. He didn't "agree that my proposal was inappropriate", and you know that he did not, so do not say that he did to try to prop yourself up. The rfc was completely justified. The regular editors had failed to add references for material they wanted included, and wouldn't allow the unreferenced material to be removed. Responding to the rfc, user:DonaldRichardSands added references for unreferenced material. I wanted to remove unreferenced material, doing so is perfectly okay. He added references for unreferenced material, doing that is also perfectly okay. You wanted to keep unreferenced material, that is not okay. When I took the time to find sources for the article, they were deleted. That is not okay. Other editors are still commenting on the rfc, so it would be inappropriate to close it. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't break up the responses of other editors. I moved your response down. As for the rest, I think the diffs, and conversation on article talk speak for themselves. IRWolfie has correctly (per the input of everyone who has so far commented) removed the RfC tag. Please do not re-add it again. And please stop combatively edit warring across multiple articles. You need to work collaboratively with others. The RfC did nothing to help the article; discussion (from editors other than you) did. Please learn from that experience, and take the advice of everyone else here. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

"As for the rest, I think the diffs, and conversation on article talk speak for themselves." Translation: You have no defense other than ignoring me. "The RfC did nothing to help the article; discussion (from editors other than you) did". The rfc is what brought (and is still bringing) editors there. Why are you ignoring that fact? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you refusing to discuss the matter on the article talk page? I don't get it. You've spent an incredible amount of time arguing about the validity of the RfC on talk, my talk, here, and now you've brought this to DRN too... but you've spent no time at all to discussing the actual article. You've been advised to do so everywhere. Why won't you? If you're not willing to discuss this on the article talk page, then I have no interest in rehashing this discussion over and over on ANI. I'll leave others to comment.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:VivaWikipedia

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 user is not new as such, but has only recently become what I would call active, and seem to be focusing on a lot of I-P topics. The user is currently attempting to add Occupation 101 on Rachel Corrie as a reliably-sourced documentary (while the documentary's page itself says it particularly spoke to those critical of Israel), and is proceeding to argue with anyone who thinks otherwise without really supplying any sort of argument (see Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Occupation_101_RS as well as my talk. I also reverted some editorializing on Norman Finkelstein and From Time Immemorial from this user, as have others on other articles. I'd normally say this was a content dispute, but there's a 1RR restriction on Rachel Corrie per ArbCom, and there also seems to be a generalized issue of VW editing I-P topics from a POV perspective, or simply not understanding policies before editing those articles. See [213], [214], [215], and [216] for examples. There are several issues here, and thus I am unsure whether this is a guidance issue, uncorrectable tendentious editing, something for AE, or perhaps something else entirely. MSJapan (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I just found out about this right after I responded to the AN3 report. I've blocked VivaWikipedia for 24 hours after violating 1RR on Rachel Corrie and issued an ARBPIA notification. If other people think further sanctions are warranted, I'm fine with that as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a fairly standard case of an inexperienced editor in the I-P topic area falling afoul of one policy or another and getting beaten around the head with the ARBPIA sanctions by experienced opposing editors and a willing Admin. If we really want to encourage new editors into the topic area we need to take time to explain the rules not just use honest mistakes to take them out of the picture before they have even had an opportunity to learn the ropes. Dlv999 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This editor is aware of guidelines but persists in editing in a tendentious manner. See this edit where he removes "controversial" and cites the Wiki manual of style. Yet a few days later, he adds this word in the exact manner that he previously objected to, this time the book being one that he disfavors. WP:DONTBEAHYPOCRITE is something that should be tacitly understood by all editors and "experience" should not be necessary to recognize this; nor should such tendentious editing be characterised as trivial inadvertent infringements.Ankh.Morpork 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Spare me the fake indignation, if you really believe this kind of edit is tendentious why don't you make a case against Ynhockey, an experienced editor who recently added the term to the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine article following removal by VivaWikipedia [217]. Or is it the case that this only constitutes "tendentious" editing when the editor happens to disagree with your POV? And considering after nearly 5,000 edits you still have a message on your user page claiming you are a "new editor and prone to mistakes", I would have thought you would be a bit more sympathetic to bona fida inexperienced editors with less than 175 live edits. Dlv999 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 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.

Obvious sock is obvious

WP:DENY

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:Starsgazing is an obvious sock, my money is on Nangparbat, though it may be user:I Am agent X either way block the him. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Feel free to do an investigation instead of trolling articles and hounding Starsgazing (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Editing via a proxy or webhost this time? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely. -- tariqabjotu 19:33, 29 May 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:Liftshat and User:Liftcommie

WP:DENY

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:Liftshat seem to be a vandalism only account.[218] Very threatening as well.[219] // Liftarn (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Indef'd for harassment, and attempted mimicry. Likely a sock of someone you're in the middle of some type of disagreement with - any ideas who? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC) I have no current disagreements, but whoever it is he/she is persistent. Back again with another sock.[220] Could you please remove it from history as well? // Liftarn (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Done and I semi-protected your talk page for a day to put a stop to the trolling for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks. // Liftarn (talk) 18:40, 29 May 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.

