Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Incivility and disruption of an RfC

• User: AndyTheGrump
• Insulted party: R-41
• Discussion: Talk:East Germany (RfC)
• Diff: [1]
• Policies: WP:NPA (personal attack), WP:CIVIL (civility), WP:DISRUPT (disruptive editing)

Request: As a neutral observer, but involved as I opened (but not started) the discussion, I am asking for either a short block or a topic ban of AndyTheGrump from the RfC.
Background: In order to resolve an on going edit war at East Germany (now protected), I created an RfC on behalf of the editors in an attempt to attract a broader consensus from the community. The RfC has degenerated into a war of opinion and comment that is not directly related to the RfC proposal, which specifically asked participants to keep the discussion on friendly terms. AndyTheGrump may not be the only participant that might be responsible for what is possibly a disruption of the process, nevertheless his behaviour is unacceptable, apart from which, anyone visiting this RfC and seeing this confrontation may decline to participate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You are right. Implications that I'm some sort of apologist for the crimes committed in eastern Europe in the name of the Soviet Union isn't 'directly related' to the topic of the RfC. User:R-41 has repeatedly insinuated that I am, but provided no evidence. He has also repeatedly refused to provide any sources whatsoever to back up his arguments - instead indulging in endless WP:OR, and asking for me to provide sources that disprove his unsourced assertions. As I commented on my talk page, if Wikipedia considers calling someone an 'asshole' to be offensive, whereas repeatedly implying that someone is an apologist for the criminality committed in the name of the USSR isn't, it is quite entitled to block me. Can I suggest a merger with Conservopedia? (BTW, in my defence, I used the term 'asshole' metaphorically ;-) ). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask, what do you think you're accomplishing by continuing to argue with R-41? Do you think you'll persuade him to come around to your point of view? It ain't gonna happen. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. That is the point of the RfC though. He is proposing that Wikipedia should have a point of view, and assert it as a fact. That might happen. I don't think it should. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't underestimate your clarity. I thought you made your point quite cogently and concisely on your first comment there. 28bytes (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Andy.This ANI is not for discussing the RfC topic or its possible outcome; it is for discussing the demeanour of the participant(s). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Agreed, that diff is completely unacceptable. That said I'm a little disappointed that R-41 has continued to argue with AndyTheGrump after I explicitly asked him to disengage. In my view both R-41 and AndyTheGrump should step away from that discussion, via a brief topic ban or page ban if they're not willing to do so voluntarily. There are plenty of other editors who can weigh in, those two don't need to monopolize the discussion. 28bytes (talk) 05:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your disappointment - I wanted to discuss more with others on the talk page than Andy, but he's there and I was still there. I have told User:Collect that I am intending to take a break from this hot potato issue for a while - at least until near the end of the vote session when I have compiled more evidence. One of my last contributions - I hoped - would be to ask Kudpung if we could bring in Eastern European users who would have access to their sources in their languages that could help out here at English Wikipedia - it is an accepted Wikipedia policy to take note of other language Wikipedias' content - especially if content on one is less than on another. Actually in response to the point that it is "not possible" for me to change my point of view, it is possible - but I need to see scholarly evidence - I've changed my view on Israel being a client state - a user showed me that Israel initially made much of its arms purchases from France, plus made the good point that no large non-domestic military is within its borders - so I rescind that claim. I have agreed on some issues with users on the Opposed side - including POVbrigand, Mewulwe on the issue of United Nations General Assembly speeches being unreliable sources - such as Bush's speeches on WMDs in Iraq or Ahmadinejad's condemnations of the US and Israel, and maybe TFD - but TFD and I have constructively collaborated with editing articles for years now. I am currently looking up material on the issue of sovereignty within the United Nations in relation to the Eastern Bloc - I just recently have found some tidbits of information that justify points on the "opposed" side - such as that a government being able to maintain its sovereignty even in treaty with a greater power that even includes allowing a large non-domestic military force to be in its territory or external intervention into that territory - provided that the government party to such agreements allows these things to take place (but also says that this is only if it doesn't amount to domination by a foreign power). I can and will provide this as an issue of discussion.--R-41 (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: According to this discussion earlier today - in which I profited from the occasion to suggest that some commentators 'step back for a while, as it is quite possible that others who would have commented are not bothering after seeing the passionate, but not very objective arguments that are now dominating the discussion' - it appears that R-41 may already have the intention 'to compile detailed material for this issue '. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Note: That link might not work because the header is so long. The thread is: Is it acceptable in Wikipedia policy to spread a user contribution effort by administraotrs (sic) in English Wikipedia to ask for support from users from other language Wikipedias? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A comment on this. I suggested to R-41 that rather than dragging Kudpung into this again (who probably regrets getting involved in the first place), that this question should probably be raised at the village pump. It is entirely reasonable to suggest that a broader input on the question might be appropriate. But an attempt to throw the question open, while not actually addressing the substantive issue as to whether the proposed edit is backed up by sources, isn't. The last thing we need is a vote on whether Wikipedia editors think that the DDR was a 'satellite state' or not. This isn't how we are supposed to work. Appeals to emotion, and insinuations that those who doubt the objectivity of proposed edits are apologists for state criminality, are totally inappropriate. Yes, I lost my temper (again), and I shouldn't do this. But what matters more? Suggestions that article content should be determined by popular vote, rather than on the basis of evidence, are a darned sight more harmful then my metaphorical comparisons between R-41 and a biological orifice, at least in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - That's the lowest of the low insult by Andy and disgusting abuse of the discussion. I once used an obscenity towards him but I fully apologized to him for such, I asked him to apologize in turn for being sarcastic and demeaning to me - he said he'd wait until a dispute was resolved - and then he never did apologize. And now this - just blatantly calling me an a**hole - after I asked him to apologize for something earlier, I have ZERO tolerance for this. I have discussed with User:Collect on taking a break from the discussions because I could see the rising hostility between Andy and me and I am frustrated. Andy has little respect for the efforts of users like me or Collect - we bring out sources from the United Nations and he just shrugs them aside. My inquiry to Kudpung to request bringing in other users from other Wikipedias was completely legitimate.--R-41 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Since Andy the Grump has removed his comment,[2] I do not see any need for administrator's action. However the RfC will proceed better if all editors avoid name-calling, including insinuations of other editors' beliefs. TFD (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, does it? I apologized to Andy for swearing at one point and asked for him to apologize at that time for being demeaning to me. Andy doesn't seem to be apologizing for calling me an "a**hole" to me at all - he just says "I lost my temper (again)" and he certainly hasn't apologized to me. And I certainly doubt that he wishes to honestly apologize to me now - because me and him have become very intransigent to each other on this issue - the difference with me is that I've told User:Collect that I'm taking a break to cool down - because I don't see my contributions at Talk:East Germany as being taken seriously. As we can see from his response, he doesn't care that he made a massive breach of Wikipedia policy - because according to him the ends justify the means - abusive behaviour involving obscenities does not matter because according to him "what matters more?" - his abuse or evidence. Evidence can be discussed, abuse is NOT tolerable and NON-negiotiable on Wikipedia. Maybe this section having him address his constant WP:CIVIL issues with me and multiple users on the Talk:East Germany page attack will make him realize that he can't get away with the excuse that he has a bad temper - too bad - I assume we are mostly at least young men or women or grown men and women - this kind of immaturity is in-excusible. --R-41 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you thought about responding to the substance of Andy's comments? Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I and other users have responded to the substance of Andy's comments many times. We have sought to accomodate his requests by hard searches for facts, when we have presented evidence - such as UN documents, he shrugs them off over technicalities. I am not the only user to be frustrated - and secondly I never brought up this issue at the noticeboard. In response to his claim that I see him as some sort of "apologist" for the Soviet Union - I did not say that - what I did say is that his inability to accept the views of major German historians or recognize the behaviour of the Soviet Union in the Eastern Bloc - especially towards Hungary especially in 1956, Czechoslovakia especially in 1968, and East Germany, was extremely naive - many East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks know that their states were under the domination of the Soviet Union. It gets tiring when everything you provide to a user is deemed "unacceptable" by them unless of course it supports their view - I provided one source that he accepted because it supported his view: and this was the only source he has accepted from me because it did support his view - and after a while you wonder whether you are being taken seriously at all - so I've responded to the substance of his comments again and again - his abusive and uncivil behaviour towards me and other users is the issue that needs a resolution. Does this quote right here in this section from Andy sound like an apology or an admission of responsibility of his serious breach of Wikipedia civility policy: "BTW, in my defence, I used the term 'asshole' metaphorically ;-)" - quote by AndyTheGrump. I don't see this as accepting responsibility by Andy, I don't see this as even recognizing the major breach of Wikipedia policy - it's an excuse he is using to allow him to get away with this clearly immature behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility is one of AtG's "most noted characteristics" <g> and I daresay this is not as bad as some other cases where I have defended him here. The problem, though, is that there is a strong tendentious thread in the RfC, and additional editors are well invited to enter. The issue is whether East Germany (DDR or GDR depending on your language) was a "Satellite state" ("Satellitenstaat"). So far the only sources disputing it appear to be Soviet sources (which simply call the DDR a "friend" or "ally" , and a very large number of Western sources using the word "occupation." Former DDR officials (Egon Krenz etc.), however, in a number of cases have themselves called their own former country a "Satellitenstaat", including in court. With a huge preponderance of sources using "satellite" and the second-highest number of sources using "occupation", is it a violation of NPOV to use the term "satellite" or "satellite state" for the DDR is what the entire argument boils down to. At this point, I fear, the nay-sayers are grasping at straws, including claims that "satellite state" is only a "metaphor", that NPOV requires unanimity for any description in an infobox, and that unless the UN officially and unanimously issues a paper using that term with regard to the DDR<g>, that we can not use the term (a footnote in an official document which was approved by the representative of the Russian Federation appears not to count.) Cheers. And Andy - tone down your language, and even consider that you might be wrong here - I fear at some point you will hit the "Malleus Fatuorum wall"! Collect (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Denial that East Germany was a Soviet satellite starts to take on the character of Holocaust denial the Flat Earth Society. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

An ingenious analogy now. Collect (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

A totally irrelevant comment by BasballBugs. This ANI concerns behavioural issues, not the content of an article or a discussion about it, or a prognosis of its outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with Andy on his excessive demands for confirmation and am disgusted with his personal attack on me and unacceptable uncivil behaviour towards multiple users, nowhere did he specifically deny that East Germany was a satellite state - and to compare his disagreement of validity of sources on the use of the term "satellite state" as a formal technical term to Holocaust denial is an extreme stretch of the imagination to say the least. Please Baseball Bugs, don't say such extreme accusations that give him more fire and anger to legitimize his inappropriate uncivil behaviour and personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a malformed RfC the root of the problem here?

