Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792

Sandbox defamatory vandalism

SuperAppletart&ViralVideoify (talk · contribs) has been adding YouTube links to the sandbox with the summary '[name deleted] is a loser'. Someone please block him/her.--Launchballer 06:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked... this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of requesting a revision delete of most of the edits listed at Special:Contributions/SuperAppletart&ViralVideoify. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: block IP 190.242.54.93

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

---

Today I cleaned up vandalism on [Economy of Romania] from user 190.242.54.93. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Romania&diff=548855452&oldid=546939168

It seems this user has a long history of vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.242.54.93

In fact I did not find any serious edit on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.242.54.93

This user has been warned many times before and even has been blocked once. As I am not very active on the English version of Wikipedia I leave it to this community to think about blocking this IP address again (forever?). Bfwelter (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a very new editor. First, this isn't the right place to report garden variety vandalism. Use WP:AIV (but read the instructions). Second, when you post something here, you must notify the editor, although in this case it probably is of little value. In any event, I've done so for you. Third, although the editor has an extensive history of vandalism and their latest edit is obvious vandalism, it's the only vandalism in quite some time, so it probably doesn't warrant a block unless they do more.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Fram directly copy-pasting entire articles with no inline-footnotes, single trailing disclaimer

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

---

I thought that the bad old days of wanton expropriation of out-of-copyright text at Wikipedia had vanished shortly after 2003. Back in the day it was regarded as perfectly fine to copy-paste huge chunks of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica as a new "Wikipedia article" so long as a disclaimer notice was attached as a footer, acknowledging the hijacking of the text. Of course, this resulted in a huge mess when over the course of subsequent months editors came and went, adding sourced information, changing the prose, removing the non-inline-footnoted original facts. Sometime by 2005, I had thought, this sort of crude, grossly undercredited, copy-paste snitching of out of copyright material had vanished from WP.

As the late User:Franamax, author of the first version of the WP Plagiarism guideline wrote in 2008:

"Large portions of articles have been directly copied from PD sources in the past. For instance, Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 was used as a source to build many articles in 2002. These articles were noted by use of the { {1911} } template.

"At a certain point in the development of Wikipedia, we welcomed new content no matter what the source. This is no longer the case. As a mature encyclopedia, we now insist that all contributions are properly attributed. (shaky ground here, just putting it out there)

"It is quite likely that many other articles consist of text directly copied from other sources. If you find examples of this and they are not attributed to the source, do something - either attribute the text, change it or flag it with the xxx-template so others can deal with it." Source: Franamax, "Wikipedia: Plagiarism," version of June 21, 2008, 00:37.

Much to my surprise and chagrin, I learned yesterday that User:Fram — a leading volunteer at Contributor Copyright Investigations, it should be noted — is making use of the same discredited and unacceptable editing technique, directly copy-pasting prose from Bryan's Dictionary of Painters and Engravers: Volume 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1903) with only a single trailing disclaimer to note the expropriation. See ROBERT GARDELLE (Bryan's vol. 2, pg. 215) — which should have been inline footnoted like THIS. That's a short stub, pretty minor in the scheme of things, but you can see the very real problem here, JOSÉ GARCIA HIDALGO (Bryan's vol. 2, pg. 215), which leaves a huge mass of unfootnoted, hijacked prose that will be a god damned mess for the next real content creator attempting to add material.

I asked Fram, who should know better than anyone that this sort of underattributed hijacking of the work of others is ethically sketchy at best, to knock off this sort of editing methodology (GARDELLE, HIDALGO). Fram, predictably, went straight into Wolverine Mode, accusing me of plagiarism for not sufficiently paraphrasing the footnoted material which he straight ripped HERE. He further contends with a combative edit summary that this sort of 2003 Vintage editing technique remains perfectly acceptable at WP HERE.

What I seek is the following: (1) An immediate halt brought to Fram's unacceptable underfootnoted copy-paste content creation methods. (2) A formal consensus here that this sort of editing is contrary to Wikipedia's standards and practices. Fram will be notified of this thread momentarily. Thanks. —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a policy that prevents this appropriation and reference? If not, this would not be the place to enact one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

See this statement and the instructions under Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Franamax's obiter dicta may be a good idea, but I do not think they represent policy. Suggest getting consensus to make them policy before demanding Fram be told not to violate it. Choess (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you asking if there's a policy against plagiarism? Don't you know? Malleus Fatuorum 17:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear whom you are asking but the practice, as it has been done, appears to be at: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. So, the point of the question is to find out what the OP had in mind by way of policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I was asking you, but an edit conflict intervened. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I find this report very interesting in the context of this discussion. Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How does this require administrator intervention? Fram's practices may be outdated and even ill-advised, but they are not contrary to current policies or guidelines. If you want to establish consensus for the (un)acceptability of this sort of editing, the Village pump, RfC, or even Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism would be better venues. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the only way to remove Fram's autopatrolled user right is to desysop him. Malleus Fatuorum 18:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

How is this a matter of autopatrolling? Even if Fram's article's would have to be patrolled, I doubt that a new page patroller would be able to find something contrary to current policy. There's no tag for WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and it has been suggested above by several users that discussions related to a desired change of policy should not be held at this board. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how Fram's autopatrolled flag is germane to this issue. Are you suggesting NPP would curb this sort of behavior? That's a tall order wrapped in high hopes, especially as there is no policy or guideline rationale for it at the moment. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As a CCI volunteer, Fram apparently knows quite well that things published before 1923 are fair game for PD-US, so he's not committing copyright infringement, and he also knows enough to place a sufficient attribution tag, {{Bryan|article=GARDELLE, Robert}}. He's doing nothing wrong, so calling for his head is disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Circassians in Syria vandalism question

There has been persistent vandalism at the Circassians in Syria page by various IPs within the range of 178.35 (178.35.253.49, 178.35.228.18, 178.34.215.46, 178.35.243.236). I've been reverting the IPs' edits each time, but it's getting to the point where the edits are occurring on a daily basis. Because a different IP is used each time (assuming this a concerted efforts of sorts), I did not issue any warnings. The edits in question center on adding "Paganism" as a practiced religion and the removal of "Sunni" from "Sunni Muslim." Multiple sources in the article specifically state that Syrian Circassians are Sunni Muslim, none say paganism. Where do we go from here? Personally, I think the best option for now is add no-edit protection to the article for non-autoconfirmed users, but because of my direct involvement in (I started the page) it's probably best I don't take it upon myself to make this move. We could also block the range for a temporary period, but that might not be necessary at this point. Thoughts? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFPP for persistent IP disruption. Blackmane (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Maduro IP 98.252.50.93 gone ballistic

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

---

98.252.50.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone ballistic leaving 3RR warnings and threats on multiple userpages, including mine, and ranting on Maduro's talkpage. Samples:

What is going on here is a criminal strangle hold on his page, forcing him smiling...

and

Look at this crazy bastard...

and accusing other editors of being bullies etc. He got a week-long block before. Perhaps it is time for another. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. That's why me, as well as other Venezuelans editing this website, avoid such articles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully understand you. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I too claim on national TV that Hugo Chavez came to me reincarnated as a parakeet http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFbPo_5pyrI

Or when Maduro offered 20 million to a candidate openly, yesterday. Or when he shut down the airport to prevent a candidate from landing to campaign. (Stop me when I'm not right, wait I read UT / La Patilla and watch VZ TV half my day.) You have done nothing but reverts over 4 days. You have not participated in talk. If you think that talking to birds on national television doesn't define what crazy is, deal with it. Now stop wasting admin time, but while an admin is here, address the non-participation of this user in the Maduro talk.98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've no involvement with this matter whatsoever, but I did notice (and revert) a rather trollish message on Bbb23's talk page by the aforementioned ip. If I weren't going to bed, I'd file an SPI. The master shouldn't be too hard to find. If no one else does it by the time I wake (or the ip is likely blocked) ill handle it then.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing editors I am the ;offending' IP - the guy who wrote me up Dr.K is not participating in talk, only reverting others and he did hit 3rr - thus it was done. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hahc21, you know as well as I that the homophobia and rampant crime are being redacted and censored here. Capriles was attacked viciously using homophobic slurs as part of the general campaign!

I am getting legitimate edits like the devaluation and the crime rate peak this February, using La Patilla and UT links, and they called them 'blogs'

This guy needs to A. stop undoing edits, and instead participate in talk. and b. stop deleting legitimate warnings on his talk page. Ballistic is saying 'crazy bastard' when referencing a guy talking to bird-men on national TV on the talk page. You don't like it, go quote me a byline against profanity in talk.

Here I have a link for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material

And to the admin Green Rosette, you are actually claiming - "I would ask you to the talk page. The users are very unhappy about you and your colleague's repeated redactions to the controversy section."

Is "Trolling"? Noticing they have made 5 undo's over 72 hours and given them an edit warning? That's far reaching to say the least. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting on this, but I fixed the indenting as LGR and the IP's posts were mixed together. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@98.252.50.93: The issue, 98.252.50.93, is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make political campaigns in favour or against a political line of view. Whatever my thoughts are on Venezuelan politics are irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia, and thus I refrain myself from talking about it, or even expressing such views on my edits, because that would be a breach of the neutral point of view policy. All content on this site must be neutral, and that includes pages about Venezuelan politicians such as Maduro or Capriles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've attempted a few more tweaks here to condense these seemingly random lines. I removed a few postings from the article talk page, since they are nothing more than a poorly written cocktail of personal attacks and conspiracy theories, besides some rambling on the wrong side of the BLP line. The IP editor will be blocked if they continue disrupting--at this point, the word that best describes it is "trolling". Yes, IP, trolling, and you must stop. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The IP has restored the BLP violations and insults by reverting you. I undid their change. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos and the most famous three newspapers aren't "conspiracies" - Go check the links before you yourself use offensive commentary on my contributions to talk. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material before you remove half a talk page. As you can see there is nothing about me using my own syntax while describing someone who talks to birds as reincarnated people.

To the editor who's views are close to the gay community, if you are to specifically not post content that relates to views you hold, I would ask you to cite that as a wiki pillar or wiki guidance, as the article you posed is not what your personal views are, but what the syntax of the edit is. That is a clear delineation that you must make. Also you might want to cite the actual by-lines when in effect labeling another editor's contributions entirely POV (if this was not the intent I stand corrected). I will not have 1/2 the talk page removed which also yet again included more editors than myself and held over 25 useful editorial links and dialogue. If you have comments you disagree with me on, or that you can cite a wiki pillar via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material I will remove it. You do not do a service to Wiki by deleting half a talk page. You can check out the JFK assassination if you are curious about what a Conspiracy Theory. Let me spoil it for you, it doesn't include 17 YouTube videos of the grassy knoll shooter talking about magical Parakeets. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 01:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you keep my views on sexuality away from this discussion. That's another topic I have zero desire to talk, write, or discuss about. That said, it is evident that you have a very clear point of view. You are trying to deceive one of the two candidates by adding claims that although true, are not encyclopedic content and only serve, by the way that you write them, to make the person look bad, and this even goes against another core policy: the biography of living persons policy. Look, I don't care if Maduro talks with birds or not. The point is that such things are not worthy of a mention unless they are truly important and valuable. Wikipedia is not a place for trivia, promotion, deception, personal opinions, or a newspaper. Those are things that should be kept for the people to discuss on the streets or at their jobs, and not to be included on an encyclopedia, unless Maduro becomes, seriously, known for talking to birds. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• In March I blocked the IP for one week for edit-warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks related to the Maduro page. Unfortunately, I stupidly became WP:INVOLVED later by removing attack content from the article inserted by registered accounts (not by the IP, who incites on the talk page), including User:Yeah 93, who is a WP:SPA, and User:Periergeia, who has only 530 edits (mostly Venezuelan subjects) and was egged on by indefinitely blocked User:LifeEditorLatinAmerica. Content-wise, I'm at a handicap because of my lack of knowledge of Spanish and Spanish sources, but there's way too much crap going on at this article and at its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• What you believe to be "attack edit" is what anyone else will understand as justified criticism and your edits is what other people will understand as vandalism.

Here it is: I added an important accussation carried out by an elected deputy against Nicolás Maduro, an accusation published in three well-known Venezuelan newspapers. Whether the accusations are of your liking or not does not matter at all. They are real and you cannot just delete them at your pleasure. --Periergeia (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Please, stop vandalizing.

• • I used Google translate to read the sources and the allegations against Maduro are vague and also not carried by all three sources. One of the three sources, "El Universal", does not mention Maduro at all which indicates that Maduro is not the focus of the controversy. "Ultimas Noticias" says: Alleged acts alleged by Deputy Palacios occurred while Nicolas Maduro was the president of the National Assembly , so the leader responsible directly to the current Vice President for these irregularities. which does not implicate Maduro directly, other than in his role as leader who should have known better. "TalCual Digital" mentions: Another who was involved in alleged corruption is vice president Nicolás Maduro. [...] The Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz said that evaluates request merit impeachment against National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano for alleged corruption, then the president of the commission of the Comptroller of Parliament Pedro Carreño, appropriated the video of the press conference where both political leaders admit the allegations. So we have a lone deputy who has made some corruption allegations that do not clearly and directly involve Maduro but rather National Assembly deputies Richard Mardo and Gustavo Marcano and Maduro is mentioned almost in passing. These allegations are so vague and isolated from the wider political scene of Venezuela that their inclusion is WP:UNDUE at the present time. If they spread to a wider political circle and become more Maduro-specific perhaps they could be included, but not before then. Finally, I know Periergeia is a relative newbie but they should understand that calling other good-faith editors' actions "vandalism" is a form of a personal attack and they should stop doing it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Mine wasn't atteck content. It was what I genuinely thought a valid point and relevant enough to be included in the article. I want the article to reflect a neutral point of view but I did not know it violated one rule of BLP. If there was an incident with this I apologize, because I truly didn't do anything to bash or attack the article or someone else. --Yeah 93 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP is back

• leaving personal comments on my talk. How long can this go on? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think he likes us. Personally, I'm pleased to be in such good company. We should collaborate on our extrication speech.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lol. So am I. Thanks for that Bbb23. :) Meanwhile I am starting on the the write-up of out joint speech. I'll send you a copy as soon as I finish, so you can add your own points and practice on your delivery at the Maduro talkpage. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Gone ballistic Part 2

• Now he is spamming Latin-America-related articles, including the Portal accusing two editors and canvassing for help from other editors: [1]. We are having some serious problems with a couple editors who are restricting [Nicolas Maduro] when the information posted is negative, even when the information does have well cited sources and is without POV language. It's very frightening because when I saw them plug in a rare, and photoshopped photo of Maduro, smiling, without going to talk first, I knew that something was very wrong. Please, editors, assist us, don't let the page become a shrine to their regime like the Hugo Chavez page became, even Jimbo Whales said he was depressed by that result. Really bizarre behaviour. I think he is asking for a cool-down block. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked 98.252.50.93 for WP:DE and various infractions. 2 weeks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Dennis. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

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

24.188.32.225 and Clan Davidson

The IP editor 24.188.32.225 has been edit warring on the Clan Davidson article for the last few weeks. Discussion started out reasonable;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clan_Davidson#Vandalism_by_IP_user:_24.188.32.225

But has now degenerated to personal attacks on any who ask him to stop warring and cite from sources.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuintusPetillius&diff=prev&oldid=549070599
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.188.32.225&diff=549075214&oldid=549074994
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.188.32.225&diff=546823659&oldid=546575005
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Escape_Orbit&diff=549075372&oldid=548647741

I've imposed a 31-hour vacation, both for cooling off (it's clear that the IP is very agitated) and for studying the rudiments of scholarly method (which seem missing). -- Hoary (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Little green rosetta

In what is highly reminiscent of Belchfire's previous disruptive reverts and hounding of Roscelese before he was blocked for persistent sockpuppetry, Little green rosetta (talk · contribs) has now taken up where Belchfire left off and has begun following me around to articles he has never edited before to revert my edits and has generally been uncivil and combative.[2][3][4][5][6] This behavior consists of deliberate hounding, blanket reverts, and ignoring requests for sources on Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability. Little green rosetta was politely asked to stop hounding me and he was invited to use the article talk page to discuss his concerns.[7] His response was to tell me to "Go away and don't come back"[8] and to tell me to "fuck off".[9] Further, he did not add sources as requested[10] and he quite blatantly continued to follow me to pages he has never edited before, simply to revert me.[11] He was given a second warning,[12] which he promptly ignored while continuing to revert me.[13][14] After multiple requests on his talk page, Little green rosetta has refused to stop hounding and reverting me, and he has refused to respond directly to the discussion on the talk page. Finally, he has falsely accused me of "vandalism" because I used his talk page to ask him to stop this behavior once again.[15][16] Therefore, I have no choice but to ask for administrative intervention. The user has been asked twice to stop following me around and has refused. The user has been asked twice to stop reverting me and has refused. Finally, the user has refused to engage directly on the talk page and to provide the requested sources supporting his reverts. This is not a content dispute but a documented case of disruptive editing. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• This user told you to stay off their talk page, you ignored it, so that bit IS vandalism. What about diffs that show they weren't reverting dodgy edits, but reverting good ones? From what I've seen, the hounding may be the other way around... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid you are mistaken. Per dispute resolution protocol, I am required to communicate with the user. There has been no vandalism of any kind. As for the hounding, the diffs clearly show that Little green rosetta followed me to two different articles (Michael & Me and Larry Elder) and reverted me twice. How could this possibly be the other way around? Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people that vandalism is the deliberate defacement of Wikipedia in bad faith. Ignoring a request to stay off a talk page, though possibly disruptive, is not vandalism. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not "disruptive" or "hounding" to ask someone to stop hounding. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

the 1st dif you provided was of you deleting an entire article about a documentary? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not deleting, redirecting to the parent topic, Larry_Elder#DVD, which is sourced to the author himself. The film article has been unsourced since 2007 and LGR can't bring himself to add any sources, just revert. As I have already shown on the film talk page, there are no reliable film sources to support this encyclopedia article. Feel free to take your queries there. This incident report isn't about the content, it's about LGR's behavior which consists of following me around and reverting me and then telling me to fuck off when I ask him to stop. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Viriditas, the two articles are related as are the content edits. You want to redirect an article, and lgr disagrees. Each time you revert each other, the redirect target has to be changed as well. So, we really only have one issue. lgr's use of FO was ill-advised but not really that big a deal; at least they didn't spell it out. I know of no "dispute resolution protocol" that requires you to communicate with lgr on their talk page. If they tell you to go away, go away. Finally, the reference to Belchfire is a bit coatracky and unsupported, don't you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bbb23 in that we're really talking about one issue here, and that I don't see the direct relevance of Belchfire to this situation. That said, given the fairly substantial personal hostility evident in lgr's posts/edit summaries, I am somewhat curious whether he's willing to indicate whether he came to the Michael & Me article by way of Viriditas' contribution history. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think the question is whether LGR can account for arriving at the article via a path that doesn't involve Viriditas's contribs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Has LGR really "picked up where Belchfire left off?" As I recall, you and LGR have a lot of overlap in areas of editing especially on conservative politics. I think it's likely that you've been able to devote more attention to LGR now that Belchfire is gone. So associating LGR with Belchfire is just an attempt at guilt by association. I see no reason to have sock puppetry and LGR's name so close together in your OP. Might be worth considering striking or removing that part altogether and focus on just your complaints about LGR.--v/r - TP 20:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, they have close to zero overlap in areas of editing. See my analysis at the bottom of this thread. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear from lgr as well, but, at the same time, I don't follow how this started. Viriditas begins with the claim of hounding, but, generally, for hounding, there has to be something that precedes it, that sets up the supposed retaliation. According to Viriditas, why do they believe lgr went after them in the first instance?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I couldn't tell you what started it. From my own experience, Viriditas is a smart guy who is very often correct in his arguments, but he's hardly the most pleasant fellow. Maybe LGR got put off at some point? Hard for me to speculate on anything other than my own experiences and I generally try to ignore the political cross-bashing wherever possible.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• All I can tell you is that this has been going on for a long time. Just last week, LGR was hounding me. He was monitoring my talk page and when Deskana contacted me and left a comment, he then contacted Deskana about that comment. He's been closely following me for a while, and this is just the latest bad behavior. As for the comparison to Belchfire, I don't see why the analogy is disputed. The both of them did/do the same thing: follow editors around and revert them. This is particularly true with reverting editors involved in the LGBT topic area, which I do not edit, so for me, the analogy holds. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• My experience with both puts them in dramatically different categories. I don't know what you've experienced that puts them in the same category and from my perspective, it seems your trying to use some of the negative emotions around Belchfire to stick to LGR as well. If you can't address LGR on his own merits, then you shouldn't have opened a thread here.--v/r - TP 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Wrong approach here, but it's your call. As for Deskana, apparently lgr didn't like this. I'm now beginning to understand why there's so much bad blood between you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also noticed that lgr has a habit to follow other users around. This can't be a coincidence. He/She also followed user Scientiom in the same manner.--В и к и T 21:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Intersection of edits without more doesn't demonstrate hounding.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was about to say the same as Bbb23. A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data. I'm sure he's not houding me (I'd hope). Need more context here.--v/r - TP 21:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas.--В и к и T 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My analysis: An interaction check[17] shows 14 examples of Viriditas making a first edit to a page and Little green rosetta showing up and reverting him/her as his/her first edit to the page, [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] two examples of Little green rosetta reverting Viriditas a second time on the same page,[32][33] 1 example of the opposite happening,[34] and 1 example where it looks like the two just happened to edit different parts of the same page.[35] My conclusion: this is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING by Little green rosetta.^{See comment by Kyohyi below} --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Doing the same analysis with TParis and Little green rosetta[36] shows 6 interactions (3 of which were over a year apart) and 0 reverts of TParis by Little green rosetta,[37][38][39][40][41][42] which means that the claim "A look at the same results with LGR and me shows much of the same data" is factually inaccurate. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"... is factually inaccurate" Apparently you and Wikiwind share a common ailment in that you really have no sense of context. Wikiwind gave a link to a editor interaction analyzer. I said, paraphrasing, "So what, mine and LGR's look like that too, need more context" to which Wikiwind replied "It's not just intersection. In 90% of cases, Viriditas first edited the page, and in 100% of those cases lgr reverted Viriditas." (Thank you, Wikiwind, having given context I can see what you were getting at.) At the time of my comment, it was factually accurate given the lack of context. Your analysis enjoyed a bit more context than mine did, so before you call me factually inaccurate, examine the extra bit of information you were given. Thanks.--v/r - TP 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my choice of wording. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

From reviewing the diff's of LGR's and Viriditas interaction, on December 28th of last year, Viriditas inserted quotations around the term ex-gay in 12 of those diffs. LGR reverted citing MOS. Of the remaining 3 articles, 2 are the subject of this ANI, and 1 is unrelated. If Veriditas was violating MOS in his edits on the 28th, I'm fairly certain this is not WP:HOUNDING.--Kyohyi (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. I am going to assume that this one[43] was a simple error. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wether or not it was an error on someone else, I missed that when I was looking through the diff's earlier. Thanks for pointing it out. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That diff is not an error, but a great illustration of the blanket reversions made by LGR after stalking my contributions. He never followed up to remove the scare quotes,[44] he just reverted my edit without ever looking at it. Finally, the MOS does not proscribe scare quotes, it just discourages them because they can be misused. And since there is no such thing as "ex-gay", I believe they were used correctly. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In Viriditas' favor, I would have liked it a lot better if Little green rosetta had consistently removed quotation marks and consistently added [[ and ]] to create a wikilink. Although I struck my "clearly" comments above, it does look like Little green rosetta just reverted whatever changes Viriditas made. Is that hounding? I could argue either way.

As for the question of whether there is no such thing as an ex-gay and thus the quotation marks were correct, that's a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. It certainly was OK to mention it in passing while arguing that the reverted behavior was correct, but I would really like to see the content dispute dealt with in the appropriate venue rather than through reverting. Perhaps one of you might want to open a case at WP:DRN on the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything seriously problematic here, I think warnings are all that's needed. I'd strongly suggest LGR avoid tracking Viriditas' edits in the future. (And I'd advise Viriditas not to watch LGR very carefully.) Even if it is not technically WP:HOUNDING, it is likely to lead to further conflict and be generally unproductive. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree; this diff, taken in context, suggests that LGR is tracking Viriditas' contributions and reverting them as sort of a knee-jerk reflex. Whether or not we choose to call that "hounding", it's really not a good idea and should be discouraged. MastCell ^Talk 23:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with this outcome. I think both editors need to be more careful with each other and distance themselves from whatever past problems they've had. That said, lgr has not made any edits to Wikipedia since this discussion began. As MastCell mentioned earlier, it would be helpful to hear from lgr before closing this.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think that if this happens again, we'll all be a lot more likely to take action. Hopefully that realization will cause people to be more careful in their interactions. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone concerned that Viriditas effectively deleted an article without going through Afd? NE Ent 23:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Redirects are not deletion. If the change to a redirect is objeted to, any editor, even an IP, can return the article to an article with a maximum of three clicks; deletion is, well, deletion and removes the history, too. For simply changing to a redirect, though, WP:BOLD applies (and, by extension, WP:BRD) - I've seen far too many AfD discussions where boldly redirecting in the first place would have been the better move, they should be encouraged, not discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record there was a discussion going on here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Michael .26 Me and, as near as I can tell there a consensus had not been reached regarding deletion or a redirect. MarnetteD | Talk 00:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Slightly concerned, yes. "Redirect-deletion" should really only be done in uncontroversial cases, after you're reverted once you should go to Afd instead of reverting to a redirect again as happened in this situation. Again, not block-worthy but far from "best practice". Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I must strongly disagree. Redirecting non-notable topics that lack sources indicating their notability is standard best practice. I even said I would restore the article myself if the notability criteria was met (two reliable reviews) and I repeated this good faith offer in two different discussions. Further, LGR was given the opportunity to add these putative sources on two occasions and failed. He was also asked to do so on the talk page and ignored the requests, preferring to edit war and revert to an unsourced article. He has repeatedly claimed that sources indicating notability exist, but he refuses to provide them. That is certainly not best practice. The burden is always on the editor adding or restoring content to show us their sources. LGR has refused. Further, I have not been able to find two reliable reviews of the film nor have I been able to find anything other than passing mention, in other words, insignificant coverage. Meanwhile, LGR hounded me here, refused to show sources supporting his reverts, and is disrupting multiple articles. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I must say your self-righteousness and repetitiveness are offputting. Worse, you're wrong. You redirected and were reverted. At that point, the burden was on you to gain a consensus for the redirect. Reverting back to the redirect was inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit that made the article a redirect (diff) is not a problem at all because the edit summary ("Redirect unsourced and non-notable film to author") is extremely accurate. Best practice would require a good-faith attempt to determine whether suitable references are available (not two dead links to foxnews.com, neither of which appear to even claim notability in the WP:N sense), and it is very likely that such an attempt was made (see Talk:Michael & Me#Sources and notability). It is ok to revert such a redirect, but best practice for the reverter would involve more than finding mentions in Google. Assuming the accuracy of numbers mentioned above (Viriditas makes first edit in 90% of the interactions and LGR reverts in 100% of the cases), it is clear that LGR needs to be told to drop the pursuit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, that's nonsense. Discussions about notability do not occur in edit summaries. This is an article that has existed since 2007. That doesn't necessarily mean it's worth keeping, but it most likely means it shouldn't be redirected without discussion. I don't object to the bold redirect by Viriditas, but once an objection was registered, either a discussion must occur on the talk page or at AfD - not just, "I'm right."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

A discussion occurred on the talk page and LGR failed the burden. It's very simple. Three times, LGR claimed "sources exist" and three times he has refused to provide them. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the explanations -- I had falsely inferred that since Afds may result in redirect as outcome, a redirect shouldn't occur without an Afd. Reviewing the policy WP:ATD-R it does state "an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect." As the only participants in the discussion appear to have been lgr & Viriditas, this second insertion of the redirect seems inconsistent with the policy. NE Ent 01:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not correct. I was stalked by LGR and my edits were reverted with the justification "sources exist". I had already justified the redirect on the project page when this act of hounding occurred, noting the dearth of sources. I did not automatically revert in return. What I did was I started a duplicate discussion on the article talk page and invited LGR to participate, also warning him not to stalk me. In both the article discussion and in the user talk pages, I requested sources justifying the revert. None were ever provided and LGR ignored the request for sources in both discussions. After this refusal to justify his blanket reverts, I restored the redirect. LGR then reverted again. Returning to the discussion, LGR then ignored the request for sources for a third time, once again failing the burden. Now, what action of mine was "inappropriate" or inconsistent with policy? None. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So what are you looking for, Viriditas? Are you looking for a block or intervention? Do you want a formal interaction ban or would voluntary "stay the heck away" be workable for now? Would you like LGR to be reminded to explain and support his reverts better especially when challenged?--v/r - TP 13:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but IRL fun was to to be had last night. A few points to address some issues en masse, not necessiarly in order of importance

• Per WP:VANDTYPES. Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism.. Since the talk page in question was "my" talk page, who is best suited to decide if Viriditas is unwelcome on this page?
• Per WP:HOUND The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason.. Viriditas re-insertion of scare quotes, which IMO is a violation of the MOS is also (IMO) an overriding reason.
• As anyone who has used Stiki/Huggle or recent changes can attest to, one should not be surprised to see prolific editors contributions appear in such views. Curiosity often wins out and I'll examine the article in question. What happened in this situation is similar, though slightly different. Due to the recently caught socks of banned editors Acoma Magic (talk · contribs) and Benjiboi (talk · contribs) I've been interested in writing a sock-bot that monitor's contributions to pages favored by a sockmaster. I belive TParis can testify that I asked him about the API's weeks ago for this purpose. In the process of evaluating various technologies I was programatically (http scrape) reading recent changes and my job encountered an out-of-memory exception. Examining the output I saw three things that caught my eye. 1) A familiar username 2) an article title that seemed familiar -- Roger & Me stood out (correctly it seems) 3) A large numberof bytes removed. By the comments made here, it seems that several editors feel my revert was reasonable. Though in essence this is a content dispute. The wholesale redirect of the article was unwarranted IMO. Viriditas asks for sources, but fails to mention which specifc content needed citation. No one is seriously questioning that sources exist. But this conversation doesn't belong here but rather on the article's talk page.
• Is this a WP:BOOMERANG? As as others have pointed out (here and elsewhere) Viriditas may be the one doing the hounding and making personal attacks, being combative etc. I'm not going to bother submitting the diffs here, as I've been advised by a few admins (both on and off wiki), that discussion might be better held at WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas3. WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas and WP:Requests_for_comment/Viriditas2 already appear to be occupied and contain other complaints of harrassment.

  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been following this and I haven't seen anyone suggest Viriditas was hounding. Luke made an early comment completely unsupported and someone else said that Viriditas shouldn't track you but it wasn't hounding. You should strike that.--v/r - TP 15:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Making this report is not boomerang worthy as there does appear to be legitimate underlying issue here, although it is rather hard to conclude anything with the information given. You appear to acknowledge you follow the editor in one paragraph but you say it's not in a problematic way, and then imply you didn't in another paragraph. You mention scare quotes, but here, where you reverted [45] they aren't in quotes, but italics, and they are present in your version as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

@TP, Clearly I'm not asking for anything to be done here as I've already stated what my suggested remedy would be, so there is nothing to strike. I've been contacted by a few editors who have asked "what's the deal between you and Virididtas" already and they have made the harassmenent allegation. Obviously I'm annoyed with Viriditas. Being called a homphobe for jesus is kind of offensive after all. Him chiming in on talk page/noticeboard issues I was in discussions with was "in your face" belligerence. Once again I'm not asking for anything here, so I'm not bothering to provide diffs. @IRWolfie --- I'm certainly not "getting up in his grill" as it were. He's got a certain POV in some topic areas -- and shows it. Fine, no big deal, but obviously we overlap on some subjects, so I should be able to comment in those areas of common interest. Either people here are going to AGF and believe me when I found this edit by random chance (bully for them), or they aren't (shame on them). As for the Larry Elder article, I just reverted the removal of the wiki-link. I didn't notice the scare quotes.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, LGR, let me give you some advice. We get along well so I hope you take it. And if Viriditas is offended by what I say, well so what. Anyway, my take on people is that I try to see their value. If they have none, then I dont bother with them. Viriditas is not the friendliest guy here. I've bumped heads with him several times, he's recently called me a troll, ect ect. He's not someone I'd go drink beers with. But, he's incredibly smart and usually has insight into particular issues that I don't. The way he articulates himself is clear and understandable. If I were on a debate team, I'd want someone like Viriditas with me. My point is this: find a way to get along. It doesn't have to mean agreeing, sometimes it means ignoring, but find a way to get along. You may have use of Viriditas some day, you might find yourself on the same side of an issue, and he can be a resource. Start by not reverting his edits. If you have a problem with scare quotes, seek a wider consensus at MOS to remove them. And be clearer in your edit summaries why they are scare quotes. If challenged, try to get a 3rd opinion instead of reverting. Clearly, coming here isn't a very happy experience for either of you.

I just don't see this thread progressing toward an administrative action, so it might be time to close it unless Viriditas has any other comments.--v/r - TP 17:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

He may be smart & articulate, though IMO he commits too many logical fallacies that I'd caution you for your debate draft. The scare quotes issue has been hashed out many times; I'm fairly certain consensus is they are not acceptable (quotes are for attriubtion, not emphasis or disaproval in Wikipedia's voice). I could be wrong, but this is besides the point. Viriditas has bloodlust and has been trying to satisfy it via sanctions. Filing a 3RR report on an article he has never edited? Soliciting a (sockpuppet of a banned editor) for more of the same? The filing of this report reminds of a book that Judge Judy wrote called Don't Pee On My Leg and Tell Me It's Raining. Your advice is of course sage, and I'll try to heed it in the future, especially the ignore part. I make no promises (short of an IB being placed), but will try. Hopefully we are both adult enough that is not necessary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with filing a 3RR report on an article you have never edited. In this case the report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive208#User:Little green rosetta reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned) and the result was that little green rosetta was warned about edit-warring and Viriditas was told that his rhetoric was over the top and was asked to tone it down in the future.