Pope

There is an anonymous IP that is trying to argue that Nero was a Catholic Pope because both Nero and early Popes used the title Pontifex Maximus. The title Pontifex Maximus predates Jesus by several hundred years and was used to describe the Emperors before it was transferred in use to the early church. I would like somebody to take a look at the discussion and determine if this SPA and another [IP should be blocked/warned/etc... and the discussion closed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This is merely a content dispute, and an insignificant one at that. The two SPA accounts have confined themselves entirely to the talk page and there is no disruption happening, so I think this can be safely ignored by administrators. Elizium23 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have closed the discussion as a clear waste of time, but I don't think blocks are needed for the moment. If he persists, then we have a lot of time to start brandishing our banhammers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Salvio did the right thing... it needed to be closed... by somebody uninvolved. The issue is a non-issue being spurned by a troll.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering Nero blamed the Christians for the fire, he wasn't much of a "Catholic Pope". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wowpedia vs. Template:Wowwiki

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.

---

At some point various users went through Warcraft articles and either changed Template:Wowwiki to Template:Wowpedia links or added Template:Wowpedia links and removed Template:Wowwiki from external links and other sections. Although this was blatant vandalism, as with many topics that no admin really cares about at Wikipedia, nothing was done and restoring the WoWWiki links was either reverted or undid without any question as if that were okay. I'd like some admin to tell users to stop removing WoWWiki links.

Wowpedia was a fork of WoWWiki formed by a bunch of disgruntled (perhaps rightfully so) admins, but WoWWiki did not go away or get closed down. However, several Wowpedia users started vandalizing WoWWiki and probably going through Wikipedia and changing all the WoWWiki links to Wowpedia links.

I'd just like to see a ruling by a credible Wikipedia admin that removing Wowwiki links was not the right thing to do. If the ruling is that WoWWiki links aren't notable or whatever using the various bureaucratic mechanisms, I won't revisit this issue and just let all the WoWWiki links get removed, but until then, I will periodically start adding them back.

And no, I won't do this from a logged in account. If that makes a difference, then I please tell me why. --71.141.246.140 (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wowpedia is generally regarded as the main Warcraft wiki these days. It's officially linked to by Blizzard on numerous pages and the reasons for the split to begin with, based on what I've read, were fairly well justified. It's true that wowwiki is still around but it's not nearly as active or up-to-date as wowpedia. This is all largely irrelevant to what is essentially a process decision, but I'd be in favour of replacing the wowwiki links with wowpedia if that question is asked at any point. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm against the adding of WoWWiki to articles, which this IP user did. I reverted him explaining in my edit summary "Blizzard links to Wowpedia so that's the only wiki that counts" but they then reverted me, and added them back in. [221] More input here please. Any possible reason to link to a less active less complete wiki? Anyone can produce a wiki on anything, that doesn't make it notable enough to link to. Does it provide any possible information the other one doesn't? And if you have to choose, wouldn't you choose the one that was the most complete AND had the company that makes these games linking to? Dream Focus 01:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds to me like a content dispute. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to opine as I have been a member of both sites. The content fork was due to the fact that wowwiki was going to enable extra advertising and require a change of template. The powers that be for the site decided that they would rather content fork (as is their right) and stay with comfortable ways. It's been observed that with the leadership went the tallent for editing/writing. Wowwiki has atrophied and is now out of date. Wowpedia is fairly up to date and keeps decent integrety. I would endorse the removal of Wowwiki from articles as the content fork ensured that anything wiki had, pedia has. Hasteur (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• IP OP, It's usually a good thing to open a new discussion (not glom onto one that was over a year old) to see if a new consensus has been established. That you are choosing to stir up trouble deliberately on an IP address suggests that if you did this your registered account, it would be highly discouraged. This says to me that there's some sort of conflict of interest or you are wanting to avoid scrutiny. To help you I've proposed deprecating the template at Template talk:Wowwiki#Deprecating the template to see if there is a consensus to keep using this template as an authoritative external link. Hasteur (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm totally uninvolved with either WoW wiki, but a little bit of background info may be useful to people trying to sort this out. When Wikia switched over to their Oasis/New Wikia Look skin from the previous Monaco skin, there was an insurgence (this is not hyperbole) among Wikia users. A sizable number of them left Wikia and moved "their" wikis to non-Wikia hosting. However, Wikia kept the domains and desysopped the insurgent users. Now, because of Wikia's prominence, the first googlehits are usually going to be for the Wikia wikis, and many non-Wikia editors in turn have taken to "aggressive advertising". I don't know the specifics of WoWpedia/WoWwiki, but any Wikia-hosted wiki vs non-Wikia-hosted wiki dispute can be like stepping into a hornet's nest. McJEFF ^(talk) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I just read up on some more info on this at Wikia#Domain_and_skin_assimilation and...yeah, I definitely support the Anti-Wikia Alliance. Silverseren^C 04:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Question When did WoW become primarily a Warcraft reference? When I saw the header, I figured it was this guy come back to life. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Um...many, many years ago. You're behind the times, man. :P Silverseren^C 04:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Nyttend can't be serious, can he? I mean, it sounds like he's been living with wolves for the last decade... :-) Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 30 May 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 User:203.17.156.240 (blocked), Peter Carl Fabergé, homophobic vandalism and blocking duration.