I suspect that most of this trouble could have been avoided if the RfC had been properly worded, and the issue under debate been made clear in the first place. The RfC asks "Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR?", but what was actually at issue was whether the term 'satellite state' should be used to describe the DDR in the infobox - effectively as an assertion of fact, in Wikipedia's voice. Nobody has argued that the term hasn't frequently been applied to the DDR, and nobody has suggested that we shouldn't state in the article body that the DDR was frequently referred to as a satellite state. What I have objected to - on the basis that it contrary to policy, is that the RfC seems to have become an opinion poll on the matter - an attempt to determine 'Wikipedia's POV' on the issue. Add to that R-41s repeated insistence (entirely unsupported by cited evidence) that 'satellite state' is a neutral academic 'technical term' with a precise definition, and the whole thing looks like an attempt to rewrite history from the perspective of a supposed 'victor' from the other side of the Atlantic. Regardless of the usage of the term 'satellite state' elsewhere, in the context of eastern Europe it was a propaganda term - and one that obscured more than it revealed. The postwar history of eastern Europe was a lot more complex than is implied by simple labels, and it does nobody any credit to reduce it to an ideological battle between good and evil. It hardly sets a good precedent for Wikipedia either, to be having debates about what our opinion is of this or that state, and what label we should attach to it in the infobox. R-41 has already stated that he considers Israel to be a satellite state of the US, though his half-hearted attempt to raise the issue on Talk:Israel fortunately seems to have come to nothing. There may well be easier targets for such editorialising though - and editorialising on the basis of often-uninformed opinion derived from second-hand mass-media trivialisations and outright propaganda isn't exactly becoming for what is supposedly an international project. I submit that the RfC was improperly formed, and should be closed as such - indeed, given that many of the later participants seem to have been entirely unaware of what it was actually trying to determine, there seems no way it can be used to arrive at a decision in any case. Maybe then, we can all step back, let tempers cool, and reflect on exactly we thing infoboxes are for, and on whether they are an appropriate place for opinions, editorialising, and recycled Cold-War simplifications. I submit that they aren't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The root of the problem is AtG choosing not to act civilly during a content dispute. Nobody Ent 14:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is about AndyTheGrump's incivility/personal attacks and disruptive editing. It has nothing to do with the content of an RfC. The RfC is simply the vehicle for another demonstration of his unwillingness to interact with others in a civil manner. Trying to place the blame elsewhere will only add another breach of a behavioural guidelines to the list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Erm, Kudpung, don't you think for clarity's sake you should make it clear that it was you that started the RfC, with the wording I've suggested was the root cause of much of the trouble? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not relevant. RFC was started 10 Jan, AtG was third commenter then and did not express objection to the wording. Personal attack was on the 16th. Nobody Ent 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:East_Germany#Is_the_RfC_above_valid.3F, and on the subject of personal attacks, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#Etiquette_issue_with_User:AndyTheGrump_and_acknowledgement_by_me.2C_User:R-41.2C_that_I_unacceptably_swore_back_in_frustration_at_him.2Fher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So what action would you like this community to take such that you refrain from incivil acts, such as calling people "asshole," in the future? Nobody Ent 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

How about action to discourage insinuations that I'm some sort of apologist for Soviet criminality? Yes, I shouldn't have said that, and yes, it was unacceptable. But which is more offensive? Some contributors seem to think that 'polite' mischaracterisations are somehow acceptable even on WP:ANI. Given that BaseballBugs had earlier compared me to a Holocaust denier (which he seems to have had the sense to redact), I have to ask whether this is going to be the way that WP:CIVIL is going to be interpreted in future? "Say what you like, as long as it doesn't involve swearing"? I hope not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I NEVER SAID you were an apologist for "Soviet criminality". The worst that I said was that I thought you were naïve in claiming that satellite state - a term widely used by scholars - including German historians - is not worthy or accurate to describe East Germany or other Eastern Bloc states - I said this because of the known massive resistance by Hungarians in 1956, Czechs and Slovaks in 1968, the defections of Yugoslavia and Albania from the Eastern Bloc, and East Germans in 1989 that were all especially based on opposition to Soviet domination.--R-41 (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The alleged incivility/tendentiousness is found in that RfC - this discussion is noton the RfC, but on what I fear is your routine "grumpiness". And when DDR leaders use what you think of as "Western propaganda" in referring to the country they actually ruled, I think it possible that your assertions are not borne out by reliable sources in any significant number. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, it has already been explained to you that your assertion that East German leaders used the term "satellite state" to refer to their own country is false. Your continual restatement of information you know to be false contributes to the lack of civility in the article by provoking other editors. Could you please correct this. TFD (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And I would point out that the BBC (usually considered a reliable source by everyone else) assigned the term to Krenz, and that I also cited another who specifically used "Satellitenstaat" in German and that the translation of "Satellitenstaat" is "Satellite state".

(translation from Italian account)Guenter Schabowski had premiered recently as spokesman of Krenz was certainly not an expert in communication. That evening he announced a new decree on travel ". He said that henceforth the permits to travel in Western Berlin, through the gates of the wall, would be refused only in exceptional cases. It was clear that the Government he loosened the reins under popular pressure. The daily mass disubbidienze and the absence of rituals revealed the fragility of the repression power. The four hundred thousand Soviet soldiers, stationed in Eastern Germany since 1945, not intervened to restore limited sovereignty in the country rather than satellite: they thought as making ends meet, as in the mother country there was a climate from bankruptcy and money for wages and subsistence arrived irregularly from Moscow. [3]

Asserting that thers is any "restatement" on my part is sufficiently absurd as to demonstrate exact;y what the problem cited is. Thank you for providing the conslusive evidence. And kindly note that the cites are not false as you so typify them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Shabowski of course announced the new travel decree but the reference to "satellite state" was not part of his announcement but part of an explanation by the reporter about the circumstances surrounding the announcement. You are continuing a clear pattern of disruption. Google searching for sources to back up your viewpoint then presenting them without even reading or understanding them, causing frustration to other editors who have to spend far more time examining your sources than you have. Incidentally choosing a 1999 article from an Italian language tabloid journal as a source for an article about Germany in 1989 is not the action of someone who wished to make a serious contribution to an encyclopedia. TFD (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What does this have ANYTHING do do with Andy's self-admitted repeated incivility and his personal attacks on me and others. Is he trying to blame Kudpung for creating a section that made him - as he says - lose his temper "{again}". Too bad - if a section aggravates him - that doesn't justify or legitimize his incivility to me and multiple other users on repeated occasions as User:Collect has stated here. You don't get to vent your anger on other people because you are frustrated - you have three acceptable options: (1) take a break from Wikipedia for a few days to cool down, (2) channel frustration and anger you may have against someone (in this case Andy towards me) into energy - go exercising - Andy could think of beating me in a jogging race and feel fulfillment from that and come back more refreshed - exercising reduces psychological frustration, or (3) if the first option fails and second option fails, and antisocial hostility towards others continue, I am serious about this - you need to discuss these emotional problems with loved ones to resolve them or if it is serious, seek help from a medical professional - I personally suffer from depression and I have a psychiatrist - so I don't mean seeking professional medical help as an insult. Nevertheless, I do not imagine this as being the solution in the short term - Andy needs to know that there are real consequences for repeatedly venting anger on other people - I leave it up to the administrators to determine what discipline is necessary to make Andy realize this and hopefully change his way of handling his temper and ending his venting on other users, because his present behaviour of repeated temper tantrums, displacing blame on others - such as blaming Kudpung's RfC for his actions (the devil made me do it argument), and shrugging off calling someone an a**hole as somehow not being a significant violation of Wikipedia policy are all completely unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you really consider discussing my mental health on ANI to be appropriate? Oh, and quote: "you are behaving like a total asshole to me", "you treat me like shit", "you are treating me like a dog". [4]. If you'd taken your own advice, maybe none of this would have happened.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It sure is acceptable to bring up psychological concerns if you are exploding in multiple temper tantrums and lashing out by venting anger at people as User:Collect states you have done on repeated occasions - I at one point was severely depressed on Wikipedia - another user noticed this and told me to take a break and said that I should talk with someone about it - and I did. I FULLY apologized to you for my unacceptable behaviour - and remember this, because you know that I did this: I REPORTED MYSELF FOR INCIVIL BEHAVIOUR and you for your demeaning behaviour toward me to this board earlier for violations BY BOTH OF US on Wikipedia policy - the administrators decided that blocks at that point were not necessary. I took responsibility for my unacceptable earlier behaviour towards you - you have refused to accept responsibility. I am frustrated and yes it shows in what I say - and in this state of frustration I cannot make constructive contributions to Talk:East Germany - that's why I'm taking at least a week-long break from the East Germany article and working on more enjoyable and less contentious things.--R-41 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you claiming to be medically qualified? And what is all this nonsense about 'multiple temper tantrums'? My reference to me losing my temper again was in regard to an earlier incident, where I, um, reported myself to ANI for incivility. [5]. Anyway, you called me an asshole, I called you an asshole. We've both admitted it isn't the right thing to do. I didn't make a fuss about it when you did it [6] - you, um, reported yourself. There seems to be an alarming degree of symmetry here, but little other reason for your righteous indignation. Evidently we rub each other up the wrong way. That's life. If you want to engage in controversial issues on Wikipedia, you'll need a thick skin - I've had far worse. Hell, I've had worse in this thread (though coming from Bugs, it is a little difficult to take seriously - and yes, he retracted it too). Anyway, we'll both be on an enforced break for a bit in a couple of hours, so I suggest you go out for a jog or whatever, and worry about it in a couple of days... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Emotional problems": insulting and uncalled for. AtG was provoked by an egregious and totally unfounded insult (as he has repeatedly explained). Cut him a little slack. That he retaliated by calling the other guy an asshole (which he redacted) may be a little strong for your conversational tastes (where I live the epithet is so commonplace as to be anodyne) but it doesn't justify your insulting accusation. Or, IMO, this pathetic dramafest ANI. Writegeist (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright I will retract that - It's not insulting to me because I HAVE problems with emotional regulation - I take medication and seek psychiatric help for major depression - I told everyone this just minutes ago - that I seek help. Besides if you noticed that was the LAST option, the other options I gave were taking a break from Wikipedia or going exercising to let off some steam because exercising is known to reduce stress and frustration.--R-41 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I did note your recommendation of exercise and perhaps should have acknowledged it as an attempt (as I know it was intended) to be helpful, although AtG hadn't sought any help for a problem that presumably doesn't exist (he simply expresses himself in a robust way). I appreciate your openness about your depressive illness.Writegeist (talk)

On consideration, I should probably point out that the symmetry I noted earlier extends to a proneness to depression too - and yes, I have sought treatment for it. However, it is up to individuals to disclose such matters, should they so choose, and it certainly isn't appropriate for others (whether qualified or not) to indulge in 'internet diagnosis'. I'd suggest that R-41 needs to reflect a little on how he would have reacted if I'd made such comments, and maybe be a little more circumspect about making assumptions about others mental state. Anyway, its almost 'wot-no-Wiki' time, so we can all get some exercise, a life, or whatever else takes our fancy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