As has been explained several times, whether or not the quotes are acceptable is a content dispute, and the administrators' noticeboard does not deal with content disputes. I suggest a WP:RFC so that there is no doubt about what the consensus is on this particular content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As to pointing out the 3RR report and the solicitation to file an ANI report should be obvious; Who's stalking who? As to your other points, yes content disputes are best handled elsewhere.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  19:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Who is stalking who? Well, clearly this report shows you stalking me. Exactly which articles are you editing right now where I'm showing up to revert you? None? You dishonestly claimed there were loads of sources supporting the article you reverted but failed to offer those sources. Perhaps you should attempt to meet the burden outlined here. I don't buy your "I make no promises" claim. You either promise to stop hounding and reverting me for no reason (that's right you've offered no sources to support your justification for reversion) or this needs to escalate further. You do not get to continue this behavior. You should also think about using your account for constructive purposes, such as creating new articles and contributing actual content, not for hounding and reverts. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

This is going on way too long. Now that we've heard from lgr, I'm still in favor of an outcome along the lines of what Mark and MastCell proposed. I don't see either editor coming off as a saint, either outside of ANI or in this topic. I propose formal warnings to both editors that they need to behave and stay clear of each other more, sort of a mini-IB, or there will be sanctions. I'm open to someone else crafting the warning. If that's not acceptable, then we should just close this and hope that both editors get the hint.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support As much as I like LGR, I think continuing the feud with Viriditas will cause unnecessary tension and grief between them. IMHO, a short IB will hopefully settle the bad blood between them. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Both editors have behaved questionably towards each other, as much as Viriditas has tried to play the saint at times here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think LGR is most at fault due to following Viriditas and the knee jerk reverts highlighted by MastCell. But Viriditas also needs to distance himself from LGR too (as highlighted by Mark Arsten). They should stop following each other, and that should be an unacceptable excuse in the future, but not formal interaction ban. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support mini I-ban. Pass a Method talk 23:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support a mini interaction ban between LGR and Viriditas. I think that they should stop the bear-poking, otherwise, they will end up being blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:GermanDude100

User:GermanDude100 (Talk-Contributions) keeps on edit warring, adding some unsourced stuff about the alternative versions of several Kidz Bop compilations, see Kidz Bop 4 and Kidz Bop (album). He was asked several times to provide a source for these additions by me and by User:The Banner, AGF he has been made ​​aware of how Wikipedia works and he was even warned about his conduct, but his final reply to the related discussion was " If you keep changing the page I just gonna keep changing it. I'm right and most of the Wiki pages don't have references. GO BOTHER ANOTHER PAGE!" [46]. I'm concerned if he is just a troll or just a newbie that refuse to take the point, but surely his behaviour is becoming disruptive. --Cavarrone (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• After being notified, the above user reported myself and The Banner at WP:AIV. [47] Cavarrone (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

1, 2 (WP:BROTHER), 3, 4 (WP:HARASS). I'm sure there's more. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 20:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked 3 days for edit warring and left GermanDude100 a note about about referencing and civility. His very first discussion with Materialscientist didn't look good, to begin with, so let's see if this temporary block works. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

For those with OTRS access, please note 2013040510010984. Mike V • Talk 03:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume (if someone with OTRS can confirm) that this was his version of an unblock request? "Well I just talked to the Wikipedia I will be unblocked soon," <-- from his talkpage. I think there's a bigger WP:IDHT issue here, as he shows no indication of stopping his quest for lack of a better term. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog on behalf of the OTRS team has made it clear that this is none of their business. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

2011-2013 Iranian protests

Resolved

Irānshahr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2011-2013 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (caught in the middle, links provided for convenience) Irānshahr made a series of major edits, removing content and asserting the protests to have been only in 2011, moving the page. Silver seren reverted, claiming the removal was POV. Irānshahr reverted that, asking for an explanation, which SS re-reverted, seeking a discussion on the talkpage. Irānshahr reverted, stating s/he had, at which point HistoryofIran came in and reverted, restoring the material. HistoryofIran was blocked for 3RR a few weeks ago, on a different article. Irānshahr and HistoryofIran have warned each other on their talkpages, brought discussion to User talk:Arctic Kangaroo, removed each others' comments, and reported each other to AIV. This is way way out of my normal area of expertise or interest, and I am having a hard time making heads or tails of who has done what, so am bringing this here. I considered WP:ANEW but was surprised and put out by how focused that page is on 3RR only and not edit-warring in general; please move it there if you feel it more appropriate as I will be leaving shortly. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC) So we are going to discuss here if i am right? just wanted to tell you that i need to go from the computer in some time, i'll be right back, then we can discuss, with respect. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC) To clarify: I made only two reverts - which is my personally-set limit. I then wrote this on the talk page (which I'd already been using for discussion since the first revert): "I've made two reverts today, I will not make another. Instead, I'll give you time to put forward a counter-argument to my points." I've set out a position on the talk page. Anyone is free to present a counter-position in respect of the points I've raised. HistoryofIran seems to be incapable of doing so. Please see Talk:2011-2013 Iranian protests. This was posted to my talk page by HistoryofIran upon first seeing my edits at 2011-2013 Iranian protests: "Oh come on, no need to remove it all, this would show how the Iranian people actually feel so there would be more people finding out that their regime is corrupt :(" Thereby declaring non-neutrality, conflict of interest, and inciting me to edit with a political bias. HistoryofIran went and immediately reverted everything (disruptively; without due discussion) when he jumped to the conclusion that 'I support Iran's government', on the basis of this reply where I simply stated a fact. Irānshahr (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Ok now i am back, and yes, i was blocked some time ago because i broke the three revert rule, i didn't know about during that time, but now i do, if i knew it before i got blocked i wouldn't have done that and never would have got blocked, i am not looking for trouble. And he isn't so neutral at he says he is, this was what he wrote to me: "You want to see what's happening in Syria happen in Iran? What an Iranian patriot. There are millions of hardcore government loyalists in Iran who will go to war to defend the Islamic Republic. Foreign-backed ethnic separatists will have a field day on the back of a civil war. But great work, patriot.". If English was your first language - as opposed to Danish - you'd be able to see that my statement there is neutral. It's a statement of fact; nothing more, nothing less. I'm not declaring support, I'm warning you of the ugly consequences of civil war in Iran. Irānshahr (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC) English may not be my first language, but i can still see what you wrote is not neutral, and by the way, it's not a fact. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Not neutral? Have a go at explaining why then. Why does it suggest I support the Iranian government, as opposed to the well-being of Iran and its people. You've already been labelled a troll by a senior anti-vandal user earlier. You're just trolling out of boredom it seems. What points have you actually got to make here? Put forward a position or go home and stop wasting everyone's time. Irānshahr (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC) No i am not trolling and calm down, no need to insult me by calling me a troll, i am treating you with respect so please do that too, and user that said i was trolling later found out that i was not, so please stop lying, and plus you still have no reason to remove almost everything from the Iranian protests page. And it's hard to explain about what you said, you know yourself that English is not my first language, and if you don't want to waste time just accept what you removed was wrong. Seriously, i don't know why you see me as a troll, is there something wrong with the way i write? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC) It was a senior anti-vandal Wikipedian that called you a troll, I only reminded you of it. Wasting my time is not treating me with respect. This is my last word here, you're postings are nothing but childish bickering. You have no position. I've said what I need to say, the onus is on you to put forward a counter-position, and you've been given ample time to do so. If I come back tomorrow or in two days or whenever and you haven't rendered a proper refutation of my points, with reliable references to support your position, I will revert the article. Irānshahr (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Uninvolved comment I have neither the time nor the will to go through the name calling. However, the actions of Irānshahr are clearly troubling. A quick look at the user's edits show that only today, Iranshahr has probably deleted more content than most users do during a lifetime on Wikipedia. While some removals may have been justified, many others include removing sourced content from neutral, reliable sources. I must confess to seldom having seen a user go on such a rampart deletion-crusade, and it's particularly worrying that it's in a troublesome area. What is more, Iranshahr seems to remove sources simply based on the country where the source is, another clear violation of policies. In any more was needed, Iranshahr also breaks WP:NPA repeatedly. Based on what I can see, Iranshahr definitely needs a break from editing, both the user's actions and behavior are completely out of line.Jeppiz (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Additional comment Both HistoryofIran and Iranshahr should preferably stop posting in this discussion. This is for others to discuss the issue, not for continued fighting between you two.Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Actually, nothing has been deleted, because it was all reverted. I laid out reasoning for all my edits and made it clear that I was willing to discuss them on their merits and concede if a proper case is made. The talk page should demonstrate to any neutral and intelligent person that my position on the article is in the right, and that I've argued for nothing other than the truth to be presented. Anyway, this is not my battle. Do what you want with it. Irānshahr (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, others restored what you deleted, true. That has not mean you did not delete it. And yes, you gave "reasons" but frankly, those reasons were appalling. One reason was that the source was "Israeli", one that the source was "Saudi" and so on. What is more, in your comment above at 19:15, you claim you will continue edit-warring if your deletions are reverted. In short, you're violating at least WP:NPA, WP:EW, WP:OWN and WP:POV. And that's just today. I won't comment further as I have no wish to get involved, I simply restate that Iranshahr's actions are troubling.Jeppiz (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Are you familiar with Middle Eastern politics? The Saudi and Israeli regimes are staunchly anti-Iran. Their news agencies are not NPOV in regards to reporting on Iran. We don't use North Korean news sources for American matters. As I said; this is not my problem, not my battle. I withdraw my involvement in that article. I do not normally even edit political articles. I edit cultural articles. I just got carried away fighting for honesty, but of course that is a battle one will not win in this environment. Irānshahr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Iranshahr, if you were familiar with Middle eastern politics then you would also know that many other Iranian televisions say the same as the other countries do, there is no anti-Iran about this, and sorry for posting when you said we should stop, this is my last post in this discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I really don't want to deal with POV activists for either side, so this is just annoying in general. Iranshahr seems to believe that any information that isn't directly about a protest specifically isn't relevant to the article, even though one of the main reasons for the protests were the house arrests of the opposition leaders, which the article covers. Furthermore, it is meant to be a more broad discussion of protests that occurred during this time frame, as there were several all at once, with different groups involved, but pretty much all instigated by each other and by related Arab Spring events. I can certainly agree that there is information that has been added by other users over time into the article that doesn't belong there and there are definitely some sources that should be switched out for more neutral ones, but it's pretty hard to have a discussion about that when one side removes all the information in the article completely after a certain date with no regard for content or sourcing. SilverserenC 19:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Keep it the way it was. In fact: make it worse for all I care. It's not my problem. Good luck. Irānshahr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2 and a history of inappropriate edits

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

---

• Bamler2 (talk · contribs)

User's edits are reverted with disconcerting frequency; this may be the third time they've been the subject of a report here in the last month. Recently blocked for warring and disruptive edits. Reacts to disagreements and loss of consensus discussions by trolling and claiming mob rule; the equations of consensus with the Holocaust indicates a lack of perspective and sensitivity to anyone's viewpoint but their own, and that's putting it nicely. Pre block examples: [48], [49], [50], [51]; post block today: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Wikipedia is a patient community, but there's a soapbox and subtext to these edits that is inappropriate here. JNW (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for repeadedly introducing nonsense into a policy page ([57], [58]).  Sandstein  17:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

178.61.14.156

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

---

178.61.14.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked several times in the past for disruptive editing. The most recent block was for six months; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Resumed disruptive editing by 178.61.14.156. The user came off the block a few weeks ago and has resumed the same behaviour (unexplained blanking of sections, removal of content, breaking formatting and markup, inserting unhelpful or incomprehensible material, etc.). Several other editors have warned the user and asked them to desist but they have never communicated.

Though it's an IP account it's clear the same person has been editing with it for the past few years. The user is probably well-intentioned but incompetent and hasn't demonstrated any improvement in their editing ability or willingness to engage. Could I suggest another long-term block to prevent further damage? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Dominique Young Unique

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

---

I am making a request that User:Dominiqueyoungunique be blocked because of repeated creation of the same promotional article with slightly different names, including Dominiqueyoungunique,Dominique Young Unique, Dominique Young Unique wiki and Dominique Young Unique bio. Also this user gave me gave me a supposed "barnstar" on my talk page, This "barnstar" is another copy of this article and was given to me for marking these articles for deletion. Since the other pages were deleted, you can view the article there. Does User:Dominiqueyoungunique have a blocking history? ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

They've been blocked. Blackmane (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Main page fix

Crossposted from an: Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors in In the news NE Ent 00:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please look at comments and edits by User:Herzen re article and talk page for Pope Francis

I have never brought an issue to ANI, but there is an issue that just will never be resolved without help "from above," regarding comments made by Herzen regarding a quote about Pope Francis in the article by that name. here is the discussion I would ask an administrator to look at, which centers around what I think (and other editors who have expressed their opinion on the talk page think) is a positive statement about Francis and his relationship with the Jewish community based on his experience in Buenos Aires. Here is the quote, taken from an editorial in The Jerusalem Post: "Unlike John Paul II, who as a child had positive memories of the Jews of his native Poland but due to the Holocaust had no Jewish community to interact with in Poland as an adult, Pope Francis has maintained a sustained and very positive relationship with a living, breathing [Jewish] community in Buenos Aires." My understanding of that quote, as well as the understanding of other editors involved in the discussion, is that John Paul II, the pope who had the closest relationship with the Jewish community in the past, could only have that relationship as a young man because the Jewish community in Poland was not strong after the Holocaust; on the other hand, Francis had a life-long relationship with a strong Jewish community in Argentina, as the first non-European pope -- and so he will be the pope with the best understanding and closest ties to the Jewish community of any pope in history. Herzen has repeatedly deleted the quote and continues to make comments on the discussion page that I think has crossed the line of appropriateness, focusing on these three major points:

• mentioning the Holocaust is "contentious" in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs
• using a quote that mentions John Paul II and Francis, without mentioning Benedict XVI, implies that Benedict XVI was a Nazi
• using a quote from an Israeli "secular newspaper" like the Jerusalem Post is inappropriate because Israel is an apartheid state.

Of course, please look at my comments as well, and let me know if I have crossed any lines in terms of appropriateness -- although I hope I have not. I have tried to discuss this issue with Herzen on the talk page, and also on his user talk page, here. I notified him that I might take this issue to this page -- ANI, and will now notify him that I have done so. I admit that I first was a little "mystified" (the word I used in my discussions) with some of his statements, but now I think they have crossed a line into the realm of inappropriateness and unreasonableness. I would appreciate an administrator with fresh eyes taking a look to see what might be done to prevent further reverts and further inappropriate statements (that is, if the administrator also deems any of his statements to be inappropriate). Thank you. NearTheZoo (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article section was changed to Talk:Pope_Francis#Relation_to_Jewish_community_in_Brazil_Argentina. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This appears, at this point, to be a purely content-based dispute, which administrators do not resolve. If you post about this issue on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, you will get a lot more help. Bobby Tables (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll bring this to dispute resolution, but I think the comments on the discussion page I've linked are worrisome...and now Herzen deleted the phrase based on the claim that the "contentiousness" of alleged attacks on Benedict XVI (that NOT mentioning him is a claim he is a Nazi -- Herzen's wods) or mentioning the word Holocaust (in and of itself "contentiousness" because of the views of "Muslims and Arabs") allows him to make the deletion regardless of talk page discussion. Other editors who have taken part in the discussion agree there is no contentiousness except in Herzen's mind. I have never been in a discussion where the other person made claims that were (at least to me) just...a little off-balance and weird.... Again, I'll look at dispute resolution, but if you could take one more careful look at the discussion, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again, NearTheZoo (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• After looking at the linked section, I don't see anything particularly uncivil about what Herzen has said, but I do see unnecessary hostility from NearTheZoo. I think the interpretation by NearTheZoo of what Herzen has said shows a lack of assuming good faith. For example, Herzen did not say that "mentioning the Holocaust is 'contentious' in and of itself, especially in the eyes of Muslims and Arabs". This seems written to imply he is a holocaust denier, what he actually said was "Anytime the Holocaust is brought up when it is not directly relevant, contention will likely arise", which appears self-evidently true. I think the post here has made a mountain out of a molehill by not having assumed good faith, and by the appeals to ridicule in the posts. As an aside, NearTheZoo, who primarily appears to edit Israel related articles, insisting on trying to insert an editorial from the Jerusalem Post, which mentions the holocaust (for no apparently relevant reason) in the Pope Francis article seems decidedly like POV pushing, particularly considering the edit warring: [59][60][61]. WP:BOOMERANG should be considered IRWolfie- (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

All the other editors (including myself) who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote. The article talk page consensus is clear that it can be kept. I don't think it's fair, therefore, to say this is about POV pushing by NearTheZoo. Let's not make more of this than it is. Yes, NearTheZoo has made a mountain out of a molehill by bringing it here, which was a mistake, but let's not add to the mountain with a few more molehills. This is just a run of the mill content dispute, where tempers got frayed. I suggest closing this and let Herzen take it to DRN if he wants to change the article talk page consensus. DeCausa (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not true that "All the other editors ... who posted on the article talk page on this, besides Herzen, didn't see a problem with using the quote." Another editor deleted the quote twice [62][63]. – Herzen (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On his Talk page, he wrote, in response to NearTheZoo: "It's not just a BLP issue, it is also problematic because it comes from an Op-Ed. Furthermore, it says nothing that is not already in the article." – Herzen (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. Apologies. DeCausa (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bluerules

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

---

There is an ongoing problem with Bluerules (talk · contribs) regarding his edits with Film-related articles due to his disruptive editing. He chooses which credits he prefers depending on who is listed higher (either the film or poster) and is adamant that even though he is flip flopping between the sources if you can check his history, his way is correct and he adamantly edit wars over this fact to get his way. His actions at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, which involves Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs), eventually lead to a edit war report filed by Darkwarriorblake, resulting in a block for 48 hours. However, he has continued to push the same edit and claim he is correct at that film even when other editors have gone against him, and when BattleshipMan independently noted the same problem and posted on his talk page about it, BlueRules response has been to post on Battleship's talk page essentially threatening that he will get his way on Olympus Has Fallen no matter what ("I proved my order was correct over at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and I'll prove it's correct at Olympus Has Fallen if I have to."), and is repeating his actions at Burt Wonderstone. I think some serious intervention needs to be required here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Plus, Bluerules is falsely accusing user:Darkwarriorblake of being an immature user as well as a disruptive editor as well only he has been reverting edits due to the disruptive editing that Bluerules has been doing. He had essentially threatened me in this section of my talk page regarding my views of his disruptive editing when I saw one of his edits on Olympus Has Fallen, while in the way reverted that edit, and his edits on The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. He is becoming out of control and needs some serious intervention. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

His response to me posting on his talk about about an open discussion concerning his behavior was to open an alternate discussion to complain about me instead of responding to the issues raised about him. He did the same when asking to be unblocked for his edit warring ban, to which the admins correctly stated that blaming others does not explain why he should be unblocked. He now asserts if asked nicely he would stop, I assert that he was not treated poorly initially and still continued to edit war and push his "my way or the highway" style of editing. Today two other users independently became involved, one who reverted his edit at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone about the same issue, and another, BattleshipMan who complained about BlueRules editing style on another film. BlueRules response was to warn him about being involved with me when Ihaven't spoken to the user about the topic or recently, and threaten that he would prove his way was right as he has at Wonderstone. I offered him an opportunity to discuss at the FilmProject here as I am fully aware he is not an individual I can in any way deal with as an individual, he chose to not defend his actions but attack some of my own. I fully admit I lose my temper when I have to explain something multiple times over to a user clearly not interested in listening, this is not exclusive to my life on the internet, and this was not the best way to go about it, but this was not how any discussions opened, and the user was edit warring before he was even aware OF an open discussion by his own admission, and when I have asked him to just leave me alone he has continued to post on my talk page and continued to edit war at Wonderstone over this despite the opposition of editors other than myself, none of whom I have expressly asked for specific aid. The user is content to ignore warnings, violate guidelines and openly conflict with other users to get his way over minor issues such as cast ordering and larger intervention is required because a 2 ban was not enough to make him move on or accept the actions of multiple other editors regarding only a single article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already personally addressed Darkwarriorblake's allegations. Opening a discussion is not the same thing as appealing a block. I did not attack Darkwarriorblake on the discussion about him, I opened a discussion about him because I felt he needed to be controlled. The articles on Gettysburg and Chinatown are proof that I do not push my edits when the issue is handled maturely. I have not made any threats and I have not edited Olympus Has Fallen recently. Yes, I am guilty of causing edit wars, but I make the effort to be involved in discussion to prevent them from breaking out. I never ignore the points raised by other editors. I listen and I address them. If a consensus can be reached and it's done in a civil manner, I will move on. Bluerules (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You realize that people will check your edit history. You were linked to WP: BRD four times on a single article yes, you ignored each one, you actively and repeatedly have edit warred with myself and others over the same thing following a ban and refused to acknowledge points made in the discussion that didn't gel with you getting your way. And this is on a single article, just one, you are doing this across multiple articles and the only reason I can imagine that you haven't been brought here before is that no other user has challenged your edits through to the end before. You will move on with a consensus because four editors have actively challenged you and your comment on my talk page was "If two people think a tomato is a vegetable and one thinks a tomato is a fruit, does that mean a tomato is a vegetable? The number of people in favor of something means nothing." Reasonable people do not continue to add blocks of text to someones talk page when asked not to, and equate me to a nazi "Saying you're not wrong does not mean you're not wrong. The National Socialists sure got a lot of support in Germany; does that mean they were right?". You have actively made me feel depressed with your unrelenting actions and the way in which you conduct yourself and I asked you to leave me alone and you refused. You have only 'engaged in discussion about cast' AFTER your ban and you've done it once, pretending to be good when people are looking is not the same as being good. I've made numerous attempts to warn you before you got banned again, I opened a discussion at the film project and provided you with an opportunity to prove me wrong to an audience and you chose to be 'mature' about it by ignoring the discussion and going on a tirade. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I know. Even now, you continue to sling mud at me and spread false allegations. I have never ignored points I don't agree with. I address them and explain why I don't agree with them. I actually opened a discussion over at Heat when the editors were disagreeing with my edits. I also opened one at G.I. Joe: Retaliation to discuss the status of the cast order and the starring section. I did not push my edits on Chinatown, Gettysburg, and The Dark Knight Rises because I was addressed in a mature manner. I did not equate you to a Nazi, I used National Socialism as an example of how people holding the same beliefs does not mean they are right. I did not post in your discussion because I had nothing to prove anymore. You were getting away with breaking the rules for far too long and something had to be done. Bluerules (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, both of you! Bluerules, sometimes we can't always get what we want in the consensus and such. Dividing cast credits in order in this site is not that important. This site can be a tough neighborhood online among editors and we can engage in edit wars and disputes. This issue is already gone into a full-blown edit war as is, mainly by you. Sure, there are many editors can lose their tempers over issues that can cause this kind of situation. That happened to me in the past when I was in a edit war and that was proven justified to a point. Blue, you have to understand my point. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Sjones23, if you really look at my edit history, you can see that's not true. I always use the end credits for the cast order as long as they are by prominence. I stopped pushing my edits on Gettysburg because you addressed me in a mature manner. I did not threaten to get my way on BattleshipMan's talk page, I said I was going to prove my way was correct. That does not mean I'm going to push my edits, it means I'm going to explain why my edits are correct on the talk page. I even stopped pushing my edits on Olympus Has Fallen for the time being. I am willing to engage in a discussion to stop an edit war from taking place there. Bluerules (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's doesn't matter how the cast order should be listed. It's not that important how it should be in order. You just don't see it that way. There are cast sections that have many not-yet know actors who appear on that list and they can be further down to the list then what is listed in the end credits. There are also uncredited cameos on many actors in various movies that are not listed in the end credits and listed in the cast sections in various movies. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

If the order is not important, why even bother editing it? Why even have a cast section? A cameo would not be placed high in the ending credits. Bluerules (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Bluerules for one week for a resumption of edit warring since their last block, specifically at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, and generally on a smaller scale at other articles, as well as for repeatedly refusing to accept consensus. I have added a warning below the block notice on their talk page that if this pattern continues after the block expires, they may be indefinitely blocked for their disruptive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Missed AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Malcolm seems to have fallen through the cracks. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor determined to insert his own original research

• L2j2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Formula for primes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Prime number and Lhermite's models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lhermite's models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jacob prime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:L2j2 seems determined to include his own original research on certain formulae involving prime numbers, particularly at Lhermite's models. This page was deleted after clear consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lhermite's models where it became clear that it is original research by the user himself. Since then the material was added again at Prime number and Lhermite's models which was speedily deleted G4, and the user is currently edit warring to include it in the existing article Formula for primes: see [64] and [65]. The editor has been warned on numerous occasions formally and informally [66], [67], [68], [69]. Their last attempt to insert this material comes after all the warnings cited. The user in question has made no edits on other topics and is clearly here for the sole purpose of promoting their own personal research. Their persistence is becoming quite disruptive. Perhaps the time has come to restrict their editing privileges, maybe via a topic ban or a block until they agree to find some other topic to contribute to? Deltahedron (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional: since I posted this and notified the user, a notification they have seen [70], they have yet again tried to insert this material at Formula for primes: [71]. They seem to have no interest in engaging with the multiple editors who are trying to explain policy to them. This is getting rather disruptive. Deltahedron (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And again on the edit warring [72], in addition to pointlessly copying the entire article to its own talk page [73]. This behaviour is seriously disruptive: please can this editor now be blocked? Deltahedron (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet again on the edit warring [74]. Help, please! Deltahedron (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Again again [75]. I make that 7RR now ... Deltahedron (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it isn't restricted to English Wikipedia (see [76]) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee beat me to the punch with the exact same block I was about to do. This is certainly disruptive. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to point them in the right direction, via WP:3RR and WP:OR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Just based on experience, that won't work. In a few days, he will be back doing the same stuff. He's been pointed to those pages SO many times, and won't stop. We may wish to consider an indefinite extension until he assures us he will stop. gwickwire^talk_editing 16:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I've warned him that it will be indef next time, and I'm watching the articles in question -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Gwickire, you might be right, but we try to give everyone a second chance if there is any possibility they will "get it". If it only works one time in ten, or even twenty, then it is worth the extra effort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • True true, and now that they've been notified of the strong probability of an indef next time works for me. Now the only question is who speaks Haitian or French enough to take care of the messes there? gwickwire^talk_editing 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not our dept. Our admin bits stop at the gates of enwp. I have no idea what those other Wikis allow or don't allow, that is for them to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I know we can't do anything on the other wikis, but it may not be a bad idea to let them know. If their situation is as bad as enwp in terms of new patrollers etc., then they may not even know this exists. Regardless, all that's going to happen has happened for now, so this seems pretty well resolved. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
        • The French have briskly deleted all his contributions ("Tous vos articles sont systématiquement supprimés") and so have the Italians. The Spanish hadn't noticed him yet: I have started a Spanish AfD for his main article there, and alerted the Spanish Mathematics WikiProject. At the moment, that just leaves Haitian... JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone who helped out. Deltahedron (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Administrator note Cross-wiki vandals are dealt with by WP:STEWARDSs. You can contact them at Meta. If there is evidence this is going on across multiple WMF projects they would be the ones to do something about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy-vio, socking, rm. tags, recreation of deleted article, etc.

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

---

Need some admin's attention at Eylül Esme Bölücek. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

+ the BLP article is unsourced.TMCk (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it's not a copyvio anymore. It also has an interview, although under "External Links" that means it can't be sticky/BLPPRODed. I slapped a normal prod on it therefore. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

On another look, this person isn't here to cooperate, and the interview is so mediocre a source I've BLPproded it. If need be, this can be taken to AfD. Someone needs to explain to the accounts involved they are not to remove any more CSD or BLPPROD tags without reasoning. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently they moved the English part of her biography just now which doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a copy-vio. Also the text can still be found on the very same FB page, left side down under "Eylül Esme Bölücek" March 12 [77].TMCk (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to go re-tag it, I forgot that I have like every beta thing on facebook possible enabled, so I'm not seeing all of anything (at first glance I didn't see any english to be a copyvio, but it wouldn't load the rest). Leave the BLPprod and tag for {{db-copyvio}} :) Someone still warn/block these people for removing tags tho :) gwickwire^talk_editing 18:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Warned for 'attack', without explanation

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

---

I was warned by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) for attacking other editors [78].

There was no diff given, but I have to assume it was due to this - in which I said a statement was stupid, and that I thought NYB was good for Wikipedia; there's no attack there.

I asked about it on my own talk page [79] and let Bbb23 know I'd enquired [80]. Their response was to undo that, edit summary read on your talk page - don't expect a response [81].

This isn't a massive deal, but it's annoying because I really wanted to add that to my previous comment, so that it was totally clear I was not criticizing NYB. Note the next comment on AN was someone thinking just that [82] - but I think I cleared that up by talking to that user directly [83].

I'm annoyed by the warning and the 'undo'. If it was invalid, I'd like the addendum reinserted. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have hurt Bbb23 to have responded, but he is under no obligation to respond. Considering your edit history, it seems you are either on a new ip address or have edited using an account before. Or you are a really fast learner. That might have something to do with his terse reply.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a cousin to 88.104.27.2 (talk · contribs)? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not impossible - the same apparent lack of interest in actually contributing to the encyclopedia, and an interest in copyright. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well sure, that's all fine; if it was an erroneous warning, perhaps someone can just undo it and put the text back, then we're done here? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right that he is concerned about my edit history, because he's said I'm "crawling out of the woodwork" too [84]. And this is the user accusing me of a "Personal attack directed at a specific editor". 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have sympathy with your problem, 88.104. If there is an admin esprit de corps, I will now proceed to violate it: I don't see why Bbb23 warned you, and for him/her to refuse to explain is hardly in accord with WP:ADMIN. ("Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.") But your post above doesn't have enough information; unfortunately I think you pasted the wrong diff when you meant to link to the statement you assume you were warned for. Please fix, as it makes it harder for readers to take stock of your complaint. (I believe you have the correct diff on your talkpage.) Bishonen | talk 23:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC).

Gah, sorry; fixed the link. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Bbb23 is under obligation to respond per WP:ADMINACCT NE Ent 01:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment restored; as indicated in the edit summary, a comment on a contribution is not a personal attack. NE Ent 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd suggest waiting a while longer for Bbb23 to give his side of the story, and if there's no response, someone else could strike through the warning and note that it was mistaken. And if 88.104 used a more moderate tone when discussing others' ideas, the likelihood of such warnings would be less. Saying a statement is "fucking stupid" could be seen as lacking civility. Something more like "that statement is completely wrong, because..." with the reasons it's wrong puts more emphasis on the statement itself. —rybec 00:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Would it change your attitude to the situation if I'd written "very stupid" instead of "fucking stupid"? 88.104.27.58 (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It'd help somewhat, but as an IP you're going to be treated poorly by a segment of the Wikipedia community. Rather than "fucking stupid" or "stupid" referring to the argument as straw man or the like would allow you to communicate your point with less drama. NE Ent 01:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that is a "cultural difference" thing. Please feel free to reinstate it with the word "fucking" changed to the word "very". Apart from that, sure, I will await a response. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To sum it up shortly, IP editors are praised as a whole for their useful edits, but the community is quick to punish any IP editor that does something even slightly wrong. The reason? IP editors are the most likely candidates for abuse, whether it be vandals, schoolkids that are bored, or sockpuppeteers who proxy and disrupt for the sake of disrupting. The only thing which I'd point out, in the exact same circumstances, you probably wouldn't have been warned. And warnings are able to be given out by anyone for anything... even if you don't agree with them. If anything, take your lump, register an account, make it known if you wish to be a part of whatever pages you are active in, and move on. I'm not an admin, but I've had quite a bit of experience here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

As ChrisG reminds us, any editor can warn any other editor. This being the case, Bbb23's warning of the IP was not an administrative action, and therefore does not fall under WP:ADMINACCT. If he had warned that a block would be forthcoming if the behavior continued, that would be a different matter. In the best of all possible worlds, Bbb23 would explain the warning, but he's not under any policy obligation to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, is this editor here to help build an encyclopedia? My understanding is that building an encyclopedia is our only purpose here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up! No. They're here (based on my interactions with them multiple places) because they have a flawed understanding of copyright law and our policies, and won't listen when told the correct understanding (yes, there *is* a correct understanding of copyright, that's not a gre/ay area). Not sure what should be done, but.. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The reporting IP, currently 88.104.27.58 (but probably also 88.104.27.2) admits on the IP's talk page that he or she is an editor with an account, who is editing with an IP because of the "toxic environment" here [85] (neglecting, of course, to mention their own contributions to whatever toxicity exists). As such, the IP should be warned that editing with an IP when one has an account to avoid scrutiny of one's edits is a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, and if the editor continues to edit with an IP (either these two or any other), the IP accounts should be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

New discussion

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

---

"editing with an IP when one has an account to avoid scrutiny of one's edits"

Can you substantiate that claim?

I have done nothing to avoid scrutiny.

There is absolutely no reason to block me. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This makes it plain as day that you're hiding something. However, you could ease suspicions by telling us the name of your registered account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

List of known IP's apparently used by the complainant so far:

88.104.27.2 (talk · contribs)

88.104.27.58 (talk · contribs)

88.104.28.176 (talk · contribs)

88.104.2.228 (talk · contribs)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be totally misunderstanding WP:SOCK, which is all about using "multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt". 88.104.2.228 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what you appear to be doing. You griped about it being "toxic" at Wikipedia. So what are you doing here anyway? And why are you afraid to tell us your old user ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• "You griped about it being "toxic" at Wikipedia" - yeah, it is.
• "So what are you doing here anyway?" - I saw a few articles that I could help fix; then some people "warned" me and in some cases blocked me.
• "And why are you afraid to tell us your old user ID?" I'm not afraid. I just don't want to. There's no reason why I should. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course you don't want to. You're displaying the typical behavior of a banned editor who's trying to avoid scrutiny. I can think of one or two that liked to throw that term "toxic" around on this very page. Not that it really matters. The admins are wise, and will take good care of you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    • "I have done nothing to avoid scrutiny." On the contrary, you have done everything to avoid scrutiny: you've used multiple IPs, not making it clear that they are connected; you have not linked your IPs to your account; you have not identified your account; until very recently you never even admitted to having an account (although it was blatantly obvious that you were no newcomer).

      You've also broken - in spirit, if not in the actual letter of the policy - the proscription against unidentified alternate identities editing policy pages or participating in discussions about policy, in your various contributions arguing about copyright policy.

      It seems that you want some sort of equivalent of a "clean start", but without the restrictions that a clean start requires. That's just not going to wash, and deliberately editing while logged out is just not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

      • Why is this sockster still allowed here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because I have not breached any policies? 88.104.2.228 (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean we can't keep track of it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"deliberately editing while logged out is just not allowed" is so very wrong. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"until very recently you never even admitted to having an account" - nobody asked. Yes, I have an account. So what? 88.104.2.228 (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"So what?" Well, your editing here under these multiple IPs has been somewhat disruptive in a relatively short period of time. You've been blocked once, and have appeared on these noticeboards a number of times. You need to reveal your account name so that other editors can look at the contributions under that name and see if these is a pattern of disruption which might recommend that you be blocked from editing, or topic banned, or warned for continuing the pattern of disruption. There is also, as Bugs points out, a high incidence of IP editors who are obviously not newcomers who turn out to be blocked or banned editors, in which case all of your editing would be block evasion. Your not revealing the account name is, by definition, avoiding scrutiny. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, It's not. And you really need to understand that. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism" by 88.104.2.228

I've been accused of vandalism [86] - apparently, just for asking a question [87].

Please tell me, where can I ask for clarification? 88.104.2.228 (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

you were told not to post on the user's talkpage but to ask here; repeated posts and reverting on somebody's talkpage constitutes harassment. You were told about this before. Stop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Where was I told not to post? Where was I 'told before'? (2 questions)

Anyway - so can I ask here?

Why have I been 'warned' for vandalism? 88.104.2.228 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

??? I just told you. Do you read? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can read. Can you please make it more clear, showing diffs or something? Thanks. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

[88] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's vandalism? 88.104.2.228 (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for an idea for ez overview

IP, I find it very hard to get an overview of alledged misconduct, especially because there is no single place of communication with you because of your highly dynamic IP. Actions talked about on one IP talk page are taken under another IP's contributions. I gather that you prefer not to edit while logged in to an account. Do you have any suggestions to keep discussion and contributions findable for other editors? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than 'stop treating IPs like shit', not really.

Probably best to deal with each issue as it arises.

Currently, it's why I've been randomly accused of vandalism. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I generally believe it's a big problem we treat IP's as shit. Yet I find it annoying that there is no (reasonable - other than scanning an entire IP range, which I don't see as reasonable) way to get an overview of your editing history combined with usertalk communication. If the edits you make under different IP's are completely disjoint, that shouldn't be a problem IMO, but I can't confirm that for myself exactly because of this problem. Currently, the most comprehensive overview is here on ANI, and no matter the cause of that - to say that is sub-optimal is an understatement. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

My editing history shouldn't actually matter - except if I've been blocked or banned. I'll state here; I have not been. I am not breaching any policies or guidelines. If you believe me or not may come down to AGF but, I don't know what else I could do, other than a) waste hours listing my IP contribs, and/or b) disclosing my previous account to a 'trusted person'. I could do those, but I'm not sure either is worth the effort right now. 88.104.2.228 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Since you're the complainant, your editing history totally matters, and the fact that you're hiding it from us has substantially eroded any assumption of good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

88, if I may offer an outside observation? Yeah, IP editors get it rough. I can understand your frustration at not getting a straight answer about the warning. That said, this really wasn't ANI material. There's no admin action to be taken here, aside from maybe trouting Bb23 for biting you.

As to your editing history, some editors are leery of folks who have an account and edit while logged out as well. I've seen plenty of instances where someone edits while logged out to make it look like they have more support in a Talk page debate or AFD. Folks have also used it to get around 3RR, blocks, to insert contentious material without their main account getting in trouble, and the like. There seems to be no basis for that here, but folks are understandably gunshy about that.

At this point, it's pretty clear no one is going to get sanctioned here, there isn't enough evidence for an WP:SPI and further arguing is is not getting us anywhere. It's probably best for everyone to just go their separate ways and get back to editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for an IP-hopping user, with a secret registered account, to be working in the decision-making processes?[89] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, but who gives a shit? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the admins might care. But we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

As the admin who rather mildly rebuked this user, I have a few points to make:

• Based only on the editing history of User:88.104.27.58, I was troubled by what I viewed as disruptive editing. When the editor jumped into the Strangesad fray, I couldn't see why on earth they were doing so. But, at the same time, there was no policy-based reason I could think of why they couldn't join in if they wished, unless I were willing to block them generally for their disruptive editing, but at that juncture I was not. Nonetheless, when they made the obnoxious comment about BMK's statements, I felt they were going too far, and I removed it, and warned them - a rather tame warning actually. Now one can debate as much as they like about whether calling another editor's statement "fucking stupid" is a personal attack (and I assure everyone I do know the difference between calling an editor fucking stupid and calling their statement fucking stupid), but in my view it's not a bright line, and the more aggressive the "attack" the more likely it's a proxy for calling the editor names. Still, I might not have removed the statement or warned them had it not been for their history (lgr appreciated that in their comments). And, as long as I'm belatedly defending myself, the reason I didn't "comply" with WP:ADMINACCT was because I felt that this editor's question about my warning was trolling. They knew what they were doing; they knew exactly what was going on, and I felt that if I played their game, I would only be feeding them.
• Moving on to the present. The editor wants to focus on WP:SCRUTINY, but that must be viewed in conjunction with WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I see no legitimate use of "alternative accounts" by this editor. None of the nine listed applies. For example, even though the editor has been back multiple times this year, apparently each time for a "reason", on April 7, he said he came back to comment at a copyright RFC. He also said he didn't want to go back to his old account because of the "toxic environment" and because it was "too stressful here" (see [90]). For me, at least, that begs the question. If the environment is so toxic and so stressful, why did he come back at all? In addition, why is it less toxic or less stressful to do what he's doing as an IP than it would be to do it under his old account?
• More recently, on what may be his latest IP (who knows), User:Ched asked the IP to e-mail ArbCom with proof of having left Wikipedia in good standing or e-mail Ched and Ched would pass it on (see [91]). The IP has not yet responded directly. However, above he said he didn't think it was "worth the effort". So, again, we have only the IP's word that he did not leave Wikipedia "under a cloud". But even if he was a saint under his old account, the use of IPs still doesn't pass legitimacy.
• I'm not sure why this hasn't grabbed more admins other than me. Perhaps there's a back story that we just aren't being told. I can only comment on what I know and what I think. If it were my decision, I'd block him based on not legitimate, although it would require a range block of I don't know how many, so it wouldn't be easy, but at a minimum, I'd declare the editor to be a sock by blocking the recent ones. (As Martijn says, it's very hard to follow the history with the dynamic allocation of IP addresses.) However, even though I don't think I'm prevented from doing that, I don't feel comfortable doing it without a consensus from other admins.