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

Peter Carl Fabergé (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The edits [222], [223], [224] and [225], by the User:203.17.156.240 (blocked), at Peter Carl Fabergé, all being homophobic vandalism, may require deletion. (and are mere 31 hours of blocking sufficiently enough?) I thank you. — KC9TV 04:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the page was under attack, courtesy of Google. There's more gay comments in the history, but since this isn't a BLP, there's no great harm done except to my view of humanity. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tell me about it! A lot of IPs, I say! I am still trying to go through them, myself, but I am not an administrator. Well, don't you nerds use Google any more? — KC9TV 05:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• There's really no point in blocking the IPs after the fact: they are not likely to disrupt that article--just juvenile spur-of-the-moment vandalism, possibly pushed by 4chan or something like that. I've blocked all the throwaway accounts, I think. On the bright side, a lot of legitimate editors have worked to improve the article--there's the silver lining. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure question

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 appreciate if someone could clarify if this AfD was correctly ended as a non-admin closure [226]. From what I've seen on this website, I was under the impression that non-admin closures could only be done if there was no call to Delete an article. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not only was the NAC improper, but neither was the result. Non-notable company: delete was the only possible outcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

fixed my post (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the NAC was proper but the result was incorrect? You say delete was the only possible outcome, but the result was no consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a typo s/proper/improper/. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. 3 comments in 26 days isn't a consensus. Nobody Ent 11:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

...and as such, it's one of those times where the closing admin carefully looks at the article, the 3 arguments provided. The only keep argument is weak when the actual ref's are looked at, and as such the two delete ones - well-grounded in policy - are the consensus. Re-opened the AFD and closed accordingly. I fear the original NAC closer was thinking this is a !vote (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

or relists as two administrators actually did. Nobody Ent 11:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there are comments here that I should hold off for a while, of course I will. I believe I'm exercising caution and a quick look through my edits should reveal that I'm not simply blasting through closing things here, there and everywhere. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. You recently relisted one where policy-based consensus was horrifically obvious. AFD is not a vote, you need to look at the "evidence" and weigh based on policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm well aware that it's not a !vote. Please feel free to check through some of my other closes and you should find some which demonstrate I don't close based on !votes. -- Trevj (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Horrifically? Then why didn't the two previous admin's close it?? There's an 80 something article Afd backlog and you're going to slam an editor trying to clear it? Nobody Ent 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect BWilkins is referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryse Selit, also discussed at User talk:Trevj#Talkback. -- Trevj (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right -- but it's doesn't change my opinion. Horrific is things like plane crashes and that event Godwin's law refers to, not Afd discussions. It's just a website. Nobody Ent 12:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The NAC close was correct. One delete and one keep equals no consensus. That and a NAC can never close as delete. The NAC was fine.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Except it's not a simple !vote, of course. -- Trevj (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Unless someone takes Clampco Sistemi to WP:DELREV or something, only admins are going to be able to assess the refs in the article as it was. -- Trevj (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. Two delete !votes including the nominator, and a single keep which just said "I say it's fine" - no rationale, no nothing. I might have relisted it if it was on its first week but after this amount of time, with no-one actually saying anything worthwhile in the article's defence, it's an obvious delete. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I use to make WP:NPASR closes before I became an admin and I would very rarely do it when there was a "delete" !vote unless that "delete" !vote was completely out in left field. I would not have touched this one because the 1 "delete" !vote was grounded in policy, the 1 "keep" !vote was from the article's creator and aside from bolding the word "keep", he didn't make any argument at all. It was almost a chewbacca !vote. Gmenta, on the outside chance that you are reading this, I'm sorry but your argument was basically "because I said so" which is not a rationale for keeping or deleting --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To cite one WP:NPASR case which has recently been drawn to my attention (albeit with some actual discussion), how about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Savage (film producer)? Does anyone here think that should have been closed as delete rather than no consensus? -- Trevj (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Am I missing something? Why is it being described as a non-admin closure? Bwilkins (talk · contribs) is an admin. This was a perfectly routine AfD closure. Anyone who disagrees, can raise the matter at DRV - providing they have extra evidence of notability! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, you're missing the history. -- Trevj (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It was a NAC to no consensus originally, BWilkins over-ruled the NAC and changed it to delete, hence the discussion.

KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I note that WP:NACD states Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. Therefore, over-ruling a close may not have been the correct procedure - whereas just reverting it does seem to be. -- Trevj (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing there that would stop an admin, if he believed the close to be incorrect, re-opening it, then immediately closing it. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I might add that under different circumstances, I may have had a more thorough search for references myself and contributed them to the discussion (if the search were successful) or !voted delete (if not). But in this case, we're in week 3 with plenty of time for others to have already !voted regarding refs... no consensus seemed appropriate IMHO. Would we really be having all this drama if the no consensus close had been made by an admin? -- Trevj (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Trevj's non-admin No Consensus closure was an acceptable action. It was overridden as Delete by an admin, perfectly within policy and acceptable. Nothing improper was done, an admin simply overrode a good faith NAC using his best judgement under WP:NPASR. This is how the system is supposed to work, it isn't a bug, according to my reading of WP:NACD, as he basically reopened and reclosed the AFD in one action. Since there are no bad faith actions by anyone involved, ANI is the wrong forum. WP:REFUND is the proper forum if someone disagrees with the outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I believe the closer, should s/he be insistent in closing, should probably have taken a better look at the references beforehand to see which !votes, if any, were correct in accordance to policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-admins should not touch a deletion discussion unless it is absolutely crystal-clear that it is a keep. IIRC, I have closed only one myself, when some git nominated a Beatles song for deletion. They can't close delete for obvious reasons, and it shouldn't really be up to them to determine non-consensus. NC at that Clampco Sistemi AfD was a poorly thought out and ultimately wrong call. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I have no comment as to the wisdom of either close since that is beyond the scope of ANI. My point is that no actions appear to be in bad faith or a violation of policy, so ANI is an improper place to discuss it. If the non-admin feels it was truly a mistake, WP:DRV is another option, but nothing that anyone has done requires immediate action by another admin, thus this needs to be closed at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
• I would add that I personally have no problem with a non-admin closing as no consensus or merge, as the bit doesn't bestow extra wisdom. It is bold, but I encourage boldness. An admin is free to override when they feel it is necessary, and we have two venues designed to deal with "mistakes" if the non-admin thinks one was made. ANI simply isn't one of those two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he didn't just re-open the discussion, he re-opened and closed it,which goes further than the instructions on NAC state:

Non-administrators closing deletion discussions are recommended to disclose their status in the closing decision. Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator. f this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought.

This AFD was NAC closed. Then , on request reviewed by the admin , which I agree, is supported by NAC. He re-opened it, again NAC says that can happen, no problem. He then turned around and closed it which goes further than the stated policy. Shouldn't he have simply re-opened it ? KoshVorlon Angeli I demoni krushil nado mnoj 13:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) OK. We all make mistakes. Thanks for what has proved to be a useful and informative discussion. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Once opened, he simply chose to reclose it, something any admin can do. That he reopened it didn't taint the situation or make him "involved". Technically, another editor could have reopened and reclosed as "keep" in a bold move, although I don't recommend that in most circumstances. The admin should be free to reopen and close any AFD he feels was made in error, that is pretty much the role of an admin, after all. Again, there are two venues to take the issue to. Even though I am an admin, if Bwilkins felt it was necessary to revert me and change the close, I would have taken it to his talk page, then if I was unsatisfied with his answer, I would take it to WP:DRV, which is specifically setup for this. But to clearly answer your point, I believe it is acceptable for an admin to do what Bwilkins did. As to whether the article should be "keep", "no consensus" or "delete", I have no opinion, I'm only saying that he acted properly. It might not be common, but I think the act of overriding another editor in this way is proper. The two should simply discuss it, outside of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:43, 30 May 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:Jaguar

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.

---

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

Hello, a user has asked me to consider whether it would be feasible to move this section back here from the subpage, as he feels that they were making real progress and the move to the subpage might hinder that, which seems a viable concern to me. I am however not familiar enough with the usages of ANI to know what's best, so I'd love if somebody more familiar than me could handle this issue. Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The thread is over 181KB. Some threads listed here are around 90KB. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not have any opinion on moving the thread back, but if there are conclusions coming, they should be posted here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

(←) A long thread sure, but we were making real progress, and as Snowolf echoes above a move to a non-watched subpage might hinder that. It has splintered discussion. A linked subpage isn't unprecedented but those tend to be for massive discussions often related to long arbcom cases--like Betacommand, Giano, 'The Troubles'; this is in a different world. I haven't necessarily major issues with the board management aspect of it. Apart from anything else it looks awkward when a wikifriend of the last person discussed goes & shuffles it off the page. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC) ^{(formerly: User:92.6.200.56)}

Just thought a quick update would be worth posting. Although a community consensus was to mass delete the stubs, one plucky editor has volunteered to spend the next few months trying to fix the issue. There's a discussion regarding that going on at the moment. Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A decision had already been made and a strong consensus reached - to delete the Chinese stubs - when the page was on AN/I. Moving the page just meant that it devolved into bickering between the usual suspects (including me). I really think we need to implement that decision, and solve the Chinese stub problem, before indulging in further scope creep. (There is a wider issue than just China or Jaguar, and some disagreement over norms, so an RfC might be a good idea after this thread is resolved). If somebody actually wants to write 8000 decent articles which meet wikipedia standards, that would be a colossal task - and keeping the existing unsourced microstubs in the meantime wouldn't make their job any easier (since we can't even be confident that names are accurate, even a list of existing articles is more hindrance than help). It's not the first time that one of these crises has been met with "Wait! Somebody else can fix them all!" but it would be a first if they actually did get fixed. bobrayner (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy if the articles were incubated or sandboxed; that way the vast majority of !voters who said "delete" can see the articles removed from mainspace, but the remaining "keep" !voters also get a chance to work on them. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you on that one. Blackmane (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr Blofeld suggested incubation yesterday; I hope that's still acceptable to the good doctor now.