OMG we're going to have to find something to do in the real world. No wonder we're all depressed!Writegeist (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, and what's worse is we'll have the frustration of having major 'zombie outbreak' stories in all the mass media, and no chance to start an article - by the time Wikipedia is back up, they'll have figured out it's just us, venturing out in daylight. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, if what I said about my experience with dealing with my major depression and suggesting addressing issues of anger to a medical person is offensive then I am sorry. I cannot add anything more, other than to say that I never compared Andy to being an "apologist" for Soviet activities in Eastern Europe - at worst I called his opinion naive. I do not regard Andy as a "bad person" - I am frustrated with him but to be frank and honest I have run into truly horrible and perhaps even evil people on Wikipedia who have supported Holocaust Denial and one user who aggressively fought with other users over his agenda to remove all sources written by Jews on topics relating to fascism, because Jews according to him were "unreliable sources" - that would include removing accounts written by Jewish Holocaust survivors on the Holocaust - that person I cannot deny that I hold in complete contempt as being an evil person. Andy is nowhere close to that, I think he is benevolent person who has become frustrated with the topic we are discussing whom I view as perhaps being confused or naive on certain aspects of the topics discussed, and frustrating given his tendency to be very emotional and aggressive in his responses to many users. But, I think he needs to know that venting anger on users in explosions of temper is not acceptable and not tolerated at Wikipedia. I will not discuss this anymore, I need a break from all these arguments here and on Talk:East Germany - I am having a break from contributing there for at least a week, as for this issue it is up to the administrators to decide what to do.--R-41 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

In all sincerity, I wish you well. Enjoy your break if you can, and try not to take this all to seriously - I think the one way to alleviate depression that I've found most successful is to try to see the funny side of things, when possible, and accept that as far as the universe is concerned, we're just a minor blob of peculiarity in a sea of nothing-much-happening - self-importance is entirely unjustified, and we might as well enjoy the jokes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Employment problem

Resolved

 – All associated edits have been undone.  Frank  |  talk  18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ClaretAsh attempted to turn the previous horizontal version into a sidebar. But unfortunately, it ended up like this. I reverted the template but then discovered that the editor had previously gone to all the pages that linked to it and moved it to the top + adding it to many more articles. Thus the articles now look like this. I started rolling back their edits, but have to stop, and besides there are zillions of edits to revert. See Special:Contributions/ClaretAsh. I've left notes about it on their user page as has aother editor. But they seem to have stopped editing for the day. Do admins have a tool that could roll the edits back all at once? Voceditenore (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but I'd be very hesitant to use it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I figured that might be the case. Unfortunately there are over 175 articles affected. I guess we'll just have to wait until they see their talk page messages and start reverting themselves. I have to sign off for today. Voceditenore (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted about a third of them, even ones where they removed the template to begin with and yes I'm doing it manually, referencing this thread as I go. Blackmane (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've completed the task.  Frank  |  talk  18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be ok to use regular rollback here (just to speed up the undoing) as long as everyone understands that it shouldn't be used to edit-war. Clare made a bold change and someone disagreed with it, and so it's appropriate to revert everything back to the way it was before and then agree have discussion about it afterwards. rʨanaɢ (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I considered that, but I decided it wasn't that big a deal to do manually. Some folks really don't like the connotation associated with rollback, and since I didn't feel like these edits were anything other than good faith (as you note by calling it a bold change), I didn't mind spending a bit of extra time to use undo. There's a limit, of course...but this was reasonable.  Frank  |  talk  18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to finish up after I got home from work, but seems you beat to the rest of it =) Blackmane (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to User talk:ClaretAsh for some clarifying comments about this silliness. ClaretAsh 13:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Refund by User:Kainaw

I am bringing this issue to the attention of administrators, per WP:DOLT. The user Kainaw has made a very clear legal threat against the WMF, by suggesting that people who do not agree with the SOPA/PIPA blackout tomorrow form a class action lawsuit against the WMF for refund of donations and removal of their contributions from the site. I and at least 2 other editors have identified this as a legal threat, and pointed Kainaw at WP:NLT - I also made the suggestion that they strike their comments, which they have failed to do. Accordingly, since this is an unresolved legal threat, and not wishing to overlook the situation, I'm referring here for the administrators to peruse and resolve as they see fit. Kainaw will be has been notified per AN/I instructions.  BarkingFish  17:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a major threat. And to take action against a user for opposing the SOPA blackout strikes me as vindictive in the extreme.  An optimist on the run! 17:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The action is not against the user for opposing the SOPA blackout, it is for making a legal threat against the WMF. Regardless of whether you see it as a major threat or not, guidelines state that Legal threats should not be overlooked.  BarkingFish  17:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've come to expect people supporting SOPA actually be clueless about copyright. Like thinking they can "withdraw" their contributions once they've agree to irrevocably license them under CC. Block for idiocy if nothing else. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a credible threat either but under NLT, action should be taken. Worth noting both BarkingFish and I are also opposed to the blackout. ASCII, this is not the place to be having political debates on SOPA or to be calling its supporters names. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Idiocy" seems among Kainaw's favorite ways of describing the blackout [7]. That's not calling him names, unless you also infer by the same logic that he called idiots all the people who supported the blackout. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange Passerby was referring to your comment dated 17:55 01/17/12 above, ASCII. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And I'm referring to the time-tested proverb starting with "What's sauce for the goose..." If Kainaw gets to call other people's actions idiocy, his demonstrated lack of knowledge with respect to Wikipedia's copyright arrangement (after 7 years of him editing here) might qualify as well, don't you think? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And, unlike me, he even called people idiots [8]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Kainaw has been a user here for almost 8 years. Blocking seems a bit extreme, and Jimbo should respond before any action is taken. Meanwhile, although I don't share his idea about a class action suit, I do share his general concerns that this "blackout" is not a good idea. I had already thought of at least 2 unintended consequences: (1) It makes wikipedia appear to approve of copyright violations; and (2) The public might discover that it can live without wikipedia. A consequence of either or both of those consequences could well be (1) a demand for refunds of contributions; and (2) a demand that the government look into the tax-exempt status of wikimedia (assuming it is, in fact, tax exempt). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the FUD department. It's about dealing with individual editors who violate Wikipedia policies, like NLT. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FUD? As in Elmer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FUD. -- Atama頭 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose Jimbo's lockout of volunteer editors. I really would leave it to Jimbo to handle this. There's no indication he's serious. I would let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. New users who make legal threats are blocked instantly. Why is leeway given to a proverbial "vested contributor" ? To demand one's donation money back is one thing, but to demand contributions be reverted is the height of lunacy. Tarc (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lunacy is not a blockable offense, these days. Legal threats are, however - and, but for the discussion here, I likely would've blocked already given Kainaw's subsequent comments. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Kainaw appears to have reiterated the legal threat on his talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC with above) Kainaw apparently does not wish to withdraw their legal threat and seems to be suggesting they will really take legal action if necessary [9]. Personally though, since this threat is directed at the foundation without any real direct bearing to editors (so doesn't really have the same chilling effect a legal threat against editors does), I'm more concerned with their threat to vandalise wikipedia [10]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine, block him until or if he retracts. Jimbo is the face of wikipedia, while we're anonymous peons, so we just hope Jimbo knows what he's doing. I'm just saying this is a big gamble for wikipedia, and it runs the risk of sinking us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × tons) Looking at Ultraexactzz's diff, Kainaw is well aware that he issued a legal threat, and he considers himself blocked already. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He should retract his legal threat and communicate directly with Jimbo on the matter, offline. If one guy demands his money back, that's one thing. But if a bunch of contributors demand their money back, there could be major consequences which could escalate into wikipedia becoming the next Costa Concordia SS Poseidon. At the very least, Kainaw and others of like mind need reassurance that Jimbo has thought this thing through. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude, too soon. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What's PIPA, SOPA, BLACKOUT? GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action for some enlightenment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. While I think the 'legal threat' was too silly to take seriously, Kainaw's threat to "spend [his] time developing hacking and vandalism tools" [11] must merit an indefinite block, surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point he is clearly trolling for a block [12] [13], so if one is issued, talk page access should be disabled as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

First remark clearly not a threat. Second remark about vandalism etc is more interesting, but..... when exactly did Kainaw say that? Please display diff. Sorry if I missed it. Mugginsx (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(Ec with bolding.) Click impairment must be an issue at ANI:

My reaction is that I spent nearly 8 years contributing to this with plenty of money and time. This is now a non-free political baby toy for a select few idiots. So, I want my donations back. I want my money back. I want my content back. Further, I do not support this in any way. Instead of contributing security fixes, I will spend my time developing hacking and vandalism tools. Previously, the tools I've found have been written by those who obviously didn't understand how Mediawiki works. I've worked on the code a lot and understand it very well. So, I believe I can make major contributions into continuing this blackout as long as possible. -- kainaw™ 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, he's been using multiple Wikipedia venues for soap-boxing along the lines of Baseball Bugs. Another one [14] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was before he decided he could only edit his own talk page. Hopefully that continues to be the case. — madman 19:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully his fear of the obvious liberal conspiracy that Wikipedia is doing something illegal and getting away with it will extend to administrators blocking him if keeps that up in other venues. . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Or "SOPA-boxing". This blackout thing is like the motherlode of soapboxing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the legal threat from Kainaw's comments at Jimbo's talk page. I've further directed Kainaw to WP:NCR. If there's consensus to block over the hacking and vandalism thing, by all means - block away. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Although I brought it up, considering it sounds like Kainaw isn't planning to edit and hasn't repeated the threat of vandalism (which wouldn't seem to help any legal case), I'd suggest we just let it be (meaning close this thread). I only really brought it up because although I understand we have a clear WP:NLT policy, in this particular case it seems the wrong thing to concern us. We're all likely to be effectively blocked for 24 hours soon anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am no Administrator nor do I want to be but I must say that the statements were strange and beyond the pale. I have seen editors blocked for a lot less. I don't understand what he is so upset about. I was against it too, but hell, it's not up to me and it's only 24 hours. (24 hrs right?) If its more than that then *&^%$#@! Only kidding.Mugginsx (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Perusing the talk page, it looks like UltraExactZZ has knocked some sense into Kainaw, so this could probably be closed as a temporary flare of grandstanding. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For those interested in the actual legal question, within the US, an unhappy donor to a charitable organization is unable to do anything except make noise. Lawyers understand the meaning of the word irrevocable (as in "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution"), and an unrestricted donation to a charity is exactly as irrevocable as a sale of underwear—which is to say, the merchant may choose to make a refund, but they are not required to do so. (And, yes, you have to individually specify what those restrictions are when you make the donation.)