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a pretty clear situation: the IP admits that the reason he edits anonymously is because he doesn't want his account to be dragged into the discussion. That's the very heart of avoiding scrutiny. It doesn't matter why he doesn't want us to make the connection. It doesn't matter if the inferences we would draw are accurate or inaccurate, justified or unjustified. It only matters that his intent is to prevent us from making the connections. That's avoiding scrutiny. As an alternate, the IP is not permitted to discuss things in project space. Not at all. No copyright policy discussions. He's not even permitted to discuss whether his use of an IP is justified. If he wants to discuss those things, he logs into his original account and discusses them from there. Not from anywhere else.—Kww(talk) 00:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:Babel category User mus needs attention

Category:User mus is a category for Wikipedians who have some knowledge of the Creek/Muskogee language, spoken by a few thousand Creek people and Seminole people in the United States. The "mus" code is in the standards ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 but it appears not to be included among the languages processed for WP:Babel. The category has been empty for as long as I have been trying to use it, i.e. since about 2010.

Babel boxes for this language formerly used the incorrect code mvs instead of the correct mus. Yesterday I moved the boxes and edited the category names. I also added a description of the User mus category. I cannot tell whether I am the only Wikipedian in any of these categories because they all remain empty. I am concerned about correcting this, and incidentally with preventing the deletion of these categories because they are unpopulated. Admins, please help! — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about what administrative action is requested here? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

For userbox-level to work, you need a subcategory according to the language levels for each of them, and the babelboxes must have a parameter | usercategory = . These were are all missing, so I've created a few categories for the langauge levels and updated the boxes. It may take a while for the categorisation to take effect, but you can try to remove the userbox from your user page and then add it again. This test worked for me with {{user mus-0}} De728631 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a mus-0, though. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually these are quite common in Category:Language user templates since level 0 doesn't mean absolute ignorance but also includes speaking a language "considerable difficulties", i.e. below even basic requirements for fluency. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(lang)-0 categories are consistently deleted whenever brought to WP:CFD as being meaningless. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The (lang)-0 templates are common, but the categories are consistently found to be useless I think. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mvto and thanks, De728631. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 18:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Impersonation of Tbhotch

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

---

When Tbhotch was notified of the impersonator by Drmies here, his response was "That's not me, just somebody who may be trolling." Perhaps there is some relation between this, and the repeated blanking of Tbhotch's talk page by an IP yesterday. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 21:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indef'd. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP is User:CharlieJS13, I don't know if the person who created the account is the same guy. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Thbotch (talk · contribs) is Sixpacz (talk · contribs), who happens to have received a number of warnings from Tbhotch. The IP doing the blanking is unrelated to these two. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The impersonator has removed the block notice on their userpage. Is this allowed? Also, why isn't Sixpacz blocked? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, no they must not remove the block notice while it is active, after it is expired they can remove it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for confirming that. I am wondering how Sixpacz can not be blocked yet if we know he was socking and impersonating. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 04:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

OpenMusic page

hello, I noticed a malicious anonymous edit on the OpenMusic page (aggressively stating a "hijacking" of another software) and I tried to get things objective and serene by writing a very detailed history of the generations of composition software at ircam and the way they have influenced each other (PatchWork was influenced by many preceding softwares, had some influence on OpenMusic, which created its own new ideas and influenced in turn PWGL which is another descendent of PatchWork, so there's no point in diffusing hatred, all these are great musical softwares with their own qualities and everyone builds up on preceding history) However this detailed history was reverted because it was perceived as promotional. So in the last version, which is rather minimal, I just removed the malevolent and aggressive edit (the hijacking stuff), as well as the promotional-like material for PWGL that had been introduced by the same anonymous person. So the page is short again, but it is objective and free from aggressivity and hatred. These aggressive or promotional edits had been introduced by 91.135.3.132 then by 83.156.246.215.

Theropode Theropode (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theropode (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is easy. Cite some sources for the information you know. The promotional tone can and should be stripped down to the plain facts, but to revert everything you did was probably a bad idea. The only problem I can see, even if you do not agree, is that you did not cite where you got the information from. Do this and your edit will be fine... its an improvement, but we just want it to be cited. Though this revert seems heavy handed as even a cursory glance shows that the edit was not entirely promotional, and it was inadvertent.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Block Review

Resolved

 – I unblocked

Can we get an admin to review a unblock request. I initially filed a vandalism only report which I withdrew [[92]]] on a user as it was stale and the disruptive behavior had stopped completely. I guess i didn't withdraw in time so he was blocked indefinitely. Well it's been over 24 hours and no admin has reviewed his block so I would like an admin to visit his page. I am alerting the blocking admin to this conversation but there is no issue with his conduct here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I have unblocked the user per your comment. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Small defacing by IP address

I was reading an article that has 'pen15 pen15' added in for no reason, which is l33tspeak for 'penis'.

I undid their change from today, notified them and posted this. I'm not Wikipedia savvy, but took the time to alert in case there are further actions to be considered.

This is the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavski%27s_system

The offending editor is: IP address 24.179.217.9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.207.190 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2013‎ (UTC)

You did the right thing to revert the vandalism, and to notify the vandal, but there's really nothing else to be done now - except that I'm going to back up your comment there with a more formal warning. No admin is going to block a first-time editor for their first edit, even if it is clear-cut vandalism, which this was, so there's no particular need to file a report here.

In the future, if you run across an editor who is vandalizing multiple pages, it's best to file a report at the AIV noticeboard, and an admin will take care of it there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Roman polytheistic reconstructionism and other Roman topics

• Roman polytheistic reconstructionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:J Agathokles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Shelhabiron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Ragnii (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:124.171.13.132 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Morning Ya'all. I've been dealing with the addition of spam links to Roman articles. It started with this article about a new movement in Roman mythology. I was drawn there by a discussion with User talk:King of Hearts's talk page discussing the scope of User:Humanpublic's topic ban of religion topics. I made a quip about allowing him to edit dead religions like Roman and Greek. Then I found out there were still practicing Romans. The article contained lists of spam links and spam references. I removed all of the external links per WP:ELNO, "Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Days later, Ragnii restored one of the links and I realized there were many more in the article that needed to be removed per WP:UGC "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Since there, Shelhabiron and J Agathokles have both been reverting these spam links back in. Ragnii also started a WP:DRN discussion that went nowhere (while accusing me of a Christian POV) and I've been called by 124.171.13.132 a bully (again accusing me of a Christian POV). The irony of Christian persecution of Romans is kinda funny by itself. I'm at the limit on what I can do alone. Need admin action here. Semi-protection won't work, two of the users are auto confirmed.--v/r - TP 13:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The appearance of a brand new account (J Agathokles) reverting back to that version sealed the deal; I have fully protected the article for a month without the linkspam. Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Well, that's automatically excluding jut about every single resource on the modern Roman religion, or any religion really. Off course all resources on this religion are going to be published by practitioners, and off course practitioners of the religion are going to be the most common contributors to a page about their own religion. Following your logic you'd have to remove pretty much all information on pretty much all religions. J_Agathokles 14:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs)

Comment. Yes, we have a pretty intractable conflict in areas of paganism between the notability and verifiability policies and the objective of avoiding entrenched bias and broadening our coverage accordingly. Unless some way can be found to accommodate religions that do not have centralized doctrinal authorities, the best advice for editors is to make as much use as possible of reports published by reputable presses, even though they almost always represent outsider points of view and as a result tend to be out of date or otherwise inaccurate. Notability within (neo)paganism is hard to establish by the criteria the project generally applies, so many spokespeople recognised within the community can't be cited as authorities. I do think editors need to recognize their own biases in such areas—many people are unaware neopaganism even exists, and others are unaware of the reconstructionist traditions—but the project can't and won't suspend its requirements; we have to work with them on a case by case basis. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"we have to work with them on a case by case basis." That's the most useful comment in this entire discussion. J_Agathokles 08:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There's another problem with Roman polytheistic reconstructionism - so far as I can see, none of the sources are about the subject of the article but about ancient Roman religion. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, since it's reconstructionism, the cultores don't just make stuff up, they base themselves firmly in ancient practices. So scholarly sources on the ancient religion are just as relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J Agathokles (talk • contribs) 18:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Any "reconstruction" is going to be selective in what it adapts, that's just of nature of things when history gets recycyled. Because of this, you need to cite specific sources about the reconstruction, not just about the original culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The book "Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions" by James R. Lewis, ABC-Clio, 1999, contains in the lengthy introduction a section on "Greco-Roman neopaganism." That source certainly meets RS standards. A number of other reference books relating to New religious movements might contain material as well. On that basis I tend to think that the best way to go, at least initially, would be to consult existing reference works and other more or less academic sources which might discuss the topic, and maybe add any items they include in their bibliographies in some "bibliography" section. Granted, "Greco-Roman neopaganism" could conceivably, like wicca, cover a lot of territory, and possibly not the particular territory this editor is most interested in, but it is at least a place to start. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

"Witchcraft Today: An Encyclopedia of Wiccan and Neopagan Traditions" by James R. Lewis, ABC-Clio, 1999. I'm not sure of the value of this source in regards reconstructionist religions. J_Agathokles 08:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the usefulness of the notion of 'reliable sources' as used here. Suppose there is some religious movement, some theological notion, of which a dozen different unrelated, unconnected people have written with a clearly common understanding of what it is, each in their own individual books, perhaps self-published or sold through some channel for which peer review is lacking (though this may be the case for most books by big booksellers as well); but no big bookseller has published a book containing content on this topic. Surely we can not sanely claim a lack of proof for the existence of the topic, when it has been commonly yet independently addressed by that dozen authors of 'unreliably' published works? DeistCosmos (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we are supposed to base any sort of decisions based on that sort of "what if" scenario. Also, yes, if there has been no particular independent source discussing the idea, and there have only been as you posited multiple possibly contradictory sources, no, then there really isn't that much if anything we can say in terms of encyclopedic content. Having said that, for the US at least, Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions has one of the lowest thresholds for inclusion I've ever seen, two or more congregations, not all in the same metropolitan area, and there are a huge number of other journals, newspapers, reference sources, etc., which have fairly low standards of inclusion. But, no, I honestly can't believe that simply having bestsellers written necessarily establishes notability, and, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been taken to do so. Not all bestsellers are, actually, really to be taken seriously. Some books and theories have been revealed to be clear hoaxes. We do need at least some independent recognition of any topic, and, honestly, particularly with the field of religion, there are at least two or three reference books per month being put out today. Even if we couldn't establish notability very quickly, I have no doubt in rather short time any group which really merits inclusion here will have had enough independent coverage to estabish notability. John Carter (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not posit multiple possibly contradictory sources, but instead multiple unrelated but self-published sources expressing the same understanding of the thing described -- that is, painting with rough lines the same picture. Surely, though individually these sources might not be claimed to establish anything, something must come of their very multiplicity? DeistCosmos (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. A stack of bullshit is still just bullshit. Doesn't matter how high you pile it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That scenario is no different to saying that because the internet has 500 posts in forums and blogs on conspiracy theory X, "something must come of their very multiplicity". No nothing has to come of it. It's still just garbage. But if all you have on a topic is a dozen self-published books, then whatever you have probably fails WP:NOTABILITY anyway. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• What should be done about all of the non-reconstructionalism articles?--v/r - TP 21:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is tending to support what I wrote above. We have a conflict between objectives and I don't know a good way around it. What we do have as second best is to make what use we can of sources published by reputable presses. However, these are mostly tertiary sources—general surveys or specialized encyclopedias—with the shallowness of coverage that that implies. Both they and the more focused studies of new religions/paganism by religious studies scholars that are starting to appear are almost all outsider views, frequently written from a particular point of view (either religious or social scientific) and likely to be out of date or otherwise not well informed, especially if they attempt to range over several different religious movements. Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon is a good example of a sincere attempt at surveying a very wide field that was already out of date when published; other more focused works I won't single out here, but there is a Catch-22 with defining religions as "fringe" that is hard to overcome given that our notability requirements are related to our verifiability requirements; relatively few reconstructionist pagans have acquired doctorates, let alone unassailable academic reputations such that they can publish freely as pagans, and even those who have should only be cited on the particular pagan religion they write about. The answer is not, however, to label any religion "bullshit" or "garbage" - that's entrenched bias clearly demonstrated. It's to use what reliable sources we have. But a comprehensive encyclopedia should have articles on neo-pagan religions without applying alien standards such as "Have they registered congregations" or "Do they have scriptures". The issue is how to make our coverage of the topics both accurate and well referenced. (And TParis: I'm not sure what articles you mean, but clearly recon and non-recon should be treated similarly?) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is asking for scripture or congregations; simply third party reliable sources. I'm sorry, I thought I linked the articles here already, but I guess not. Ragnii has been spamming his links on other Roman articles such as Galli, Mercury (mythology), Chlorpromazine, Lares, ect.--v/r - TP 18:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

At the moment we have an article which makes no attempt to show notability for the subject and has no sources that actually mention the subject although presented as though they did. It's protected for another 3 weeks plus so it can't be fixed. I'm not sure what we gain by keeping it fully protected and am asking that it be unprotected. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. I agree we probably don't need it now, there should be enough eyes on it. Black Kite (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a sense of similar problems, but maybe not as severe, at Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. I think the best option now is to remove the material about ancient Roman religion - ie to basically turn it into a stub which will probably be unsourced for at least a short while until we can find reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask what TP meant when he asked What should be done about all of the non-reconstructionalism articles? The spam links he later specified? Or content in articles about ancient Roman religion? Since I was wondering how this could've escaped my notice at Lares, I just checked, and it doesn't even have an External Links section. There's been little editing activity since January. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI making promotional edits

Theropode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making badly formatted and promotional edits to OpenMusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) such as [93]. While they cleaned up their latest version, it still feels promotional. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Theropode's edits were promotional. At the contrary they would have brought precious information about the history of CAC and OpenMusic software, which many people wonder about and can not find anywhere else. 81.64.238.62 (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not long after you posted here, they added some info to their user page detailing their connection with IRCAM declaring a potential conflict of interest, which would explain the promotional sounding text. Blackmane (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible legal threat at Rango (2011 film)

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

---

Resolved

 – blocked by Master of Puppets  7  06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit summary looks like a legal threat. The user is becoming disruptive at any rate. Please look into it. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats are generally threats of bringing another editor to court. However, threatening to alert people to the authorities is certainly not welcoming. I'm going to try to leave him a message on his talk page explaining why his edits have been problematic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to block for 3RR on Battleship, but they've been indeffed...  7  06:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to shorten/reconsider the block if the user retracts (what I see) as a potential legal threat. For now, they're staying indeffed. m.o.p 06:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at the last two edits. Virtually identical and incompetent "assessments" of the two films as box office "bombs". Not competent to begin with, IMHO. Doc talk 06:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

When did "what you people are doing is illegal,i will have to report you for tampering evidence" become a legal threat? I thought this was just an empty threat and "legal threat" meant using litigation as a threat to get ones way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Any threat that implies legal action (in this case, reporting us for doing something 'illegal') is a legal threat. We are not here to judge whether or not said threats are empty. m.o.p 06:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

57 edits; and five of them have had to be completely redacted. Probably only because they were just too damned good to be included. Archive this one. Doc talk 06:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Procrastinator16 - Is there any hope?

Judging by the number of deletion notices on the talk page of User:Procrastinator16, it might appear that there is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Since it seems that this user will keep creating articles about living people -- despite the fact that they keep getting deleted -- I would like to suggest that someone take on the task of explaining our rules about notability, sourcing, and biographies of living people. If that effort fails, or no one is willing to take that on, they should be blocked. Any takers? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

In all fairness, they don't all seem to be deleted. Several have been kept. I don't see a problem with a user creating articles, even if some of those articles eventually get deleted.JOJ ^Hutton 00:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

-- I think my articles are notable. I see articles written in different ways. I say this because some have just the occupations after the birthdate and name, etc, while some have that and what the person is most known for. Sometimes I do both, but I prefer just listing the occupation(s). I'm not sure if the administrators actually read my articles, but if they do then I don't know how you're not seeing that the articles are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Procrastinator16 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky because we aren't dealing with a vandal here, only a badly misguided editor. That said, this has gone on for too long. I think the most sensible thing is a topic ban - for him to only create articles via AfC until he learns what is and what isn't notable. Also, someone needs to explain WP:N to him, which I can do if wanted.--Launchballer 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bongomatic making harassing edits

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

---

I tried to provide a 3O on including parents' religions on the article on Tom Steyer.

Bongomatic showed up and started editing disruptively, trying to obscure the issue in a fog of whether or not to delete the article (it's a very notable person, according to Bongomatic's argument, and nobody but him is arguing the deletion debate).

See diff here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATom_Steyer&diff=549295155&oldid=549295012

I cautioned him about tedentious editing, see diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABongomatic&diff=549300404&oldid=548697647

to which he comes back and hurls insults, turning the discussion somehow into me wishing I had a Wikipedia article about me? (I never mentioned anything about this.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATom_Steyer&diff=549441037&oldid=549353068

Please help me get away from this troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 02:03, 9 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Could you please try to remember to sign your posts? Neither this one, nor the AN/I notification you placed on Bongomatic's talk page were signed. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I usually do sign my edits, I think I got a little frazzled by the situation. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. For an ostensibly neutral 3O adviser you have a pretty patronizing way of addressing a longtime editor here: "you need to take that attitude and put it somewhere besides Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with this comment--you can twist it and claim that Bongomatic was saying that you're bitter that you don't have an article, but it is obvious that he was replying to a comparison you made between the subject of the article and yourself in the previous edits ("So basically, he's a rich man with political and social views that he puts his money behind. I'm a poor man with political views that I put my money behind.) The sarcasm in those comments is duly noted, and if you sling such stuff at someone, you can expect to get it back at you. Stating that Bongo suffers from a "lack of reading comprehension" isn't a very bright thing to do, and accusing him in this very thread of being a troll is a personal attack. I think the best thing to do is for you to apologize to Bongo for your remarks, and to the rest of the community for wasting our time. The next-best thing is for someone to close this thread, before you lose your temper again and get hit in the back of the head with a boomerang. Happy editing to all, Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Chuka Umunna (BLP)

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

---

User 89.240.74.128 is repeatedly editing Ummuna's BLP to include information that others (and not myself) have edited out (citing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). The exclusion of the information seems reasonable to me, especially given WP:BLP. 89.240.74.128 has ignored repeated requests to discuss on the Talk page and doesn't explain in the edit summary, other than to say "Stop deleting it, I am just going to keep re-posting it!".

I was going to request temp protection for a week or so, as this is likely to be something that ceases to be a problem after Umunna drops out of the news. However, having read the content disputes part of WP:PROTECT it seems that blocking might be preferable: 89.240.74.128 has no interest in any other subjects, so blocking him fixes the problem without inconveniencing other unconfirmed users.

Difference between revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuka_Umunna&diff=549493096&oldid=549492793

First time doing this, so apologies in advance for the probable mistakes. Bromley86 (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, I would say just semi the page for a few weeks. It is easy enough to get a nw IP, and this addition may be taken up by others. It is simpler to just semi it for a short time. Mdann52 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor already seems to have done so. Semi would be a good idea. -Rrius (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The IP is supposed to be static, but apparently getting a new one was no problem. I've semiprotected on the wrong version. :-) Bishonen | talk 13:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC).

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

User:Bobrayner's behaviour in ARBMAC territory

Sorry to raise this issue so soon after this recent incident. If I were to publish the full list of Bobrayner's disruptive edits, it would take me all night because believe me, I have seen one single issue to go back five months. I will not lie about the fact that I too am listed on the ARBMAC disciplinary register and am currently debilitated by 1RR imposed as part of a deal to unblock my account. This 1RR is severely testing me however and I feel that looking at the actions these past minutes prior to this post, something is happening that must stop immediately. Bobrayner and I have a couple of issues which we have not been able to resolve through dialogue but sadly, these few issues cascade when it comes to number of articles affected by the problem and sadly all in ARBMAC village.

For two days (5-7 April), Timeline of Kosovo History was peaceful whilst Bobrayner did not edit. On 3 April, a contribution of mine was cancelled[94]. My first action was a revert[95] when it registered but with a summary. This was followed by a part restoration in which I returned the source[96] that I removed. Labelled as "silly", my contribution was reverted once more[97]. I was placed on 1RR for a reason and one such purpose is that I engage in talk. Taking this option, I launched a discussion[98] in which I explained that the town is called Đakovica per WP:AT and by most common English, but observing historical accuracy, the town name is Yakova for the period in question. BR's insistence on the Albanian name Gjakova was down to the sources in question[99], one of which is in English and uses Gjakova. I reminded him about historical accuracy[100], then checked the sources only to discover that they themselves were later publications and not from the time in question[101]. However, by now he was gone, not to return for two days. I then embarked on a number of edits to Timeline of Kosovo History making sure I did not step over the bone of contention which would have violated 1RR. With Bobrayner out of site, I then sought advice from User:Antidiskriminator who is better versed in Balkan affairs than I am and we have held a conversation here. With efforts to communicate exhausted, no sign of BR and probably no hope of two-way agreement, I felt I had fulfilled my requirements so returned to the issue just over 24 hours later[102], [103]. More clean-up along the same lines followed when guess who's back?[104]. The same reasoning, the sickening "Let's stick to what the sources say" slogan. At attempt at justification by BR came here[105]. I explained that content from sources were one thing but titles used in sources are a different matter where Wikipedia:Naming Conventions is the case; BR's post had also provoked this reply[106] from AD. BR then replies with this[107] remark in which he adds nothing new to his previous position (ie. just following what the sources say). It now became clear to me that he is POV-pushing so I replied here where I pointed out that I had also switched a Serbian-name settlement for its Turkish (ie. historical) equivalent[108] but he did not worry about that in the least. I did revert[109] without breaching restriction, but did so after posting a huge list of sources which were all history books that addressed Ottoman-era towns and the message was that if you seek citations, you will find that sources may use any of three names, the modern Albanian, the modern Serbian or the then- and still modern Turkish. Consensus widely follows the latter option which I too was observing. So what reason had we for sticking to the non-WP:AT and non-historical name? No reply as yet...

...however, beginning here, BR began rifling through my recent edits, particularly where sensitive ARBMAC issues are the case but nothing beyond naming convention or matters pertaining to Kosovo sovereignty and made mass reverts of my contributions. My switching of Peja to Peć hardly needs explanation, the second is the target but the first is also a disambiguation page.

His next actions one by one were the following:

• This is a so-called "spelling fix" despite Berkovo being the target,
• Next comes this re-introduction of a disambiguation term, and a claim that subject has Kosovan nationality despite the article also stating that she represents Albania professionally and did so at London 2012
• Following his warning cited on intro to this section and an effort by me to clean up section in accordance with published figures, BR claims "new problems" with the statistics

Now get ready for a bit of humour

• This edit was to switch the /š/ from a word that even contains the diacritic in the article title and on its own page. The stated purpose was that this was in accordance with the "sources", as if they were some kind of literary English authority. Proof that this was the purpose is submitted here. Note how BR was never interested in the English variation, just fishing to uphold the Albanian version of the name. However he was wrong, I explained to him that the Albanian name is Korisha (with /sh/) here in second part of single comment. Nevertheless, he returned to the /s/ misnomer here, something I leave according to 1RR terms - my later edit was not a revert.

Now it gets worse, look at the following

• BR wipes the article of all article titles and replaces these with their Albanian forms. This means he switched Pristina which is NOT Serbian (ie. Priština) to Prishtinë, the Albanian name of the town not used in English. Notice also the mess on Zvečan and Leposavić on opening lines which were cleaned up but that his revert cancelled, plus the return of verbiage "for the sake of". BR in the knowledge that all his changes are consistent with the Albanian language only reverted again and cited "no consensus for change". Since when did fixing redirects or observing WP:AT need "consensus"? Yet there had been no consensus either when the section was introduced here by this user who came and went the same day and never used the talk for anything. As it stands, it is inconsistent with the rest of the article.
• Next came this mass wipe-out of my work in which every single entry is returned to its non-WP:AT/non-English variation. Note that the page is one of several controversial agenda-pushing pages based on Kosovo. Despite this, the presentation is mostly bad and the sources are negligible. He reverts once more citing "what the sources say". I've told him many times, if the sources were good enough to verify everything down to the names used then he could have the articles moved (ie. Gnjilane to Gjilan). Be that is it may, the summary is one of BR's templates and I'm sure he never even checked the sources of which he prated. Firstly they are listed without links, and secondly, they are all in Albanian anyhow with the exception of one from the Kosovo government. Please see.

ARBMAC violation
We have SUPER STRICT policies on how we edit Kosovo-related articles, and careful editors often walk on egg shells to circumvent saying anything that can remotely suggest favour towards the split in sentiment. 99/193 UN states currently recognise Kosovo's independence and the situation is fragile on how we present sovereignty. A Kosovo-note template was devised to facilitate many of the country vs province issues and you can be sure that its removal by anyone from any article is guaranteed POV-pushing. To prove that BR is most definitely POV pushing and WP:NOTHERE whatsoever to write an an encyclopaedia, I need to draw admin attention to a less recent incident plus discussion. The word "border" is a nasty issue for Kosovo. Many of us prefer terms such as 'frontier' because if anyone were to push the Serbian viewpoint, he would be referring to the border ONLY if said to be between Central Serbia and the "Autonomous Province of Kosovo held by rebels". On 2 January 2013, BR stepped onto 1RR per week Republic of Kosovo. Discarding a mountain of effort, he thought it wise to make this edit[110]. Then I, realising that text had been removed at some stage, re-instered the NPOV FULL PICTURE which gives everyone's position[111]. BR didn't like it so he began this thread[112] in which you see that I made a proposal which Antidiskriminator approved but BR never replied to.

I am not happy with "border" but am fine with the modifier administrative as it imparts the de facto status without harming content or presenting falsehood.

• BR takes issue. He refers to "administrative" as 'weasel' wording. To him, stick two fingers up at NPOV, let it be known that what there is there is a BORDER just like between Mexico and the United States, that the entity to the north is Serbia, that Serbia's borders are marked without Kosovo; and the fact that Serbia doesn't give exit stamps to persons entering Kosovo coupled with 90 odd states still not recognising Kosovo means NOTHING. If you move to explain this, it is 'wiesel wording', if you report "Kosovo is a fully fledged state", you are a good editor.
• Bobrayner reverts once more. And the summary? The greasy "sources" argument once more, this despite WP policy to be neutral - and these attempts at neutrality, agreed in the conversation of January by Antidiskriminator; Bobrayner having walked out, NOBODY having come to represent his position. And how does BR justify this depredation? The "sources" (irrelevant) defy my "TRUTH" - as if only I have endeavoured to be neutral. It would have been a different matter if my edits hinted at DENYING Kosovan statehood, but I swear I aim to be 100% balanced.

Last but not least...
The final case takes us back to Koriša bombing. My later edit (not to breach 1RR) has since been reverted. The revert shows you my revision too. All looks sweet and innoect doesn't it? I say "Yugoslav", he says "Serb" because of the 'source'. Here is a synopsis: from 1992 to 2006, Serbia was part of a union with Montenegro (FR Yugoslavia, then Serbia & Montenegro). In this time, the republics had their own police forces and Serb police units were deployed during the Kosovo crisis, as indeed were Serb paramilitaries (rogue government-backed but non-governmental private enterprises comprising Serbs from all over, eg. Bosnia & Croatia, not just Serbia), but above all there was the Army of Yugoslavia (VJ) - article: Military of Serbia and Montenegro.

This is the biggest issue of them all. Some editors work their backsides off to correctly produce accurate information (eg. Serb police & paramilitaries, plus Yugoslav army). We all know that mention of Serb troops and Serb forces per se is a complete no-no, just as would be Serb government if the body in question were the central Yugoslav government. Reasons for people wanting the "Serb" highlight in place of Yugoslavia is purely to tarnish the nation, excuses include Serbia having been so big compared to Montenegro and also Montenegro's leadership having turned its nose up at the federation from 1998: none of this affected the army and they still wore VJ uniforms. But Bobrayner has known this for many months now and has engaged in countless edit wars AND conversations trying to push his "sources" point across despite having been told so many times that there are problems with some sources and they are not always accurate. For example, This BBC source labels Milošević as Serb President when he was infact Yugoslav president when published. Actual Serb president in 1999 was Milan Milutinović, not my renedering of events, the FACTS, 'Serbia' is so often used as an unofficial name for FR Yugoslavia. However, precision trumps speculation every time, and we know it is precise that Serb can only be applied to police and/or paramilitary but "forces" is vague, and "troops" is incorrect. Any user that just reads about a battle between the KLA and Serb troops will take it that either Serbia was independent (wrong) or that within FR Yugoslavia, the republics had their own armies rather like police (also wrong).

But this has been spreading like a disease for five months:

• Battle of Lodja. [113], [114], Sarcastic comment as he even gives SERBIAN NATIONAL FLAG. Deliberately introducing factual error to push POV.
  • Two users explain circumstance here.

• Battle of Podujevo. Playing with flag again, [115], Reverts 23 editor, and again.
• Battle of Belaćevac Mine. [116], WhiteWriter, 23 editor
  • Unheeded discussion

• Izbica massacre. Hello again, [117].
• Serbian Armed Forces (active from 2006). an attempt to drag this organisation into Kosovo crisis of 1999, restores ABSOLUTE TRASH inserted by User:Keithstanton.
• Meja massacre. [118]
• 1991. In contrast to article sources
• Battle of Glodjane. [119], [120], [121], [122]
• Serbian Army (established 2006). Factually incorrect information and subject matter already on display at correct target, Military of Serbia and Montenegro. Again, [123], [124]
  • Discussion which Bobrayner abandoned
• List of massacres in the Kosovo War. Hello, false summary, second false summary on the bounce, [125], Removes source again. Take note that he uses "let's stick to what the sources say" but where I have replaced Serb with Yugoslav, it is supported by this.
• Battle of Junik. [126], [127], Five months later, [128].
• Ukshin Hoti. The See Also should have been blank, but still, [129], arrogant remarks in summary, FALSE LINK to Serbian Armed Forces, estbalished 2006 for events of 1999 and 2005, thinks that this is a remedy,
  • Discussion here, of no interest to BR
• Bardhyl Çaushi. "Let's keep it neutral" by removing links to actual entities and replacing it with falsehood.
  • Discussed once more.

Finally, I recently used a reliable UN source to explain the full Serb/Yugoslav situation to BR here, it begins here. Now you can only imagine my disgust at this slimy summary in a move that plays on my 1RR.

Bobrayner is unequivocally a highly disruptive user who plays with fire in the ARBMAC area and has NO interest in dispute resolution and does not respect consensus. These are my issues, other people have other things to say about his poor behaviour. I would not object to a block but may I recommend a temporary topic ban if nothing more. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Serious case of Tl;dr here, but judging from another related dispute between these two editors that Bobrayner just reported at WP:NPOVN, my impression is the tendentious editor is clearly Evlekis, and a heavy boomerang is in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In other words, i didnt read it at all, but i know from before, and from some other unrelated place that i find simillar that different editor should be blocked. That is not the way neutral admin should comment such a problematic area. If you dont know anything about the problem, and you dont, as you didnt even look at it, dont comment at all. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"the tendentious editor is clearly Evlekis" is your opinion and you're entitled to it. Not very reassuring for me however that the first external editor attacks my position and insults me with a blatantly unfair term in light of the above evidence which took more than two hours to compile and account for my experiences only. We are dealing with a user who is pedaling a "sources" myth but evidently doesn't know how to use them. He doesn't understand that there are WP policies and agreements, such as how to present military operations from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If I move away from this section just for a moment then perhaps I'll make myself clearer: there is an article called Republic of Macedonia, it contains many sources and equally the country is mentioned in many other articles which also contain sources. Now a lot of the sources will refer to the country as FYROM (or Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). The sources may be reliable and the content valid for use; the source would not however present an editor with the licence to go amending Republic of Macedonia to FYROM anywhere he sees fit, yet this is exactly what has been happening with Bobrayner. Concerning his report, I made one edit which restored sourced material that involved a removal of several hundred characters and this type of change normally requires consensus, I also observed that TWO, not one, TWO editors had approved the version I was restoring. Even so, I will not sport the label "tendentious" when it is not true, or when the descritpion of me is confined to gross POV-pushing editors working alongside each other, therefore I will not go near that article for now. Just as many of the pages are intact per Bobrayner's revisions. However, some answers from the accused would be nice before we start slinging mud at submitters. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 06:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed something else. When I was blocked for breaching 3RR back in March, the announcement[130] by ItsZippy requested users restrain from edit-warring on the pages mentioned and do more to prevent others from doing so. Here is how Bobrayner responded to that request: while the cat is away, the mouse will play. And although I never said this when defending myself or requesting unblock, the announcement that was I blocked contained the following passage, "I am also concerned by the long-term disruption caused by Evlekis". I contend that this is itself an opinionated statement because I am only considered "disruptive" by specific editors never seen working against one another. From others the feedback is warm and inviting. It's time we put a stop to this protection racket and started focusing on who is here to build an encyclopaedia, who observes consensus, who negotiates when circumstance is stale as opposed to who simply performs blind blanking sessions over and over per own opinion and interpretation of source when he doesn't like something. I don't required a Boomerarg block - if I'm not welcome I'll quit anyhow. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerns requiring arbitration enforcement action should be reported at WP:AE. In a much more concise and less inflammatory manner, preferably.  Sandstein  09:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with both FutureP and Sandstein on how this should be handled and Evlekis can take his report there. That being said, I think that Evlekis has violated his 1RR[131] restriction on Koriša bombing: first revert (includes removal of the term Serb, second revert (removal of the word Serb), which had been readded by bobrayner and which had also been removed and replaced again about a week ago by Evlekis [132]

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This needs to go to AE. I wil have to drop it for now. To answer ZjarriRrethues, I did not spot what I did - and before you think of any funny replies, I don't give a monkey's toss what your opinion is or whether you believe me. All you need to know is two things. First is that I could not have reverted myself anyhow because Rayner was already edit-warring and restored his own apologetic excuse for a revision, the second is that I made the following edits with 1RR in mind just not realising that I did on technical grounds violate the principle. The term 'Serb' now stands and it would have done had I self-reverted, but having read the sources or what I could get access to, nothing was said of "troops" and we know to which entity troops belonged. I know you are personally sad about the loss of another of your Sinbad Barron allies (Neutral Fair Guy) and your personal friend Keithstanton but that's bad luck. If your latest buddy 'Hope meets success' who seems to know more about Wikipedia than I do doesn't take a back seat, he'll be joining the rest of your proxies. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Tiderolls 13:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Rapid escalation of issues and perceived legal threat at John Call Cook and User_talk:CACook7

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

---

Hi. I'm bringing this to you because quite honestly it looks to be getting out of control. CACook7 seems to be having problems with the article John Call Cook and is claiming through the text of his user talk page that User:Huon is reverting all his edits out of spite. This has escalated now to the fact that CACook7 has taken the matter of edits to the article and associated issues to the Wikimedia Foundation. He has also made a legal threat to rescind all of his past donations to Wikipedia, if necessary via court action.

The suggestion has also been made (twice now) that our ethos is that we back each other up, even when we know we're wrong. I have made it very clear that this is simply not the case, and I don't appreciate the intimation. I may have some odd principles, but I'm not an ass-licker. I follow rules (except when they're there to be ignored).

The note I left was almost immediately deleted on CACook7's next edit, and he's now essentially repeated the same thing. I realize I've only been here for just over a week, but I've watched Wikipedia for more than 6 months prior to joining to learn how you work, and I'm well aware of the Civility policy, which my message broke for certain, and WP:NLT and WP:NPA which I'm pretty sure CACook7 has broken. The thing is, this is escalating quite fast and I think it's time to get external involvement to cool things off by whatever means necessary. The user claims to have tried normal dispute resolution, so let's try something not in the normal list. Your help will be welcomed, regardless of the outcome. Humblesnore (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

All contributors involved have been notified (except me, I sorta know that I've put this here already!) Humblesnore (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still very much a fan of the restorative powers of a nice warm cup of tea and an extended period of quiet reflection in this case. The intricate ways of the wikipedians can be as tricky and frustrating for a new editor as the ancient labyrinth, particularly where in a case like this it is wished to pay tribute to a recently deceased relative. That said, I'm sure a kind uninvolved editor might be able to add a few pointers/ words of advice without further escalating the drama --_nonsense ferret 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with such an outcome. I've tried my best to explain to CACook7 the rationale for my Cook-related edits (see for example this explanation for these edits) but obviously I failed, and by now whatever I write seems to be ignored or dismissed as poor judgement born of my supposed biases. Huon (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would ask for an admin-level or higher to work with on this matter. nonsenseferret had prior showed reason and compassion, but has now joined in the pile-on. I did ask in IRC that MartijnH help, but apparently he was away. Humblesnore's only purpose here apparently was to horn in and pile on as well.