Would it be possible to put some kind of sunset date on incubation/userification? I don't doubt that the articles' defenders are earnest in their proposal to bring the articles up to standard, but past experience is not very heartening. Since the community agreed to delete, I wouldn't want unfixed articles to loiter indefinitely in limbo. 6 months maybe? bobrayner (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If the community agreed to delete then that's the consensus. Incubation generally amounts to stagnation; when one of the best-known ARS members supports Article Incubator being shutdown, it's safe to say it failed. At this point prolonging things is, unfortunately, unlikely to do much good. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that someone looking up an obscure term gets nothing instead of a starting point for further research. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

"It's useful" is something which often gets mentioned at AfD, but it doesn't overturn WP:N. Anybody looking up the obscure term will gain nothing from finding one of the articles as they stand, since they merely repeat what the seeker already knows - that a settlement exists with that name. Probably exists. (I just took one to AfD and a Keep !voter helpfully added coordinates to the article. Google's satellite view shows an empty field at those coordinates). A worryingly large proportion have been found to contain errors - if an article only says one thing and it's wrong about that, I doubt it's a good starting point for further research. I can understand why some people might disagree with the overwhelming consensus to remove those Chinese stubs, but it was a consensus nonetheless. bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Anyone searching Wikipedia for "Aikou Township" today will be directed to List of township-level divisions of Anhui, which contains more information about that township than the stub did. Kanguole 19:24, 29 May 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.

Disruptive edits by User:John J. Bulten

User:John_J._Bulten (JJB) changed WP:SS to add that notability didn't matter for article contents in such a way that there is the implication notability is explicitly not required for article spinouts and reiterated it after I removed with [227]. I discussed this with him and others who have engaged in a wall of text and keep on taking everything in some strange way and wanting to spread discussion to other places rather than centralize at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Splitting articles arbitrarily. A request there to remove it led to him reiterating it. At [228] I pointed out JJB was being inconsistent saying they thought notability was always relevant and asked JJB to remove the edit or explain why they were standing by it. They responded by editing to show they wanted the bit about notability being irrelevant [229] and not putting any explanation in where requested but trying to split the discussion again back to that guidelines talk page.

JJB has bee involved in a related business Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f before doing these changes.

I believe these actions indicate pointy and disruptive behaviour by John_J._Bulten . Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My first response is here. I invite recommendations but may not be available immediately. JJB 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told Dmcq that charges like the first sentence of the OP are false, that Dmcq is inferring something not stated (as Jclemens just agreed with me on). The VPP discussion has been fruitful. Though it may also assist with MMA mediation (Agent00f), it has been discussed by many editors now who recognize its global policy value. Dmcq's charges to spread discussion to other places will not be supported by any diff, as every suggestion I have made to use other pages has valid grounding. Dmcq's charges of inconsistency arise because of the misstatement in the first sentence: I do affirm notability is always relevant. Dmcq also unaccountably calls me "they" though my name is John. I do believe editing a guideline belongs on the guideline's talk page, yes. What should I do? JJB 01:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The charge that "others" engaged in 3 behaviors is perhaps conflated, as the 3 charges refer specifically to me, and the many others from VPP (should I name and invite some or all?) should not be tarred by that. The charge that I did not explain "where requested" objects to my explaining changes to WP:SS on its talk page rather than VPP. JJB 01:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq also failed to notify Agent00f of mentioning him on this page (now corrected); and my other significant objections appear at the first link I gave, and at the current last section of Wikipedia talk:Summary style. JJB 01:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed odd behaviour with JJB as well with his proposals to make large (mostly pointless) changes to WP:NPOV: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Recommended_changes with very bizarre interpretaions of what consitutes opposition: despite large opposition he moved ahead to make his large sweeping changes to NPOV with: As I suspected, these matter-of-fact changes were not opposed, yet because of what page this is they were not implemented either Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Forward (look at this in conjunction with the history as well: [230]). Also here he re-inserted a new addition to the page [231] with the reason of [232] On this page we start with silent consensus. You now have a vocal consensus of two (Unscintillating and me). .