If he spends enough time and money on this, he'll be able to find a lawyer who will write a letter to the WMF, and it's also apparently traditional to file worthless and ineffective complaints with the IRS or the state Attorney General's office, but it will all end up in the Big Round File and not result in either a refund or a lawsuit. (If Kainaw's reading this and curious about the process, the last time I talked to a donor who did this, it took him three weeks to even find a lawyer willing to have such a letter go out over his name. Personally, I can think of many better things to do with my time and money.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure he realizes that, and that's why he was pushing for a class action suit, which might have a better chance of being heard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made clear my opposition to Jimbo's lockout of volunteers, but has he tried asking for his money back?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by User:Zenanarh

After a series of uncivil personal comments on Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana directed at (the truly incredibly patient) User:Silvio1973, User:Zenanarh has decided to post a few personal attacks at me as well when I tried to offer my opinion in favor of Silvio1973. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia, where he started a WP:CANVASSING thread trying to garner support among other Croats, Zenanarh posted his first personal comment regarding my always having been "superficial" [15]. On Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) he posted a real set of personal attacks [16]. I asked him to strike them, he did not respond.

"Direktor, you should try to stop with any comment about history because you don't understand history. Separate coronation ceremonies do not necessarily indicate the existence of a personal union - really? So if Bela IV for first coronated in Hungary as the king of Hungary, then a few months later in Dalmatia as the king of Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia - 2 separate coronations for 2 separate kingdoms - what is that? A joke? Stick to your communist stuff if that's all you can do. Don't mess with things you don't understand."

Aside from the attacks directed at myself, I think a wider review of this user's recent conduct on Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana is necessary, however arduous that task might be. I went through it briefly and frankly I was amazed at the restraint shown by Silvio1973. At Talk:Luciano Laurana the exchange begins here and pretty much takes-up the entire talkpage. At Talk:Zadar the exchange starts here and again takes-up most of the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when Silvio brought this up we were perhaps not as sympathetic as we might have been. Looking at more of his edits, he is coming across as a "Croatia or Die" type, which is always wearisome. I note also the existence of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Silvio1973 and Zenanarh which appears to have been quite improperly filed by the mediator, and which I have just deleted as it's been open nearly 4 days and he was the only editor who certified it (yes, I know he added another editor's name as a certifier, but (a) editors have to certify themselves, and (b) it was apparent from what the person named as the second certifier said that he had played no part whatsoever in any attempt to resolve the issue).Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was quite surprised when I was named as the second certifier, considering the minimal involvement I have in this issue. However I do believe that Zenanarh needs to be less confrontational regarding this issue, as I had opined in the RfC in question. However this is unquestionably a content dispute (more so than editor conduct) - thus it may be more beneficial to take this issue to formal mediation rather than ANI (I am of firm belief that ANI creates more controversy than solutions in these situations). —Dark 13:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that, that was the first time I filled out one of those forms, and I wasn't quite sure how the process works. However, I would like to comment that I went through very length discussions with these two users through mediation. They went through lengthy discussions on the talk page. In addition, there are RfCs open for the pages that are in dispute. Wherever one editor goes the other follows and almost immediately changes what the other says about Croatian-based comments. I know that it is more likely a content dispute over whether it should say "Croatian" or something more generic on many disputed articles. I don't like to see things escalate, and I strongly believe that if previous discussions have not ceased this dispute, formal mediation will not either. Even if a decision is made, Silvio1973 will continue his quest to remove "Croatian" from articles and Zenanarh will continue his uncivil comments even after careful reminder over and over. Both of the users seem to make fairly infrequent edits, though. Whenaxis about | talk 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis, Silvio1973 will not continue any quest at all. I did some research and found out that the most of the users that get in touch with Zenanarh get blocked sooner or later. And I do not want to end the same way. Zenanarh can do what he wants, I will not try to make any oppostion.
It is true that I found the content of some articles concerning Dalmatia not fully balanced. Indeed in some cases (such as in Zadar) the article is supported by a majority of sources that cannot be verified because not in English, or in other cases (such as in Luciano Laurana) Croatian sources are preferred to international sources. However, there was a mediation on such items hence there is very little to contest now, if any. Still, I remain doubtful about the stability of those articles in the future: there are too many sources supporting facts different than those stated in the articles. With his methods Zenanarh can discourage other users to contribute but cannot destroy the fact that such sources exist.
A side note: I tried to remain very calm during Whenaxis' mediation and it was not easy. Indeed I paid on my personal balance to resist to so many uncivil comments. I have read on some talks that I could be a previously banned user or a kind of "nationalist irredentist". This is extremely sad. It is sad that some users of en:wiki consider the contributors with different views as "enemy of their country" . --Silvio1973 (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello to everyone! Elen of the Roads, I am not "Croatia or Die" type. Maybe you can get such impression if you read my posts during last month, but you don't see the whole picture. What you people don't see and probably don't know is that around 10 quality Croatian editors left en.wiki for good, in period 2 or 3 yrs ago. Because it became impossible to balance articles continually attacked by the politically led editors and nationalists from the other sides who made use of principles like "votes of the majority". Serbs in the first place, but also Italians concerning Dalmatia related articles. In both cases these struggles were results of unresolved political problems in reality. I was also one of the editors who decided to move away from en.wiki and I didn't edit it for cca 2 yrs. Just accidently, I saw edit warring between IPs and Silvio in Zadar article over the same and already resolved problems and decided to come back, if nothing else, just to balance this old dispute. However it seems it is impossible to contribute here objectively. There are probably only 1 or 2 other Croatian editors who are able to contribute in history article paragraphs at the moment and all bunch of "agenda attackers" who produce total imbalance in the articles. When I see History of Dalmatia article I'm not sure should I laugh or cry. It is so full of wrong definitions, innacuracies, POVs etc that it will be best to erase it completely. At this moment en.wiki is used for spreading false information worldwide concerning this part of Europe, and nothing can be done to stop it. I have no so much time to be some Don Quijote. I'm coming from the family of the scientists, mostly historians and archaeologists, but rich scientific documentation as well as my knowledge of what is objective and what is not, doesn't help too much. I'm simply losing my nerves and that's what you can see in my posts during last month so I will definitely leave en.wiki to save my health, this time for good.

When Silvio reported me it was funny, he was breaking a several wiki policies, but I was the one accused for something. I don't give 2 cents on anything said by him after all. This guy is a liar and I cannot respect such people. He wrote that many wikipedians were banned because of me. Not even one editor was banned because of me ever. Giovanni Giove was banned because of his breaking restrictions and not me. Who are the others banned because of me? None. Zero. Also, I was never banned, except once, 2 yrs ago when it was my own decision. You can check my contributions and see that I asked administrator to "ban me to the end of this century". That was when I decided to leave en.wiki. I was revolted for reasons not related to this particular issue, so I will not explain my motives, my motives are known to the wikipedian who caused my anger and after my reaction he was probably ashamed and then he also left wiki a few days after me or changed his wiki identity.

Direktor and me are old friends from this wikipedia, but I never supported his way of discussing and editing. I told him many times and I'm repeating again, he is superficial but anyway he likes to present himself as well educated and objective. He is probably well educated in some other regions but his knowledge about any older history than 20th century is very poor in the best part. As well as I didn't accuse Silvio for irredentism directly - I've warned him about ideology which arguments are his own in our dispute, I also didn't attack Direktor personally in direct way. He knows very well what I've meant. He builds his image of an objective user in completely wrong way - artificial balance as replecement of his lack of knowledge. None of them two are straight and open.

Concerning Italian view of Dalmatian history. It's special story. Now I will be completely open. Italian historiography presents one completely distorted version of it. Just take a look at Zara article in it.wiki and compare it to Zadar article in en.wiki. They have 2 Zara Veneziana periods! All together from the 11th to the 19th century! Unbelievable! What is reason? Older Italian historians were writing in support to Italian political pretensions, irredentist and fascist in the 19th and 20th century, and modern Italian historians use them as references. In the same time they don't use historical archives in Dalmatian cities, just some selective data in support to their views which is around cca 5-10% of all available data. Modern Italians don't know it. They think that Croatian historiograpgy is based on some Croatian bias. It is stupid. We are small nation in comparison to the Italian and all we can do is to be as more objective as we can, since we can not produce so much literature as they can, we must produce quality to be accepted in the international science. But it's not obvious from the first sight. In English wikipedia there is dictature of majority and not dictature of quality.

That's why I don't see any way to contribute here by quality. You can treat me as "Croatia or Die" type of editor, you can treat me as Croatian nationalist, you can treat me any way you want. I can do nothing to change it. One person can not fight all army of the Italians armed with deep seated prejudice. I hoped that my presentation of quality university material can be helpful to produce any balance but now I see there is no chance. Now I'm definitely one more Croat who doesn't want to touch this shit anymore. I feel sory for a few of Croats who are still fighting against nationalists in other articles, it is lost battle. Probably you don't know it, but in Croatian scientific circles, en.wiki is treated as a platform used by certain anti-Croatian political circles to spread anti-Croatian propaganda. While in some other topics, en.wiki is very good and quality, it is general shit (excuse me but this is proper word) concerning Croatian and Dalmatian history and language. My tip to anyone would be - not to learn anything about Croatia from en.wiki!

Now I'm asking again - ban me to the end of this century, please. I was never sock puppeteer so it is guarantee that I will never come back. Don't mind if my sins are not of that level. Please make that service to me. Bye bye. Zenanarh (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Marines

I would welcome some admin oversight at Talk:Occupy Marines as there seems to be an entrenched WP:BATTLE mentality there with a number of editors edit warring to strong arm material into the article. I have tried to get external opinion on the use of "The Raw Story" at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#The Raw Story but the same group of editors dominated the dicussion there. From its webpage The Raw Story appears to be a weblog organisation and as an WP:SPS would not typically be considered a reliable source. Editors are now claiming there is a consensus among themselves that this is reliable [17] as if this trumps WP:RS. Repeated requests to show this meets our requirements to be considered a reliable source have met a brick wall, with personal attacks and other unacceptable behaviour; one editor received a block for incivility as a result. In the past I tried to tag this as an unreliable source and there was edit warring to remove the tag claiming consensus as justification. This article in a very short history has already been raised at ANI twice [18],[19]. User:EverSince did a great job of cleaning the article up here [20] and it would be a shame to see it slip back to the deplorable state it was in before. And to put it all into perspective, this is an article about a Facebook group. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to Request Comment on the matter, but it seems pretty clear that there are many more editors agreeing that the source is reliable to some degree, whereas there are only a couple who oppose it - you being the most vocal that I can see. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious point, most external opinion tends to back up its not a reliable source and since when did "consensus" over rule policy such as WP:SPS? Are you suggesting that "consensus" can set aside policy to make an unreliable source reliable? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, most policy comes from consensus in the first place. New policies are created, promoted, deprecated, and modified based on community discussions. Overall, the majority of policies and guidelines are meant to reflect the opinion of the community at large. But more importantly, interpretation of policy is determined on a case-by-case basis by local consensus. If you feel that there is an insular group of individuals who are misinterpreting policy to the detriment of the article, your best bet is to seek opinions from outside this group. An RfC can help, since your appeal to RSN failed.