I am not here to discuss this with editors anymore; this is for admins and above. It is senseless to have duplicated the John_Calhoun_Cook bio in John_Calhoun_Cook, John_C._Cook, and John_C_Cook as Huon had done, reversing my disambig to the two known as John C. Cook during their lives. These changes were made against me for apparent emotional reasons, and corrupted the normal course of internal references to Wikipedia articles. Huon insisted on turning over my article at John_Call_Cook while I was in the middle of editing it, after it had been published by MartijnH. These and other aggressive and assaultive actions by Huon have caused me to lose all confidence in him. All articles and references related to mine are now a mess, with senseless thrashing about by emotional editors protecting their own. I have demonstrated that I conform to true and honest rules of Wikipedia; but I will not countenance mini-dictators pushing people around to show how powerful they are with arbitrary actions.

I now better understand how Wikipedia articles are designed, but anticipate harassment from certain ones on anything I do after this little episode, and so request an arbiter of higher rank to turn to when insincere re-edits are made of my pages. I ask that proper disambigs be restored at John_C._Cook. John_C_Cook, J._C._Cook, and J_C_Cook. And that the mess of this argument be removed permanently. This is all I have ever asked, aside from being LEFT ALONE. CACook7 (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I was never here to "pile it on" and "horn in". I came to your page to warn you about a personal attack against Huon. I then later noticed your statement about our ethos being to "back each other up, even when we're wrong" - which I didn't like, and found offensive. And I told you as much. You deleted that, and then repeated it. The only person here who has done anything wrong right now, is you, by threatening to rescind your donations (which you can't do anyhow - it's been tried before), and generally making things very difficult for yourself, very quickly. Don't get me wrong - we're HAPPY to leave you alone, as long as you follow the rules and understand what you're getting yourself into by making legal threats and accusing others of vindictive behaviour. Any legal threat on here stands a risk of you being indefinitely blocked until you withdraw it. I'm gonna butt out now, since you clearly seem to think I'm as bad as everyone else in this mess. Trust me though, turn down the attitude, sit back and take a chill pill. We're not all out to get you. Humblesnore (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Experts needed at Nikah mut‘ah, disruptive editing

I need some experts over at Nikah mut‘ah. Over the last week or so there have been organized efforts by some IPs to edit the page with some other editors preventing them. Problem is while the IPs are undergoing 3RR and other disruptive editing I don't have enough of an idea around the topic to determine if they have a point or not (though some edits are blatantly not appropriate.) I've blocked one IP for edit warring and disruptive editing last week, and another account indefinitely today for impersonation of another user, but I admit to being at a complete loss on the article content. If anyone has some knowledge of Islam and can assist, please take a look. Canterbury Tail talk 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-blocked edit warring IP, and added pending changes protection to the article. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP was edit warring in preference to his/her own WP:NOR-violating version of the article. Good block, good protection. That said, the article could use some more Western analysis of the topic, in which the custom is compared in various ways to prostitution. Reliable sources can be found at Talk:Prostitution in Iran. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Biala Gwiazda is at it again with Rutgers-Newark

Last month, User:Biala Gwiazda persisted in edit-warring at Rutgers-Newark by trying to move the page to Rutgers University, Newark and retitling the schools name in the article. I sought third opinion, page protection, and ANI last time and the result of that discussion was that Rutgers-Newark is the right name per WP:COMMONNAME and other policies. Apparently, despite just warning him on his talk page that further attempts to rekindle an edit-war would be reported and to advise him to seek a consensus at the talk page, the user seems to want to get back into edit-war. Request administrative assistance to "nip this in the bud" once and for all.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, after looking at the user's contributions, this is his recent return to editing after the edit-war concluded in mid-March (SEE: [133])--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits in question: --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• At 00:07, 9 April 2013 by Biala Gwiazda [134]
• At 00:33, 9 April 2013 by IP user 71.172.142.178 who I suspect because of the MO is Biala Gwiazda [135]

Update: Starting this forced the user back to the talk page at Rutgers-Newark and discontinue his reverting editwar, but I think we still need an administrator to referee it, because the discussion is a repeating loop because of the user's intransigence. I will seek another opinion at WP:3O as well--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your threats arent needed nor do they scare me or anyone else. None of your threats made me go back to the page, i completely forgot about it and chose to finish the discussion there. Regardless where the discussion is, you're not helping in resolving the issue nor are you co-operating. I suggest stop complaining and hiding behind your screen and contribute something worthwhile to the discussion instead of harassments. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks in user page

I have repeatedly been forced to remove personal attacks by user Rak-Tai from his user page and also from my user page, where he accuses me of harassing him personally as well as enlisting my "cronies" to remove articles that he had written. I do not have any "cronies" here on wikipedia but if I did, it wouldn't be the kind of thing I would do. User Rak-Tai denies that what he is doing is considered a personal attack and instead says that he is "only stating facts". I have in the past advised him to take his accusations to the administrators but he never did. User Rak-Tai holds a personal grudge against me because of an AfD I started on an article that he had written. After our first disagreement about his censorship on the Pattaya article and Prostitution in Thailand article I did indeed loosely monitor his edits for similar behaviour as, at least to me, this type of behaviour borders on vandalism. I hope that user Rak-Tai can be made to see that personal attacks are not permissible on wikipedia. - Takeaway (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Takeaway, I can understand your anger - but I have undone your reversion on Rak-tai's talk page. Despite what he's done, and an administrator will take him to task for that, he has asked you quite strongly and clearly to stop editing his talk page, something which he has every right to do. If you wish, I will remove the edits, but when he asks you to stay off his page, and you persist in editing it, that does look like harassment, regardless of the reason why you did it. Sorry :( Humblesnore (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

He has the right to ask me to stay off his page but, seeing that this is a clear-cut personal attack, it would seem that I too have the right to remove it from his talk page per WP:RPA. - Takeaway (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, now I've seen RPA - I understand that is correct. My apologies to you Takeaway. I will remove the personal attack in accordance with what you had previously done. Humblesnore (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here, I see lots of heat but bugger all light. Is there a list of these AfDs, evidence that the nominations are spurious or in bad faith etc ? Or is everybody having a moan because it's the start of the week and there's nothing better to do ? Nick (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning, asking them to stop posting accusations on their user page without evidence. If they have a genuine concern, they should bring it here, with adequate evidence. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot believe we're actually wasting time on this - ignore the user page and move on with life, Takeaway. It's not worth getting upset over. It's certainly not worth edit warring with a user who has left Wikipedia and is only returning to maintain their user page in the state they want it to remain. I'd maybe have considered some sort of action against Rak-Tai but you admit the allegations he is making against you are substantially true, that you did loosely monitor his edits, so I cannot see what the trouble is. You should have ignored him in 2010, nobody should be asking you to ignore him three years later. Nick (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why Rak-Tai chose to reply on this issue on Nick's talk page instead of here but it is there that I posted my subsequent reply. - Takeaway (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Eric abiog

• Eric abiog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The above user has multiple warnings for copyvios, as early as September last year. Today, he created this page, which copies a plot summary from [136]. The user appears to be unresponsive to communication (0 user talk edits).

I will open a WP:CCI shortly. MER-C 12:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've started with a timed block. If he continues, I think an indef would be in order. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The CCI is at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130409 if anyone wants to help. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by a blocked IP

Please review the following talk page edit by a blocked IP and take appropriate action: [137]My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the edit and contacted the WMF as a precaution. Mike V • Talk 02:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

They did the same at User talk:80.255.2.225 and User talk:211.154.151.184 - I've rev deleted both of those -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Toby irvine article

• Theironmandevil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)[138]
• Toby irvine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Theironmandevil created the article "Toby irvine". I immediately noted the improper capitalization and took a look. As it was not referenced at all, I BLP PROD'd it. Upon further review, it looks like articles on this subject with the correct capitalization have been deleted twice before. Once at AFD [139], and once via CSD A7 after the current misspelled one was created. As the article makes some type of bare assertion of notability, and I have no way of seeing the deleted versions, could someone with the tools take a look and speedy it if it's substantially the same as the other ones? Sperril (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's essentially identical. The only difference is that people added a "Filmography" section and a stub note to a couple of the earlier ones -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Irvine. Deleted and salted. --John (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks., Indecency and And insults!!!

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

---

hi,i,m Florence use in fa@wiki and en@wiki , i have any Personal attacks., Indecency and And insults (with arabic and Farsi language) from Lavasan , Lavasooni and any he IP and have 2 SP

This and This and check user he is have Lavasan = Lavasooni; unable to confirm any relation between Lavasooni and the above-mentioned IP addresses and chang IP in time - and fa@wiki he is Endless blocked User(6 time Blocked) in This , Please check , thanks a lot Florence (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)( Copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attacks..2C_Indecency_and_And_insults.21.21.21 by Shirt58 (talk · contribs))

• I've reverted and semi-protected your talkpage for the time being. Blocking is probably pointless as the user is editing from a wide range of dynamic IPs (2.176.0.0/16) and a rangeblock would have some collateral damage. Black Kite (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate Non-Admin Closure of Deletion Discussion

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

---

The deletion discussion for Screaming Banshee Aircrew has been closed by a non-admin, King jakob c 2. I do not believe this person, having only been an editor since February 2013, being based in North America and having made contributions mainly on the subjects of angling and river systems, is an appropriate person to make a non-admin closure on a discussion of the notability of a UK goth band in this way; the discussion was still ongoing but it appears his decision may have been made erroneously on a simple headcount. Can this please be reviewed? Paul S (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you have discussed this with the editor first, and allowed them to revert .. right? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted closure and relisted the AfD. Agree that this user is somewhat inexperienced, and probably should wait a bit longer before closing any more AfD's. Also agree that Paul S should have contacted the user before bringing it here. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 21:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Still, no one has notified him of this ANI report. I've just done that and tried to explain some of the reasons why closing was a bad idea. In the future, please leave a note on the editor's page when you bring them here, as it states at the top of the page. There is a template for it there as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My bad. I was trying to find exactly what to do and wasn't sure this was even the right place to post Paul S (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note, I've actually been around since August 2012 as King jakob c but lost the password in February so had to create this new account. ^King Jakob _C2 00:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Snotbot is malfunctioning during Task 5

Snotbot is changing headline hierarchies that do not need changed - it has already changed Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) twice, which was not necessary. I have reverted these changes on both occasions.

Please confirm instructions for Task 5.Gareth544 (talk) 22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not a malfunction. The lowest level headers that are used in articles are second level. "==". Snotbot is just implementing the manual of style. GB fan 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, and Gareth has already been told not to use level 1 headings. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction GB fan, the stated article now both makes sense and confirms with WP:MOS. While Snotbot may not be malfunctioning, its Task 5 corrections to the article simply replace an existing problem (formatting) with a new one (flow), and so Task 5 could be better implemented. I'm also now aware that headers should be of a maximum second level (although I'm not sure when or where I have "already been told not to use level 1 headings)" and won't make that mistake again. Every day's a school day! Gareth544 (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You could have just asked me about it, rather than bringing it to ANI. Also, you're kinda supposed to let me know about ANI discussions that involve me (and since my bot isn't a human, a discussion that involves my bot arguably involves me). If you have any specific complaints about how "task 5 could be better implemented", please contact me on my user talk page. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

VilanoXII - Possible trolling or a disenfranchised sock?

Resolved

This is a bit trivial, but could I get some admin eyes on Contributions/VilanoXII? They are posting some rather questionable barnstars on several user pages. I suspect it's a sock of a blocked user, but I have no idea who it may be. Thank you - MrX 18:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I blocked them for trolling. Looks familiar, but I can't remember who that is. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It might be Horrifico who exhibited similar behaviour a couple of months ago. - MrX 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism account

Michael2000-007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Well, SineBot's failed. For now, I've chucked a warning at him and if he vandalises Wikipedia again an administrator can deal with it.--Launchballer 19:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I left him a message on his talk page. He if vandalizes again, the place to report him is WP:AIV where he will likely be blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help resolve an editing dispute at List of United States state legislatures

First, I am a novice editor. I created my account to correct inaccurate information on the page List of United States state legislatures. The information is out of date and just plain wrong. This information changes each week, and sometimes daily, and I have tried multiple times to update the information. Unfortunately, User:MrOllie keeps reverting the article back to inaccurate and out of date information. He defended his revision at first by saying I was link spamming. I explained that I couldn't care much about the link, I am interested in the information being accurate. In my most recent edit I removed the link from the citation. He then proceeded to inform me that the information wasn't a primary source enough, to which I explained we take the trouble to call state house clerks and legislatures to collect this information and we maintain it on our website. I have made an effort to update the information (these numbers are fact, they aren't any kind of opinion or editorializing) and clean up the formatting on the page which is all over the place. I've looked elsewhere and this information is not readily available in a regularly updated format. It's ok to have outdated information, but then why not change the title or the article to outdated List of United States state legislatures, or keep the information and let me know how I should improve my citation so that I'm not violating any rules? I have not hidden the fact that I work for a state government affairs firm and am an expert in the subject material. I have also notified User:MrOllie each time before I make a change to the page, but have gotten no proactive conversation back from him/her. Please advise. Gcrackers82 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the disputed edits. First, Gcrackers82 did the right thing to bring the issue here and did not engage in a revert war; good for him on that. Second, I don't want to take the time to check the factual correctness of the edits, but they seem facially reasonable. He updated the results from the end of the last election to the present time (maybe some legislators resigned or died in the meanwhile). The best way forward might be a WP:3O and generally the dispute resolution process. Chutznik (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Nageh

Nageh (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User warned.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly calling constructive valid enforcement of non-free content policies vandalism. When I attempted to discuss this on his talk page he reverted it calling it vandalism too. Werieth (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record. I am being accused of things I didn't do (I did not upload any non-free image as the user accused me on my talk page using a script), claim that I called his image removal vandalism which I didn't do at all (in fact, I reverted the user on the article a single time, stating that the usage was ok, because I believed so – I only called his wrong accusations and his other modifications on my talk page vandalism), I even asked the user to use plain words to explain what I did wrong instead of using script-based tags with wrong accusations, but as a result the user brought me to ANI and Kww warned me on my user page. I guess I am missing something here. Nageh (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna say Werieth wasn't overreliant on the templated warning, because they were. But the template does talk about a file "uploaded or added to an article", so it wasn't wrong per se. Werieth was right, you did (unintentionally and in good faith) break the rules about non-free content by adding a non-free image to an article without a non-free rationale, even though you didn't upload it. Changing all those little things on your talk page wasn't a good thing, though I suspect it was an automated thing that Werieth didn't realize would happen. That said, calling their edits to your talk page "vandalism" is also not cool: see WP:NOTVAND. Generally, the word "vandalism" shouldn't be slung around carelessly, as it has an oddly specific definition on Wikipedia, and an accusation of vandalism can be seen as a personal attack if circumstances clearly don't meet this definition.

So, to recap: Werieth is advised (by whom?) try relying less on templates and scripts and more on actually talking and usinghandwritten notes. Nageh is advised to avoid using non-free images on pages without the proper reationales and calling things vandalism that aren't. I think that's really all that needs to be done here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that Werieth had left a second, non-templated warning, which Nageh described as vandalism.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The accusations weren't wrong: he had removed it, and left an explanation as to why. You put it back. That you did so because you didn't understand the policy is obvious, but that doesn't meam that you aren't responsible for your actions. The message he left on your talk page clearly says "... it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added...", so it was completely applicable. You, however, called it "vandalism". When he then include a plain language description, you reverted it, calling it "vandalism" a second time. In short, you undid a valid edit, referred to the editor that made it as a vandal, ignored his efforts to explain, called him a vandal again, and then misrepresented the situation on both my talk page and at ANI by claiming that all of his accusations had been script based, completely neglecting the second cycle.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Kww, with all respect, I definitely did not misrepresent the situation on purpose. I did revert his edits because I did not see what he was trying to tell me. That was certainly my fault. Reverting the user a second time was triggered by a section labelled "Warning", which I thought was highly inappropriate and appeared to me like vandalism. However, acquitting each of my own reverts with vandalism was wrong as well. So I understand now what went wrong all along, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I hope we can agree that Werieth try prefer plain non-template words in the first place, and I shall not assume bad faith either in calling his (or such) edits vandalism. Thanks both Kww and Writ Keeper for weighing in. Nageh (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement for a Wikipedia writer

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

---

This might be interesting. Not sure if any article has been created, but I do believe this sort of thing is frowned upon. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

See other advertisements at the same site I (and probably others) have watchlisted all of those identifiable, so we will see any attempts to create an article. As Wehwalt said, it's not prohibited, but the products of this require close scrutiny. FWIW, I think an experienced WP editor would want to charge considerably more than the ads on that page offer. We have however had examples of even low-cost work producing acceptable articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow

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

---

Despite being blocked for such behavior in the past and warned multiple times, User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert edits into BLP articles without reliable sources. He has inserted that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen without any reliable sources stating so, going as so far as to rudely challenging me on my talk page when I reverted his edit. This user has since re-inserted the edit, again without a reliable source. This is nothing new and has been part of a troubling pattern. This user was blocked before for multiple violations of WP:BLP after multiple warnings so it's not like this is new. In fact, this user has just finished serving a 3 month ban for an unrelated violation and already has multiple warnings for violations of WP:BLP on his talk page unrelated to the Gegard Mousasi edit. In the past, administrators had floated the idea of a topic ban from WP:BLP articles but refrained with the assumption that he would review the policy and learn from his mistakes. Based on the continuation of this, I don't think this has occurred. Although, TheShadowCrow has shown some productivity in his edits, I believe the damage far outweighs the good at this point, and if you can't learn to abide by Wikipedia's policies after 6 blocks in a 1 year period, it's time some type of permanent sanction is imposed. A topic ban may now be appropriate. BearMan998 (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I showed a link where the person in question calls an Iranian "my country man" so the debate was over and solved. Bear man has a serious problem of always pointing out my block log multiple times whenever we are on the same page. Most of the time he is practicly insulting and taunting me. He seems to think that he is in a position of power and that he is some how superior to me. In fact, he forgot all about the BLP in question and just started typing paragraphs about my block log. I think he is the one who needs discipline now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• They were blocked for three months for socking, one month for ARBAA2 infractions, one month for socking, two weeks for ARBAA2 infractions, 72 hours for BLP violations, 24 hours for personal attacks. They've been unblocked for a couple of weeks now and what I see is personal attacks, a battleground mentality, and BLP violations. I don't see much of a reason to not block for really, really long, but I'd like to hear what, for instance, Giant Snowman thinks--they've had a set of run-ins with them. [Also: edit conflict. ShadowCrow, I think you should try and keep quiet, since you're arguing for the opposition. Your BLP evidence is lousy and unacceptable.] Drmies (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see the math behind me being banned for being banned in the past. I was not trying to start a conflict. Bear man is being very hostile to me and I think this is being very overlooked. And my edits with GiantSnowman have actually been peaceful and constructive. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I see three twitter links, not reliable sources, just saying. Not going to comment on blocks or anything, but just fyi, sourcing the person for claims is almost always not appropriate. I can go start the twitter account "carieunderwood" with name "Carrie Underwood" and claim to be her saying whatever I want. But that doesn't make it reliable. BearMan looks right to have removed it as unsourced. Also, now that Drmies has said everything I was thinking, pending Giant Snowman changing my mind, Support an indef block until this user tells us honestly they will refrain from editing BLP articles, and a 3 (at least) month topic ban from BLPs to start if and/or when the block is lifted. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• User now seems to be a bit remorseful, there wasn't any major WP:DDMP type problems, so.. WP:ROPE applies here imo, with the knowledge that next time, it will result in a significant ban/block. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is definitly the real twitter account of Gegard Mousasi. He uploads amateur photos of himself and has talked to the UFC President and had contact with many other MMA noteworthies on twitter with that account. I have seen twitter be used as a source before and don't see why it shouldn't be now. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• What is the specific source being challenged? If sanctions is what ye seek, ANI is thataway.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 'ahem' This is ANI? The source being challenged is twitter by the way. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • My bad, I could have sworn I saw this at RSN, Twitter is crap, unless the account has been verified.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer  02:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Hi, as stated above, I have had recent run-ins with this editor, who I feel has numerous problems. They fail to understand - or if they understand them, accept - WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V - and there is a recent (still live) thread at BLPN which might be of interest. Other than their failure to understand BLP, RS and V, they also exhibit other concerning traits, such as (admitted!) WikiHounding - check who the previous editor was on each of these diffs (1, 2, 3, 4) - as well as disruptive and POINTy editing (AKA removal of masses of content with no rationale provided, while trying to prove some pro-English bias that simply does not exist) at 1, 2, 3, 4. They also seem to display OWNership issues, especially on anything related to Armenia. So in summary, TheShadowCrow has a slight attitude problem, and also displays a troublesome lack of competency in, or respect for, key Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Given this recent behaviour, as well as the historical issues, I would propose a topic ban related to Armenian topics and/or BLPs (both broadly construed) - recent discussion with this editor leads me to think there is some small glimmer of hope, and I would not want to indef them when there is potential to turn this around. I am just about to go to be (1am UK time) but saw this and thought I'd leave a quick message, and I'll pick up the thread again tomorrow morning. GiantSnowman 01:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• No one is paying attention to Bearman's hostility or that our edit conflict (a natural, unavoidable part of life on Wikipedia) was solved when I provided a source for what Bear wanted. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You'd do well to heed the advice that you stop replying here. You just proved you have a lack of competency in understanding our reliable sources policy. A twitter post (even 3) is not a reliable source for any statement, much less one like nationality. Your edit conflict (term not used right btw) was not ever resolved, because you never provided a reliable source. To GS, based on this post, would you support an indef (indefinite =/= infinite) until this user tells us they will re-read and adhere to all policies, and then a 3 month topic ban from BLPs and Armenia related articles broadly construed? gwickwire^talk_editing 01:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
    • If I don't reply I'm going to be blocked! The reliable source page says, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It also says "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;", which there always is with Twitter. How can you prove that he made those statements? You can't. It also says "the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;", exceptional claim is basically a big claim. You're claiming this user is of a certain nationality, based on something that looks like they *may* have said it themselves, even then it's almost a bit synthesisey. More quotes, since you seem to need them: "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." " This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". Basically, twitter is never a reliable source, because you can't verify its authenticity. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
        • How was I supposed to think all that through? The rules say there can be an exception to twitter, and you say there is no exception to twitter. I honestly thought I was adhering to the rules of Wikipedia. I didn't want to cause any trouble and I'm really sorry that I did. I'm just trying my hardest to contribute like everyone else. Since my sources are faulty, I'm putting Bear's version back and won't be changing it without a proper source. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
          • It should be added that you made the edit without any sources and didn't come back with the Twitter reference (which doesn't really prove that he is indeed a citizen) until after the fact. And this is not the first time either. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I would also like to add that while I appreciate the apology, we have seen this before here and here only for you to revert back to your old ways shortly there after. In fact, after your second apology, you immediately took pot shots at other editors and an admin as seen here. As GiantSnowman mentioned, I too am support of a topic ban of Armenian related topics but would add BLPs as well as nearly all the issues are limited to these two categories. BearMan998 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • • • • Is the twitter account in question "verified" by twitter or a RS? If not, this is a non starter and the account can't be use for pretty much any purpose here.  little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer  02:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
          • That's when they have the light blue star, right? No, it doesn't have that. However, a source has recognized this as his official account (HMTTT is a thing where they post tweets of fighters on their website to show whats new in the twitter world. Mousasi's account is in the edition I linked). Although I think the source is credible because it's one of the most famous and popular MMA news websites, I'm not going to take the risk and say it is.--TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry--what are we trying to find out? Whether some tweet has a fucking blue star? This is an encyclopedia, where we should be writing articles that we wouldn't be embarrassed to publish in print. There isn't a damn thing on Twitter that we could accept as a reliable source, and I don't give a fuck whether someone acknowledges something as their official Twitter or not. RS is the name of the game, not what someone typed in on their cell phone. Also, will someone point this user to the MMA restrictions, with all this stuff about disruption and consequent blocks? Drmies (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Also, Bloody Elbow is not a reliable source. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• What I'm reading "User:TheShadowCrow has continued to insert in the Gegard Mousasi MMA article that Gegard Mousasi is an Iranian citizen under the claim that a twitter post supported this, therefore he should be topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of 3 months." This discussion has stalled becauase the remedy requests do not match the provided evidence, which also lacks sufficient diffs directed towards supporting both evidence and remedy. BearMan998, if you want TheShadowCrow warned/topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics or from all BLP articles, you should focus on what you want and provided evidence with diffs to support that request. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a problem. Here is the first revert without any reliable sourcing. Here is a second revert using Twitter posts as a basis. Now this wouldn't be egregious if it wasn't for the fact that this is a continuing pattern with this user who was blocked before for multiple BLP violations, so ignorance of policy shouldn't be an excuse now. GiantSnowman has had several run-ins with this user concerning BLP articles and you can see his evidence in his fist post in this thread, and the evidence that GiantSnowman should present a clear picture. It's this recent behavior fresh off a block plus historical issues which leads credence to such a move at this point. BearMan998 (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Also note that TheShadowCrow was given a clear and explicit warning for persistent violations of BLP articles on June 2012 here and here. Specifically, this was for adding content with no source or poorly sourced material and edit warring to retain such content in the article to such an extent that WP:BLPSE was considered at the time. Based on the edits I mentioned above and the edits that GiantSnowman brought up, I think these violations of adding content with no or poor sources and edit warring in an attempt to retain them have continued despite multiple warnings. This is why I think formal topic ban is needed as warnings have little effect. BearMan998 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would ask right now, if the user will submit to following the WP:COI guidelines, as the user apparently has an interest in inserting the information into these articles. Also, The user should understand that Twitter may not be considered a reliable source unless the information can be backed up by another RS. Finally, the user should consider that the WP:Consensus is against adding this information from this source. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Per recent developments, no longer reasonable. gwickwiretalkediting 01:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposal: WP:ROPE This is dropped with a stern warning that the next BLP violation, or anything that looks remotely like one will earn them a stern and long block with little chance of an unblock. Basically WP:ROPE, we can hash out the length/etc. in the discussion below. gwickwiretalkediting 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Support as proposer gwickwiretalkediting 22:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose - we need a formal topic ban, as below. GiantSnowman 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban

I propose that TheShadowCrow (talk · contribs) is topic banned from editing all Armenian-related topics and all BLPs (both broadly construed) for a period of, say, 3 months.

• Support as proposer. GiantSnowman 22:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support such a ban or longer as this has gone on long enough and this user has been given enough chances already. BearMan998 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
• I weakly support such a topic ban, though I wonder if the present thread hasn't already put the editor on notice. Their recent edits (which are in a different field) seem unproblematic. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to bring this back up again as it appears that this discussion had failed to put the editor on notice that further BLP violations would result in some form of sanction. TheShadowCrow has inserted content in the Karo Parisyan article that is not supported by reliable sources and is again edit warring in an attempt to keep it in the article. This was the first edit which lacked a reliable source, specifically, the second part which states "and nearly submitted him in a kimura twice" A kimura for those of you who do not know is a joint lock which can break an opponent's arm. I removed this part as it was unsourced and a very subjective statement. TheShadowCrow inserted again here but this time with a source. However, upon reading the source, the source clearly states that Parisyan only attempted two kimuras with none of them threatening his opponent and both were never locked in so it's not even worth mentioning. I directed TheShadowCrow to review WP:STICKTOSOURCE as this is an obvious and blatant violation of this. However, instead of doing so, TheShadowCrow has since reverted it again here and also left me a message here stating his intent keep this material despite lacking a source. This is making it very obvious that the user will not adhere to policy in regards to BLP articles and is making clear the WP:COI connection that Sephiroth storm brought up above as there appears to be an obvious attempt to insert content in order to slant towards a certain view point. BearMan998 (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The content is supported by a reliable sources but Bear doesn't like it. There really isn't much more to say, just see for yourself.

I think this proves that he has lots of personal feelings, no good faith, and a superiority complex. Hopfully the Admins will see this and actually research the situation this time. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban with mentorship given the user's limited understanding of Wikipedia policy (WP: RS, WP: BLP, WP: STYLE, and WP: BATTLEGROUND to name a few), I think mentorship would help them become a better editor during the course of the IB. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS: Is anyone claiming Sherdog.com isn't a relible source?

WP:BLP: Unspecified

WP:STYLE: What grammer mistake did I make?

WP:BATTLEGROUND: Bearman is the true violator of this rule. He is constantly hostile with all of my edits, has no good faith or civilly, is harassful, and is eager to bring every single edit I make here, even though they are too minor.

If my edit cannot be proven unconstructive, there is no reason for any type of punishment. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Shadowcrow:

• WP: RS: Nobody has said that "Sherdog.com" was unreliable. Twitter is definitely not reliable however. See above comments by Drmies, lgr and giantSnowman
• WP: BLP: See above comments by Bearman, gwickwire and GiantSnowman
• WP: STYLE: Again, see above comments (also, "harrassful" is not a word).
• WP: BATTLEGROUND: Your description speaks for itself. See WP: CIVIL. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

1. We have been over twitter already. RS gives an acception for tweets if it is made by the topic article.

2-3. There are plenty of comments. Be specific.

4. Bearman is extremely hostile and uncivil towards me and you and the other Admins turn a blind eye to this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) In regards to twitter being a reliable source see WP:UGC I myself prefer (and I think most wikipedians do too) WP:UGC's view on twitter "whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." compared to WP:RS but I do agree that the policies/guidelines are somewhat confusing in regards to twitter as a reliable source
• In reference to number four your accusations makes it seem at though you are not Assuming Good Faith

--Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

ShadowCrow, I'm going to sum up here, since it seems unclear to you:

1. Your Sherdog link does not say he "nearly submitted him," it says quote "Parysian immediately went for the same exact kimura he won his initial UFC match with but St. Pierre defended it and got the top position and held it the rest of the round." He never even successfully performed the move. You can't call that "near submission" any more than you could say "Mike Tyson nearly defeated Boxer X by TKO" if Tyson never knocked out Boxer X even once.

2. The Twitter account is not verified, meaning anyone could be posting on it. Impostors are all over Twitter, so you can't just quote a tweet and call it a reliable source.

3. You cannot interpret the phrase "my country man" as proof this person is Iranian. He could be mistaken on the other person's nationality, just expressing friendship, and so forth. We need a solid third party source, or a verified, unambiguous statement from him before we could add that.

4. BearMan998 is obviously frustrated, and I can understand why. I believe you're editing in good faith, but instead of asking "Is this a valid source?" you're plowing ahead and putting more stuff on that page that doesn't meet criteria.

You need to slow down and listen to people explaining the rules. Wikipedia is pretty strict when it comes to statements about living persons. And you can't re-interpret a source ("near submission"). If you'll take some time and get second opinions on these citations, things will go much smoother. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

And here we go again. Today TheShadowCrow made this edit with a very misleading edit summary stating "no flags." However the edit not only removed flags which I am okay with, but also restored unsourced POV content into the article. This involves the statement "The judges may have given the fight to Lawal because he was on top of Mousasi for most of the fight and because of a point deduction given to Mousasi following an illegal up-kick" which is not found in the cited source. This was unsourced POV commentary that was removed from the article yet TheShadowCrow chose to restore it with other edits and not mention it in the edit summary. I would fully support a topic ban for 3 months or preferably a longer ban as this discussion has failed to lead to any improvement in the understanding of policy. BearMan998 (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point ShadowCrow needs a break from these articles. He still hasn't grasped that he cannot add unsourced personal opinion to an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support though I'm not sure why the 3 month limit. I'm not at all confident that we won't be having the same discussion again 3 months down the road. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Having read all the "stuff" it does not appear that a draconian solution is what would best serve Wikipedia here - especially since the editor is now clearly on notice that there might be a problem. Collect (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved admin to close

Please can an uninvolved Admin review this thread as a whole, complete with proposals for sanctions, and decide what (if any) need to be implemented, so we can close this either way? GiantSnowman 11:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please help resolve an editing dispute at List of United States state legislatures

First, I am a novice editor. I created my account to correct inaccurate information on the page List of United States state legislatures. The information is out of date and just plain wrong. This information changes each week, and sometimes daily, and I have tried multiple times to update the information. Unfortunately, User:MrOllie keeps reverting the article back to inaccurate and out of date information. He defended his revision at first by saying I was link spamming. I explained that I couldn't care much about the link, I am interested in the information being accurate. In my most recent edit I removed the link from the citation. He then proceeded to inform me that the information wasn't a primary source enough, to which I explained we take the trouble to call state house clerks and legislatures to collect this information and we maintain it on our website. I have made an effort to update the information (these numbers are fact, they aren't any kind of opinion or editorializing) and clean up the formatting on the page which is all over the place. I've looked elsewhere and this information is not readily available in a regularly updated format. It's ok to have outdated information, but then why not change the title or the article to outdated List of United States state legislatures, or keep the information and let me know how I should improve my citation so that I'm not violating any rules? I have not hidden the fact that I work for a state government affairs firm and am an expert in the subject material. I have also notified User:MrOllie each time before I make a change to the page, but have gotten no proactive conversation back from him/her. Please advise. Gcrackers82 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the disputed edits. First, Gcrackers82 did the right thing to bring the issue here and did not engage in a revert war; good for him on that. Second, I don't want to take the time to check the factual correctness of the edits, but they seem facially reasonable. He updated the results from the end of the last election to the present time (maybe some legislators resigned or died in the meanwhile). The best way forward might be a WP:3O and generally the dispute resolution process. Chutznik (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Nageh

Nageh (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User warned.—Kww(talk) 21:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly calling constructive valid enforcement of non-free content policies vandalism. When I attempted to discuss this on his talk page he reverted it calling it vandalism too. Werieth (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record. I am being accused of things I didn't do (I did not upload any non-free image as the user accused me on my talk page using a script), claim that I called his image removal vandalism which I didn't do at all (in fact, I reverted the user on the article a single time, stating that the usage was ok, because I believed so – I only called his wrong accusations and his other modifications on my talk page vandalism), I even asked the user to use plain words to explain what I did wrong instead of using script-based tags with wrong accusations, but as a result the user brought me to ANI and Kww warned me on my user page. I guess I am missing something here. Nageh (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna say Werieth wasn't overreliant on the templated warning, because they were. But the template does talk about a file "uploaded or added to an article", so it wasn't wrong per se. Werieth was right, you did (unintentionally and in good faith) break the rules about non-free content by adding a non-free image to an article without a non-free rationale, even though you didn't upload it. Changing all those little things on your talk page wasn't a good thing, though I suspect it was an automated thing that Werieth didn't realize would happen. That said, calling their edits to your talk page "vandalism" is also not cool: see WP:NOTVAND. Generally, the word "vandalism" shouldn't be slung around carelessly, as it has an oddly specific definition on Wikipedia, and an accusation of vandalism can be seen as a personal attack if circumstances clearly don't meet this definition.

So, to recap: Werieth is advised (by whom?) try relying less on templates and scripts and more on actually talking and usinghandwritten notes. Nageh is advised to avoid using non-free images on pages without the proper reationales and calling things vandalism that aren't. I think that's really all that needs to be done here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that Werieth had left a second, non-templated warning, which Nageh described as vandalism.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The accusations weren't wrong: he had removed it, and left an explanation as to why. You put it back. That you did so because you didn't understand the policy is obvious, but that doesn't meam that you aren't responsible for your actions. The message he left on your talk page clearly says "... it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added...", so it was completely applicable. You, however, called it "vandalism". When he then include a plain language description, you reverted it, calling it "vandalism" a second time. In short, you undid a valid edit, referred to the editor that made it as a vandal, ignored his efforts to explain, called him a vandal again, and then misrepresented the situation on both my talk page and at ANI by claiming that all of his accusations had been script based, completely neglecting the second cycle.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Kww, with all respect, I definitely did not misrepresent the situation on purpose. I did revert his edits because I did not see what he was trying to tell me. That was certainly my fault. Reverting the user a second time was triggered by a section labelled "Warning", which I thought was highly inappropriate and appeared to me like vandalism. However, acquitting each of my own reverts with vandalism was wrong as well. So I understand now what went wrong all along, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I hope we can agree that Werieth try prefer plain non-template words in the first place, and I shall not assume bad faith either in calling his (or such) edits vandalism. Thanks both Kww and Writ Keeper for weighing in. Nageh (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Advertisement for a Wikipedia writer

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

---

This might be interesting. Not sure if any article has been created, but I do believe this sort of thing is frowned upon. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

See other advertisements at the same site I (and probably others) have watchlisted all of those identifiable, so we will see any attempts to create an article. As Wehwalt said, it's not prohibited, but the products of this require close scrutiny. FWIW, I think an experienced WP editor would want to charge considerably more than the ads on that page offer. We have however had examples of even low-cost work producing acceptable articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Odd pack of new users - sockpuppetry?