Note also that JJB has returned only recently from his year long ban for sustained edit-warring, misuse of edit summaries and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground etc Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#John_J._Bulten. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think you (Dmcq) are attributing motive that is not in evidence. Quoting or paraphrasing WP:NNC in WP:SS is actually a very good idea, and you've brought non-edit-warring policy dispute to ANI rather than discussing it on the appropriate talk page. If I were you, I really wouldn't want to bring something to ANI where I'd called a good-faith policy clarification attempt vandalism--even if it was just an automated edit summary. I also think the best thing to do here is for everyone to discuss their positions and objections, without benefit of or need for blocks, protections, or any other administrative tool use. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• This is odd, as he and I had a long discussion about this very topic here [233] where he had already concluded that WP:SS didn't require notability for spun out articles. This was his rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability. I maintained that all articles required passing WP:V and WP:GNG independently and disagreed with his conclusions. I'm curious as to why he would change WP:SS to reflect something he said it already stated, and why he wasn't following the good advice at WP:BRD by discussing it once his changes were reverted. I don't have time to review this completely at this time, but felt his previous discussion may shine some light on the subject. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. On NPOV I have not continued prosecuting my improvements. On WT:N I also admitted when a superior argument was made just after my edit. On Longevity my history is an open book, but the last editor who brought up old news at ANI didn't get anywhere. On Dennis my initial statements to him were more supportive of "not requiring N", but I believe I always upheld that "N is relevant". I didn't change it to reflect something I said it already stated; I added something to it that WP:N already stated. On BRD I affirm it and I believe evidence will show I upheld it. On Dennis's hint that previous discussion may shine light, I affirm that my attempt to pseudomediate at MMA is related, but so are many other topic areas, as other editors have affirmed. JJB 01:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC) User:Hasteur has just committed a WP:TALKO violation to this page, rearranging my comments differently from the intended presentation. JJB 01:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*1 It's called making it easier to read. TRY IT Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically granted under Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. Hasteur (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Hasteur — continues after insertion below

Please do not charge my single-paragraph style as "error". JJB 01:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If you post "wall of text" single-paragraphs, it's likely that many readers will just skip over them, because they are difficult to read. Paragraph breaks not only give you the opportunity to present your points cogently, grouping like ideas together, but the visual break provided helps the reader navigate through the text. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*2 I think JJB has missed the point of the notification clause. In no way did Dmcq state the name he linked to a ongoing conduct discussion about the user. JJB did however mention the user, so his notification was appropriate. Sidebar: I bet money that the first posting the editor makes will be to claim a conspiracy to suppress his/JJB's viewpoint by a cabal out to destroy all of Wikipedia. I'm not bitter, just no longer innocent to the type of posting that this micro-consensus posts when they get challanged with no good reasoning.Hasteur (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"The editor" (Agent00f) was mentioned by Dmcq as part of an RFC/U link (which you started), which is pretty good mention. I don't believe your prediction about "the editor" is appropriate for this board. JJB 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

No, when objections were raised at WP:NPOV you waited until the comments stopped coming and then started again: [234]. You clearly have not upheld BRD because you were adding content for which there was no consensus for, in fact the consensus was against it. Also here is where I revert you bold additions: [235], here you re-add them again [236] IRWolfie- (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I must also categorically reject IRWolfie-'s characterizations, and disagree with Dennis about my having a "rationale for allowing individual MMA articles to exist without having to demonstrate notability." Rather, I was investigating whether N considerations could result in a mediation solution, not firmly deciding on any particular consideration. If specific explanation of my use of BRD at NPOV is needed, I will be happy to oblige. JJB 01:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC) However, I am taking a brief break now. Feel free to pile on, I will respond or ignore when I get back. JJB 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In this comment [237] you pretty clearly say that MMA articles shouldn't have to pass WP:GNG if they are filtered through WP:SS. "But first, standing alone does not mean standing alone for N, in context it means standing alone for V; and second, not every article must pass GNG, which is why we have SNG and local consensus as well." I'm sorry, but the whole point of your conversation there was to find a way to have MMA articles, via WP:SS, that didn't have to pass GNG. I didn't get it at the start of the conversation, because the idea is rather "out there" in terms of interpreting policy. Your stated that rather "firmly" there, there was no ambiguity in your position. I'm not making a comment on this current case, just saying you already had indicated that you were convinced that WP:SS was a way to avoid having to pass N / GNG (WP:N), and trying to persuade me to this point of view, which I rejected. This is why once I saw you were tinkering with WP:SS, this threw up a red flag, and even though I wasn't going to be on Wikipedia tonight, here I am. I'm not expressing an opinion on this ANI itself (and won't), but your recollection of the previous conversations is less than perfect here. The coincidence is simply worth pointing out, and others may consider or discount as they please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well then I think he flatly contradicted himself in a statement he made in that VPP discussion "Masem 1: It is true that Dmcq raises the bogeyman of "all spinouts become automatic keepers", though there is no evidence I ever held this view" in this diff. Dmcq (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, as current WT:N discussion confirms, N is not GNG; N is the superset of GNG or SNG or local or AFD consensus of N independent of any guideline. So it's not a heresy to admit not every article must pass GNG, firmly and unambiguously. I was hoping that SS might be a way to find a middle ground between two hot camps. When I first started editing SS I advertised that one reason for doing so was a then-current conflict. Again, if either of you can "connect the dots" for me and show that I made the claims you inferred, I would appreciate it. JJB 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I will leave to others to connect as I feel it is obvious to anyone who wants to pour through the conversation[238], I'm not going to offer an opinion here and haven't looked at all the information, and I'm only noting a pre-disposition and possible motivation as it was relevant. Having such strong feelings about WP:SS as well as the desire to connect it to MMA to allow keeping all articles is a conflict for you. It doesn't automatically prohibit you from editing it, but your fundamental understanding of the policy is and was flawed, and at the least it is biased/ Self-restraint would have been a better option. I like you JJB, even if we disagree on many things, and your interpretation is certainly imaginative, but it is inconsistent with the policy itself. I would think it better if you didn't tinker with it as you have a demonstrated bias here. We all have biases on one subject or another, and it is wise to simply avoid those areas. If you are going to forcefully use a policy as a basis for keeping all your articles, do not go and change the policy so that others will question if it is only to make it fit your world view. It is a bit of common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Jclemens encouraged discussion, I'm disappointed you've drawn obvious conclusions that are also not worth your connecting for my benefit. MMA was merely the catalyst to reveal a problem, acknowledged at VPP, relating to spinout notability. Ending 5-6 years of delete wars that I documented there would also improve the encyclopedia. I have no desire necessarily to "allow keeping all articles": I'm merely looking for methods that might bridge the gap.