If there was a different consensus reached in the past that conflicted with the current consensus, it might be worth trying to contact people who participated in the past discussion. Doing so does not violate our policy on canvassing, since anyone who participated before could be considered a "concerned editor". Just be sure to notify everyone who participated in that previous discussion, and not only certain individuals who might be seen to be invited only to influence the discussion in your favor. -- Atama頭 01:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page of the article, the only person who considered it unreliable was Itsmejudith back in 2008. Another discussion on it a few months later had two supports for reliability and no opposes. Wee Curry Monster just feels that his opinion is better than the consensus of a number of editors on the subject. Silverseren^C 03:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the above does rather neatly illustrate the problem. Looking through the archives the first time this came up as an WP:SPS it was considered unreliable [21]. The second discussion did not conclude its reliable [22] and in the discussion I started we had one external opinion [23]. This concluded it was acceptable to source the opinion of Muriel Kane the author but not for sourcing controversial facts that were contradicted by other sources - which included the parties involved. Muriel Kane's opinion is no longer in the article and once again its being used to source a purely speculative opinion. Its the classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT where they only selectively hear what they want to hear.

Having challenged the reliability of the source, instead of trying to put together a case for its reliability they have instead chosen to attack me personally - again and again. Having pointed out why I consider it unreliable, they illogically demand I prove its unreliable instead of trying to convince me its reliable. Moreover were I to start an RFC, I can see it being dominated by the same 3 editors who dominated the RSN discussion which is an effective tactic for deterring outside opinion. There is a group of editors who seem to be misinterpreting policy as sourcing has been a problem from the outset on this article. This is why I'm asking for admin oversight to ensure its properly considered. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If there is a "they" attacking you and not just a "him" or "her", then consensus is likely not in your favour. In that case, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is probably not a "they" problem, it's a "you" problem. Get down off the cross. -Kai445 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've resisted the temptation to raise this issue with an admin in the past, as I've previously been involved in some unsavoury incidents regarding this article and didn't want to become embroiled further. However, the situation described here has been an issue on this article for a while now, and though we've made some slow progress with regards to the content, I feel at this point that an outside opinion in the form of an RfC is now called for. I've tried a few times to get the discussion at Talk:Occupy Marines back on track, but we keep getting side-tracked by pointless bickering, and I think an RfC is the only way to move forward. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Again we see an example of attacking the editor, rather than dealing with the issue. I am fed up with the pointless bickering over minutiae and the needless edit warring to strong arm material into the article. I would welcome an RFC as the WP:BATTLE mentality is becoming irritating. I retain some doubts as to the effectiveness of the process were the discussion to devolve into bickering among the same editors as it will deter the outside opinion sought. I've seen this before and its effective and deterring outside comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've started an RFC as suggested. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

78.93.222.179

Resolved

78.93.222.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly introducing unsourced material to many articles, mainly about the Marath clan, although they were warned multiple times about this. I try for a very long time now to get his attention, but to no avail. Assistance will be appreciated. --Muhandes (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhandes seems to have been following the actions of said user since last month, could this be a possible case of wikihounding? Princess Derpy (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You think I don't have anything better to do than to watch over an IP? The easiest thing for me would have been to remove all those pages from my watch list and ignore the matter. But I do not, since I care for the quality of articles. I keep the articles on my watch list, and as the IP keeps editing the articles, I keep reverting. I was also not the only editor to revert, User:Apparition11 has also been watching the same pages and reverting those same edits. Besides, since when has keeping an eye on a non-constuctive IP editor become hounding? You seem to have a very strange understanding of what WP:HOUND is about. --Muhandes (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Princess Derpy, have you read the section on wikihounding that you provided a link to? If you have, you will see that wikihounding involves singling out another editor's edits "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". I see no evidence of this at all: everything I can see makes it look as though Muhandes is acting with the aim of protecting articles from unconstructive editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP address for three days. Since the problem has been continuing for far more than three days, this is a token gesture to convey to the editor that we really mean what we say about unsuitable editing. If the problem continues I will be willing to impose a longer block: feel welcome to contact me on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing for a RFC

Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) has been posting very charged messages to several users, attempting to get participation for his side in a RFC. [24] is one of the messages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Proposal for the closure of this project is a post he made to his entire WikiProject. These are all his messages he posted: [25]

The RFC has nothing to do with the closure of his project; it is about coordinate tagging road articles and is located at WT:HWY#RFC on coordinates in highway articles. Unfortunately, it seems to have altered the course of the RFC. --Rschen7754 19:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that contacting such a large number of editors on their talk page (and with in that tone) does seem to be an over-reaction but I lean towards assuming good faith. I'll post a comment on Tagishsimon asking him to be more measured in future. --RA (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and hopefully the closing admin will take this into account. --Rschen7754 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll post a note on the RFC as well. --RA (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that he was indeed acting in good faith by bringing the discussion to the attention of the Geographical coordinates expert community, who would clearly have valid opinions on this subject and are exactly the right people to engage in the discussion. In any case, they would not necessarily oppose the proposal regarding geotagging road articles. Bazonka (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

So I would be acting in good faith to go post a very biased, opinionated, and misleading statement to a cherry picked list of 100 editors that I believe would support my opinion? Sorry, I can't assume good faith when the evidence is stacked towards manipulation. The results of the RFC are now completely skewed by the notion that the proposal affects all articles. Would you want a jury at your trial if they were sworn in to convict a murderer, or would you want that jury not to have predisposed thoughts before they received the actual evidence? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Block review

user:Vsmith just blocked [26] a new user he was in conflict with[27] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:INVOLVED. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. ... In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

Reverting an edit, which has been reverted before, is fills the expectations above. And this is a clear case of a 3RR Violation.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Anyone who feels the block was in error or undeserved is free to unblock. I had warned the user earlier re: 3rr and had undone one edit (turned out to be two due and edit conflict). Anytime any admin disagrees with an action of mine, please ask me about it, always willing to consider error - or simply undo it if needed and I'm offline. Vsmith (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but I think the block was unjustified and a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Further, I made a comment on the talk page page of Global warming controversy that the editing there is extremely non-neutral in more than one area actually used the wording more than once: "the CONSENSUS view is ............". There is no Consensus view that can or has been established in the US. To be able to say that, one would have to get a view from each and every scientist in the environmental community - not just those in specific organizations, some of which are politically involved and therefore must be considered suspect. I hope that does not get me blocked. I believe editors can comment here as well.Mugginsx (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd that Mugginsx wants to ignore the definition of scientific consensus and confine opinion on a global issue to views in the US. Sounds rather WP:BIASed. . dave souza, talk 21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, within reason, to discuss issues on the talk page, but please keep them there. Remember this is ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it with you Nil. This is the second time you have lectured me today. I do not want to have to report you so please refrain. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. Please pick someone who has not been here as long as me.Mugginsx (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He is however, correct. Content discussions should remain on the talk page of that article and not here. -DJSasso (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That is really funny DJ since it was your remark that I was answering. Must go now, my dog is engaging me in a true intellectual debate about whether global warming has affected her dog food (Her subtle way of telling me I am late feeding her). Everyone's a cynic. To answer her question, I say yes. Why shouldn't she worry too. What do you think? I am out of here. Mugginsx (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My comment? The only comment I made was below and occurred after you commented... So I am not sure how you could have been replying to me... -DJSasso (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Was a valid block. Reverting to the pre-conflict version is not a violation of involved. -DJSasso (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Good block for edit warring against multiple editors. WP:3RR notice had been given. Bright line was crossed. Involvement is just a distraction from the main problem. Glrx (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

PS Note block was for 48hrs instead of 24. Maybe +24 because WP going off line. Glrx (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. Concur on the 48 hours given the upcoming blackout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• This fashion for adding on 24 hours to the length of any block applied today is quite simply a disgusting demonstration of the dishonesty and hypocrisy that's become endemic here. Other administrators will in future simply look at the length of the block, not the reason for it, and will make assumptions. Malleus Fatuorum 23:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

O shame, shame, poppy-shame, Malleus. A thing is either endemic or not endemic. It can't "become endemic". --Shirt58 (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand admins might wonder why it was lengthened and look at the date to discover the truth. Hasteur (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. And a squadron of flying pigs might pass over my house tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

May be the large number of longer blocks will mean people will actually pay more attention now? Nil Einne (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't blocked anyone today (and don't plan to) but if I were to extend the block 24 hours I'd leave a note to that effect in my block rationale and the reason why. I do think that MF has a point, if I block a repeat offender I usually consider the block length of previous blocks in my determination, since it's common to escalate blocks when someone doesn't get that their behavior is wrong. I wouldn't go so far as to say that every admin is required to do this, but it's what I would do. -- Atama頭 01:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Pigs may not fly, but the block log has been updated to indicate the reason for the length of the block [28] Nobody Ent 02:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

As evidenced by the sign outside of Jack's BBQ in Nashville, pigs can indeed fly. Of course, if you know the history of that situation, it's quite humourous (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't those pigs know that to launch from a ski jump they'd have to be going the other way? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Target for Today and category churning