• User:Oikawa00 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Oikawa01 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Oikawa02 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Oikawa03 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Oikawa04 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know quite what to make of these new user accounts, but I thought it was worth bringing up here. They have all created huge, non-English (...gibberish?) user and user talk pages, maybe someone is trying to use Wikipedia as a blog or something? I have no idea. Does this sort of thing happen often? If it's not one person abusing multiple accounts, I'm still getting a strong sense of WP:NOTHERE. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The user pages appear to be in Tagalog. I cannot see them violating any policy, but I share your sense they are not here to improve Wikipedia. Then again, I don't believe in pre-emptive actions, watching the accounts is all I'd recommend for now.Jeppiz (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The content appears to be a copy paste from a chat/instant messenger program. It should probably be deleted. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To see how it should look, hit edit, select all and click the <pre></pre> link at the bottom, then preview.--Auric talk 18:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

They're not doing any harm. I recommend waiting until they disrupt Wikipedia. But yeah, they're blatant sockpuppets of one another.--Launchballer 19:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The talk pages should be tagged with {{subst:uw-userpage}} and eventually nominated for deletion per WP:UP#GAMES. The content is patent nonsense per WP:PATENT. Leaky Caldron 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If one were to be anal retentive and exceedingly literal in interpretation, and it was a reprint of a chat log, it would be copyright infringement for at least half the discussion, if not all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what I think? I think this is two users here. Oikawa00 uploaded some of the conversation, Oikawa01 uploaded some more out of revenge taking offense, Oikawa02 (Oikawa00) retaliated, etc.--Launchballer 21:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've formatted the User and talk pages of Oikawa00 so it can be seen that it is not patent nonsense, but the record of a chat.--Auric talk 02:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is still patent nonsense, regardless how you format it. It's just better formatted patent nonsense. "kau naman manlilibre eh.. go kahit san hehehe.. " Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. I'm reasonable and I cannot be expected to make sense of it. Even if it's in a foreign language, and not therefore strictly "patent nonsense", it has no place here. Leaky Caldron 08:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Any reason why this is not at WP:SPI, to find out the relationship between the editor(s)? GiantSnowman 09:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking Rolandhelper from OTRS

Sockers gonna sock. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. As I said,I want to be unblocked because my English was better and not to edit war anymore. I used OTRS so I can unblocked. According to me,if I talk Σ, I will suspected,if I talk Boing! Said Zebedee,BSZ will have no opinion and I blocked immediately. I used the RolandhelperIII as a back-up account so I use it temporarily. I don't like this blocking admin and supsector checkuser,so I want to be unblocked immediately. I hope this result.--RolandhelperIII (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Facepalm "If someone blocked me I will create new account named RolandDSNintendo" Ryan Vesey 06:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Um, what? Anyway... block evasion, etc., etc. Nothing else to see here. --Kinu t/c 06:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Star767 - sockpuppetry, divisive and destructive wholesale editing

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

---

User:Star767 just has to be a sockpuppet. He started editing as User:Star767 on 7th February 2013 and he hit the ground running. From the start he demonstrated advanced knowledge of Wikipedia procedures [140]. He did little on his 1st day but his 2nd day included posts on a Wikipedia:Copyright problems issue. On his 3rd day he was using Wikipedia:HotCat. There is nothing on his user page about his background or any specialist field of interest.

He has done a high volume of edits on all kinds of subjects, however fairly recently he concentrated on philosophy and more recently he has concentrated on psychology. Many of his edits on psychology involve serious destructive surgery, deleting whole chunks of cited text on the spurious basis of not being relevant, for example: [141] [142] [143][144]. I agree with User:Gregbard's statement that he "proceeds with supreme confidence" [145]. I have personally informed User:Star767 of my misgivings with his work: [146]. I also notice that he has a naive understanding of psychopathy. I personally have been a Wikipedia editor for more than 7 years.

Two other editors have expressed misgivings about User:Star767's work

• User:Gregbard (a Wikipedia editor for more than 7 years) see [147] [148]
• User:Snowded (a Wikipedia editor for more than 6 years) see [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]

--Penbat (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Penbat, this editor is problematic and is claiming not to remember his previous IDs. In my experience that is normally associated with the need to hide some history. No problem with a clean start, but mass drive by tagging and deletion is disruptive.----Snowded ^TALK 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the alleged sockpuppetry, but the content of the above edits in psychology seem very reasonable to me. (I'm a psychologist myself.) I first noticed Star767's edits on the sexology pages a few weeks ago: Those changes were also quite productive, IMO.— James Cantor (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Im not suggesting User:Star767s edits are all bad but in the round they are destructive and unhelpful, often involving a lot of unwarranted deletion of cited text, messing with categories, templates etc. User:Star767 has now admitted editing on Wikipedia on and off since 2004 but conveniently cant remember any of his/her previous names User_talk:Star767#Problems_with_your_work_on_Wikipedia. One possibility is that User:Star767 is permanently banned user User:Zeraeph - there are some similarities in style.--Penbat (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Same on philosophy, some good ones, but then masses of tags and unjustified deletions and a load of time required to wade through them all ----Snowded ^TALK 16:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If I could add my two cents: Up until this point I have had no hard evidence of wrong doing, nor hard evidence of sockpuppetry. However, Star767's edits have been a problem in the philosophy category, and I have had to revert a substantial number of them. I am not a psychologist, so I have no complaint in that area, and was willing to accept this person for whatever value he or she has to offer. But now we have complaints in that department too. So we have a mysterious editor of dubious value. I don't really know what to do, however, I believe I read a guideline somewhere about "assuming good faith is not a suicide pact." This person singlehandedly launched a campaign against a template I created for providing reference resources, and the community ate up everything Star767 fed to them. Unfortunately, since logic is the area in which I make my most significant contributions, I have no choice but to recognize that it would be a genetic fallacy to demand that we ignore this person's campaign. So I am a little peeved. Perhaps the rest of you could see the wisdom in my reference resource template (which was pretty labor intensive, btw) and bring the issue to a close. Greg Bard (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I am absolutely not involved in this dispute, but Star767 has been blocked, see User talk:Star767#Blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Fladrif

As for the sockpuppetry claim, I really have no interest one way or the other. Star767's explanation here[154] seems fishy. User: Mattisse seems not entirely out of the question. But that's a matter for checkuser

What I will comment about is that this filing, regardless of the SPI allegations, is substantively nonsense. I see no irregularity whatsoever in Star 767's edits or talk page comments, and most seem to be both reasonable and an improvement. Penbat's coordinated attack and filing here appears to me consistent with and part of a pattern of WP:OWNERSHIP by User:Penbat of a vast array of poorly-written, ill-sourced, unsourced and ill-conceived articles, and dismissive WP:HARASSMENT and WP:INCIVILITY toward any editor who questions or attempts to change anything in the walled gardens he has claimed as his own private domain. Dozens, if not hundreds of articles he has created are empty shells, glorified disambiguation pages lacking any meaningful content which he has promised for years were "in progress", with vast arrays of highly questionable interlocking categories that he has constructed without sourcing or justification. Anyone asking for sourcing is dismissed as ignorant of the subject matter. Edits to his articles are systematically reverted with a "it's my way or the highway" dismissiveness. This filing should result in some serious WP:BOOMERANG effects and significant sanctions imposed on Penbat.

Penbat blocked for tendentious edit-warring at Narcissism [155], unblock pointedly declined [156]

Penbat incivility to Star767 at various articles: [157],[158]

Penbat incivilily to User: Chiswick Chap at Talk:Bullying [159]

Penbat incivility to IP editor at Template talk:Bullying [160]

Penbat incivility to me at Talk:Abuse [161]

Penbat uncivil edit summary to User:Nameoftherose while reverting to restore his own unsourced text at Psychological manipulation. [162]

Penbat incivility to User:Zodon at Talk:Abuse. [163]

I could go on with dozens and dozens of more diffs, but I have neither the time nor inclination. Fladrif (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fladrif (talk)

Excuse me this ANI is about User:Star767, two other editors broadly agree with my findings, and User:Star767 effectively admits being a sockpuppet. You obviously have nothing to say about the subject of this ANI. And i am not going to waste my time refuting the list of junk you have just thrown at me.--Penbat (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, sport. Read WP:PETARD. Once you made the ill-considered decision to file this complaint, you opened up this AN/I to be about your editing as well. You have a lot to answer for, so I suggest you start thinking about what plausible basis you can defend yourself against a block, ban or other sanctions, rather than complaining that your tendentious editing, harassment and incivility shouldn't be under tight scrutiny by AN/I. Claiming that its a waste of your precious time to answer has been pretty much your approach to everything at Wikipedia, so I'm hardly surprised by your attitude. Fladrif (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think your aggressive tone speaks for itself so i will leave it at that except I notice that you seem to be unique in not having a user talk page which is very strange: User talk:Fladrif, are you hiding something ? .--Penbat (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing unique at all about people archiving their user talk page. Also, he's right: if you post at ANI, you will be scrutinised as well; WP:BOOMERANG exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, what Penbat said is not accurate. Fladrif redirects his user page to his talk page. As far as I can tell, he doesn't archive his talk page; he just removes things as they come along, which, of course, is acceptable if not desirable. Although I understand BOOMERANG, do we really need to keep this open to discuss Penbat's behavior now that Star767 has been blocked (based on a CU, I might add)?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It was perfectly obvious to me that Star767=Mattisse from just looking at these three threads [164] [165] [166] on the same talkpage. Penbat's statements here and at Star 767's talkpage are instructive of why this filing should go forward with some sanction, at least a formal warning, regarding Penbat's editing and interaction with other editors. Penbat says Star 767 can't be Matisse because he interacted civilly with Matisse, but not with Star767. Since the only incivility was coming from Penbat and not from Star767, one wonders how this is relevant. The key is that once Penbat dismissively rejected Matisse's questions, Matisse went away. Star767 didn't just go away, and Penbat's reaction to being questioned about how his walled gardens were being pruned and watered was first insult and invective, and then to solicit other sympathetic editors to commence a SPI or AN/I filing to get Star767 banned...even though he is convinced that Star767 couldn't possibly be a sockpuppet of the person she is actually a sockpuppet of. (wow, that's a badly constructed sentence!) Let's add to that Penbat's harrassment of me on my talkpage just now.[167]

• AN/I should slap Penbat on the wrist and send him to bed without his supper with a stern warning about harassment, incivility, edit warring and tendentious editing, etc.
• Then, someone needs to take a very close look at the content, sourcing and related issues in the hundreds of articles, categories and templates Penbat is protecting, which is of course, far beyond the purview of AN/I. Fladrif (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

To get back to the matter in hand im sure User:Star767 is not User: Mattisse as she occasionally interacted with me but only in a civil fashion. --Penbat (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just my two cents. As soon as Star767 came on board, s/he essentially began targeting me and following my work in the same manner that Mattisse did in the past. I've been watching his work for some time, but without definitive evidence, it is difficult to state for certainty that s/he is Mattisse. I would recommend waiting and watching. True colors will be revealed before long. Best regards, Cindy(need help?) 01:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Sri Lanka

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

---

Inclusion of 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack on Sri Lanka page on the grounds to equate Black July which is a pogrom, is inappropriate. When compare to Navaly church bombing which cost 125 people; 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack is only with 17 deaths. There is no reason the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack should be on the Sri Lanka page. If there is reason for the inclusion, I have suggested, it is appropriate to add the Chencholai bombing and added where female minors killed on August 14, 2006 when the Sri Lankan Air Force bombed what they stated was a rebel LTTE training camp killing at least 61 children between the ages of 16 and 18, all of them girls. Non-involved administrators intervention needed to establish my point on the talk page and keep the image as it is still the dispute is resolved.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content issue, and admins don't decide on content issues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have blocked HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) and SinhaYugaya (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. Both resumed edit warring on Sri Lanka barely five minutes after my warning on Talk:Sri Lanka. Both have violated 3RR and both have been blocked before for the same reason. Chamal ^T•C 09:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah - sounds good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Sri Lanka

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

---

Inclusion of 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack on Sri Lanka page on the grounds to equate Black July which is a pogrom, is inappropriate. When compare to Navaly church bombing which cost 125 people; 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack is only with 17 deaths. There is no reason the 1998 Temple of the Tooth attack should be on the Sri Lanka page. If there is reason for the inclusion, I have suggested, it is appropriate to add the Chencholai bombing and added where female minors killed on August 14, 2006 when the Sri Lankan Air Force bombed what they stated was a rebel LTTE training camp killing at least 61 children between the ages of 16 and 18, all of them girls. Non-involved administrators intervention needed to establish my point on the talk page and keep the image as it is still the dispute is resolved.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content issue, and admins don't decide on content issues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have blocked HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs) and SinhaYugaya (talk · contribs) for 48 hours. Both resumed edit warring on Sri Lanka barely five minutes after my warning on Talk:Sri Lanka. Both have violated 3RR and both have been blocked before for the same reason. Chamal ^T•C 09:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah - sounds good. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by KatieBoundary

KatieBoundary (talk · contribs) has launched on a campaign of article blanking at Yasheng Group and Silk Route Museum, claiming that the material is unsourced. While it is true that the sources for Yasheng Group are largely primary sources or trivial (business listings at NYT and the company's own SEC 10-K filings), denoting a certain lack of notability, the sources can be trusted to verify the existence of the company. Katie's actions appear to be predicated on her assertion that the Yasheng Group is a fraudulent company set up by David Korem, a renowned fraud. However, no evidence has been provided to verify this assertion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The unauthored NYT "listing" and SEC filing can't be trusted to verify the existence of the company. In fact, inconsistencies in the filings from year to year, and inconsistencies between those filings and their own press releases, and their recent blanking of all of their 2008 and 2009 press releases from their website, indicate the company does not really exist. It appears to be a "company" made by purchasing a shell called Nichols, renaming it, and then claiming it is the same as a supposed huge Chinese conglomerate, which even if that huge conglomerate existed in China (the existence of which is looking more and more doubtful). That would not be the same company as the shell, even if the Chinese company actually existed. (I note that WikiDan61 has been looking at this objectively, and may now be thinking along these very lines.) KatieBoundary (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition she has mis-used an edit warring template against both WikiDan61 and myself, and almost blanked Silk Road Museum twice, despite my finding of a primary source for uncontroversial material such as floor area.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I struck the 3rr. The floor area claim is controversial, since the museum appears to exist only as a computer generated image to "raise funds" for what is looking more and more like a hoax museum with a president who uses multiple aliases and is involved in a clear hoax "mining" operation in Arizona, with the "company" securities being sold on an American stock exchange based on preposterous geological advertisements. Deleting content that utterly fails WP:V is not being contentious. KatieBoundary (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reply of Katie Boundary - WP:V says, "any material challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Removal of unsourced content is challenging it. So it must be attributed to a reliable published source. There is not a single reliable source for any of the content in either article. Insisting on VP:V, and corresponding WP:RS requirements, is not being tendentious. KatieBoundary (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

:The "biggest floor space in China" and multiple inconsistent claims all over the fraud notice websites, used as a phony claim in a pump and dump scheme for a nonexistent museum, is not "uncontroversial". All false claims are "controversial". Please follow WP:V and WP:RS. KatieBoundary (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removing unsourced content is not being tendentious. Repeatedly violating WP:RS, and making up one's own standards of WP:V is. WikiDan61 and two other editors put material in articles in violation of WP:RS. One even blanked the talk page section pointing out that there were no reliable secondary sources, then added massive amounts of unsourced content. When I reverted the unsourced content, WikiDan put it back in, Claiming WP:RS only holds when WikiDan want it to, and anyone who insists on WP:V and WP:RS is tendentious. I removed the unsourced content again.

• Re WikiDan comment - "the sources can be trusted to verify the existence of the company" - A fraudster's own webpage is not "trusted" to verify the facts it asserts under WP:V or WP:RS. I have repeatedly asked WikiDan to follow WP:RS, but he refuses, instead making up his own bases for WP:V.
• Note that the Yasheng Group article and Silk Route Museum article utterly lack notability, and have no secondary sources whatsoever. Moreover, they are accused of being part of a massive Chinese securities fraud scheme[168].

• Untangling all this is not a role of Wikipedia editors, and it would not even come up if WP:V and WP:RS were being followed. KatieBoundary (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You have not given any evidence at all that the museum is connected in any way apart from the company being one of the sponsors of a fund setup by the museum. You have also misused warning templates against me, and just blanked the article again. What is controversial about the museum article?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

::I am not supposed to "give evidence" - You are supposed to obey WP:RS. As I wrote, the talk page section pointing out a total lack of any WP:RS sources was blanked, and massive unsourced content removed. I deleted the content, and restored the talk page section. (Evidecnce - They have the same office address in the (inconsistent from year to year) corporate filings, the same tiny office space used by David Korem. But again, I am not supposed to "give evidence" - You are supposed to obey WP:RS. ) KatieBoundary (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• You have now violated 3RR by removing the material 4 times in 2 hours. I would be delighted if you could show me any of this evidence you keep talking about but haven't actually shown anywhere. I am obeying RS and you are, actually, responsible for justifying your actions, especially when you have broken 3RR.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not party to the matter, but I rewrote the entire article I did which included the material she was concerned about (I was able to source it)). As for the inappropriate use of edit warring templates they are correct Katie, that template was used incorrectly :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

::I am not a party either. I am a geologist. I found out about these phony companies when they advertised owning all the mineral and fossil rights in the Gobi desert, and when I contacted my Chinese colleagues at the California Academy of Sciences, working in the Gobi desert, they supposed "museum" did not exists, and the CEO Chang Sheng Zhou was listed as having been in prison for securities fraud. I looked into it, and there were no sources at all in the article. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have looked into it, please feel free to share the sources that you uncovered. Your Chinese colleagues, and a sketchy stock alert website, are no more reliable sources than anything else that you have complained about. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The securities fraud is legitimate see this, the museum itself is the source for the association with the group here. The group reached a settlement with a former shareholder. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it sponsors a fund set up by the museum, which is not the same thing.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(A part of this section appeared to have been duplicated somehow, so I've removed the other copy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

Thanks, I think it was an edit conflict of mine.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

@Solarra: actually, no, this does not verify securities fraud. It verifies that Yasheng and a complainant entered into a settlement agreement without either party admitting any wrongdoing or liability. Such a settlement is not an admission or proof of guilt. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That is true, but it does establish that validity of the claim that the company has engaged in fraud, as do the sources Katie cites, enough to warrant inclusion. The whole goal here is mutual consensus and for all parties to be satisfied by what is included in the article :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, a settlement does not "establish the validity" of the accusation. It merely states that they paid a settlement to make the plaintiff go away. Sometimes that's cheaper than a full court trial. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

*Will you three please stop playing WP:OR detectives, trying to reargue whether WP:RS is still a policy? Neither of these articles have any WP:Notability secondary source. None has a single reliable source cited anywhere at all. An anon IP came in and blanked the talk page pointing this out, then wrote a huge mass of unverifiable nonsense, and you three are trying to reargue whether WP:RS still is a olicy at Wikipedia, replaced by whatever detective work you come up with. WP:RS is dispositive. If there are reliable secondary sources to establish notability, then the article stays up. Reliable primary sources can be cited, but only qualified that the content comes from the sourc3e itself. But that is only if it is reliable, such as Harvard University posting its own museum square footage. A museum that claims in various places to be the biggest in the world, but has somehow avoided being written up in any newspaper or arvchit3ectural review, is not reliable. If there is a WP:RS, it can go in. If not, it cannot. Case closed. KatieBoundary (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Katie, that is a straw man argument - none of us have suggested it is not a policy. Take it to AfD if you believe the museum is non-notable or doesn't exist.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I reread WP:Notability and WP:RS among other websites, honestly after spending over an hour attempting to find a WP:RS which would satisfy all parties for the museum itself, I am unable to do so, while I can source the claims Katie makes, I cannot source the museum itself outside user generated sites (TripAdvisor, etc) which would not be acceptable per WP:RS. I suggest we redirect the museum article to the Yusheng Group page, as that meets WP:Notability (barely) but frankly after trying to find a source for over an hour I am beginning to side with Katie that the article itself shouldn't exist, although for different reasons. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 16:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not entirely surprising given that none of us read Chinese, so I left a request for assistance on the WikiProject noticeboard.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, will the lot of you stop filling up the space with rehashed arguments. If this gets much longer, admins will ignore it and let it archive itself from the reams of TLDR that is already starting to fill up this space. Blackmane (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:Gilderien just wrote, “I have not added any content to this article beyond minor copy-edits”.[169] In fact, Gilderien added huge amounts of content that are not "minor copy-edits",[170] all without a single reliable source. So did WikiDan61.[171] So did Solarra.[172] All of this is in violation of WP:RS. It is not tendentious to require WP:V. KatieBoundary (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and that was a revert of basically a page blanking. It is highly mis-leading to call these edits adding content.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

While content that does not have a reliable source can be removed, it only must be removed if it is controversial information about a living person. There is no policy or guideline that says that non-BLP unreferenced content must be removed. There is, however, also no policy or guidline that says sources must be available online - offline sources are equally valid, and the possibility of offline sources being available must be considered before deciding an article "must be removed" - and if it really does have no place in the encyclopedia, the place to 'remove' it is Articles for Deletion, where I see the articles in question now are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:V says, "any material challenged... must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Removal of content having citation needed tags up for months is challenging it. So it must be attributed to a reliable published source. Observing this policy is not being tendentious. KatieBoundary (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

KatieBoundary (talk · contribs) appears to be the former PPdd (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely banned by Toddst1 for a number of questionable edits to various articles. A review of the articles this user is editing and the content this user is attempting to include in articles seems to confirm that this user is one in the same. An Admin may have more tools available to connect any remaining dots. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

File an SPI report then - absent one, you might be breaching AGF alas. Collect (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Copernicus mass sockpuppetry

In the two recent months a mass sockpuppetry has disturbed the article Nicolaus Copernicus to disturb three years of a quiet consensus [173]

• User:207.112.105.233 and User:70.28.16.8 from Toronto disturb the talk page. From the language it's an obvious sockpuppet of User:Serafin and the IP betrayed itself [174]
• User:Astronomer28 is a single-purpose account raised in 2008 to help User:Nihil novi, who sockpuppeted years before as Logologist on the same article.[175] Astronomer28 was suspected in his first appearance in 2008 [176] but his new sockpuppetry is apparently technically improved since Logologist's earlier puppets. Five years later Astronomer28 came back to revert reliably for Nihil novi every single time and for him alone. He was warned about an indefinite block for any further revert before having a consensus but being a throwaway account ignored it.[177]
• User:Mieszko 8 is a single-purpose account caught and blocked for sockpuppeting.[178] During the block, he continued sockpuppeting [179] and is now back for more reverting. --89.204.155.98 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

H'mmm... does the Sock go round the Puppet, or the Puppet round the Sock?!?! Basket _Feudalist 15:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

At least one of the above IPs looks to be a sock of Serafin. See the just-reopened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Serafin. The two IPs may be the same person. I had previously warned Astronomer28 (talk · contribs) that he was getting near an indef block due to his warring at Copernicus and the time may have come for that. Mieszko 8 (talk · contribs) has just been blocked two months by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I would be surprised if User:Nihil novi has anything to do with this; he is an established editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet and have only advocated the NPOV. I did not set up the account to help Nihil novi or anyone else, but rather because I was interested in the debate. My account is completely legitimate. I request my editing privileges be restored so I can edit articles. Thank you. Astronomer28 (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the user William M. Connolley has erased my resolution proposal on the Talk page. Astronomer28 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're topic banned, if you mean [180]. You're not allowed to edit the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why is that article not on permanent semiprotection? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• ...and you notified them where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Turn on pending changes. This is what it is for.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No it is not. PC is no more effective at stopping edit-wars or determined sockpuppets than semiprotection, and in fact may give the latter an audience. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been on semiprotection almost all of the time since at least 2008. But the parties edit-warring now are established editors, so neither semiprotection nor pending changes will solve that. I sanctioned two persons who I thought were among the worst offenders yesterday (as somebody noted further up in this thread), but got bogged down over contemplating with whom to continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Indue sockpuppet template

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

---

Hello. I'm a french contributor, and i come here to speak about a consequence to Pierre-sur-Haute_military_radio_station's affair.

A english contributor, Int21h, came in the french version to ask Remi Mathis' resignation. It's his opinion, and not mine, but why not, he's not the first to do it, and he has the right to ask.

The problem is, when a french administrator came to his user's page, he saw a sockpuppet's template. So he thought that user was a sockpuppet (and maybe blocked), and he reverted his intervention. It was a mistake (in good faith) and someone else rectify that later.

My question : is there any problem to let this user use this template like this ? Thanks for answers.--Sammyday (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm fluent in French, I'm having issues parsing your English ... did this entire situation occur on the French Wikipedia? We really can only make recommendations as they relate to the English Wikipedia (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the situation is on en: (user's page) like Finlay McWalter explained it. Sorry for my bad english.--Sammyday (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

At one point Int21h was suspected of being a sock puppet; he is no longer. He has chosen to keep the sockpuppet template on his user page. That's probably misleading, but I don't think actionably so. It seems a FR admin viewed that page, saw the template, and blocked the corresponding FR username. Sammyday: the FR admin should have checked Int21h's block log, which is linked from that template. Making a decision based only on that template, which anyone can add (and which is sometimes maliciously or erroneously used) was a bad idea (it sounds like the FR admin realises that). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'll notice the admin who blocked Int21h about this conversation. Thank for explanations.--Sammyday (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Int21h has been unblocked on :fr by the same admin who had blocked him (Int21h a été débloqué par l'admin qui avait effectué le blocage). Thanks.--Sammyday (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

RobinLarson, Seek formal ARBCC notification for battleground attitude and personal attacks

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

---

UserReported: Robinlarson (talk · contribs)

User Notification DIFF: Is here

Problem: WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and personal attacks

Action sought: (1) Formal notification of DS under WP:ARBCC by an uninvolved admin posted to user's talk page and (2) logged at Wikipedia:ARBCC#Notifications

Evidence:

At Talk:Joshua tree user engaged in protracted subject matter debate despite uniform disagreement by other eds. Instead of advancing up the DR tree, user instead became increasingly hostile, e.g.

"...Your idea of 'reality' is evidently generated by a computer that has obviously been fed cherry picked data..."

Instead of engaging DR, in classic battleground mentality, user moved the war to another article saying as his parting shot

"...I am bowing out, as there is no point in discussing ideas that are only met with a sophomoric attitude..."

He then opened a new battlefield at Global warming controversy with a long WP:LINKFARM (now reverted) and in the ensuing discussion he addressed one editor

"...Thanks for at least having the intellectual capacity to acknowledge items missing on the page...."

and another

"...Please stop with the BS suppression tactics..."

Closing Please notify this user of ARBCC and advise them to AGF, to remain civil, and to make effective use of WP:DR

Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding anything in the above that warrants action ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) NewsAndEventsGuy is asking for an uninvolved admin to notify Robinlarson (talk · contribs) of the WP:ARBCC arbitration sanctions regime, and (2) I've advised him that this would have been better posted to WP:AE. Prioryman (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While I appreciate Prioryman's input, the correct procedure for requesting WARNINGS (as opposed to the later step of enforcement) is not at all clear, as my recent clarification request documents. For one thing, the big pink instruction box at WP:AE says that AE is not for "Community or administrator decisions, breach of these should be raised at the administrators' incident noticeboard..." And so here I am, seeking a decision from an uninvolved admin. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're only asking for a warning? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, plus formal logging where I indicated in my opening post. Due to ambiguous instructions I used to do it myself, but there were complaints by the parties and disagreement among admin/arbs so to be safe I opted to revert my own logging and now I'm looking for an uninnvolved admin just to give the ARBCC notice and log it, nothing more. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've done that, having briefly reviewed the edits, which I agree are problematic. --John (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Mucho gracias, John. Someone please close this thread since my full request was granted and there's nothing left to do. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Kavdiaravish/User:Stonex201

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

---

• wahooart.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.wahooart.com

This user, posing as a PhD student, has been spamming articles with links to en.wahooart.com (a commercial site). After his (presumably) first account was caught, he apparently stopped editing and came up under a new account. For reference see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts#A large number of articles need checking and User talk:Drmies/Archive 47#The best way to check all of the articles by an editor. I'll be starting an SPI shortly to look for other socks, but something needs to be done about all the articles at User:Writ Keeper/sandbox and the articles created by Stonex201 and any other accounts. I'd also like to see wahooart.com put on a blacklist (or better yet create an edit filter so we can easily detect future socks). Ryan Vesey 01:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering all of the problems (OR, copyvio, factual innacuracies, etc.) I think our best solution might be to nuke all of his articles and those of his socks. One article made it to DYK after extensive work by other editors, so I assume the nuke function would pass on that one. Ryan Vesey 01:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just cleaned up Mandola (painting). It was bad. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• And I just deleted The Morteratsch Glacier, Upper Engadine Valley, Pontresina as a copyspam of this here. I'm about to block Stonex as an obvious sock: same challenged syntax, same spam link, same (odd) way of doing infoboxes (note the parameters for other languages), same incorrect initial capitals in headings ("External Links", above the "References" section). I'll look at the other two mentioned in the SPI in a minute. I do invite further scrutiny, as well as ideas on what to do with those articles. For me, kunst is een konijn dat kut zegt (as the Dutch might say--well, one particular Dutchman) and I can't judge notability, or whether it's worth keeping and cleaning. Where's IP99 when you need him? Drmies (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: Alison458 and Wikipriest78 blocked as well: obvious. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ryan Vesey: one article (Young Man at His Window) was thoroughly rehabbed and is worthy; a few others have been scrubbed of copyvio and gross errors but what remains is usually negligible (e.g., The Seducer, The Meaning of Night (painting), The Blue Room (painting)). A few of the articles—particularly Gilles painting (sic)—are about works so famous that I'm surprised they didn't already have articles, but in this case the Watteau article actually says more about the painting than the painting's own article does. Eventually somebody may develop some of these stubs but until then these are mere placeholders with (perhaps) too little content to reward the reader's search. Ewulp (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. See also the wahooart favicon. Coincidence? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• After looking at a bunch more, including Christmas in the Brothel (whose incomplete reference points to a source, this), I'm done with this editor. Perhaps their user page is not a lie; if it is true, good luck to Stanford, because one of their graduate students is a sock master, a serial copyright violator, and a spammer. Esp. the copyvios are just too much, and I will block indefinitely. Now, this master hasn't been on in a week or two; should they return they can explain themselves. In the meantime another admin has requested CU for sleepers over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavdiaravish; I hope someone can get to this quickly. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• I mean, shit, what program would allow their students to write stuff like this, "is based on Expressionism style by use of painting genre"? Update: Stanford my ass. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Marble Directory India. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Y'all, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kavdiaravish. DoRD has found two more accounts, each with a list of similar articles. Not all of them are spam, not all of them are copyvios, but all of them are bad. I'm inclined to nuke them, but the user/master is not currently banned. Any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  Nuke them. It's the only way to be sure. I can't say about all of them, but all of the ones I've looked at so far have contained substantial copyright violations. What material isn't copyrighted is of poor quality, in both form and substance. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ankushk (talk · contribs)'s contributions are now gone as well. I found evidence for about ten of them, and deleted five more on your advice, so to speak: there is no doubt that all these contributions are tainted. You decide on what you want to do with the ones in that sandbox of yours, but leave Christmas in the Brothel--that's mine now, and User:Mandarax will turn it into a DYK, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• At this point, I'm going to let the ban discussion sit for a little bit to gather some more comments. Assuming no dissent, I'm then going to go through the list and delete anything that a) hasn't had significant contributions by other editors (so y'all's stuff will be safe) and b) hasn't been stubified. Not all of it is showing up on a quick Google search, but at this point, all of the stuff with decent grammar has read as if it came straight out of some other book, and I have little doubt that that's in fact what happened, probably from the very books that have been listed as sources. No doubt that the OP thought citing the source makes the wholesale copying okay; it does not. (As an aside, what's in my sandbox now is really more Ryan's show than mine, but I'm going to use it for this anyway.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've started deletions; I'll be doing them in batches (it's kinda too depressing--not to mention mind-numbing--to do it in one sitting). I've already passed over some articles with major edits by others, but if I accidentally deleted one that someone is attached to, just let me know and I'll restore it (sans copyvio, if necessary). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have done some minor work on one of the deleted articles, but i fully understand the rationale behind the mass nuking of articles by proven copyright violators (i read the darius dhlomo discussions with great sorrow), and i know i can ask content to be userfied to see if there is anything worth salvaging (without any copypasting of course). its a minor inconvenience compared to the task of policing wp. How the hell do you folks (well, we folks) do this ridiculously hard work of policing 4 million articles? copyvio and BLP vio are simply unacceptable, and must be removed if there is any doubt, collateral damage be damned (mostly). other problems are less, well, problematic.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Well, all I can say is: the next time someone asks whether IP editors are worth it, point them to IP99 and tell them to stop whining. 99 has been a friggin' champion with dealing with this mess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment We've got another sockpuppet actively creating articles, can we get a quick block? Ryan Vesey 03:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Obvious sock is obvious. Blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, that should just about do it for the deletions (big thanks go out to Ewulp, 99, Drmies, et al.). Just let me know if I deleted something that was salvageable, and I'll restore it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if we need to take it to a different venue, but considering the WP:CIRCULAR issue pointed out below, I think we should ban wahooart as a source for anything. Consider, for example, A Philosopher by Lamplight, which uses this as a source for a statement, which is copied from Joseph Wright of Derby. I actually think that might be the only article that uses it though. Ryan Vesey 05:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ban discussion

I just looked at the contributions of Amritj12 (talk · contribs). If you have that powerful admin tool in your pocket or thereabouts, have a look: I deleted all of their contributions as blatant, and I mean absolutely BLATANT, copyvios. I would like to see a ban, de facto and de jure and de rerum naturae, so we can (more) easily delete the many contributions by this editor and their socks. Having placeholders is one thing (personally, I feel it's a very good thing), but all of them would have to be pruned for spam and copyvios, and by keeping the articles, and the master's name, we're in fact rewarding them for breaking the rules. And sheesh, these are just bad, bad copyvios. Know how you can tell if one of their sentences isn't copied from a book or some art site on the bad? Cause they can't write English worth a s--t. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support as above. All of the articles I've looked at (ones by Ankushk) so far contain significant copyvios. It's pretty easy to tell the difference, as Drmies said: in these articles, it would appear that a sentence is grammatically correct if and only if it is a copyright violation. (Plus, a ban would let me reclaim my sandbox.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Writ, can you make an edit filter so we can discover any new instances of wahooart being used as an external link? I think that would be the best way to catch future socks. Ryan Vesey 18:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Check out Special:AbuseFilter/545. No hits so far (it only checks for relatively new accounts creating new pages), in log-only mode for now, and I'm sure an EFM wizard can make some more optimizations (it seems to be fine on runtime, but is that really the number of conditions it should be consuming?). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support per all the above. Ryan Vesey 18:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is the Wikipedia article about Albert Bierstadt copied from them, or is theirs copied from Wikipedia without attribution? RNealK (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Copied from who? Ryan Vesey 21:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just what I said. Which is copied from which? RNealK (talk) 23:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• You seem to be concerned that our article on Albert Bierstadt might have been copied from somewhere else, or that someone else might have copied our article, but you have not said where that somewhere else is, which is what Ryan was asking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• wahooart.com, which is what is being discussed. RNealK (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Their article here is copied from us without attribution. Much of the text copied into their article was introduced into ours with this edit, but it is evident that multiple changes occurred to that before our article reached the version seen in theirs. Ryan Vesey 04:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Kavdiaravish's disruptive sockpuppeteering as well as his articles that have significant copyvios demonstrates that we cannot waste any more time on dealing with him. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I don't typically support indefinite ban discussions, partly because I find them a bit redundant to indefinite blocks, and partly because I'd prefer to guide users to better behavior rather than block them. However, in this particular case I do think it is warranted if for no reason then because of the "clean up" factor that Drmies mentions. So support per all the above. — Ched :  ?  06:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Yet another complaint against Darkness Shines

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

---

On 11 April 2011, Darkness Shines improperly "deleted" an article, Ahmed Ziauddin, from mainspace without following Wikipedia guidelines or any process or discussion. This was an improper action and the user knew better, and he's been before this incident board many times.

Background: There was a merge discussion that he had initiated on the page Ahmed Ziauddin with Mohammed Nizamul Huq and it had a low response rate over the last month. After a given period of time with no responses, I closed it. He objected and undid this closure. No problem. I simply requested on the admin board for "request for closure" that someone else look at this fairly uncontroversial discussion that in my mind's eye hadn't gone anywhere. I was waiting on somebody to close it or for responses. Yesterday, he leaves a message that he wants to merge Ziauddin into a new article. Without any getting feedback and after waiting only one day since he made the suggestion, he went ahead and essentially deleted the material from main space. He did create a new article alright, but he didn't the include material from Ziauddin into the content. So he essential deleted material without discussion.

Moreover, this was on a day when there was significant activity in the case and many more people might have visited this article. Mahmudur Rahman was arrested for publishing the Skype materials in Bangladesh. This news item appeared on Portal:Current Events on 11 April. The Rahman article has made incredible progress in the last two months. Furthermore, it occurred on a day when the Mohammed Nizamul Huq made progress too and doubled in size, which qualifies it for a DYK, although it still has a long way to go. Of course, Ziauddin is the least important figure of the three in this case and so his page is going to develop slower. But the Skype case has now escalated with today's arrest and perhaps more people may be interested in developing it.