I went into RFC and into RFC/U unbiased. Communicating with Agent00f revealed a concern that could be tested by policy discussion. Communicating with Hasteur revealed, let's not go there, but it was a different experience than with Agent00f. Communicating with you revealed that you don't always see things any more neutrally than I do (a first example is that you see those other two editors differently than I do; a second example is that you affirmed Hasteur for calling my migrative resolution proposals "Stockholm syndrome"; if you want more examples I'll go back to your talk).

I announced my involvement when I started editing SS. As VPP reveals, the widespread nature of the issue merits discussion not fixated on MMA. My edits to SS were either minor, accepted by Dmcq, or were exact quotes from other guidelines, so I don't know why my "fundamental understanding" is flawed and don't know that you want to enlighten me. Your phrase "keeping all your articles" charges me with WP:OWN without evidence. But see my next comment below. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB is continuing disruption by trying to move or fork the centralized discussion to the talk page of WP:SS see [239]. The topic clearly could affect the wording of WP:SIZE and also involves bits copied from WP:NOTABILITY and might affect it too. The discussion was clearly at WP:VPP#Splitting articles arbitrarily and there is no point having talks at Wikipedia_talk:Article_size#Discussion_about_split_of_large_articles_at_an_arbitrary_point where he also tried to have separate talks, or continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style#Policy_check. Dmcq (talk) 09:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• This is just more MMA related disruption, the tactics of the MMA fans is to create as many points of discussion as is possible, use SPA to debate the community into submission, to try and change community guidelines and policy in such a way as to allow them to have there one article per event and have the encyclopaedia the go to place for MMA related news and gossip. Mtking ^(edits) 09:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As such, we should never discuss it again. Deor (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

In the last graf of Dmcq's diff, given to allege I'm trying to move or fork discussion, I acknowledge Dmcq's idiosyncratic views about proper discussion pages by beginning, "So at whatever page we continue to work this out ...." I am no MMA fan nor SPA. I am merely someone discovering the effects of sticking both feet into attempts to pseudomediate MMA. JJB 11:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you can not mediate at MMA. You clearly have a bias and are not objective in this matter. This is fine and you are certainly welcome to participate, but your bias is very, very evident, as has been demonstrated in a number of venues. Mediation implies neutrality and your actions clearly indicate you are not. I certainly would never go and change the guidelines for something I was "mediating" in, as that is clearly a violation of neutrality and trust. No mediator would dare do such a thing. That you would present yourself as neutral is disturbing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I entered the discussion neutrally. I discovered data that appeared to tend in one direction and gradually affirmed that data as more and more accumulated. The first datum was that the diffs presented were nowhere near the type of misbehavior usually seen at RFC/U, and your inability to see that makes your own bias evident IMHO (perhaps you had no bias when you began, of course). You seem to believe it is unnecessary to bring more evidence to convince me of my bias, it's so obvious to you. Also, no party considered SS as a guideline for MMA resolution, so there was nobody holding out trust for me to not improve SS. However, I have been cautious about the word "mediate" in the past so am refactoring it.

My recommended closure is that you rejoin VPP, or else ask me to link you an essay on spinout notability for joint collegial discussion such as we enjoyed at your talk. JJB 11:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I'm not involved in the MMA debate, my bias isn't being called into question here. The conversation we had shows that I did consider your argument, and much of what I'm seeing at the PPV confirms what I told you there. Even if I were to consider you neutral (and I don't), editing the policy pages for policies that are being used to bolster your solution is clearly a violation of that neutrality, and yes, is disturbing. Regardless of what side of the argument someone is on, or if they are in the middle, changing the "rules" to match their outcome is not acceptable. To me, that act alone disqualifies you from calling yourself neutral, as it looks like you are trying to manipulate the "rules" to be consistent with your desired outcome, even if that outcome is a compromise. That is a rather huge, cardinal sin in mediation, and a fatal one. You just don't do that in mediation. Ever. That you fail to understand this shows that either you don't understand what neutral or mediation means, or that you have a bias and are manipulating the policies to fit it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