Target for Today (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has created dozens of categories over the past few days, particularly relating to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the battle thereof. Almost all of these are headed to WP:CFD and there are numerous complaints on his talkpage about this, to no apparent avail. A block on page creation at least might be in order. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Mangoe for raising this. While a number of Target for Today's stub articles on Gettsburg have also been merged per discussions here andhere, and he has been the subject of some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_History#Gettysburg_articles, I'm not informed enough to express an opinion on the article side of things. However, his category work as revealed by the growing list of red links on his Talk page speaks for itself, I think. And now, I believe he's taken to essentially recreating deleted categories with slightly altered names, as I stated today at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:People_of_Adams_County.2C_Pennsylvania.2C_in_the_American_Civil_War and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_17#Category:Geography_of_Gettysburg.2C_Pennsylvania. This, I think, is the tipping point. He is clearly a knowledgable editor when it comes to Gettysburg and Gettyburg is an extremely important topic: but his trend of category re-creation tips the scales to where his work becomes more detrimental and WP:POINTy, and I support that he blocked from further category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that there are, additionally, two more Target for Today Gettyburg-related WP:OC discussions underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_15, which do not appear on his user talk page. Also, the problem is not limited to Gettysburg: he has created a similar torrent of Cold War related categories and a templates, most or all of which have been deleted or are now nominated. So any topic ban should include Gettysburg and Cold War categories, or categories in general. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • ...and I've just had to nominate another, freshly created. Mangoe (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Which is in fact a duplicate of one he already created. Bizarre. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The editor may have believed that the new category was not an exact duplicate, as the battle itself was an event, while the battlefield is a location. Still a little hair-splitting to my mind. --NellieBly (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now had to nominate another big subtree of these categories, and am looking at another, and there are a bunch of other nominations besides. He's quiet at the moment, but there's no reason to think he won't start up again. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for Target for Today (talk · contribs) blocking them from the creation of categories/creation of new pages in categoryspace. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Dealing with the categories created by this user is becoming a bit of a headache. Recently I came across Category:1995 in the Cold War, which when considered can kind of serve as a symbol of the kind of problems inherent in the categories that are being created. I'm not sure what the answer is here, but at least some sort of temporary topic ban on categories may be in order until the user can get the hang of how categories typically work. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would definately support some kind of ban on this user. He seems to be going way overboard with category creation. Wild Wolf (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Sorry, but I find all this AN/I "ban him now" behaviour quite intolerable. YES, there is an issue here, but it's not highly disruptive. NO, a topic ban is not the answer, and would be excessive. This "ban now, problem gone" attitude really doesn't do anyone any good, and is pretty immature IMO. I think at most a week or two is needed to restrict this editor from making new categories whilst someone mentors him in the basics. I do accept there is a minor problem, and that something needs to be done soon. I don't accept any form of ban, which is more punitive than anything, as a reasonable solution, without trying other things first and seeing if the editor can adapt. Wiki is supposed to be a community, so where he hell is the community spirit to help educate or advance editors working in good faith, who are apparently knowledgeable about a subject, which has been noted above, instead the typical over-reactive polemic shit that goes on here on AN/I way too much, just to satisfy a few egos but achieves nothing supportive for the editor in question? Who do we place first, the interests of Wiki, or the interests of people making complaints? In this case, I strongly believe this editor was trying work in the interests of Wiki and a topic they are clearly very enthusiastic about. I see no controversy here that poses a threat, I see nothing that can't be tidied up. All he needs is a helping a hand, a couple of weeks tuition, from experienced editors in categorisation methods and on what the standards are. I don't know what they are, sure I know the difference between a trivial and major category, but that's about it. Perhaps he doesn't. Clearly this editor needs similar knowledge to get him on the right track. So perhaps the good people here who are looking for a solution might do better by offering the editor some much needed guidance, before going like a pack of wolves after him. My 2c. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of "typical over-reactive polemic shit," one such good faith effort by admin Mike Selinker was met with a stream of vitriolic responses and personal attacks at XfD. There's a longer history here with Target for Today than one can glean from this discussion section here, Marcus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, now we're getting the full story? It helps to know these things from the tee, some of us don't want to go digging through an editor's entire history looking for background. Can you provide diffs on this? Although it sounds like reference to uncivil comments, which bears no relation to category creation, to me, unless there's material suggesting COI or similar. We need to see it to know, though, please. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the behaviour has been highly disruptive is somewhat of a judgment call. For those who work heavily in the categorization system, I can appreciate the view that it has been highly disruptive. I know it has been fairly disruptive at CFD, what with the repeated discussions over the same things over and over again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Tricky to say. Categories are really just a wrapper for articles. Creating them isn't really disruptive. It's the process of discussing whether to keep/delete them that takes time. But then, who to blame, the creator of those categories, or the editor who nominates them for deletion. We can't say that it's highly disruptive, because nothing has been damaged, really. Only the extra work is disruptive, but if the editor really feels they are creating them in good faith, and not anticipating deletion noms, then it is unfair to be dismissive. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I disagree and think that creating categories can indeed be disruptive. Maybe it's not disruptive to you as an editor, but it certainly can be disruptive to WP in general. For instance, User:Pastorwayne was initially banned indefinitely from category creation essentially for disruptive creation of categories. Same story for other editors—it's not a unique phenomenon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just a thought: Is Target for Today even aware they have a personal talk page? Since November 2010 they don't appear to have ever responded to anything on it. Seems odd, does it not? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, this is one odd character. Marcus, to respond to your request for diffs: you'd be particularly forgiven for not finding them yourself because the comments I'm referring to were made during a brief period when Target stopped editing under his ID and launched a series of personal attacks at XfDs for his creation using an IP. or so I believe. There's a clear pattern of Mike trying to reason with him and being met by personal attacks and incivility here here, here, often embedding personal attacks in the edit summary as well, when all Mike (who I have a lot of respect for) was trying to do was work the issue out. (Mike was so taken aback he opened an SPI that was declined, but a checkuserwould not have matched the IP to Target's account anyway.) I for one believe User:69.46.35.69 was clearly Target, or a meat or sock puppet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I find it kind of difficult to buy that the user would not have figured out his own user talk page yet, especially since the user has participated in CFDs, AFDs, sockpuppet investigations, "Wikipedia talk" space, and another user's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed. And again, my !vote above was for a block on category creation only, for CfD-related reasons only, just as Good olfactory discusses. I simply don't see this editor as someone open to tutoring in the way Marcus suggests, but if he proves to be, and Marcus or someone might wish to take that on, with positive results, great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, as I said, I don't work categories myself to know what to teach. Nor would I have the time or patience. Given the lack of SPI matching this IP to TfT, I won't comment on whether I think this is him or his behaviour, that would best be left to an admin. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I have no strong opinion as to whether a topic ban is appropriate for such a string of ill-conceived categories. I would very much like to see Target for Today's (and, if any of the other accounts are his sockpuppets, those accounts') personal attacks on me cease. As far as I can tell, they have ceased for the time being. I have found his behavior and those of the other accounts to be chilling on my desire to close the nominations of the Gettysburg categories, because getting a constant stream of vitriol and accusations doesn't make me want to participate. That said, I probably will still do so, since I try not to let personal feelings get in the way of continuing to help out on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support a ban on all edits in category space. I have thought for some years that some extra sign of competence should be displayed before people are allowed to create categories. I can create a plausible but useless category in a few seconds and the cfd process takes weeks to uproot it. Eg Target created 8 new categories on 16 Jan and 6 are already at cfd. This is just a waste of time. Oculi (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This history is older. There are problems as far back as November at least. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)Yea, I got a notice on my talk page since I have nominated a few of this users category creations. While some categories that I have looked at appear to be OK, the vast majority seem to be ill conceived. So I would be inclined to support a creation ban of some kind. While the current uproar is over categories, has anyone looked at the article creation record? From my browsing of the history, I suspect that a few of these articles will also be suspect. Category creation is very fast and simple. Category deletion/merging/renaming is time consuming and requires an administrators time. Given the backlogs at CfD and other places, adding more work for admins should be discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have looked over the articles somewhat. There's been a lot of AfDs for his Gettysburg geo or structure stubs, most of which seem to be getting merged into larger articles. (A merge tag or just boldly going ahead with it would be my preferred course, if possible.) For example, 11th Mississippi Infantry Monument is an article about a block with a plaque, for heaven's sake. Imagine how much more useful it would be for readers if this were integrated into, say, High-water mark of the Confederacy. That's the biggest knock against Target with articles imo: he applies his knowledge to spinning off a myriad of stubs on every ridge, brook, tree, etc. in Gettysburg, it seems, instead of offering readers an integral picture. As with categories, one gets the sense that he is not really considering the best interests of the encyclopaedia or its readers, but rather, some private fascination with his own ordering of things.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree, somewhat. I get the feeling he is using categories more like an "index", expecting readers to view articles in a logical order based on how they are sectioned. The logic makes sense, in a detailed book you would expect to find an index, chapters, sections, headings, but it is not how Wiki works. As I said earlier, the fact that he can create articles quickly but it takes weeks to remove them is not necessarily his fault, but that of the red-tape which Wiki operates behind. I still think you're looking to point fault at the editor here, and it comes across as demeaning rather than AGF. There have been plenty of chances for editors to be WP:BOLD and to merge stubs, request speedy deletion of superfluous categories, etc. A will also note that in some of the CfDs people have voted "keep", so I should caution that the comments made here on AN/I are not entirely supported by everyone. Also, until he responds here, assuming he does (I have left a somewhat frank comment on his talkpage), people should not be speculation too much in his "motivations". Again, AGF, he has done nothing that warrants being shamed, and just because the excess of categories has upset a few editors, we don't make pointy accusations or pre-judgements. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Shivers

In the last few hours, two brand-new {{spa}} editors have turned The Shivers from an article about an Austin, TX alt-country band to an article about an NYC rock band.

• Shiversnyc (talk · contribs)
• Tseabert (talk · contribs)

Normally, that would just be a content dispute, but a section of the article now states:

Name Controversy

Despite any claims anywhere, including by the now defunct 90's band from Austin, TX, The Shivers (from NYC) are the legal and rightful owner of the Trademark to the name The Shivers. This is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 4,063,183). Registered on November 29th, 2011. (Int. Cls: 9 and 41). The Shivers (from NYC) have the legal right and obligation to protect and defend their trademark and to prosecute anyone who tries to violate it. This includes making it known on public websites such as this one.

In terms of Wikipedia or relevance in the culture/marketplace, a Google search of the words "The Shivers" brings up FIRST The Shivers' (from NYC) Myspace page, followed by their official website, followed by this website, followed by their Blogspot page, followed by the Last.fm page, which The Shivers (from NYC) undoubtedly dominate, followed their Facebook page.

Searches on other major websites such as Youtube or Tumblr show an unquestionable dominance of The Shivers (from NYC) as well. The Shivers (from NYC) have been existence for over a decade and to date, have released 6 albums and have toured internationally. They have opened for major artists from M. Ward to Deer Tick and have performed on such renowned entities as the BBC 1 and reviewed by major publications.

No other band called The Shivers can legally claim copyright, The Shivers (from NYC) having registered their catalog with the Library of Congress and owning the Trademark are the sole owner in the US. The Shivers (from NYC) also show a dominance in the cultural/comercial marketplace internationally and have done so for several years.