I'm requesting that Darkness Shine be blocked for a significant period of time and that he banned from contributing to any article about the subcontinent region. This is what the administrators warned him about over a month ago when he was up twice in a very short time before this same board. Nothing was done, and so no wonder we're all here again.

Would someone else please notify him that I've filed this incident as I have been trying to avoid him and I have no intention of contacting him. Crtew (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Documentation:

• Proposing_site_ban_for_Darkness_Shines
• reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)
• Probably_disruptive_RfC_behavior_on_Talk:Rape_culture

Done. Next time I'm sure you can bring yourself to add a template real quick. a13ean (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)What a pile of bull. [181] redirected per BLP1E, a policy. [182] began to merge content from Ziauddin article, excuse the hell out of me for popping out for dinner. Also, what's with the forum shopping, did you not like the response you got from Regents Park? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your dinner time is not the subject here. Thank you for providing the documentation of the diffs of your improper actions. Where's the process? There wasn't any. Crtew (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I'm the one who restored it.Crtew (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There does not need to be a process, I acted within policy which is all that matters here. BTW, your second link in your "documentation" is actually Aminual802(now blocked for socking) who was warned, not me. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OMG, as I go through your history here in incidents search, I realize I would be here till tomorrow tracking your bad behavior throughout your Wikipedia history. And you've reported people for much less -- little making one little teeny edit can calling it two. Point is the Ziauddin article was in a process that YOU demanded it stay open, remember when I closed it and you objected, and then it was never closed until I restored it and readded the tag tonight. In the process you did a run-around and you deleted the article without a process. That's worse than violating a 1R. If we all did that, would there be any stability in mainspace. Crtew (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that a redirect is not a deletion right? And as I was merging across the content I really do not see what you have to bitch about here. Even you said that the comment by Peter james should be taken into account. And his suggestion is more or less what I did. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflict

You do realize that you were the one who wanted to keep the merge discussion open, that I was willing to wait for an outside admin to close it and made the request for closure and that you with a discussion still open bypassed closure process to take action independently of the process? Crtew (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Crtew, kindly provide diffs of what you feel are inappropriate edits. In general, long arguments with few or no diffs is not the way.Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I started to when he interrupted and while I was first looking for the editors' comment from last month when they were talking about a possible topic ban if he didn't clean up his act. But there are so many links to go through with in incidents with his name in it that it makes it hard to find. This must be a kind of second user page for some people. I'll put the diffs down.

Diffs Documentation

• Here is where I closed the merge discussion today after his antics below. I did make a mistake and copied the old timestamp to today's edit from my first closure of the merge discussion.: Crtew's 2nd closure at 22:01, 11 April 2013‎
• There was no closure during this time, which means he merged two articles while a merge discussion was ongoing, which he had requested.
• Here is where DS created a redirect earlier today: [DS's Redirect at 19:06, 11 April 2013‎ ]
• Here is my request for an independent person to conduct closure of the merge discussion: [Crtew's Request for Closure at 09:17, 9 April 2013‎ 09:17, 9 April 2013‎ ]
• Here is his undoing of my original closure (which I thought was not controversial before his objection): DS's edit note for his revert of my closure: DS's revert of Crtew at 01:08, 8 April 2013‎ (Reverted to revision 542965075 by Parkwells: Do not close a merge discussion you have voted in please..)

If he is telling me that I can't close a merge I have voted in, then how can he take it upon himself to not even go through closure and take merge actions? This violates the orderliness of the process. This is not a simple mistake or a "I just went to dinner and forgot" (see above). This is an experienced user who has brought many people before this incident board for less and who himself has been before this board countless times. He should be banned from the editing on subcontinent topics because this bad behavior inside Wikipedia is a way of life for him. The topic is toxic for him and disruptive for others. Crtew (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What he is calling a redirect, I'm calling a quasi deletion as the material is not accessible.Crtew (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to look at the merits of this proposal, partly because it has been poorly presented and partly because I'm well aware of the long-standing antipathy between DS and Chad, and it's incredibly tiresome. I will say two things. First, Chad, if you're going to say that DS has been here before and been warned by admins, then provide diffs to those discussions. I'm not saying you're wrong, but this isn't a slap in the wrist you're requesting, but a topic ban. Take the time to do it right. Second, there will have to be evidence of persistent misconduct to support a ban, not just this latest thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the previous discussion about DS and topic bans above (in the documentation list I was compiling before the comments flooded in). Of course, he promised several of those admins on their talk pages that he would change his ways, and, naturally, we're back here again with DS as no action was taken. Crtew (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Much evidence was provided about a pattern of behavior in the link above "Probably_disruptive_RfC_behavior_on_Talk:Rape_culture". Why are we back here again and again? How much disruptive time and effort in Wikipedia has been wasted on his antics? Yes, it is tiresome, and with that I agree. That's why there needs to be some decisive action. Enabling his bad behavior has gotten us nowhere. Crtew (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that discussion. Sometimes I'm really glad that I have the ability to forget these things - and it was only a month ago. My how time flies when you're not having fun. I'm not going to reread every comment (even my own) in that topic, but glancing at it, I agree with Kim Dent-Brown that you and DS are your own worst enemies, I agree with Regentspark that an interaction ban between DS and Chad would be a good thing, and the closure by the inestimably understated Ched was mostly "we're tired of this" (actual quote: "Consensus seems to be that this has now reached its expiration date."). Welcome back, Chad (and DS) for whatever round it is at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but when I read the above, I don't think to myself this is a neutral admin. It seems to represent a lot of baggage. I have a legitimate issue, in my mind's eye, which is why I am here, and you're not even addressing the DS's improper closure/actions. Crtew (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We are back here again because some people try to win content disputes by dragging their perceived opponents here and demanding topic bans. And the disruptive behaviour at rape culture was involved editors closing an RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Says someone who almost practically lives on the incidents board. Crtew (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Comment from uninvolved editor) - A few clarifications about the inconsistencies and irregularities, probably unintentional, in the complaints here:
  1. Darkness Shines is not an admin so he can't delete per se, he made a WP:BOLD edit.
  2. He did not edit war.
  3. He nominated it for deletion with a valid reason at the least.

I don't see how that is a felony here. I think the complainant should read WP:BLP1E one more time. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Re: Talk:Tea Party movement

Five days ago I asked for an admin to close a discussion and make a finding of consensus or no consensus. I was told that the discussion had to run at least seven days. Well, now it's been seven days. At that time, the raw vote was 6-4. Now it's 8-3. Please read this, determine whether we have consensus (and for what). post your findings and close the discussion. Thank you. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't RfCs run 30 days? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't an RfC — which invites input from editors previously uninvolved in the discussion. It simply asks for a formal statement of "support" or "oppose" from editors who are already involved, along with their supporting arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. An informal survey to determine consensus among editors already present, regarding an editing proposal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The words "at least" are important - discussions such as this run "at least 7 days" ... while there are still policy-based comments being added, why rush things? We're not in a big hurry around here - the project won't die if the discussion continues (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Five days ago, the "vote" was 6-4. Now, it's 8-3. Consensus has become even more clear. Future changes in position by active editors on the page are extremely unlikely. One editor supporting the minority is using the continued lack of finality in this matter as an excuse for tendentious editing, as Arthur Rubin and MastCell have observed. Perhaps I should be seeking sanctions against him instead. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. A "vote" could be 9-1 and closed in favor of the 1 if the 1 is consistent with policy and the 9 aren't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen them go that way, Bushranger. in this case, as I explained,the eight are consistent with policy and the three aren't. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There is also a non-zero possibility that one or more of the participants in that talkpage discussion will be topic-banned or otherwise restricted in the ongoing ArbCom case associated with this article. I'm not sure how that possibility weighs into the question of assessing consensus or closing the discussion, but potential closers should be aware of it. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::There is a lot of tendentious editing and discussion going on at the TPm article and Talk page.

Here is a related issue (WP:CAN), since someone has opened a thread User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Re:_.22Anti-immigration.22

I have mentioned this to SilkTork User_talk:SilkTork#TPm_related_Canvassing.3F in the hope of drawing attention to the tension level, maybe expediting the decision in the TPm Arbcom case, which might help stabilize the editing environment there.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the language from WP:CANVASS that forbids convincing someone who has already participated and "voted" in a survey, RfC or other matter, to change his vote. Thanks in advance. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, so this isn't an RfC. Are admins supposed to decide if consensus exists in closing an ordinary article talk page discussion? Maybe they are, but I can't recall having seen this done. Why don't you open an RfC? The input of uninvolved editors should be valued as they have no stake in the outcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Because that would give the aforementioned editor 30 more days to edit tendentiously. I'm hoping this would put an end to his disruptions so that we can move on. MastCell is an admin. He hasn't indicated there is anything even slightly improper about a previously uninvolved admin determining consensus and closing a discussion when asked. I respectfully suggest that you rely on his judgment in this matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Admins aren't gods and nor do they have Papal infallibility. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody else did, I've opened up an RfC.[183] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Thirty more days of an editor's tendentious editing, that has already been described that way by at least one admin. I'm so grateful. Has it ever occurred to you that there might be a very good reason nobody else did? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrongly so described by an Admin who is a protagonist for your POV Phenix and Winslow, and he has been explicit he is not acting as an admin. Try and keep it factual rather than 'spinning". You organised a straw poll its not even an RfC and it devided on normal grounds. Use the mediation which is in place and stop forum shopping ----Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your "wrongly" opinion is predictable, since the tendentious editor in question is part of your shrinking minority. And yes, the survey to determine consensus is divided on normal grounds: a large group of editors who offer sound arguments, based on Wikipedia policy and a wealth of reliable sources; and a shrinking minority that relies on tendentious editing, guilt by association, and misrepresenting what its tiny number of sources actually say. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Another editor has unilaterally closed the RfC, mischaracterizing the suggestion in the RfC guideline to engage in normal talkpage discussion before opening an RfC as an injunction against opening RfCs without prior consensus. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To Phoenix and Winslow: You've already tried once to get a early close on the question. That admins and respected users are gently telling you "No, we don't think early closure is appropriate here" is annother hint. From my uninvolved viewpoint and only looking at this thread I see 1 editor who is attempting to get a final conviction read so that the handcuffs of shame can be slapped on. Bold, Revert, Discuss is your friend. I assume someone's done something bold, there was a revert, and now you're discussing. Is it going to be the end of this (democracy/liberty/wikipedia) if the issue is talked out until a consensus is established? There might be a very good policy based reason for why someone is holding out for their viewpoint. I see you trying to use the "Vote Count" argument which is relied upon in the case of a weak argument position. Now that a RfC has been opened it's strongly suggested to run for a minimum of 30 days. Let it run and have some tea. Hasteur (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is it going to be the end ... if the issue is talked out until a consensus is established? It's clear that a consensus has been established in my opinion; the minority is unwilling to accept it.
• There might be a very good policy based reason for why someone is holding out for their viewpoint. I don't think so. It's a highly politicized subject, and I think the minority may be resisting consensus due to interests that do not coincide with those of the Wikipedia project. Time will tell (better, at least).
• I see you trying to use the "Vote Count" argument which is relied upon in the case of a weak argument position. I've also relied very heavy on such policy sections as WP:WEIGHT, which are sections of our "pillar" policies of Wikipedia. These are relied upon in the case of a strong argument position.
• Now that a RfC has been opened ... It's been closed, I didn't close it, and I really can't stand tea. Care for a beer?

Seriously, just asking for an admin to take a look, that's all. If the admin feels this should run a bit longer, or that it should go to RfC, I'll accept that. But for now, the lack of finality is being seen as a license by some to engage in disruptive and tendentious editing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm an Admin and I suggested an RfC and then when someone (you?) said that would need talk page consensus (citing our page on RfCs) pointed out that nowhere does it say talk page consensus is needed and that anyone trying to prevent an RfC might run foul of the ArbCom probation. Sorry I missed this discussion until now. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If the goal is to determine the best course of action to take in a content disagreement, then obviously the widest input of relevant argument and reasoning should be encouraged. If the goal is to advance just one preferred side of a disagreement, based on numerical support instead of reasoned argument, then an RfC would be a threat to that goal. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Mishae removing spaces and carriage returns from infoboxes

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

---

Hi, folks. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this situation with Mishae (talk · contribs)? Over the past year several editors (e.g. this and this; this discussion is also helpful) asked Mishae to stop unnecessarily removing spaces and carriage returns or new lines from taxobox code. His apparent reason for reducing a taxobox from an easily edited form to something on all one line such as he did in this edit is that it saves server space to remove those spaces and newline characters (he says it saves 30 bites: diff. I doubt that.) He's been at this for some time and I'm mystified by the concern over server space (so much so that he even edits the auto-generated talk page headings to remove spaces).

We started a new discussion with Mishae in which a few editors again cautioned Mishae to stop and to please reinstate the taxoboxes. I thought there was an understanding at first, but his taxobox changes were only half undone, e.g. diff (he still left "ordo" and "familia" on the same line and spaces between the parameter and the equals sign were not restored). The discussion has had no participation since last night on 8 April, but it was my understanding that Mishae understood that several editors have told him these edits are becoming disruptive. On 9 April he ignored our suggestions and warnings and carried on with removing spaces and newline characters: diff, diff. I would appreciate someone taking a look at this since he has ignored the concerns of other editors on his talk page and in other discussions over many months. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not really an admin issue, however, Mishae SHOULD quickly stop removing the carriage returns in infoboxes. They were designed a specific way, and BS reasoning about "server space" is just ridiculous. When they're told ONCE to stop, they need to stop (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an admin issue. This has been a long term issue with Mishae. Having been warned not to condense the taxoboxes any more, I feel that a block is necessary to change the behavior. I'd support an indefinite block until he agrees not to condense any taxoboxes or some type of short term block. Ryan Vesey 20:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If he has been asked to stop more than once over months and still does the same thing, hasn't it become an admin issue, especially when others have to go clean up after him? I thought he agreed to stop the last time we discussed it. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So you are a trator Ryan! I thought I can trust you and you are the same as everyone else! I was doing those edits with other constructive edits! Both Rich Farmbrough and the same Ryan told me its O.K. to do it as long I do other edits as well (its in one of our first discussions)--Mishae (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Misha, I have worked to assist you in situations many times. I have never told you I would take your side on any issue. I pointed out to you that condensing the taxoboxes was disruptive, yet you continued doing so. I also never said it was okay to condense the taxoboxes, I did say that there wasn't a problem if you removed spacing in section headers or after asterisks in bulleted lists if you had another purpose to the edit. Ryan Vesey 20:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a diff showing that he was warned previously and agreed to stop making these types of edits? A brief look through his user talk page only shows the discussion from yesterday. If there is evidence of a clear prior warning, and agreement that Mishae would stop making these edits, then I would say that a short block is in order. The argument that it saves server space is somewhat ridiculous. Even if it did save 30 bytes of server space (which it doesn't), and even if you could do that for all 4.2 million articles (which you couldn't), you'd save a whopping 120MB of server space. Considering that Wikipedia likely has exabytes of server space, the savings would barely be measurable and would have to be described using scientific notation (i.e. "he saved 1.1E-9 percent of available server space"). The theoretical savings in server space do not outweigh the increase in difficulty of reading the wikitext of these articles. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 20:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my confusion then, sorry... However, I wouldn't be happy if a block will be issued for our missunderstanding or at least until Justin, Dennis and Worm That Turned will show up!--Mishae (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that this is no longer a "misunderstanding", and that you have been told to stop multiple times - we don't need other admins to show up - this is the admin noticeboard, after all. As blocks are preventative, all you need to do is confirm that you will never screw up infoboxes that way ever again and we can move on (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What about restoring those he's already edited? I've gone through dozens already, but it could take some time and Mishae edits much more than I have time to go back and selectively revert. And since this has been thoroughly explained to him through the linked discussions above on numerous occasions I find it very hard to believe that this has been a misunderstanding up to this point. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it's ultimatum time - Mishae, if you do it just *one* more time, I will block you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • So now its a threat, great?!--Mishae (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it's a warning. You're doing something that people find disruptive. You're being told to stop doing that. Even though you think it's helpful, the vast majority of editors do not find it helpful. Consensus seems to be pretty clear on this issue, as I've not seen a single editor who has agreed that saving a couple bytes of server space is preferable to making the wikitext of an article significantly more difficult to read and edit. Editing against consensus is disruptive. Disruption results in blocks, although in most cases, the disruptive editor is first given a warning to ensure that they are aware that their behavior is disruptive. This is that warning. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I had warned Mishae at the beginning of this most recent discussion on his talk page that his edits were disruptive and advised that the best thing to do would be to not remove spaces or carriage returns. So he had been warned. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Its sad though that no matter how hard I try, I still get critisism instead of praise. Sure, I don't demand it, but if you will look beyond taxobox edits, I am quite of a good editor who can add sources, categories, expansion of the article in general, etc...--Mishae (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
        • OK - thanks for all your good work here, it is appreciated. Now stop what you're doing to taxoboxes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • O.K. Let me make one point clear here, it was missunderstanding between me and Ryan! I will still wait for Justin to show up since I am his adoptee!--Mishae (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Mishae, the only thing that needs to be made clear here is that you will *stop* removing newlines from taxoboxes (or any other infoboxes), or you will be blocked. It is nothing to do with Ryan, or Justin, or anyone, and if you do it again then I will not be waiting for them. Do you understand that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Question, for how long I will be blocked if it will happen?--Mishae (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Just like all blocks: until the community is convinced that the problem will never recur (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And if you just make sure it doesn't happen, you'll never need to know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is I sometimes can't trust myself, thats why I want to wait for Justin to come here!--Mishae (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You are a human being, and you are the only one responsible for your actions. If you're telling us that you will be unable to stop yourself from doing harm to the project unless you're being babysat by a mentor, then perhaps Wikipedia actually is not the best place for you until you can accept responsibility for your personal actions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't trust yourself? WTH? This is not like a "rollback" button where you may accidentally click it when you didn't mean to. This is a deliberate edit that you're doing that should be relatively easy to stop now that you've been told to. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I see on your talk page that you are autistic and suffer from OCD - and I guess that's something you need to work on as part of your mentorship outside of this ANI discussion. Should I need to act in future, I will bear that in mind and will adjust my decision accordingly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• When Mishae was last here for personal attacks as well as a similar refusal to follow the advice of other editors on an issue, it was pointed out to him that it is okay for an autistic person to edit here, but they must still function within our guidelines. The discussion I pointed out was a while back, and Mishae has gotten much better in regards to the insults, but I really think we need to consider him to be at the end of his rope. I'm fine with him not being blocked here, but I'm not inclined to give him a fourth chance after that. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan for being a human being, now to the Bwilkins comment. We have mentors for a reason, and saying that Wikipedia is not a place for me sounds very unwellcoming! Considering that I wrote almost 2000 articles for the project (yes, majority of them were stubs), it sounds like like someone is being unthankful. As far as Jauerback, it wasn't very nice. Yes, as a matter of fact some people don't trust themselves, because they don't want to be caught in a lie or missunderstanding and its normal, I don't know why you are so shocked by it? As far as my disability goes, try to imagine yourself... You are working hard on this project and all you receive is critisism with which you can't deal with. Sure, its imposible to imagine because you are born without it, so you wont feel the same pain as I am feeling. Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not a clinic, but at the same time please accept that working in a group due to my autism is not my strengh :( On the other hand I am glad that I could make some friends, help them writing some articles and at the same feel like I am home... You know, its very hard being in a skin of a different person, because autism doesn't make me who I really am, and unfortunatelly I need to live with it, no matter how much I hate it... There is a benefit to it though, due to it I edit and write articles with beyond believe speed and accuracy, that yes, its hard for other editors to catch up, but thats my strengh, strengh that should be appreciated! Considering that English is my second language and I was bannished from the Russian Wikipedia, I am still looking for my home, and I came here because I thought that at least here I will feel like home, but maybe I was wrong...--Mishae (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Based on Mishae's inability to confirm that they will not repeat the disruptive editing that has led to this ANI report, I recommend an indefinite block until such a time that the community is convinced otherwise. I'm 100% welcoming to new editors who take responsibility for their actions, and who are willing to follow the rules - whether or not they disagree with them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'd personally prefer to wait and see if he does the same thing again - he's been warned now, so I don't think we should escalate unless we see a further similar edit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Why being so harsh? Every time I have a discussion here I understand my actions, so I will confirm my actions as being disruptive and will try to prevent them in the future. However, I do understand that every discussion here will lead me to a block eventually. By editing Wikipedia I get away from my real life problems, and it makes me feel more closer to the community of normal people...--Mishae (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, here's what you really should try very hard to achieve - do not make *any* white space changes in edits at all. I see you have even been adjusting the white space in other people's comments here in this discussion. JUST STOP IT ALTOGETHER. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Yelling at me wont solve anything! Now to Bwilkins: Please understand the difference between willing and can follow the rules. We all have wills and dreams, but sometimes, some people can't follow them and need an additional help with it, I am such case, and thats why I need Justin here as soon as possible! It doesn't mean though that I am refusing to folllow the rules, just sometimes when it comes to lieway, its difficult to know which one to follow and which one is an option... And people can't ignore white space removal? If so, I am viewing it as obsession with trying to find a reason how to block a user! All of the disruption is in your heads, pretend like its not there and everything will be back to normal! Why can't people learn to appreciate the hard work instead of critisising someone for their actions which only included 10% of the whole edit?!--Mishae (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Your continued arguing that you're not doing anything wrong, that the disruption is in everyone else's heads, and that you should be allowed to do anything you want and we should have to ignore it, just proves that you are not currently capable of listening or of taking part in collegial community interaction. So I have blocked you for 24 hours. If I didn't do this and you kept on arguing in this style, I believe you would get a more severe block from someone else, so I honestly think this is for your own good. Please spend the time away from Wikipedia, and think about your recent behaviour before you come back and attempt any further discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Mishae, the conduct issues aside, I don't know if anyone has told you (maybe they haven't so I will), every edit that you make CONSUMES space on the server. That's because the old version of the article or template is still kept exactly the way it was (you can see it by clicking "view history" and selecting any of the old versions), taking up as much space as it did before. Your new version then takes up space of its own, on top of the space that the old version was using. I just wanted to make sure you understood that. So taking out newlines to "save space on the server" does the exact opposite of what you intended. And the extra space is used not only on the server, but also on all the mirrors and copies that people download (most people read Wikipedia by browsing the web site, but some prefer to download it to their hard disk and read it locally).

  By the way if anyone cares, the total size of English Wikipedia text (all versions of all pages, uncompressed, plus some formatting and metadata) is on the order of 10TB. It compresses down to about 60GB due to so much similarity between successive page versions. So it's not anywhere near exabytes, but even still, 30 bytes here or there won't make any difference. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  People have told him that many times, going back months - but he appears to be incapable of listening. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reccomend indef per WP:CIR - here he claims another user's comment (made last May on his talkpage) says the complete and exact opposite of what the user actually said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  He does have genuine problems, and he did back off from a similar confrontation a while ago - and he does do a lot of good work too. I'd favour some more rope - see if he's more reasonable when the current 24 hour block expires. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• The arguments about each new version of the article taking up space are possibly a red herring here: they are arguments in favour of "Removing undesirable white space, such as multiple carriage returns, while mildly beneficial, should not be done unless you are doing a necessary edit at the same time, but you can of course feel free to make such edits while you are doing a constructive edit". The carriage returns and spaces within templates which Mishae removes are not agreed to be undesirable. Most editors, as shown in comments on his talk page - and in the way that {{Taxobox}} is set out on its documentation page - believe that these spaces are helpful. So Mishae is editing against consensus. Even if he is making a constructive edit at the same time, this removal of spaces and carriage returns is disruptive editing, as it leaves the page more difficult for following editors to read and edit. See his last article-space edit. That is the problem, and has been pointed out since June 2012. PamD 07:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, he's been told that too, but it doesn't sink in -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for unblock! I would like to say that what an anonymous editor have said I agree with. Question: Why did user Rkitko decided to remove years from this article: Cotoneaster humilis even thought that a reference was present... Shouldn't he be blocked now? Lets discuss his behavior!--Mishae (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

    Because botanical author citations do not conventionally include years, unlike zoological author citations; see Author citation (botany). Rkitko's changes were correct by convention and a stylistic improvement to the article; his behavior was fairly restrained and productive. Demanding that people be blocked when they know what they are doing, and you do not, will probably not lead to a happy life on Wikipedia for you. Choess (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

    Its funny how people like you decide to teach me a lesson without knowing the whole situation. FYI, I was a Wiki editor for 4 years, and just this year I got into a hot water because of the bullies like yourself! And I didn't demand a block I asked a question, should be simple to understand.

    "Demanding that people be blocked when they know what they are doing, and you do not, will probably not lead to a happy life on Wikipedia for you." - interesting comment. So what you are saying is that its perfectly fine for users to discuss my block even though some of them aren't admins, and yet I should put a gag in my mouth and not ask any questions what so ever?! Wondering if Wikipedia be happy if they will have less editors... I keep up the good work, don't know about people who commented here. Sometimes people block others because of boredom (not my case though). As far as wheather or not it will be a happy life for me or not is not up to you to decide, you aren't God aren't you? Plus, how did I knew that what he did was right? You gave a link and I thank you for it!--Mishae (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you've asked for other editor input so here it is. I've been following this discussion but not adding input. Mishae, you've been repeatedly told by a number of different editors, admins and non-admins alike, that your rationale behind what you consider constructive edits, edits purely removing white space and carriage returns, is incorrect and that you should only do this as part of other edits. Furthermore, you have also been told, again by a large number of experienced editors that even when you do such white space and carriage return removals as part of your edits you are doing so carelessly. On ANI, at the very top it says very clearly that admins and experienced editors alike are invited to make comments in the various discussions that happen here invalidating your point that only admins should speak here. Furthermore, attacking every editor who are commenting against your edits as bullies, trators (sic) and demanding that they appreciate what you do here (despite the fact that it is becoming more disruptive as others are having to clean up after you) is not going to make this problem go away. And as a final point, adding in a discussion about another editor's behaviour while in a discussion about your behaviour, accusing admins of abusing their privileges ("people block others because of boredom") and general assumption of bad faith ("I keep up the good work, don't know about people who commented here") can only lead to sanctions and restrictions on you. Given the continued reluctance to accede to consensus, I'd like to propose that Mishae is indefinitely restricted from removing any white space or carriage returns broadly construed, until such time as he can clearly demonstrate his understanding of the MOS, confirmed by his mentor. Violation of this restriction will be met with escalating blocks.' Blackmane (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Blackmane, I think you have misunderstood what Mishae has been doing here. He has been messing up the layout of taxoboxes by stringing all their parameters together on one line, thus making them much harder to read and edit in the editor window. He should not do that at all, not even when making other edits - so *please* don't confuse him by telling him he can. There is no ban needed - he will simply be blocked if he does it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Struck the proposal part and the mixed up part to avoid further confusion. Blackmane (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats not enough, you should remove other accusations as well...--Mishae (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well then, maybe he should read this before he will comment again? As for Blackmane himself, sometimes admins do act in bad faith, and no matter how much you will deny it, its a fact. Not every admin (far not) is acting in good faith... To the point, not everyone here is an angel or demon. And yes, sometimes admins abuse their priveledges (and get away with them), just because they are admins (again, Russian Wikipedia is a prime example of it)! My suggestion to the Blackmane is that next time you should read the discussion first (and maybe couple of times) before you will blatantly attack me!--Mishae (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Interim remedy requested

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

---

User:Arthur Rubin (or Arthur Rubin ... I assume it's the same guy) appears to have a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules on civility, personal attacks and collaborative interaction. My complaint only relates to his activities as an editor, although he is also an Administrator; it is my understanding that title implies at least a basic knowledge of Wikipedia policy. My concern is that Arthur Rubin's repeated, unsubstantiated, disparagement and maligning of his fellow editors is disruptive to collaborative editing efforts, and results in an unpleasant editing environment. It's already a contentious arena where many editors hold strong opinions, and tempers are already short and frayed, so Rubin's unnecessary caustic commentary on editors is especially detrimental. A few examples:

• "certain tendentious editors are intentionally misconstruing my !vote" --Arthur Rubin

I've asked him to provide evidence or a diff of this happening. He has ignored the request.

• "I should add that now there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation" --Arthur Rubin

I've asked him to provide evidence or a diff of this, or redact his accusation. He has ignored the request, even after additional explanation on his Talk page.

• "someone reverted her correction (I'm not sure it was you, and it doesn't matter)" --Arthur Rubin

I've asked him to provide evidence or a diff of this. He has ignored request. (It never happened.)

• "(Undid revision 538683161 by Xenophrenic (talk) argument against including McAlister is good; I'm not sure about the other ones, but considering the editor's past record....)"

When I demanded an explanation of his "considering the editor's past record" slur, he claimed he confused me with another editor. (It's still wrong to comment on editors, especially in edit summaries, where it can't be easily redacted.) In a separate instance of accusing me, again without substantiation, of making a tendentious edit, he again claimed he had me confused with another editor after I pressed him for proof.

Arthur Rubin and I often disagree, but I value his perspective and input in discussions. However, his baseless commenting on editors instead of content has got to go. He "has failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence" to substantiate his personal attacks and mischaracterizations of fellow Wikipedian's intentions, not just with me, as that ongoing ArbCom illustrates.

Today, after User:SilkTork offered to moderate discussions at that article, but insisted that "in order to move the discussions forward there should be no personal comments", Arthur Rubin felt the need to question further that simple reiteration of policy:

• I'd like a clarification about the "personal comments" restriction. --Arthur Rubin

I would like to see SilkTork's efforts be successful, and not be derailed by more of the same. I'm requesting that someone uninvolved please give Arthur Rubin the clarification he has requested. Specifically, "comment on content, not on the contributor; don't make accusations about personal behavior that lack clear evidence; editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. My patience with him is exhausted, as is any remaining good faith, so I don't dare speak directly with him again about this right now. Help would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There is an important difference between personal comments (i.e. "User:Xyz made a mistake" or "I disagree with User:Xyz" or "User:Xyz misinterpreted my remarks") and personal attacks (i.e. "User:Xyz is an idiot" or "User:Xyz lacks the intelligence required to understand my remarks" or "User:Xyz is Turkish, and therefore we can't trust what he says"). Nothing in the diffs provided above rises even remotely close to being a personal attack, and therefore I can't see how any policy has actually been violated. If you already have found someone who has agreed to moderate your dispute, you'd likely be much better off going down that route rather than inflaming the situation by posting a complaint here. Let your moderator clarify their own comment; I don't see any reason to branch off the discussion here. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)\

• Concur with Scottywong, and advise you to try to be less bristly about verbiage. Unless someone calls you a name or outright attacks you, then assume they mean well and edit accordingly. KillerChihuahua 23:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto. These aren't personal attacks. They aren't even really blunt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Xenophrenic, you have also failed to notify Arthur Rubin of this discussion, which is required per the instructions at the top of this page. Please notify him. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 23:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Scotty, I notified him immediately after posting this discussion. The very first comment is where I informed him on his Talk page. I didn't template him per "Don't template the regulars," but I most certainly informed him that I brought the issue here.

If three of you, respected all, say there is no offense in the behavior I outlined above, then I certainly am obliged to self-review to see where I'm mistaken or out of line. So just to clarify, you are saying when I read at the "No Personal Attacks" policy page, in the What is a personal attack section, just after where it says "some types of comments are never acceptable:"

• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

I have misunderstood that policy, correct? Accusing someone of tendentious behavior and dishonest behavior, without providing evidence because he didn't have any, as Arthur Rubin did above in example 2, does not rise even remotely close to being a personal attack? Is that what I'm hearing? I'd rather be called an idiot; at least that can be waved off as a nonsensical outburst. He made a baseless attack on my character. And instead of coming here to complain, I first asked him to either redact the personal attack, or add his evidence to his personal attack — either of which would have brought his comment into compliance with WP:NPA and diffused the situation. He's done neither. As for being "less bristly" and assuming good faith, KC, with most any other editor I would, as that is good advice. But you seem to have forgotten that this little routine is not new for him, and it has cost me a lot of needlessly wasted hours.

To recap: I haven't notified Arthur Rubin of this discussion, and he hasn't violated NPA. That is what is being conveyed? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed your comment on his talk page where you notified him. My bad. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 13:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is an easily missed notification, Scotty, now that I look at it again. I didn't use a template or give the notification its own header and section, so it didn't really stand out. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing in the diffs above could rationally be construed as personal attacks. This complaint has no merit and should be hatted.--MONGO 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Accusing someone of tenditious editing without providing evidence of such *is* a personal attack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Xenophrenic added me to ANI concerning the same article without providing a reason or difs, was that a personal attack as well, if so, why were there no repercussions?[184] Darkstar1st (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This thread should probably be considered in conjunction with the above thread "Re: Talk:Tea Party movement", as the name calling "tendentious editor", etc. have all occurred in relation to that issue, which is ongoing. The decision in the related Arbcom case is also pending. I do not agree with Arthur's characterization of Xenophrenic's editing as tendentious, as he was arguing based on reliable sources which others were trying to exclude in an effort to push through a one-sided phrasing when there are clearly more than one reliably-sourced POV.

Bringing up that accusation here in terms of its being a personal attack may have been improper, but the Talk page behavior surrounding the accusations of tendentiousness have been counterproductive in an already encumbered editing environment. It resulted in the thread mentioned above being opened on Arthur's Talk page. Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I specified precise reasons why X's comments were tendentious, and pointed to the section where he/she made those comments. I didn't point to the specific comments or diffs; but that's not necessarly unless he claims some of the comments signed by him are not his, or to note his repeated removal of the personal comments (not attacks), which were made after I made the comments, so I couldn't point to it yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is completely inaccurate, Arthur. You mentioned a section, yet your "precise reasons" were nonexistant. Here is your full comment, including your attack on me:

No objection. I understand Malke's point of view, but I think SilkTork could do something to ameliorate her (Malke's) concerns. As she is a major contributor to the talk page, I think that her concerns need to be dealt with to the extent possible. I should add that now there is strong evidence toward Xenophrenic's tendentious editing in intentionally disregarding the obvious meaning of Malke's comments (in the "anti-immigration" section) in favor of an absurd interpretation, so I'm not sure that Malke's concerns can be met without unjustly protecting Xenophrenic. I would like to support, as it may provide a way out of this mess, but Malke's concerns need to be met so that she can freely participate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please show me precisely where I intentionally disregarded the obvious meaning of Malke's comments in favor of an absurd interpretation. I did no such thing. Provide a diff of me doing that (as you are required to do anyway), and I will sincerely apologize to all involved. Or you can redact your baseless attack as a mistake. Fair enough? What is your aversion to showing me what you accuse me of? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, the two of you need to stop squabbling here about it; Rubin believes Xenophrenic's editing to be tendentious and Xenophrenic disagrees. I disagree as well; it's not tendentiousness to disagree with you, Rubin, or to misinterpret someone else'es meaning. Both of you need to dial it back and be nice. Rubin, whatever you're thinking you'll accomplish by accusing Xenophrenic of tendentiousness, it has failed, unless you're just trying to bait him into coming to ANI and looking foolish, then it has already worked and you can stop now. Xenophrenic, drop it. Everyone move on, nothing to do here. KillerChihuahua 12:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic's editing style is tendentious. His comments to others are incivil and and his actions are frequently disruptive, such as when he redacted Arthur's comments three times. He was literally edit warring on the TPM talk page. And then he went to Arthur's talk page and harassed him there with that tedious long rant he posted. And Xenophrenic is not presenting the whole picture here by any means. He's posted insulting comments to more than one editor on TPM, and such comments are routine for him. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

1) . . .And not to change the subject, but did I just see you link to Talking Points Memo, and DailyKos yesterday? You did wash your hands afterward, right? People are going to talk, you know. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC) Implies I don't look at other sources, which obviously is not true.