\The other possibility is disruption whilst understanding the policies and without having a bias. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

What do people here make of 'There is still one other page that discussion may still validly "split out" onto later, viz., User talk:Dmcq.' in his latest diff on the WP:SS talk page? I had just written "Thanks for that offer, in general I'm happy to go on about how things work or ways to do things or a bit of general waffle or even a few days of a one to one dispute, but I have this thing against meatpuppetry and canvassing and groupthink so for longer or wider disputes I try for transparency as far as possible - so I try to practice what I preach as far as talking about articles or policies is concerned" on Jclemens talk page about talking there separately. Dmcq (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That is an oblique hint that your behavior linked from that diff (continuing to discuss on other pages) not only refuses to discuss a guideline change at its talk, but also is starting to cross the line into needing a user warning. Since you ran here, such a warning is also appropriate here, if necessary; but per Jclemens only a warning. I have been waiting for you to discuss policy substantively on any page. (I see your new 3 grafs at VPP now, so I'll try back there again.) JJB 19:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have clearly described the objections to the insertion [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=494667789&oldid=494654943 diff] which also includes JJB's reply. If some admin would like to make a decision about my complaint against JJB of disruption I would be very grateful. Dmcq (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one else will, then I guess I need to make it clear, although I thought I had in a more gentle manner earlier. Anyone who is involved in a dispute discussion, and their central point is based upon a policy, should not edit that policy page. Period. If you arguing how WP:SS is why your proposal is "right", then you do not go and modify WP:SS to make it fit your view. Common sense would tell you that you don't even go and modify anything for the policy during a conflict that is based on it, as you have a conflict of interest at that time. JJB, do not edit any policy that you are using central to dispute resolution, which at this time means WP:SS, until the MMA dispute around it has concluded. Dmcq, since you are involved at the pump discussion and other RFC/U venues, you should also refrain. I will only to revert to a state prior to when both of you began editing it, and I will consider further editing to be disruptive. Right now, I'm not taking any other action except to revert and tell you both to stop editing it, directly or by proxy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope that stops it whilst the MMA business is going on and I can't see why things shouldn't then get back to normal. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• • At the talk page of WP:SS he is intimating that I am not removed enough to make this determination. If any other admin wants to review, please feel free to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • For the record I support the revert, in fact had considered making the very same edit, this shows a clear change in tactics to move the discussion to other parts of the 'pedia so as to demonstrate MMA events meeting guidelines and policy by changing the guidelines and policy to say what they need them to say. Mtking ^(edits) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• It is not a good idea to propose far-reaching general policy interpretations for the purpose of achieving one's end on a specific localized issue. Myself, I do think we ought to sometimes split on the basis of complexity & logic rather than Notability, but I think it would be unconstructive to suggest doing so to accommodate more fully any one particular area where I have a special interest. I agree with Dennis & Dmcq about the intent of JJB's changes here, and I agree that they should not be discussed in the MMA context. Trying to do things that way would result in unstable policy, and damage the encyclopedia as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well said; I think your first sentence in particular should be framed and hung on the door for all who enter to read. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Another admin has chosen to fully protect the page from editing by anyone as an extra precaution, which I support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not part of the WP:SS editing disagreement above though my RfC was linked, but I'd like to point there was significant agreement at VPP on other issues of notability outside of the thread that discussed WP:SS specifics. It was unfortunate that instead of building on this consensus, the conversation was shifted towards accusations about inherent notability and other wiki-law minutia. I only hope the other editors there can continue the productive dialog without getting mired in ANI drama.

To that end it would be best if Hasteur didn't keep attempting to conflate with myself or other editors (fixed link). This behavior's already previously resulted in this comment at the RfC/U started by him/her, which was very confusing given I wasn't involved with any WP:SS/SIZE specifics or wherever "games in a series" came from. Fortunately that confusing incident was sorted out, and it's only due to it that I'm circumstantial involved here for what looks to be the same dispute.

More generally, the broader guideline discussion at VPP seems worthwhile for clarification of the 99.99%+ of wiki outside of any individual subject, as evidence by participation and various consensus of all others with no involvement in any sport. At least that was true until the turn noted above. I've commented in brief about bringing drama from elsewhere before; the advice applies widely and IMO needs no elaboration. Agent00f (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• This has nothing to do with Hasteur, and this is a bit out of venue. Here, the result was JJR and the person who brought up the issue, Dmcq being banned from editing WP:SS, a partial boomerang of sorts. It wasn't about the content of any edits or MMA specifically, only the principal of editing a policy you are temporarily "involved" with. Dragging up other editor's unrelated actions in this particular ANI report isn't useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The link is rather direct given Hasteur's comments are the reason why previous MMA drama was specifically roped into this where it only produced unhelpful confusion. I'm merely suggesting that we can minimize future outbreaks of the same by similarly minimizing such behavior. Agent00f (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• NOTICE I have opened up an WP:AN discussion on the sanctions imposed in this ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)