If reverting back to the old version could trigger the "obligation to… prosecute anyone who tries to violate [their trademark]," then I figure this qualifies under WP:DOLT. And so, I bring it here. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I reverted the article to its state before Shiversnyc's only edit, which contained the legal threat (that edit could not be undone because of subsequent edits), and blocked Shiversnyc. The name was probably worth a block, in any case. -- Donald Albury 02:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the usurping article, did a quick Wikification on it, and posted it to The Shivers (New York City). Frankly, the article still has POV problems (I took out a great deal of it, as well as second-person writing), and I have doubts whether it would pass an AfD -- but I'll allow others to decide that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to go do that myself.:) Shiversnyc is asking to be unblocked, and I'm willing to, but I think another user name that doesn't include "shiver" is in order. -- Donald Albury 02:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved around the history: if I did it rightly, the entire history of the NYC band is now at The Shivers (New York City), leaving The Shivers (Austin, Texas) with just the history of the Texas band. Would someone please check to make sure that I did it rightly? Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert in history splits, but it looks right to me. The only step that wasn't taken was to restore the NYC band article back to the version I posted which Wikified it, eliminated some of the POV, the legal threat, etc. etc., and I've done that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird...how did that happen? I didn't expect that moving it would somehow cause an older version to become current. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed some BLP violations from the article. Please remember that things like wikification (or notability) are less important than these (unsourced or poorly sourcde claims of e.g. "threats of physical violence" should not be left in an article). 13:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, "trademarks" do not apply as such to article titles in any case. Nor can one retroactively apply "copyright" in any such case unless a court has ruled that the prior users were in violation of law for some reason (even then I am not sure how Wikipedia would hande that). I would also note WP:NLT should likely be invoked by the next admin here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Names cannot be copyrighted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

IP and blackout bypass instructions

24.192.77.46 (talk · contribs) added to three pages instructions on apparently how to bypass the blackout. I removed them from Jimbo's talk page as this seems disruptive (and very WP:BEANS) and someone else has since removed them from Talk:2012 Wikipedia blackout, but Stubbleboy (talk · contribs) restored them to Jimbo's talk page and "warned" me about removing them only because I support it. That "warning" I don't care about as it's simply a failure to AGF, but what to do with the instructions? Should they be removed or not? Calabe1992 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say not unless Jimbo wants it removed. He beat the system, more power to him :). N^oformation ^Talk 03:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure why these instructions are being posted everywhere when it looks like it'll be mentioned on the Q&A/Learn More page during the blackout anyway. Whether the same information sits on these low profile pages for the next hour seems totally unimportant. – Steel 04:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Moot point now but confur it seems a bit silly to remove something the foundation themselves mention. As with all users, Jimbo can of course remove whatever he wants from his page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasted considerable time today finding several sequentially better ways to be able to see Wikipedia content, such as pressing "printscreen" before the blackout banner appeared, then viewing the page in Photoshop, or viewing cached versions of the page on Google, or viewing the mobile edition, before hitting on the trick of turning off Java scripts. If some group of Occupy Wikipedia activists want to climb the US Capitol dressed as Spiderman, to attempt to influence US legislation while still being a 501(3)(c) charity, it is quite considerate for them to leave a backdoor for users to view content. Trying to keep it a secret seems pointless. BnBH (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

...says the man in the Spiderman suit... [29] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note, BnBH, that U.S. tax code allows 501(c)(3) organizations to attempt to influence legislation as long as they don't spend more than 5% of their budget doing so. Too bad you spend so much time trying to work around the blackout, instead of reading about how effective the blackout was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how many people called their congressmen and asked, "Why did you shut down wikipedia?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

YinYangJihad is back

Resolved

 – Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• YinYangSgt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• YinYangSoldier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It's quite obvious that both are him. Talk page access revocation, rangeblocks, and/or blacklists, anyone?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Also, can CU be done with these guys to find out if there are sleepers?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ban for YinYangJihad

Either just tag this as a de facto ban or !vote below for a formal ban, for this LTA.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Good god... Calabe1992 06:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just do de facto and don't waste up time waiting for days to get it formalized if this individual is that much of a problem.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• These discussions are so pointless. Obvious socks, trolls, and vandals get blocked regardless. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Discussion is not pointless. A de facto ban can be reversed by a single admin; however, a community ban requires the community's consensus to reverse, therfore avoiding the risk of a good-faith unblocking being the result of a hornswaggling on the part of the banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick talk page access removal please

Resolved

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

Obvious troll, and sock of ChadBrunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see history of NPA).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is thatta way. --slakr^\ talk / 06:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been directed to not use RPP. See my talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Issues like this are currently a problem. It's unfortunately been my habit to find an administrator online and ask them to revoke it. If we could organize a place for this, that would be nice. Calabe1992 06:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you have just ignored it? Prodego ^talk 07:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I would say yes. But say if the blocked editor was writing BLP vios on their talk page, then it would be necessary to remove talk page access ASAP, so it is a real issue. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and talk page hounding/stalking by Wikireader41

The User:Wikireader41 has been repeatedly making personal attacks and hounding me on my talk page (since quite some time) to get past a few disputes I've had with him and is continuing to do so even after they're over. He goes over commenting at every place calling me a POV pusher while I'm having a civil discussion with reasonable arguments on disputes in question (this can be verified by the consensus formed in one of the RFCs given below as well as in the on going one or the one with no consensus).

Attacks at RFCs: [30] (has been rebuted by an unrelated editor for this attack) & [31] (after warning).

Attacks on talk page: [32], [33], [34] & [35] (after repeated warnings of not editing my talk page while he continues to barge into discussions he did not start or was invited to).

[36] (The latest where he just entered the RFC, and then barged in to attack me on my talk page)

He's escalating to personal attacks inspite of repeated warnings and needs to be checked. All his RFC comments are containing personal attacks (being more on editors rather than on the content). He also has a block log with the same reason for two of his blocks, one of which was indefinite, and the third one actually states him as a POV pusher. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This got archived after the black out.. I've restored it since it was not replied to. User has been informed since filing the original report here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link to diffs instead of talk page discussions? It will help the intervening administrators understand the situation better. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to look back for diffs since they are old ones in case of RFCs. The comments on my talk page are presented in diffs. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here are the diffs for the RFCs mentioned above (talk page comments already in diffs): [37] [38] [39]. I don't think there's any excuse for such allegations and the user was also warned for this by uninvolved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking through all that, I can't really see anything in the links you've provided which constitute a personal attack. TopGun, I also think that wikireader41 has a point; it sometimes seems to me that you have a habit of provoking other editors into a response and then coming running to ANI looking for sanctions. I think it would be best for you to just try and work things out with him yourself. Just my opinion. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

For instance, refer to the warning by an uninvolved editor to Wikireader calling his oppose comment as a blatant attack on a previous RFC mentioned above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly calling me a POV pusher unprovoked is a personal attack in my opinion. Please tell me where do you think I provoked him into a response to get him sanctions, I strongly disagree with that. I do try to work things out but you might look through the RFC discussions where I've been civil all the way long. Also, there's no excuse for commenting on my talk page with allegations where he's is not even involved. The latest was done inspite of the fact that I didn't even interact with him in the RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a POV pusher is usually not a good idea, though I don't think it is a blockable offense. Have you tried simply avoiding him? That might do more to diffuse the conflict than anything else. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but then I have tried your suggestion previously. As I said, the latest one was done without interaction which pushed me to report.. otherwise I was simply intending to ignore such remarks. An example of this is him calling me an SPA to which I just responded there civilly and took no further action till his further involvement. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User notified [40]. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I notified him 2-3 days ago. See his talk page. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

With the blackout, I figured it couldn't hurt to get a more recent message up, along with the big orange bar of notification that will show up. :) -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...you pretty much stick to similar topic areas and you certainly defend your point of view via AN3, ANI and other areas ... does WP:SPADE apply? None of the terms being used are specifically violations of WP:NPA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

You should check my edit count and then check my contributions. I'm not sticking to a single topic rather working on the whole wiki project Pakistan. See "Editing only within a single broad topic" in the WP:SPA you linked (as an admin I expected you to be aware of that). It would be ridiculous and a blatant attack to say otherwise. I don't defend my views 'via' these notice boards. If you see, this report is not about a dispute at all... infact I specifically mentioned that the disputes with the mentioned editor are over and he's continuing the hounding after that. WP:SPADE, I don't think so... prejudice - maybe. I don't think personal attacks are restricted to using specific terms. Labeling me as a POV pusher, ironically when he has a block log with the same title, without provocation is a personal attack... maybe not when done once but see how many times he has repeated it. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

... and now you're accusing me of a "blatant attack"? Um, you really should go back and re-read WP:NPA (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I said it would be a personal attack to say that, which Wikireader did(regardless of your view of that since that is not per WP:SPA as I just cited). And lets not take it out of context, is it completely ok for him call me SPA and a POV pusher on every talk page he sees me? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Assisting in building civility between editors is the purview of WP:WQA. There's quite obviously nothing that is leading to a block here. The best way to beat being called an SPA is to go edit articles about, Oh I dunno ... The Humane Society of Arkansas or something ... try sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 02:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring/BLP/dispute resolution

User:Questionable pulse has been reverting my edits and hasn't responded to anything I said on his talk page. We are currently in a conflict over whether or not politicians' political positions and votes should be put into a different section or into the U.S. House of Representatives section, in the tenure subsection. One example includes U.S. Congressman Nick Rahall in these edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Rahall&diff=prev&oldid=471953460 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Rahall&action=historysubmit&diff=471889174&oldid=470188028. He needs to respond and cooperate with me.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? The entire BLP reads too much like a puff piece at this point in any case. And it makes absolutely no difference what a section title is as long as related material gets placed more-or-less together. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, User:Questionable pulse still needs to converse with Jerzeykydd, whatever the outcome of the discussion. QP is making these changes everywhere and there is debate to be had over the validity of these changes he needs to hold off before making them. Jerzeykydd, I would advice you hold off reverting User:Questionable pulse also, because if you want to discuss the latter's refusal to converse with you, you ought not to tar yourself with the same brush no matter how frustrating it is. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well what is going to happen? What if QP continues to refuse to converse and continues to mass revert?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no real history of discussion on the part of this user, I've left them a message reminding them of the importance of discussion - even if you turn out to be in the right - and the risk of disruption if you ignore requests to talk. Let's watch. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China" discussions

Hello, there have been lengthy discussions lately on Talk:Republic of China and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese) regarding Wikipedia's usage of "Republic of China" versus "Taiwan". One concerning feature of this discussion (which I tried to bring up here) is the growing number of IP addresses contributing to the discussion, with strong opinions, mostly in favour of staying with the current "Republic of China" convention.

In light of the discussions at Talk:Republic of China, it seems clear to me (especially among experienced editors) that there is no longer a consensus to use "Republic of China" as described on the guideline WP:NC-TW. In fact there is an on-going straw poll asking whether or not the current guideline WP:NC-TW represents consensus.. one should also note the number of Single-purpose accounts who voted in the straw poll.

So could an administrator / experienced editor here help with some of the following: 1) Tagging the guideline WP:NC-TW as {{Under discussion}}, or evaluating the straw poll, 2) Commenting on the appropriateness of tagging SPA's with {{Spa}} on these talk pages, 3) Generally facilitating this difficult discussion?

Many thanks for your help, Mlm42 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Ack.. I should also point out this related move request (which I just noticed, and is probably misguided), that an anonymous user started two days ago. I think editors were converging towards a solution which has been drafted on this user page, which unfortunately hasn't been proposed as a requested move, or anything yet. This heightened attention is partially due to the recent elections, and the link from the Main Page. Mlm42 (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well there is clearly an issue with a banned user who has been blocked for a week for sock puppetry evading their block to continue to filibuster this discussion, but many of the IP editors are from different parts of the world so it seems unlikely they are all the same user. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting they are the same user.. I said they are SPA's, which is also a reason to be cautious. Mlm42 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Similarly here, User:Huayu-Huayu. This editor is persisting on renaming categories like Category:Islands of Taiwan and starting articles named "Taiwan Islands". Its not politically correct given than some of them are disputed. I have never heard them referred to as the "Taiwan Islands" and they are hotly disputed between China and Japan so I don't think we should go there.. Look at the source on Taiwan Islands. China.org... Its not right.. Even the name Taiwan of course is argued over... This editor persists on spamming me and others who revert him with "Welcome to wikipedia" messages despite me reverting him see here♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld has no clue what is going on, so I explain: 1) Taiwan is an article about the island. 2) if you have a category: "Islands of Taiwan" then it would mean all the island are inside the island, i.e. inside lakes. But this is only true for some. So the islands off the coast of Taiwan Island have to go into another category. This is basic logic. Nothing to do with ROC, PRC, Japan claims or so.