2) The Cruz piece is in the context of Illegal Immigration which is seperate from the general anti-immigration issue. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And that has what to do with this? And is that the best Malke impersonation you can do? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

See link to full conversation here: [185]

Comments such as those on an article that is contentious anyway, but is also on probation and under ArbCom review only serve to make the situation for all the editors more difficult. Xenophrenic behaves as if the rules don't apply to him. And now he's here with what appears to be nothing more than a refusal to drop the stick. He has a long history of this on Wikipedia. He wouldn't drop the stick back in 2007 with a Checkuser who found that Xenophrenic was likely socking. This "issue" shouldn't be here. Arthur Rubin is not the problem. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, Xeno's edits may be described as confrontational, argumentative, and so on, but tendentious has a specific meaning and it isn't "contentious". Be done, already. You're just pouring gas on the flames, and it would be helpful for every editor involved to drop the sticks and start acting like colleagues. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua 13:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

None of us would be here right now but for Xenophrenic bringing this non-issue to this noticeboard. That seems evidence of tendentious editing right there. It's certainly WP:BATTLE. And if you examine the article talk page over several threads, even other User's talk pages, you will see the tendentious/battle nature. Here he's edit warring on the talk page redacting/reverting Arthur's comments[186] he gets reverted [187]he reverts Maunus [188]and again[189]and he reverts again[190] and finally he's told he's at 3RR in hopes of stopping him.[191] He behaves as if the rules do not apply to him. He causes friction because he refuses to be part of the solution to the problems on the article. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No, NONE of you need to be here. There were three immediate admin responses, at the top of this thread. Please go read them. You did not need to post a thing here. It was handled, until you decided you couldn't let it lie and had to keep kvetching. Please stop stirring the pot and keeping this nonsense going. You're part of the problem here, you and Arzel and Arthur Rubin - had you left it at the three first comments, this thread would be closed. As it is, I see you three continuing to squabble, bitch, argue, and continue the hostility. And ignored my pleas to stop doing it. Examine your own actions here. And Stop. Stirring. The. Pot. KillerChihuahua 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

KC, you are right, the less said the better. I had no intention of pot stirring. I simply wanted to defend Arthur. Sorry. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, if you want to defend Arthur, simply provide the "evidence" to support his attacks, since he is unable to do so. (I'm certain you will encounter the same result.) KillerChihuahua, Malke may be "stirring the pot", but certainly not any more than I am -- I'm notorious for pushing until a resolution is achieved, even to the point of appearing "silly" to those uninvolved. Malke cited a perfect example when she said, "He has a long history of this on Wikipedia. He wouldn't drop the stick back in 2007 with a Checkuser who found that Xenophrenic was likely socking." Indeed, I didn't drop that stick; I kept at it until it was determined that the socking charge was mistaken, and the filer of that checkuser request was himself revealed to be chronically socking at the time, and was community banned - permanently. I am certainly argumentative, if there is a valid argument to be made. You can close this particular discussion, but the "issue" isn't closed. The personal attacks are being perpetuated in the still-open discussion above (Re: Talk:Tea Party movement) and on the article Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Request for interaction ban enforcement

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

---

Per WP:IBAN, I am requesting enforcement of the interaction ban between User:Prioryman and myself. Prioryman has nominated Human–goat sexual intercourse for deletion. This is a collection of popular culture mentions and misstatements of references which I had redirected to the main article Zoophilia (some editors do not seem to agree with this redirection, but none have made any effort to improve the article). Prioyman has never edited the article before (at least not under any of the several usernames that I know). Since this is an unusual subject area for them, it would appear that they have been drawn to this article by my involvement in it, especially since in the AfD they specifically disclaim any particular view on the article. I note that WP:IBAN lists among the things that are prohibited "undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)", which is exactly what Prioryman did here. Prioryman was blocked for a week in December for violation this interaction ban. Can someone please issue an appropriate block for this latest violation? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this morning from the recent changes feed in that there was an ongoing dispute over Human–goat sexual intercourse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with repeated blanking of the article and its replacement with a redirect, without any discussion or consensus. It would be fair to characterise this as a slow-motion edit war involving, at the last count, four different editors. I have no view on whether the article should be kept, deleted or redirected, but to help resolve the dispute I have made a purely procedural AfD request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse. AfD requires that an article be submitted for review rather than a redirect (which is dealt with by a separate process); so in order to enable a discussion to take place, to allow reviewers to look at the article and to facilitate the article being improved (if that is possible) during the discussion, it was necessary to restore the article to its pre-blanking state. I noted specifically in my edit summary here that this was done "preparatory to AfD". I sincerely apologise to DC if he feels this is "reverting his edits" but it is not intended that way and is simply a requirement for the AfD discussion to happen in the first place. If the article meets the requirements for deletion or redirection then it'll be deleted or redirected, but the AfD process will enable that discussion to take place without prolonging the ongoing edit war. The AfD discussion can't take place if there is no article to discuss. I wasn't under the impression that a purely procedural action such as this would be covered by the IBAN. If I was wrong about that, again I apologise. Prioryman (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just one additional note. My aim in all of this was simply to provide a space (in the form of an AfD) where editors can work out what to do with the article without further edit-warring and without involving myself in the dispute or interacting with any of the parties. I deliberately avoided stating any preference for what to do with the article or addressing any editor. It never occurred to me that changing a revert to permit an AfD to be started would be considered "interaction". If that constitutes a violation of the IBAN, then it was entirely due to my misunderstanding while acting with the best of intentions; I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. Prioryman (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Outside of the discussion about interaction ban, frankly, here DC himself should had started an AfD or another type of discussion after his redirecting was reverted the first time. His bold redirect was reverted several times from at least three different editors, so an AfD discussion appears appropriate. Cavarrone (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I had begun a discussion on the article's talk page to propose a merge, but couldn't be bothered to finish it. Check the statements in the lede against the references. I think you will find that none of them are actually supported by what the references say. The rest of the article is human-goat intercourse in pop culture (although some of that pop culture is quite old). In its current state, it is less than useful. Since none of the editors who reverted the redirect showed any interest in improving the article or explaining why it should not be redirected, the redirection seems the most reasonable course of action. As I stated on my talk page, if the redirect was removed again, I was going to start an AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Not having read your talk page (IBAN, remember?) I didn't see that. I honestly don't have a view on the worth of the article. But now that there's an AfD, I hope it gives everyone an opportunity to discuss the article in a structured way. Apologies if I inadvertently stole your thunder, but I said above, there was no intention to violate any aspect of the IBAN. Prioryman (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would propose that the IBAN be lifted, because it doesn't solve any problems, it instead seems to create problems out of thin air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's probably outlived its purpose, yes. I'd be content for it to be lifted if DC is as well. It was mutually agreed so I presume it can be mutually dissolved, but I think I'd expect a kind of gentleman's agreement to avoid any further feuding. Prioryman (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Although enforcement of the ban seems less than ideal, I believe it has likely prevented some problems. In any case, I asked for an interaction ban and nothing has changed my mind about the need for one. Whatever Prioryman may claim above about "this morning from the recent changes feed in that there was an ongoing dispute" in the article, my change came some seven hours before Prioryman's change (and, incidentally, some seven hours after the previous change, making it a very slow edit war). He was certainly aware that I was involved with that article and that should have been enough for him to avoid it. Instead he violated the letter and spirit of WP:IBAN by deliberately reverting my edit. The interaction ban needs to be enforced, not abrogated. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I know that everyone is all atwitter about Colton Comsic's temporary unblocking, but perhaps one of you admins can spare the two minutes it will take to read this report and enforce the interaction ban? This is a completely clear-cut case, even if you choose to believe Prioryman's rather weak story. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 April 2013‎ (UTC)

I see nothing here that requires enforcement - the right thing was done in this case, no matter who it was done by. I am loathe to call nominating an article for deletion after some edit-warring took place on it to be any form of IB violation, and I cannot fathom how DC would consider it such. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Unblocking of Colton Cosmic

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

---

There was a very clear statement by Arbcom at User talk:Colton Cosmic of the conditions under which that editor might be considered for unblocking, and a single admin has today decided that "... the above "sanctions" from ArbCom are out of order" and unilaterally undone the block. The community may have a view on this? - David Biddulph (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment while I take a proper look at everything - a huge trout to Nihonjoe for unblocking without any discussion, given the history here, regardless of whether or not the unblock was valid. GiantSnowman 16:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've been involved in this previously via email, and this does raise an eyebrow, but I think he is within his rights to unblock. The block wasn't an Arbcom block, they just chose to review it back in August. From my understanding, this doesn't prevent an admin to reconsider the block at a later date, and that was over 6 months ago. In this sockpuppetry case, Nihonjoe is an admin and crat, but not a CU, and I'm familiar enough with the case that I respectfully disagree with his decision, but I don't see a problem with him having the authority to take the action he did. If there was a problem, WP:ARBN would normally be the place to request action anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, he appealed to arbcom again this February. The appeal was declined and he was instructed that he may next appeal this August. T. Canens (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This muddies the water on authority a bit. The problem is, if it isn't a CU or Arb block, then my reading of policy says any admin can still review. Saying "wait until Aug." could be interpreted as "before WE will hear it again". In short, I don't see that Joe was trying to overstep his authority, and I don't think he would intentionally do so knowing it would put his bits at risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (Sidenote: probably better for AN than ANI, if anyone cares enough to move the thread; I don't.) I would assume that Nihonjoe talked to people via email before doing this? I don't see any posts to relevant talk pages. Unblocking without at least asking what the deal was would be...hasty, to say the least (yes, I'm aware of the strangeness in using the word "hasty" about a block this old). That said: other than the incoming and inevitable dramabomb, what's the harm, really? For right or wrong, CC will presumably be under the very height of scrutiny, so.... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Wait, I'm confused. Nihonjoe says the basis for his unblock is that "using an IP address and announcing that it is you is not disallowed." This statement is patently in contradiction to our blocking policy, which says that "user accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block may also be blocked", and our socking policy, which says that one illegitimate use of a sock is "circumventing policies or sanctions". Colton Cosmic was using IP addresses to evade a block (i.e. to circumvent a sanction). How did Joe manage to interpret this as "not disallowed" in any way? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I assumed he meant the IP usage before the first block, but yes, CC has used IPs to avoid blocks since then as well, one of the reasons I would not have done the same thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, let's not miss the forest for the trees here: if (and it is a big if) Nihonjoe's assertion that there was no real reason for the original block is true, I'm not sure that it's necessary to keep him blocked for evading it with IPs to ask for an unblock. If the original block was legit, then yeah. If the subsequent evasion was used for other things than requesting an unblock, then yeah. But if the original block wasn't justified and he was just evading to try to resolve it? I mean, I know that it's still against-the-rules block evasion if we're going by the book, but can you really blame him if the original block was, in fact, unjust, and he was doing it in an attempt to appeal it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I confess I'm a big tree person myself, but if Joe is saying that Tim's original block was unjustified (seems unlikely to me if I understand what preceded the block), that doesn't change the fact that CC attempted to appeal it and failed. I agree with GiantSnowman. Joe should not have unblocked CC on his own.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The original block was for delightful contributions to project space discussions such as this using a self-admitted undisclosed alternative account. WP:ILLEGIT, point 3. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • That's a horse of a different color, then; thanks for the clarification. In passing, I'd mention that point 3 only explicitly talks about policy guidelines edits and participation in Arbcom/RfA/XfD discussions; nothing about AN/ANI. But the intent is clear enough and relevant to the original block, and I can't in justice throw the book at you when I'm telling you to throw the book away, now can I? :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Now there's a charming drama from the past. Could you please connect the dots, Tim, at least for me? Which is the alternative account? Hopefully, it's not me. :-) I kept looking through that wall of text hoping to find an IP comment, but if it's there, I missed it. I did enjoy Drmies's trenchant comment: "I wonder who you are, Colton Cosmic. The comments I've seen from you so far at ANI are worse than useless. You seem to get fun out of stirring the shit pot. I have a special little bag of resentment for namechangers who aren't open about their previous account." Anyway, please spell it out for the clueless (me).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
          • No, CC is the alternative account. He said that he had a main account, but refused to disclose it anywhere, both before and after the block. T. Canens (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
            • Thanks much, I figured I was missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• List of socks - Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Colton Cosmic.GiantSnowman 16:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: "suspected" because no CU has ever been done, but they're clearly him. GiantSnowman 16:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• There were at least 5 other IPs which had been reported at CC's user talk page but not added to the above list at the time. I've done so now, though it's rather aceademic given the number which were there already. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly out of order. I'd suggest reblocking Colton Cosmic and making it clear to NihonJoe that his behaviour was unacceptable. Repeats of things like this lead to desysop discussions, but I think doing this once doesn't warrant it.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• When one looks only at the original sockpuppetry that led to the original block, it's very clear that the block was correct in face. Period. If that was not the case, I would be slightly willing to have ignored the ridiculous post-block socking. ArbComm did make a decision in February - this unblock is a farce and wholly inappropriate. This was not punishment, it was clear and present protection. Shame (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Not the first time this 'crat has acted without discussion in potentially controversial circumstances. [192] Leaky Caldron 17:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think the original block was valid, and I don't think Nihonjoe should have unblocked without prior discussion (though I'm really not bothered about the IP block-evasion to request unblock, as there was nothing deceptive about it). But, it wasn't an Arb block or a CU block, and I think in such circumstances an admin is allowed discretion to unblock - I think it was a poor decision, but I don't think it constitutes an abuse of admin tools. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • As is often the case, we are on the same page. I would strongly suggest no one re-blocks him unless there is a proposal and vote here or at WP:AN that establishes a consensus to do so. The last thing we need is wheel warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed - we should hold off any further action until a consensus decision is made here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Here is good enough. There's no reason to chase all over making new discussion. The consensus is approaching clarity right now: the debate doesn't seem to be about whether the unblock was justified or not, it seems to be more about whether Joe just made a bad decision that we should shrug off or whether there's reason to characterize it as some form of misbehaviour.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Almost provocatively bad decision. What's the point of ArbComm if an individual admin then goes around unblocking as it pleases him. For any commuity to function, there has to be some set of rules that applied evenly. I would suggest that having admins acting like NihonJoe is detrimental for Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've notified Colton Cosmic as well, since he does have an interest in this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Was notified an hour or so ago by Giant Snowman while I was in the process of doing so. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - original block was valid, unblock was not. GiantSnowman 17:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Question If the arbitration committee declines an unblock request or ban appeal, does that automatically make the block an "Arb Block"? If it does, is that stated in policy anywhere? — Ched :  ?  17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  My understanding is that it does not. Arb simply elected to view a situation and declined to reverse it (ie: took no action). They could have come in and changed it a real Arb block or CU block, which would bar you and I from unblocking, but they didn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  It's only an Arb block if ArbCom issue or modify the block. As far as I can see, they've not changed it in any way. Prioryman (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  It may not transform the original block into an ArbCom block, but the comments in the decline have some value (e.g., "Colton Cosmic would also need to reveal to ArbCom all previous accounts held."). The only question is how much.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Ah, that does change things to some extent. If an arbitrator has set conditions on the circumstances under which the block should be lifted, then that's a material change. I guess the question is whether one arbitrator's comments in the decline can be held to represent the views of all of ArbCom? Prioryman (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Twice Silk Tork says they are speaking "for the Arbitration Committee". BTW, where is this "material change" thing you keep referring to?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm thinking it was more that Arb's opinion of what was needed for Arb themselves to consider an unblock, and not a bar to an admin considering the same block, as they didn't take steps to convert to an Arb block with notices. I would be loath to consider this an intentional abuse by Joe under these circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I agree, too unclear to criticize him for that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  My understanding is also that it is only an Arbcom block if Arbcom made or modified the block (or adopted it by explicitly stating that it is, from some event forward, an Arbcom block). I would also say that the conditions placed in the Arbcom rejection are conditions that would need to be satisfied should the user choose to appeal to Arbcom again - I would not see it as a stipulation that an Arbcom appeal has become the only appeal route at that stage, as that was not explicitly stated. It may be that Arbcom see it differently, but I think there is at least sufficient ambiguity for Nihonjoe to be considered to not be overturning an Arbcom block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  While ArbCom haven't changed the block itself, if they've attached new conditions to it then it's arguable that the unblock shouldn't have happened unless those conditions were met. Have they been? Prioryman (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that interpretation is indeed a possibility - but I think there's sufficient ambiguity (though I do want to stress that I think the unblock was wrong) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - What I find most problematical here is Nihonjoe's lack of familiarity with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. To selectively address only the examples given in the lead of that policy while ignoring the body of the page is very worrying for someone holding the permissions that Joe does. I would specifically draw his attention to WP:ILLEGIT: Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to: Circumventing policies or sanctions: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account, and in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion typically causes the timer to restart. See also WP:EVASION. I think Nihonjoe needs to explain his action (per WP:ADMINACCT) and either justify or apologise for his failure to acknowledge the key policy governing the current issue. --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• For clarity. When Colton Cosmic appealed his block, I approached the admins involved in his block and established that there was reason to believe this was a particular returning banned user. In discussion with Colton Cosmic he agreed that he was a returning user, but declined to reveal his previous account(s). He was informed that without that information ArbCom would not be able to overturn his block. He accepted that decision. He preferred not to be able to edit Wikipedia than to reveal his previous account. I assume Nihonjoe has the information regarding Colton Cosmic's previous account(s), and have asked him to pass that onto ArbCom, so we can verify that this is an appropriate unblock. Of course, Colton Cosmic may prefer for his own reasons not to want ArbCom to know the previous account. In that case, Nihonjoe could perhaps confirm that the previous account(s) are not "under a cloud", which would reassure everyone. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• If Nihonjoe does not have that information, does that make it an inappropriate unblock? Prioryman (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's already inappropriate, but yes, that makes it worse.—Kww(talk) 18:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are two questions at play that should not be intermingled: Did he have the authority under policy to make that call? Was it the best call? I would argue yes he did it within policy, and no, I wouldn't have made the same unblock. That I disagree with his unblocking CC doesn't mean he violated any policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think if Joe had that info then he would've used that unblock rationale rather than what he actually said. I am completely convinced of Joe's worth and competence, but with all the traffic on CC's user talk some consultation would've been prudent. Tiderolls 19:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Reinstate block?

While Dennis Brown is right when he says above the the appropriate response is not for someone to unilaterally reblock, consensus above does appear to be forming that the unblock, no matter the reason for it, was a bad call. For clarity's sake, let's see if we can reach a clear consensus on whether to reinstate the block.

• Support reblock as proposer. This was an unblock apparently based either in misunderstanding of policy or just in poor judgment, and while discussion of CC's behavior and Joe's unblock is ongoing, the status quo should be restored. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Doesn't seem necessary unless the editor is behaving disruptively (which doesn't seem to be the case). Better to wait for the outcome of the discussion above. --regentspark (comment) 19:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Commment I suggest we wait to see if Joe obtained the information about CC's previous account that SilkTork mentioned. That will help to determine whether CC should have been unblocked. Prioryman (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock No evidence presented that CC is ready to contribute constructively. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock The original socking was clear an unequivocal. Colton's actions since have been a disgusting waste of the community's time. He literally has to go away for 6 months, none of this anonymous bullshit. During that time he needs to prove himself and rebuild his "reputation". Only then might the community be willing to forgive. The fact that he continues to deny his socking proves that he has no need to be a part of this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: While I believe the unblock was premature and ill-advised, I don't want to stampede off to reblock until we've had some sort of dialogue with NihonJoe. I see no comments from him here, and so I too reserve judgement. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reblock/trout Colton is clearly an alt account made to stir up shit. Whether he was is technical violation of SOCK or not is frankly beside the point, per WP:NOTHERE and this sort of cowboy unblocking is not what we expect from crats. Nihonjoe seems to usually have a pretty good head on his shoulders, but this was a serious lapse in judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Wait. This topic was opened at 16:30. User:Nihonjoe's last contribution to WP was at 16:24. Has anyone tried e-mailing him? CC has made only a handful of edits to his talk page and to Joe's talk page since being unblocked. I don't see any urgency.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just in case no one else has, I just e-mailed Joe.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. No need to rush to revert the block, at least while CC is not doing any harm. I say wait until we hear from Joe. Find out whether he was in possession of the requested original account information, and give him chance to explain his decision further - and then make our decision on the basis of that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

His response to my query on his talk page makes it pretty darn clear that he knew that both the consensus and BASC said "keep blocked" and he just decided all those folks were wrong because he somehow became aware of this and somehow decided it everyone but him was wrong about it. I would like to know what those to "somehows" were, but I don't thinkl that preculdes the possibility of re-instituting the status quo until such time as we do have some answers. Otherwise, Joe can just lay low for a few days, and Colton gets a free pass for using an alt account for nothing but yelling at people and socking on amassive scale about 8 months. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't suggest waiting very long for an answer - if we don't get a satisfactory answer in 24 hours or so, go ahead and reblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should not wait forever. 24 hours sounds like a nice round number, although you don't define "or so". :-) @Beeblebrox, I think the comment about "lay[ing] low" was a bit much.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I believe this is the answer to Beeblebrox' first "somehow". Huon (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Watch Most seem to agree that the main problem today is the action of Nihonjoe, not anything CC did today. Like all the rest, I can see no good reason whatsoever for the decision to overturn the consensus of many admins but I think there is a point to letting Joe explain himself. I say watch as CC does not seem to misbehave at the moment. As long as he doesn't, it hardly hurts to wait for Joe's explanation. If CC steps out of line, that changes and the block could be put back in place regardless of whether Joe has reacted or not.Jeppiz (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait for a response from Nijonjoe, if that takes longer than 24 hours, do as the community feels best. That being said, I am troubled at NijonJoe's actions and feel that something should be done there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Also I am getting very tired of my fellow admins doing controversial actions and then being offline for long periods. Perhaps it is time to insert in WP:ADMIN saying your actions are not entitled to any presumption of correctness if you don't stick around to defend them. If you have to go to the store or some other urgency, let another admin handle it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I do think that we need to hear from Nihonjoe before taking action, but unless there is some information that he used that isn't publicly available here at Wikipedia (which is possible) then based on the information I have, I would reblock, without prejudice to all involved. I agree that 24 hours is reasonable and the risk of damage if we wait is minimal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Dennis: Of course hearing from him is important, but the time that we should have heard from him was before he unblocked CC. There are many actions which individual admins can (and should) take unilaterally, relying on their own judgment and experience, but messing with a block which had already been evaluated by ArbCom is not one of them. I believe an admin was recently temporarily desysoped for doing the same to a CheckUser block not too long ago -- not that I think that should (or will) happen to Nihonjoe, but he certainly showed egregiously poor judgment in making the unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This is not the same thing. It wasn't an official Arb block or official CU block. Every admin knows that we can't touch those. Blocks that a CU or Arb has looked at but hasn't claimed domain over are not the same. I'm not saying it was wise, and I wouldn't have done the same (nor would I have unblocked him anyway), but this is different and the authority is less clear. I'm saying he might have evidence that isn't in the record, or at the least, an explanation before we revert him. If CC does anything to deserve a block in the next 24 hours, that doesn't stop an admin from blocking him. That an original indef block is "legit" doesn't mean it lasts forever, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec) I do understand the difference you're drawing, but I'm saying that there should be no difference between those circumstances. I'm arguing, I suppose, that the authority is the same -- or that, certainly, the very fact that ArbCom was involved should have been a huge red flag to Nihonjoe, whether or not their involvement makes it officially an "ArbCom block" by the letter of policy. Reasonable caution should have prompted NJ to contact one of the Arbs, not to wade in with no consultation. In short, whether or not policy explicitly labels such a situation as under ArbCom's aegis (and remember that policy follows normal practice, not the other way round), an admin with good judgment would have acted in a more circumspect manner than NJ did, and would have sought advice from ArbCom about their relationship to the block, and from the community about their feelings about his proposal to unblock. Clearly, as can be seen here, the community does not think CC is deserving of being unblocked at this time, which Nihonjoe would have found out if he had asked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

adding WP:OS blocks to the list — Ched :  ?  22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. When a CU or the entire Arb Committee decides that the community is not able to deal with a situation, that is fine, but there are no half measures. Either they should take fully responsibiliy, or don't. In this case, it looks like they were considering a request, but chose to NOT take away authority from the greater community. That is always a choice they can make. This is in line with allowing decisions to be made at the lowest possible level, a stated goal here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I think if you look at the discussion on CC's talk page, you'll see that Arbs decided not to unblock, based on CC not be straightforward and providing the information they needed to unblock him. That strikers me as a 'positive decision (i.e. we will not unblock because full information has not been provided) rather than a negative one (i.e. we cannot decide whether to uinblock or not because we don't have full information). CC was also given a time period after which he could re-apply to ArbCom for an unblock. That, again, appears to me to be a positive statement of ArbCom's taking jurisdiction in this matter. As anyone who's in the habit of reading WP:RFAR knows, the Committee is quite capable of saying "This should be dealt with by the community", and they explicitly did not do that in this instance, so I think your assumption that what they did was an absence of an decision and a relinquishing to the community is wrong on both counts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a matter of perspective. To me, everything that Arbcom doesn't specifically claim as "off limits" in a clear and obvious way is left to the community. The default, after all, is that the community will handle all issues unless there is a clear showing (and claim) by Arbcom, and there wasn't a clear enough claim for me to assume it was an "Arb block". Again, there is no way I would have taken action, but short of an absolutely clear bar to action, I can't see "abuse" if another admin did. ie: If you want us off your lawn, put up a fence. That is the expectation, and you can't hold an admin to account if it wasn't made perfectly clear. We can debate the wisdom of the unblock (actually, you and I agree), but I am pretty firmly of the belief that what he did, however unwise, wasn't actionable. Troutworthy, but not actionable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on that aspect as well. I don't think - and wouldn't support - action taken against Nihonjoe other than a good trouting. It seems to me to be simply an act of poor judgment, not sufficient enough to warrant anything more serious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support reblock - Nihonjoe's actions seem precipitous given the circumstances. If ArbCom has determined that the original block was legit, then no individual admin should override that, particularly without prior discussion. To do so makes a mockery of the purpose of ArbCom, which is to act as a final arbiter. For a 'crat to take such an action is particularly disturbing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I know that dealing with Arbcom can at times be trying in regards to patience, but I'd rather it was done correctly, fairly, and with some aplomb. Arbcom has the ability, and this particular group have shown that they can react to anything they view as an "emergency" situation. I'm content to ride this out to a natural and proper conclusion. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This Admin/'Crat has a track record of steaming in and imposing his decision, even in the course of considerable debate on the matter in hand. This incident [193] was just a few months ago. In addition to action against the subject, something needs to be done to convince Nihonjoe to tone down the haste and start discussing controversial matters. Leaky Caldron 21:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Update. With Joe's permission, I pass on his response to my e-mail about commenting here: "I'm at work and won't be able to respond for about 6 hours."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. No intention to be rude to Joe, but as a general rule, it might be wise not to perform a highly controversial action if one knows one will not be able to discuss it for twelve hours to come. Unblocking CC was hardly something that couldn't have waited, and the backlash cannot come as surprise to anyone. The decision to unblock was a very bad one in any case, doing so in the knowledge of not being able to comment on it for some time just looks irresponsible. Apologies to Joe if he feels targeted, but he handled this in a spectacularly bad way.Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

However, it seems like every time an admin issues a controversial block/unblock, said admin seems to disappear for a day or so, only to return with a "dog ate my homework" excuse. Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• What would be the purpose in reinstating the block based on discussion here? Arbcom is aware of the issue and they are surely capable of re-blocking if they are so inclined. Any action taken here is only going to be superseded later by arbcom doing whatever they decide to do. --B (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not at all sure that is the case. The full committee has not had any previous involvement here, just WP:BASC declining the last appeal. The community can (and by my read already has) made a decision on this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  Silk Tork and Tim have commented here. Worm That Turned commented on Joe's talk page. I don't know about the rest of the committee members, but I suspect that any of them that are on-wiki probably know as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• The unblock is frankly mind-boggling enough to make me wonder if NihonJoe's account has been compromised. Assuming that's not the case, Colton Cosmic should be reblocked, NihonJoe trouted severely, and ArbCom can do whatever else they want whenever they want down the line. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Given the explanation of the unblock on CC's talk page, a compromised account seems to me to be unlikely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's an unbelievably bad unblock ... but I don't see any reason to believe the account is compromised. Maybe it's a case of wanting to go out in a blaze of glory and maybe it's just someone taking roguishness to the next level ... but you don't undo arbcom or checkuser blocks if you like to keep your*admin bit. --B (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - one admin shouldn't be allowed to hold the preponderance of other admins hostage this way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ooh, a preponderance of admins, now there's an interesting turn of phrase. Sounds like a cult. BB is never boring.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it's certainly amusing to see a lone admin overturn a block just because he felt like it, and then to watch other admins scurry around like ants, weeping and wailing about what to do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I'm preponderant or a rebel. I did enjoy being quoted, in a discussion that quickly went well above my pay grade. ArbCom block or not? Previous accounts or not? A long list of IPs--that did what? I personally have no problem with blocked editors using IPs to make contact with admins or editors, though, yeah, it's against the rules and all. So, was the original block valid? Is there a valid reason to overturn? I should go back to see what made me lose my almost proverbial cool. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that anyone is being held hostage. Nothing is stopping any admin who feels so inclined from reblocking. As for me, I don't feel so inclined ... there are no doubt people with the checkuser bit who are examining the evidence and if they felt the need, they would reblock him themselves. --B (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose reinstating the previous block, I have looked at CC a lot in the past few days and talk to some other about them as they also posted to my talk page through an IP. After spending quite a while digging through all of the past actions the initial block appears to have been made for socking when CC didn't appear to make any edits that actually broke the sock policy (or not that I have seen). The blocking reason specifically says 'undisclosed alternate accounts may not edit project space', every edit that I have seen discloses who is editing... Is someone here seeing something that I am not..? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  I think the idea is that the Colton Cosmic account itself is the undisclosed alternate account of some other, unknown account, rather than the IP socks being an undisclosed account of CC. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  So the original block was all just a big guess or was there something to back it up with? I don't like jumping to conclusions and the way I currently see this block is that it looks as if this is exactly what has happened, I feel a little more digging to see exactly what has gone on prior to the block should be done before any further actions is taken / jumped to. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 04:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Just spoted this on CC's talk page from User:SilkTork 'So that a little more information is available on the Committee's decision to decline the appeal. When the user appealed to ArbCom, I asked the blocking admins for the rationales for the blocks. I was informed there was a reason to feel that this user was a returning banned user.' And the user did make clear it was a clean start. All IP edits even those at the SSP page appear to be identified. Am I still missing something? ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Reblock - Joe's explanation (and general attitude) below is not satisfactory in this matter; there is no consensus for an unblock, and indeed plenty of opposition. I say reblock and then make a case to unblock. GiantSnowman 08:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock per comments below. --Rschen7754 08:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock and make a case to unblock after works for me. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 08:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock per GiantSnowman (and was the comment about don't have time to be on all the time something other than gratuitous? If you are not going to be available for a period of time, then don't perform controversial administrative actions just before you go! Which is what I said, not that Joe should be on all the time, jeez. Not rocket science.)--Wehwalt (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock We have now heard from Joe so I strike my suggestion to "wait". Joe's answer is disappointing and shows a continued lack of understanding of the issue. There was a broad consensus not to unblock, expressed by ArbCom not long ago. If Joe thought there was a case to unblock, the proper way forward would have been to discuss it with other admins involved. Unblocking against a consensus, then going offline to return with sarcastic comments doesn't look good. Joe's irresponsible behavior caused a lot of time, and as others have pointed out that Joe has a history of this, I find it particularly problematic.Jeppiz (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock now that we have all the info from Nihonjoe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Reblock now that Nihonjoe has confirmed he did not consult the blocking admin to find out if there was any non-public evidence. An unblock can certainly be considered, but not without first checking with the blocking admin and/or Arbcom to ascertain the reasons for suspecting CC was a previously-banned editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nihonjoe responds

I thought I had explained things well enough, but apparently I need to write an entire essay about it. So, here goes. Hopefully it's coherent enough since I'm a bit worn out from working all day (sorry, Wehwalt, but I don't have the time to hang out here all day long; I hope you can understand.):

I carefully reviewed all the public locations where negative behavior is discussed regarding alleged sockpuppetry (the reason for the initial block), and I found no solid evidence of actual sockpuppetry. As far as I can tell, the main use (though not the only use) of the IP addresses has been to try and ask for further review as no solid evidence or information on why he was blocked has ever been presented. Most of the discussion has focused on his use of the IP addresses after he was indef blocked. Since he was prevented from editing his own talk page, and was getting little to no response via email, this seems to be an understandable attempt to get someone to pay attention. I still haven't found a good explanation for why he was blocked initially. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but rather preventive (as in preventing vandalism, attacks, etc.)

It's no secret that Colton Cosmic had a previous account, abandoned per the clean start policy (with reasons very clearly stated with his first edit under this new account). Nothing I can find in any discussions about CC or in which CC participated gave any indication that CC has violated the principles laid out in CLEANSTART, and nothing in any policy states that an editor taking advantage of CLEANSTART must disclose the previous username (though there are a couple places indicating it's a very good idea to disclose that information to a trusted party if running for admin or other similar positions of trust). ArbCom requiring that to even consider his unblocking is extreme, to say the least. In fact, connecting the two accounts when CC indicated he created the CLEANSTART account to deal with privacy issues would seem to be going against the primary reason why he states he changed accounts. He also indicated in that same message that he was going to follow the guidelines at CLEANSTART and avoid interacting with those he did under his previous account and avoid editing articles and topics he did previously, yet people (once they find out he had a previous account) assume all sort of bad faith and treat as if he is out to do every bad thing in the books. Where did WP:AGF go in this case?

In everything I can see, it appears that WP:AGF was thrown out the window when CC was initially blocked. There was absolutely no solid evidence of any violations which warranted an indefinite block (which some people have extrapolated into a ban). Perhaps a short block for the 3RR violation (though likely not because CC stopped immediately once cautioned about it), and a couple other short blocks for a small number of other relatively minor infractions. Nothing which would or should generate the pile-on from people who seem to be upset at CC for no apparent reason other than that he's made a lot of noise trying to get his account unblocked. This editor has been blocked for almost a year with very little hard evidence of any real wrongdoing.

There is is no evidence of any ArbCom case in which this editor was involved. As others have mentioned here, unless a situation is explicitly made into an ArbCom case or they specifically take over a situation as ArbCom, it is purely an administrative issue. Just because one of their subcommittees looked at something doesn't make everything (or even anything) about a situation their domain by default.

As I already stated, if CC decides to go on a rampage (which, again, I doubt will happen, given everything I've seen in his edits—all approximately 200 of them), then we can certainly block him again for actual nefarious deeds. I think this punishment has gone on far longer than necessary (about 9-10 months now), given the severe lack of solid evidence of serious wrongdoing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Still, given the multiple reviews, and the constant block evasion, how could you have been unaware that the consensus was that he should remain blocked? I'm not asking you to agree with that consensus, but certainly you must have been aware it was there.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Any wrongdoing was only a result of the initial block which doesn't really appear to be founded upon anything. I know this doesn't excuse CC of their wrong doing in regards to block evasion but it must make people think that an indef block is a bit over the top. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you AddShore, but I think the point here is that the arbs reviewed this and stated it wasn't appropriate - also, as Worm That Turned mentioned, there wasn't any attempt to contact the blocking administrator or follow the BASC process. Whether or not the block is appropriate shouldn't be used as rationale to unblock in this context, not without discussing with someone previously involved in the case. m.o.p 06:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, Nihonjoe, that I find your comments here to be somewhat disingenuous. In point of fact, you wrote on CC's talk page

"As there is is no evidence of any ArbCom case in which this editor was involved, the above "sanctions" from ArbCom are out of order. This editor has been blocked for almost a year with very little hard evidence of any real wrongdoing (I did find evidence of a possible 3RR (see links at the top of this post), but the editor stopped edit warring immediately thereafter). The editor's contributions prior to the indef block were generally acceptable and certainly not warranting a block of this magnitude. Therefore, I have unblocked the account"

This clearly indicates that you have put your own evaluation above that of ArbCom, and that is something that can never be allowed. Despite your status as an admin and a bureaucrat, you, as much as anyone else on Wikipedia, must subjugate your own opinions to that of ArbCom when they have made a decision. Your status does not exclude you from the purview of ArbCom decisions - your admin bit and bureaucrat bit give you no right to overturn an ArbCom decision. If you so strongly disagreed with ArbCom;s determination, you should have approached them to ask them to overturn their decision. Your technical capabilty of reversing their decision is in no way permission to do so, absent a really, really good reason, which you have failed to bring to the community's attention.

It seems to be that you have abused your authority, have disrespected Arbcom, and have given the community the finger by not allowing them to determine whether CC should be unblocked or not. Despite my previous statements to Dennis Brown, issued before your comments here, I find your explanation for your actions lacking in credibility, and not at all in line with community standards. I suggest that you reverse your unblock of CC and refresh your understanding of the relationship between administrators and ArbCOm, and administrators and the community. You might also consider turning in your badge as a bureaucrat, as I don't believe that, after this unfortunate incident, you have the community's trust in that position any longer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

mop, I agree that the arbs has stated their opinion through not unblocking after the initial request, to a point I think this is wrong, but also right, in my opinion the sock block should be lifted and then potentially a shorter block evasion block be served, but again I am sure something will come out of all of this discussion. Beyond My Ken I do not really think the unblock can be called an 'overturn' or an arb decision as it was never the arbs decision to make the block in the first place. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry if you find them disingenuous as that were not intended that way. I don't place myself above Arbcom, and I'm certainly not "disrespecting" them (What, did this suddenly become a street brawl?) or the community at large. If this was an actual ArbCom case or sanction, I wouldn't have done anything as those definitely fall under ArbCom's purview. However, this is not an ArbCom case, and there has been no Arbcom sanction, as has been pointed out by multiple people. CC approached a subcommittee of ArbCom which set up to review community and ArbCom bans, and they chose not to do anything. While they did give some conditions under which they might reconsider, that is not the same as making it an ArbCom matter.

That we should subjugate ourselves to ArbCom in all things is giving them far more power than they actually have. Yes, if they issue an actual ruling in an ArbCom case, or if they issue a clear sanction on an editor, we need to make sure we are following that, but this did not happen here. A few members of ArbCom gave opinions on an issue on which they had no more authority than any other admin. CC has not been banned, by the community or by ArbCom (the only two entities which can do that). An indefinite block is just a block of indeterminate length, and any admin, after carefully reviewing the situation, has the authority to lift such a block.

There are some cases where it is suggested that that admin consult with others, but that is not required in all cases. In this particular case, CC has been blocked due to very ambiguous and shaky evidence (which suggests that there is actual evidence of serious misconduct, and there is none apparent in this case), and that block has lasted for nearly a year. CC has attempted repeatedly over that time to get someone to explain why he was blocked and to review his block, but has been met with mostly deaf ears. Blocks of this magnitude need to be very solidly and clearly based in policy, with strong evidence of repeated and blatant misconduct, and when such evidence is not clearly presented by the blocking admin, it is perfectly acceptable to lift the block, especially when it has lasted for as long as this one.