Dr. Blofeld removes "Taiwan Dao means Taiwan Island" [41] [42] without giving a reason. Reversions without giving reason are not helpful. He also resists to go to the talk page, where I started a thread asking why removing "Taiwan Dao means Taiwan Island" Talk:Taiwan#Removal_of_Taiwan_Dao.

Dr. Blofeld associates me with Taiwan nationalists [43] - not sure he was intending to make a joke or so?

Dr. Blofeld is equating the Taiwan Islands = Taiwan Archipelago = Taiwan island group with Taiwan! But that is only /one/ island. Long not seen such problems in basic maths. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Huayu-Huayu has made 300+ edits since his first edit less than a week ago, all on similar topics. I'm also impressed that he found his way to this AN/I thread without even being notified. In any case, the discussions I pointed to show that the changes Huayu-Huayu has been making probably don't have consensus (though I haven't looked at all 300..). The problem being that consensus seems to be shifting towards making the article called "Taiwan" about the country (or whatever you wish to call it), and not just the island, as it currently is. Mlm42 (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, for sure. No newbie would know how to link diffs like that and template people and continue editing as if they've been here years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history or consensus here regarding the PRC/ROC naming conventions, et cetera. I will say that it's clear that User:Huayu-Huayu's conduct is distinctly unhelpful. For example, Penghu Islands was a redirect to Penghu for years, and I see no reason to believe consensus has changed before HH made it into a fork. Also, the content AND text of this edit here in ANI is on the edge of being a personal attack. -- Pakaran 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Hainan

Related to this matter are his Hainan Province category creations. Currently "Hainan" refers to both the province and the island. These newly created cats may not be needed.

• Category:Hainan Province
• Category:Geography of Hainan Province
• Category:Islands of Hainan Province
• Category:Rivers of Hainan Island
• Category:Bays of Hainan Island
• Category:Peninsulas of Hainan Island

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuous recreation of deleted pages despite warning

HARMONJR (talk · contribs) continues to recreate articles related to a non-notable musician, despite warnings. He has recently begun resorting to re-adding the content in the dead talk pages of the previously deleted articles in an effort to circumvent page protection. See here and here. Also here. Can someone please block. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

He's also now re-created the PREPARE article here, and filing a deletion contest on a talk page containing the entirety of the content of the subject article here. Stinks of someone using wiki to promote their own work. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely as a promotional account and will try to clean up the duplicated articles littered across the Wikipedia landscape. Drop me a line on my talk page if you think I've missed anything. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest too salt/blacklist article name to avoid recreation by (possible) sock. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 05:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mary Whitehouse is at the gates, banging for entrance

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

---

Do a search for 'pages containing' "sh*t", "f*ck", "c*nt" and other non-swears you can think of. Some are legitimate. Many are coy censorship. Look at what links to the redirect sh*t and variants and decide whether they're valid (and why Wikipedia would be linking a basic word like that in the first place). Wikipedia is not censored, except by prissy users.

Why post here? Coz I've just created an account to correct one sh*t to shit, having previously tried on other pages as an IP and been turned away by edit filters and by over-zealous "RP Patrollers" (?) who 'revert' back to the censored version and send snotty warnings.

You can't have it both ways. Language, Timothy (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

If a cited source has it censored, it's not appropriate for wikipedia editors to "fill in the blanks", as that's original research. However, if a cited source is uncensored, then it's not appropriate to censor it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What part of Some are legitimate. Many are coy censorship needs explaining in more detail? Coz I'll happily try, perhaps by rearranging the words to Many are coy censorship. Some are legitimate, or perhaps as Yoda - Coy censorship many are. Legitimate some are. Messenger shooting we will be. Language, Timothy (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, what is an administrator supposed to do here? If there is a specific diff or specific editor that needs our attention, please tell us. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the longest serving, most experienced, most knowledgable, third most trusted group of editors here could ignore one of the fundamental parts of the Wikipedia philosophy, the one that had the site semi-blacked out for 24 hours yesterday worldwide, on the basis that it's the job of someone else to deal with it, who will be edit filtered, reverted, warned and then blocked for "inserting profanity". I just thought that, perhaps, you might give a flying fuck. My mistake. I won't darken your door again. Language, Timothy (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read the top of this page. You have not brought forth anything specific that requires administrator action. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggest we DNFTT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Collateral damage

Editor appears to have been unintentionally blocked due to application of autoblock, see User talk:Scolaire#Blocked!. Must be some better advice than 'wait until tomorrow'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

None of my business, as a new (ex-IP) editor, but people turning down an unblock request with 'well, you can edit tomorrow' don't seem to be within the spirit of an encyclopaedia "anyone can edit". 7 years this guy has been editing and he can 'wait until the range block expires' as if he's automatically guilty? Have a heart, people. Or maybe just a damn soul. Language, Timothy (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

My editing rights have been quietly restored. Thanks all. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Welcome back! RashersTierney (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you mean sock puppets instead of IPs? --MuZemike 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Yes, someone has nominated the article about me for deletion. Again.

Whether or not it's the same person (it's a new editor name, but...), could someone either kill the AfD or point it to the new reason (if any). This doesn't technically require admin action, but I cannot act on it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Fortheloveofbacon who nominated it: inactive since May 2010, then suddenly appears to start an AfD. Two previous nominations started by socks, another by an account currently blocked as it may be compromised. Any chance this new nominee's account is hijacked also? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know, man. Maybe an article with an image like that should be squashed... Come on Rubin, surely there is a more glamorous photo of you. Where's Shankbone when you need him? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I suppose that if I had an article under my real name it would be annoying for it to go to AFD, but is there some inherent notability for this editor? Standards change over time, and letting the next AFD run for the standard period seems appropriate. If it gets kept, it gets kept. Why the urgency of halting the AFD? Edison (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• AfDs should only be started by legit editors, with legit reasons. If the nominee is questionable, the nomination is equally questionable. Time should not be wasted on trolls, socks or petty disputes, just to see how the result turns out. In this case the nominee is suspicious. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Next nomination is salted for 1 year. —Dark 07:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)_

• Nominator here. This is not a compromised account, and I think my logic is sound. I looked for some more information/sources to expand this, but I couldn't find any, so that's why I nominated it. I would appreciate it if the discussion was re-opened and let run for the proper amount of time as was suggested earlier. All of the previous noms have been closed pretty quickly, so I don't think a full length discussion is out of order. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd say being the youngest ever Putnam Fellow establishes notability quite nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to add that most of my edits have been IP edits, as I rarely consider them earth shattering. However, in this case I decided to dust off the account I made in undergrad as I felt it was important to take accountability. So it's a different editor "name" and a different editor "person." Not a sock, and not a troll. I don't begrudge you an article, either, so I just want to be sure that the discussion isn't tainted by the unfortunate recurrence of jerks that seem to have been participating previously. That said, I'm not sure it satisfies WP:N either. Find me on my talk page if you want to verify that I'm not compromised. The Bushranger I assume you'll contribute that to the discussion, when it is hopefully re-opened. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Block needed

Would some kind admin take this person off our hands? [44]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I neglected to inform the person involved, but another editor has done so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

ad hominems, budding edit warring, and insults by AnonMoos

User:AnonMoos put a rather impolite rant on Talk:Plateosaurus. After receiving several replies he proceeded to become more impolite and aggressive, reverting an explained revert of his edits. I admit that my first response to his continued impolite replies was not friendly. However, he continued to swear and belittle people. I posted a statement to his user page, asking him to stop [45]. This edit he reverted with an insulting edit reason [46]: "rv patronizing condescending nonsense from obnoxious asshole". User:AnonMoos also reverted a revert of his edit [47], despite the issue being under discussion on Talk:Plateosaurus, showing that he is unwilling to use talk discussions. HMallison (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:HMallison has chosen to play a purely negative and unconstructive role on Talk:Plateosaurus, engaging in fact-free and content-free flame wars for the sole and exclusive purpose of having a flame war. Since he chose to intersperse his injection of childish and juvenile taunting and personal attacks into a thread which had not previously contained them[48] with smug sanctimonious lectures on my user talk page about how I should strictly obey Wikipedia policies, he sure seems like an obnoxious asshole to me (though I'm sorry if it was unwise to say so). AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, now everybody can ignore all your wrote before in various places, and judge your by this comment alone. I request that AnonMoos gets a chance to re-think his tone for 24 hours.HMallison (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and they can judge you based on your complete refusal to engage in any form of meaningful factual and substantive dialogue on Talk:Plateosaurus in response to a basic reasonable question ("What does the word `broadway' which appears very prominently in this article mean here?"), and your resort to immature tauntings and flaming for the sake of flaming instead... AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:AnonMoos continues ad hominems on both User_talk:HMallison and Talk:Plateosaurus: HMallison (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:HMallison continues not to display the slightest bit of shame or even self-awareness about the fact that he was the first to resort to "ad hominems" in this matter, and has frequently descended to a level of childish and immature taunting which no-one else has attempted to match... AnonMoos (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It was pointed out by several people, several times, that your question was irrelevant, and that we do not have second sight. Your question was, in fact, answered as well as possible. HMallison (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that you finally posted a comment to Talk:Plateosaurus which has some factuality and addresses the actual issue to some degree. It would have been even nicer if you had done this at the beginning -- instead of after about ten comments consisting almost solely of substance-free flame-warring... AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is your problem, and yours alone, that you did not understand the several factual replies by several people.HMallison (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you two done your little name-calling session yet? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkAlexisGabriel

MarkAlexisGabriel (talk · contribs) seems to be a huge fan of Jessica Lange, and he has just greatly attacked me just because I did not let his constant POV be left on the page and edited out some greatly fan-led text (which the article still has plenty of throughout and which must be taken care of). It all started with a major edit I did to improve the lead (Diff) and remove much of the glorification of Lange which was not in place. He reverted me completely at first, saying, "I like the lead". I of course started a talk page discussion, which one editor agreed with. But MarkAlexisGabriel kept restoring the previous lead sporadically from time to time, using his IP (sock?) 76.109.99.165 (talk · contribs), which other editors kept reverting (Diffs: 1, 2). But now I'm not going to tolerate it any longer because I received a message from him, which is incredibly hostile and terribly brutal. Apart from referring to me in such terms as "twat", "asshole", and using such words as "fuckung", he also shows the most evident signs of WP:OWN, having demanded from me that I stop editing the page because he is its major contributor. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User notified about this discussion - please remember to do so in future. GiantSnowman 11:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)