I appreciate you expressing your opinion, but all of my actions here have been within policy. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your actions can be "within" policy and still be questionable and problematic. You can't "hide" behind policy. The real question is whether you have a history of misusing the admin tools. I can't speak with any authority on the matter, but glancing at the noticeboard archives, one could make the case that you have a long history of controversial blocks, unblocks, deletes, and admin closes. But, I'll leave it to others to make that case. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything near any sort of line of opinion is going to be questionable, hence this discussion, and I don't really think 'whether you have a history of misusing the admin tools' is the real question at all, it is should CC be blocked of unblocked.. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for an unblock. There's no question about it. Please read this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Nihonjoe, you said "There are some cases where it is suggested that that admin consult with others, but that is not required in all cases. In this particular case, CC has been blocked due to very ambiguous and shaky evidence (which suggests that there is actual evidence of serious misconduct, and there is none apparent in this case)..." - in my opinion, this further reinforces the point that you should have contacted the blocking administrator. I appreciate your desire to be bold and deal with what you saw as an unjust block, but, if information is lacking, the burden is on you to find out exactly why a block was served before unblocking. Speaking with Timotheus Canens probably could have saved you a lot of time and trouble. m.o.p 07:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps so. However, in all of the previous discussions with and about CC in which Timotheus Canens participated (which I could find, of course), absolutely no solid evidence was presented supporting the block. All the "evidence" consisted of various editors saying that they thought CC might be a sock of a banned/blocked editor, or other similarly ambiguous non-evidence. We can't go blocking people just because we think they might, possibly be a blocked or banned editor. That would create total chaos. If someone is going to be blocked for any significant amount of time (or even at all), the evidence needs to be solid to support it. There is a severe lack of any real evidence at all in this situation. None has even come out here in the discussion, either. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if evidence is outing-related, it wouldn't have been disclosed in public, would it? You should have asked for it privately. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read all the comments that people have left, but from what I've read so far, this is really sounding like a "cowboy unblock", and as such it was quite unwise to do so. --Rschen7754 07:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur and also fully associate myself with the comments of Beyond My Ken, above.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• As an aside, and without any consideration on the merits of this case one way or the other, but: this is exactly the reason I don't like the "I don't support a community ban because an indefinite block is a de facto ban" arguments in ban discussions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with several) BMK, I don't see any impropriety in the unblock. Blocked users can customarily post unblock requests which can be reviewed (and optionally granted) by any admin. That happens many times a day on Wikipedia. Colton Cosmic made such a request and UltraExactCC declined it, as you can see on CC's talk page. Other admins also declined requests. Colton Cosmic also asked BASC to intervene, i.e. asked Arbcom to take the decision out of the hands of the on-wiki admin corps. BASC declined to do that, so as I see it, the status of the block stayed what it was: reviewable by any admin. Colton Cosmic doesn't strike me as a good editor and I see the original block as basically a welcome RBI, but if the person is still asking for an unblock a year later and there's no socking evidence to be seen (there's not even a concrete on-wiki suspicion involving any specific banned user, as far as I can tell), unblocking per WP:ROPE seems fine with me.

  UltraExactZZ's stated reason for declining CC's request also looks incorrect to me. UEZZ wrote, "Admin Bwilkins made an offer to unblock - one that preserved your privacy and addressed the concerns that caused the block in the first place". But Bwilkins' offer was conditional on CC emailing Bwilkins identifying CC's old account (connected with CC's real name). With no dig intended at Bwilkins, "preserve your privacy" and "stay blocked unless you disclose your real name to Bwilkins" don't intersect. The disclosure request itself is borderline inappropriate, as Bwilkins is not a checkuser. IMHO it would have been better to suggest emailing a checkuser, since they are tasked with handling private info of that type, but even still, it's not a reasonable demand if the person isn't willing. Anyway, Nihonjoe cut through what looks like a bunch of bureaucracy and that's always a good thing. Yeah it might have been better to talk to TC first, but with a block this old, WP:BOLD works for me. If there's a suspected sockmaster who couldn't be named on wiki due to outing, then arbcom should have said so in the BASC decline, and taken ownership of the block itself, and they didn't do that. So I don't see any misuse of authority on Joe's part. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

@50.0.136.106 - Despite your obvious knowledge of the ins and out of Wikipedia, your IP account appears to have been a very recent addition here. That raises the concern that you are an editor with a existing account, editing with an IP. Desapite the recent opinions expressed here, this is definitely not allowed under our sock puppetry policies. So, let me ask, what is your previous account? If your should answer "none"., I would not credit that as a legitimate answer, and your comments here may be subject to deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nihonjoe stated above that "There are some cases where it is suggested that that admin consult with others, but that is not required in all cases" (implying that this was one case where it was not required). This, from an admin of his experience, is astonishing, to say the least. In cases of potentially controversial unblocks, especially in cases where other admins have previously declined unblock requests, there is a very clear and long-standing expectation in admin practice that consultation is pretty much obligatory. Even if the policy states that "administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion" (my emphasis), that "usually" in the written text is really under-stating the actual policy as defined by current practice. With potentially controversial unblocks, failure to consult is inexcusable and virtually always leads to a re-block. Nihonjoe, did you have any particular strong reason to not do the obvious thing and seek discussion? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Beyond My Ken deleted a comment of mine further up that I put a fair amount of thought into, and harassed me on my talk page. To avoid edit warring I won't unrevert, but I'd appreciate if someone else could restore the comment and talk to BMK about making accusations unsupported by evidence. Thanks. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  I have restored your removed comment. Beyond My Ken, please do not remove or refactor other people's comments - if you suspect sockpuppetry, please file a report at WP:SPI with your evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly, I'll be more than glad to leave the edits of 50dot0dot136dot106 alone as soon as they have identified who they are. Who are you? Your edits indicate that you're certainly not a newbie, so the logical conclusion is that you are an editor with an account editing with an IP. If that's the case., you should shut the fuck up and edit under your account name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• If that's what you believe, file a report in the appropriate place - you do not have the power to make unilateral decisions on who can and cannot speak here. And in general, I think you'd do better in discussion if you could soften your rather adversarial approach - and I offer that just as friendly advice. As for 50.0.136.106 - how do we know it isn't someone who has been editing here from IP addresses for years? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone else enjoying Ken's unique "logical conclusion" above? AGF FFS! GiantSnowman 10:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• >So glad to give you enjoyment, GS. Pray tell, what other conclusion would you draw from the situation? BSZ's, that the IP has been editing from IPs for years is barely creditable, and unworthy of one with his experience (the triumph of AGF over reason, I'd say.) What's your explanation for 50dot0dot136dot106's sudden appearance? Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Nihonjoe, this was an exceedingly WP:BOLD move, walking fully to the edge of the spirit of policy. It is clear that a number of administrators had been contacted by email and had discussed an unblock previously. Because of this, you should have joined the discussion on his talk page first and at least listened to any feedback before taking action. I'm a huge fan of boldness, but there is a way to do it without it being a slap in the face to others involved. I disagree with your unblock conclusions but I could easily live with that had I or others been given a chance to persuade you otherwise first. Your actions were within the letter of policy but they were unnecessarily disrespectful to those involved, even if you fail to understand why this is so. At this point, I think we must accept the unblock at face value, then (above) decide if we want to override the action by consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yep, what I'm seeing here is arrogant disregard for the community, which is a poor (but sadly too common) attitude for an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Dennis: I don't have an admin's experience with determining consensus by way of balancing policy-based comments against numbers, but it seems clear to me that the consensus in the section above is to reblock CC. I fully understand that any admin who does so faces accusations of wheel-warring, but the consensus of the community is nonetheless clear,and what I believe is needed here is an admin willing to risk the charge of wheelwarring in order to implement the will of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

And now for something completely different...

I've opened a related discussion over at AN, the thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Slap me with fish as you will. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Threat of legal action

On Tuesday, 9 April 2013, unregistered editor User:Legend41, identifying himself as the husband of Erica Muhl, telephoned from Los Angeles at approximately 2:40pm local time to object to my “repeated deletions” of “virtually the entire article” on his wife. (Apparently he had looked up my number in the telephone book, since I do not mask my identity on Wikipedia with a pseudonym.) I was a little taken aback since I scarcely recognized the name but, upon investigation, I discovered a single recent edit, made on 8 April 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=549413048&oldid=549338801. I explained that this edit had restored the only three sources previously found in the article, which he had removed in his own edit. At the same time, I had reverted the addition of several unsourced paragraphs of material. I suggested that he restore those paragraphs, only with the addition of reliable sources. Although he claimed to understand what a reliable source meant in Wikipedia terms, at the same time he suggested that I should telephone family members to verify the truth of these additions, or alternatively he could send me an extended CV which supports the claims. I explained at this point that such things do not constitute reliable sources on Wikipedia, and quoted to him the verifiability, not truth criterion. Brushing this aside, he again accused me of “repeatedly” deleting material, and I found a pair of edits from over a year ago (4 March 2012): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=480109302&oldid=480109206 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=480109206&oldid=480103086. I pointed out that my edit summary on that occasion explained that unsourced material challenged since 2009 was being deleted. I also explained that removing long-challenged claims like these is standard practice on Wikipedia, since ample time had passed for sources to be found and provided. At this point, Legend41 threatened legal action if I ever deleted anything further from his wife’s biographical article on Wikipedia, and told me that his wife has considerable experience in such legal matters. I told him that intimidating behavior of this sort is in direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines, that I was reporting him to the appropriate authorities (which I am doing now), and that our conversation was at an end. Because this editor is not a registered user, I am unable to take any further steps to notify him of this report. It appears that I had made only one previous edit to that article, on 13 June 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erica_Muhl&diff=296232620&oldid=288273481. This was a correction of punctuation and several calls for citation made in 2009, presumably some or all of the claims which I eventually deleted three years later. This is the first time in nearly seven years of editing on Wikipedia that anything remotely like this has happened to me. If this is not the right place to report this form of threatening behavior, I would appreciate a pointer to the correct authority.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As we have sufficient jurisprudence to do so, I have indef-blocked for inappropriate off-wiki contact/harassment. Although there has bee no formal on-wiki legal threat, the phone call above is extremely chilling, and dangerous. Jerome, if you feel physically threatened, please contact your local police (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• How can he be User:Legend41 if he's unregistered? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(methinks the OP thinks he's unregistered because his userpage is a redlink ... the edits made by Legend match the rest of the description) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, that sounds likely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

this is just a clarification question, how should we handle the content issue in cases such as this where an individual user has obviously been targeted. My gut is to say we restore content in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines as long as we can determine that no legal problems exist within the content (I understand that we need to take legal threats seriously, and explore them as an actual complaint of content) but in this situation a specific user has been identified. Do we immediately restore the encyclopedia to normal operations, or are there some things we should do beforehand as to not exasperate the situation? I agree with the actions taken in this situation, it is just a question of clarification and to see what policies may apply.Coffeepusher (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As per the requirements for sourcing on a bio of a living person, I reverted to the version that actually had ref's. Probably the WP:WRONGVERSION, but ref's are important (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. This is exactly why I use an anonymous handle unique to Wikipedia. That's exactly the kind of behavior we do not want happening to our regulars. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No one is really guaranteed anonymous with a fake name here, which is why I just use my real name. Privacy on the internet is an illusion, it only takes one slip up or bad friend or email where you use your real name, or one edit while you are logged out. As for BWilkins comments, I agree wholeheartedly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well said, Dennis. This was one reason I decided in the first place not to bother with an anonymous handle. Thanks to Bwilkins for swift action, and for the expression of concern. There was no threat of physical action, only legal, and though I relish the thought of having the perpetrator hauled off to a police station for questioning over this incident, I don't see any purpose in reporting him at this stage. To User:Boing! said Zebedee, yes, I misspoke. I meant to say that this was a redlinked editor, and so there is no Talk page where he can be notified of my action in reporting him (or am I wrong?). Concerning the content issue here, I notice that the article in question has been tagged (not by me, I hasten to add) for possible non-notability. This in fact was why I reverted that edit in the first place, since it had removed the only tenuous claim to notability that the article possessed. Is it perhaps time that this issue is seriously considered, especially in the light of such strenuous efforts by an individual associated with the article's subject to overcome Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability? Given that I could be seen to be an aggrieved party here, I think someone else probably ought to initiate the festivities.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can always use a registered user's Talk page to contact them, even if you are the first to create it - they'll still be alerted to it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that, thank you. This knowledge may come in useful, though I hope never to encounter a situation like this again.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Dennis, I appreciate the advice, but I'm already aware of that. No one else knows I use this handle on Wikipedia so, unless I forget to log in, it has no link back to me offline. It's not perfect, but it's pseudoanonymous enough for me. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerome, if you edit with a handle, law enforcement or very determined stalkers might be able to figure out who you are, but you'll have a reasonable amount of protection from incidents like this. It's like locking your door when you leave the house. The lock might not stop somebody with a big enough sledgehammer, but locking it is still a generally useful method of preventing unwanted intrusions. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

the blocked editor has an unblock request on their talkpage that expresses concern with edits being made to a BLP. Aside from their inappropriate response, shouldn't someone point them towards OTRS so that their issue can be resolved? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I went and declined the unblock. OTRS is a good place to go when reporting BLP violations, but that's not the problem here. Legend41 wants to add content, so it's best he stay onsite. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone should remind him that he has not been blocked because of his actions on his wife's article but because called up another editor without provocation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the more curious and chilling things I have seen on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, could it be worth temporarily semi-protecting the article as a pre-emptive measure against any logged-out edit warring? – Richard BB 09:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I had just asked this question, some where, Why Ghosts Only on Wikipedia? and Now after 5 days so upsetting and disturbing things have happened to Jerome. The part of the word, where I live, things do not stop at just a telephone call. My God so chilling. Be brave and true to your job. ڈاکٹر محمد علی (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Who you are in real life doesn't and shouldn't matter on Wikipedia anyways; the sources and content are more important than who makes the the edits. Situations like this are exactly why it's sometimes better to just remain a Ghost. - SudoGhost 04:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a very benign, idealistic, and may I say fantastic interpretation of the very real problem of Conflict of Interest (and fighting it and rectifying it). Who the editor is matters a very great deal with respect to the reliability of content created. Until Wikipedia ultimately addresses this issue — and it will, someday — it will remain a very flawed intellectual resource. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Given all the bytes that have been spilled regarding editor retention, suggesting (as seems to be being done here) that editors be required to disclose personally identifying information in order to edit, which would drive away a very significant proportion (I hesitate to say "most", but wouldn't be surprised) of Wikipedia's editors, is rather preposterous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

IP disruption at WP:ITN/C

An IP - User talk:72.93.33.119 - is almost certainly a regular user who is editing logged out (has knowledge of ITN/C-specific procedures, such as marking items "ready" and shifting items from full blurb items to the "recent deaths" (RD) section). All of the IP's contributions, Special:Contributions/72.93.33.119, all of the edits have been disruptive and unconstructive to ITN/C processes. I just wanted an outside admin to look at this: it's probably sockpuppetry, but since to the large number of people commenting at ITN/C, it's difficult to identify who this person is. The user has already received 2 warnings for disruption yet has continued, and I don't know if a block with "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" would be necessary in this case. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 00:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as they didn't respond to not one but multiple warnings, I blocked logged-in accounts from editing from that IP address. The result should be amusing. Shii (tock) 04:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

One week? Talk about overkill. And the us versus them attitude at ITNC needs to stop. Hot Stop (Talk) 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Snappy making repeated false accusations of trolling

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

---

User:Snappy has repeatedly falsely accuse me of trolling, despite my repeated requests that they not do so [194] [195] [196] [197]. They accused me of being disruptive for moving a link in an article from the external links section to the infobox [198], and marked their unexplained removal of cited content that I added to an article as a "minor edit" [199] when it clearly was not. Snappy is clearly abusing their position as an established editor to bully a newer editor. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A clear case of harassment by a 'new' editor'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the minor edit, it looks like Snappy used rollback in reverting you, which is automatically marked as minor. TCN7JM 22:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Rollback is meant to be used "To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear." It's not my fault if Snappy abuses their rollback privileges. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems you didn't tell the whole story either. You accused him of being a troll as well. TCN7JM 22:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I accused him of being a troll for posting a disruptive editing warning on my page when all I did was move a link from the external links section of a page to the page's infobox. That is not disruptive editing. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That isn't my point. If you're taking someone to ANI for calling you a troll, you shouldn't call him a troll in retaliation. It just makes you look worse. TCN7JM 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Leaving one warning on your page, no matter how unjustified the warning might be, is not trolling and should not be described as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What is it then? What purpose could it possibly serve, and what else could I describe it as?46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disruptiveness, incivility, or even (possibly, depending on context) a personal attack would all be potentially valid cases. If a user made a habit of leaving invalid warnings on your page, that might rise to the level of trolling. One invalid warning, however, does not a troll make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would also note that IP hasn't tried to communicate to Snappy outside of a template. It is required you put forth some effort to resolve the issue (assumably outside of just putting an inapplicable template on their talk page) before coming here. Haven't looked at the merits since you didn't bother to provide any diffs of him calling you a "troll". I would suggest closing and instruct the IP to use his talk page first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I first reverted this editors contribution to Helen McEntee because the only source was a copyright violation image. Then they finally provided a proper reference. I used rollback when I shouldn't, so that explains the minor edit. Then they duplicated a link from External links to the infobox which I reverted and thought was a bit point-y. They took issue with this then started harassing me on my talk page even after I politely asked them to stay away, and then threatened to keep it up as long as it took. Then it degenerated into name calling on both sides, and escalated into them leaving messages on my talk page and me removing them. Snappy (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I repeatedly attempted to communicate with Snappy without using templates [200]. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, that explains it. Now, how about both of you knocking it off? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You didn't revert it because it was a copyright violation. You reverted it because you decided that it was, as you said in your edit summary, "rubbish." I did not "threaten" to "keep it up as long as it took," nor did I "harass" you. I merely said that as long as you continued to accuse me of being a troll, I would continue to message you about the issue. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In each of the diffs I provided, he called me a troll in his edit summary. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And as a 'new' editor, you expect what Admin action, exactly? RashersTierney (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A yank on Snappy's leash? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP who is not completely without fault wanted to point out the dickish behavior and a pretty protracted edit war at Helen McEntee and some WP:OWNership by snappy. Snappy blocked for EW, IP warned. Snappy warned about misuse of rollback as well. Toddst1 (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing Stanbridge Earls School

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

---

There has been an ongoing dispute on this site with properly sourced and verified edited being removed by user: Manxwoman.

This dispute will need some help from the notice board as welfare and safeguarding of children are involved. I will show diff's with regards to the edits tomorrow

Kind regards,

Gerben v — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerben v (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I see you have not notified Manxwoman (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as you are required to do. I have done it for you, but please mind the big orange bar above the edit window in the future. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

... nor have you used the article's talk page to discuss the matter and to seek the views of other editors. - David Biddulph (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:Kwamikagami

This blocked editor is asking others to revert other users edits for him on his talkpage, despite being blocked for edit warring. 82.132.228.222 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't they say no?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've given him a link to the relevant page regarding proxy editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Applist

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

---

This user continues to move pages to their 'marketing title' or 'real name' (as evidenced by moving iPad (3rd generation) to The new iPad, among other edits), or make changes to articles based on the above criteria. Despite being warned and told multiple times, the user completely ignores WP:COMMONNAME. See 1, 2, 3, 4. I'm at a loss of what to do about Applist. They seem unwilling to discuss, and even posted a message to my talk page (see #2) regarding how articles should be titled after their "real name" instead of what COMMONNAME states. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

did it to Intel Core as well. WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONAME and WP:trademark all support Intel Core. the disambiguation is wholly uneeded. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 08:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Mcnabber091 soliciting help

Mcnabber091 (talk · contribs) has been posting to user talk pages asking for assistance with a personal wikiproject. I suggested that this was inappropriate [201] and proposed he find a WikiProject talk page to post on instead. He removed my post without comment, but stopped posting requests for assistance for several days. He has now restarted. Is this problematic behaviour?-gadfium 06:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I will stop and I am sorry for my misconduct.Mcnabber091 (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not problematic behavior. There is no "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate" [emphasis added], which is the focus of WP:CANVAS guidelines. (And the removal of material from one's own talkpage is IAW WP:OWNTALK.) – S. Rich (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing Nigel H Seymour page

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

---

Nigel H Seymour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've tried to edit the above page. You name a 'Julie Craddock' as being a backing vocalist in Nigel's live Album hosted in St Thomas' Church. It wasn't. It was ME. Julie Haddock. Please let my edited version be reinstated.

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.208.108 (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm the one who reversed the edit. The page has said 'Craddock' for years (literally) so I undid the unsourced Haddock edit. On the other hand, I can't find any source for Craddock so I've just undone my reversion. It now says Haddock. Also unsourced. Yintan²  12:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

FergusM1970

FergusM1970 has repeatedly accused me of being Alek,[202][203][204] which is an accusation in breach of the WP:OUTING policy. His conduct in general has been a concern but that is a habit that is developing and I've taken notice of. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• If you haven't disclosed a real name anywhere onwiki, then this could be construed as outing, whether or not your real name is Alek. I would like to hear why Fergus insists on doing this, but short of your previous disclosure or him calling you a name to mock you (Alek Trebek, for instance, in an effort to demean you), I don't see what good would come of his actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've left a warning on his talk page for this and edit warring. I would also suggest you stop the reverting and take it to WP:DRN so you don't get blocked for edit warring on Derwick Associates as well. You add, it gets taken away, via WP:BRD you need to discuss or use dispute resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Something odd here. I looked at the revision history of Derwick Associates, to get a flavour of the exchanges, and I see that after the complaint was made here, there were 2 edits [205][206] by a new AlekBoydVenezuela (talk · contribs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a bit short on time right now, working all day, but it looks like one or two SPI cases need to be filed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

He mentioned Alek Boyd when nominating the page for deletion so that seems to be the common theme.[207]

FergusM1970 has had a problem with nearly all RSs addressing Derwick so I started an RS/N discussion where it was concluded that Venezuela's most-circulated newspaper was reliable.[208] We have also been discussing different pieces of information on the talk page[209] and he has been reverting both what he agreed to include[210][211] as well as things he refuses to acknowledge or discuss (like Ultimas Noticias being reliable[212]).

As far as SPIs go, I believe that he has been implicated in several but I'm not entirely sure what came of them. Justiciero1811 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

disruption or vandalism?

I report to you a vandalic IP: this guy inserted these full false informations with invented sources in buffalo mozzarella!

vandalic edit

Invented point is:

• In the past, the Consorzio per la Tutela supported the flawed theory that fossil evidence of a prehistoric European Water Buffalo (Bubalus murrensis), might suggest that water buffalo may have originated in Italy. This theory has since been proven false, so the Consorzio has retracted all statements regarding this matter.

false source and related sentence are:

• http://www.mozzarelladop.it Mozzarella di Bufala Campagna DOP, Consorzio di Tutela] (2008). Some believed that the buffalo originated in Italy, a theory that has since been proven false. As a result, the Consorzio has removed the topic from its website. {{cite journal}}: |contribution= ignored (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); External link in |author= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Late edit, the above cite had an empty url and an access date field quoting2008-10-18 since removed to remove from an error category. The Original Filfi (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You can read here: 1 and 2; real sentence is: Buffalo raised in Italy are, almost certainly, a rare example of a species whose evolution is inevitably linked to its product: Mozzarella di Bufala Campana. Since its appearance in Italy it has not suffered the influence of any other genetic types and is a rare example of 'racial purity' that can only usually be found in species threatened by extinction. This has, rightly, contributed to the denomination "Mediterranean Italian Buffalo".

I removed vandalism and may you block vandal? I am editor of it:Bufalo mediterraneo italiano and it:Latte bufalino: I studied this whole topic and I know sources in books and internet! You can control my static IP's edits here and in Ital.wiki: I reported this guy to anti-vandalism user patrolling. I will start Italian buffalo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.239.136.182 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – ANI is not for mediation, we only like teh dramaz. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems to be intentionally chasing down my edits and reverting them in what I perceive as an attempt to harass me and I'm requesting mediation. The first incident was this reversion after which the editor left a note on my talk page of which I responded to. The user has since reverted multiple other edits of mine without just cause: [213], [214], and [215]. I sent him a Twinkle notice with a request of "Please cease and desist pointlessly reverting my edits because you don't like my WP:MINOR fixes to the formatting and layout of the pages" followed up by a DR/N request requesting mediation which he promptly deleted and ignored and was subsequently closed as "not their realm" of which it was suggested this would be the more suitable forum. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything in your post requiring admin action. It looks like you have some disagreements over the usefulness of the edits you're performing, but that's nothing for this board unless either of your behavior is especially egregious. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm requesting this to be mediated with a request on their user talk page that if (s)he wishes to remove my tagging, that (s)he improves what the tags have been specified before removing the tags. If the user doesn't understand why I placed the tags there, the appropriate thing to do is ask on the talk page and/or my talk page and not just revert because they don't like the formatting cleanup I was asked to do. I find the user's current reversions of my edits to be of poor WP:Etiquette and WP:DISRUPTive. Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion might be that you should explain yourself on the talk page (especially after you have been reverted) rather than demanding people should come and ask you - being proactive rather than reactive can lead to better interaction. But as Beeblebrox says below, mediating a content disagreement is not an admin function. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Inspecting changes made by an editor, then taking action deemed warranted, is not harassment. Please be aware that many editors are highly irritated by trivial wikignoming, as shown at François Robichon de La Guérinière in this edit. The changes were: insert a blank line after headings; insert spaces in headings; change – to an actual en dash; insert redundant quotes in reference names (for example, ref name=wc → ref name="wc"). Making such edits in an article that one is working on is good, and making such edits while also providing significant improvements is fine. However, it is irritating for regulars watching an article to have to inspect large diffs (and line insertions often are displayed very unhelpfully in a diff), then find that in fact nothing was changed. While whitespace consistency is good, the fact is that some content builders like the whitespace arrangement in the articles they monitor, and it should only be changed if a community discussion has mandated a particular style, or if part of useful content work. Johnuniq (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• More to the point is that admoins don't actually do mediation and don't have any special authority over article content. There are a plethora of options available to you however, see WP:DR. If it's just two of you you could start with a third opinion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Response: If the consensus is that no action is needed in relation to this user then of course that is fine with me. However, as his talk page shows, he has been warned, advised, even begged by a large number of experienced editors to keep his head down, but appears determined to completely ignore that advice, preferring to dig himself into an ever deeper hole. I'm beginning, reluctantly, to wonder whether he is really here or not. In any case I'd be grateful if someone other than me would review his recent edits and revert those that seem inappropriate, such as the the removal of the one solitary reference here. I'm not going to fuel his fire by doing so myself. It appears that he has a mentor, but that the mentor is away or taking a break. Perhaps someone could be asked to fill the gap? By the way, he'd already tried this at DRN. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to thank everyone for their replies.
  • Boing, that is a fine idea. I will do that in the future, revert the reversion and post on the talk page. Got it. :)
    • Re: "Boing, that is a fine idea. I will do that in the future, revert the reversion and post on the talk page. Got it. :)" - that could be seen as edit warring and could get you into trouble. I was more thinking of not reverting the revert, but instead starting a discussion on the talk page and then re-adding the relevant tag if you get a consensus in support. Or go have a chat with the person who reverted and explain your reason for adding the tag - they might even agree once you have done that. Or even better, if you think an article needs a tag, add the tag but also leave a note on the talk page at the same time - people generally prefer that approach rather than a "drive-by" tagging that might leave them wondering. Anyway, just some thoughts. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Noted. Technical 13 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, I'm making a "simple improvement of articles" as administrator Thumperward (talk · contribs) implored me to do. I had no issue with that one reversion, as I stated in the discussion on my talk page and would have been happy to drop the issue. Not very long after that, however, there were three more articles reverted by this user that were more than just the simple page formatting clean-up I had done on that issue. I had tagged the articles as needing other things, and the removal of the taggings is what prompted me to ask for assistance in figuring out the proper course of action.
  • Beeblebrox, I first went to DR and they sent me here (as my opening statement says). This is not just between Justlettersandnumbers and I, as I have been discussing it with Timtrent (talk · contribs) (Fiddle Faddle) as well, so I don't think the 3rd opinion is any longer valid.
  • Justlettersandnumbers, I am off of a recent block for "disruptive editing". The edits that you reverted were what I was recommended to do by the unblocking administrator. The reason I so quickly requested mediation to deal with what I perceived as harassment from you was to prevent any potential edit wars or violations of the 3RR and to "nip-in-the-bud" any possible conflicts, in an attempt to "keep my head down." "T13 has plenty of eyes on him, I don't think there's any cause to worry." Writ Keeper (talk · contribs). I appreciate your agreement to back off in your reversion of my tagging pages that are in need of help and fixing the little formatting flaws I see as I go. I also encourage you to ask me why I have tagged a certain page a certain way instead of simply reverting my edits. I would be happy to explain my POV for the tagging, and I do not find myself above being wrong. I've found there are many hard to find policies and unclear policies on this wiki, and you may have a point that a certain tag is inappropriate and I would be happy to see such tags removed. As for your "BTW" comment, I stated in my opening post I was referred here by DR/N, so I'm not entirely sure of the point of that comment.
  • All of that being said. I would like to re-iterate my appreciation of all of those that took a few moments to help mitigate the issue here and feel that there is nothing else to see here and request this complaint be closed. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • The point of mentioning DRN is that as an editor whose indef block was recently removed, you should be avoiding conflict, not gravitating towards it. If dealing with vandalism, by all means edit war and escalate the issue. However, particularly when dealing with trivial edits, please stop and think: Is this issue worth fighting over? Would escalating this help the encyclopedia? Your answer to that question is clearly yes (because you raised the matter at DRN and ANI). From the community's point of view, the answer is no. If the matter is serious, someone else will notice and will attend to it. If curious about why you were reverted, the first step would be to calmly ask about the issue on the article talk page. If there is no response after two days, you might ask on the reverting editor's talk if they would please respond to your question at the article talk. Or, just ask if any highly productive editors have ever been blocked for insisting on making trivial changes to articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Noted, please close discussion. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
        • (Comment from uninvolved editor) I am not an admin but I am well aware of Technical's past history. Given that Technical 13 is not perfect, I would like to get this deescalated to the point where it can be removed from ANI without ignoring any of the pertinent issues.

Johnuniq:

1. This is what I would like you to say. (Please modify as you see fit.)

I don't care about your pie chart, I only care about your behavior. In particular, I care that you (a) don't get into arguments or revert wars with other users, and (b) don't waste the admins' time. Please do not report another incident on ANI unless (a) it is an urgent matter that requires immediate admin attention, or (b) you have discussed the matter extensively with the user first, waited a reasonable amount of time for them to reply, discussed the matter with at least one uninvolved third party, and have exhausted all other reasonable options.

1. Back here you criticized Technical for making too many edits to his user space and not enough to articles, and in this thread you're criticizing him for "trivial wikignoming." Right or wrong, Technical thought he was expected to edit articles. I'd like to respectfully ask that Technical be allowed to work on the aborted help page to help users who are currently blocked to become unblocked. If the admins want him to write prose, let it be prose that's personally relevant to him. If that's not ok maybe he could clarify and update the docs on the dispute resolution process? If neither of these is ok and you don't want to close this discussion, maybe there needs to be a discussion about where T13 should be spending his time that the admins will find productive and Technical will find personally relevant. (Why should I care if someone spends all his time working on templates, as long as he's not inconveniencing other users?)

Technical 13:

1. Justlettersandnumbers was upset about your accidental revert of his edit. I see you fixed your mistake the next day, but you didn't mention it on this page or that user's talk page. For the future, please keep in mind that an edit summary isn't always enough. You will not be able to "keep your head down" without making appropriate use of talk pages.
2. I think it would help matters if you not just say "noted" but (a) acknowledge what you did wrong, (b) apologize, and (c) say you won't do it again. (I'm only referring to this specific ANI issue, not closed issues from the past.)
3. For the future, I think an appropriate escalation would be: (1) post on the article and/or user's talk page. (2) Wait two days for a reply. If it bothers you talk about it with a friend or take a break. (3) Find a friend to talk about this with. (4) Discuss with a friend on Wikipedia or repost on a talk page. (5) Wait or take a break. (6) WP:3O (7) WP:RFC/USER (8) WP:ANI
4. You've made an amazing transformation, and while you still have things to learn, you're definitely a net positive in my book. Keep up the good work! Mattj2 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Block request for user Nasirir

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked by MRG as a sock of User:پارسا آملی -- Dianna (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nasirir (talk · contribs) has created several articles with copypasted text and I have reported them as copyright violations (Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2013_April_13) but he is repeatedly removing the copyvio template from them.-- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

He also continues to create new copypasted articles. He claims (in broken English) to be the copyright owner of the website in question but has not followed proper procedures. -- Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Finnegas and category disruption

Finnegas (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly disrupting consensus formation relating to geographical categories for sportspeople in Ireland.

Finnegas has have emptied categories out-of-process before nominating them for CFD, and has continued to depopulate them while under discussion. This is disruptive, because if a CFD reaches a consensus to keep a category, that cannot be achieved if it has already been emptied.

Finnegas been repeatedly warned about this, but his latest response is to stop depopulating the categories for counties which he contests, and instead go in the opposite direction by creating a series of micro-categories, which are clearly intended as a piece of WP:POINTy disruption. I have nominated the categories for upmerger at WP:CFD 2013 April 12#Sportspeople_from_Irish_suburbs_and_towns, where I have set out in detail the history of this saga, with supporting diffs.

As noted at CFD, Finnegas has rejected repeated requests to stop this disruption. Please can something be done about this? It is becoming a huge time-waster for other editors, and leads to discussions being cluttered with procedural rows.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah - that's just clearly disruptive, especially the WP:POINT micro-categories; I think a final warning before a block is in order there. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Here he admits to emptying cats out of process - but leaving '1' article behind: [216]. I think a stern warning would do here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's clearly a Wikipedia:Gaming the system statement. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Stunts like this are utterly unacceptable (and the tone there is not exactly collegial either). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly a neutral party here. There has been a lot of bad blood between Finnegas, Brocach (who should also be the subject of the same censure) and I. Anything that I say here with inevitably smack of schadenfreude. Nevertheless, it has been most distressing having to clean up after their edits. Both editors have a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU: discussion with them is utterly pointless. Only disciplinary action has any impact. Take, for example, the silly edits at Ardfinnan GAA: ignore the ostensible excuses offered for reverting my edits - the real reason is a refusal to admit the words North Tipperary to any GAA article. To do so would be to admit that there are more than 32 counties in Ireland. That's an admission that will never come from the lips of either Finnegas or Brocach. Hence the silly edits. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I accept the request to cease my edits which are viewed as disruptive. I promise to accept the consensus as regards to Categories and not create so called micro categories or empty out of process. I will conduct myself in a more civil professional manner in the future.In addition, I would like to highlight that I have never edited the Ardfinnan GAA article. Finnegas (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Finnegas. It's a welcome assurance, tho it's a great pity that it has taken so long to get it.

I'm glad that you say that you will stop emptying categories out-of-process. However, it has been noted above that you had been removing all-but one article so that category was not completely empty[217]. Will you stop that too? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Finnegas (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I think we are all done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks Finnegas. One quick note: "I promise to accept the consensus as regards to Categories" - I don't think the request is that you just accept whatever the current consensus is said to be, as that can certainly change - so there is no problem with you debating and challenging the consensus - just do so in the appropriate venue, eg talk pages and CFD, and not through emptying of categories, etc. But I appreciate your statement above. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Of Nangparbat, would somebody please block this guy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done along with an IP that clinched it. Tread carefully on reverts DS, even with banned users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Unforgettableid reported by User:Yworo

That's all folks. Let's move on to something that's actually important. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Dear sirs: Yworo claims harassment because of some user warning templates I put on his talk page. He made some edits, and I responded with the templates. First: Yworo edit 1; my response. Later: Yworo edit 2; my response. Even later: Yworo edit 3; Yworo edit 4; my two-part response. In my two-part response, {{uw-npa2}} is in response to Yworo edit 3. Do you agree that there was merit to my responses, and that I responded coolly and calmly? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Were you asked to stay off their talkpage, and did you understand the request? There are millions of editors who could place a valid warning if needed and nearly a couple of thousand admins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC) if Yworo has banned Unforgettableid from commenting on his/her talk page but continues to post on Unforgettableid's [218] then it's not unexpected for Unforgettableid to post on Yworo's. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC) You both need to avoid each other then. And Yworo, you need to dial back the "pimping", "common sense" and the calling someone an ass. Seriously, you are asking for trouble and you accomplish nothing by this type of inflammatory language, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your replies. I would like to try to avoid Yworo by avoiding editing the same pages as he does. But this would currently be difficult. He has lately been looking carefully into my past contributions, visiting various pages I have created or edited, and modifying the pages. Some examples of pages which I have created in the past decade, and he has touched in the past week, include: Alameda County Study, Linux conference, Scrabble variants, Go Home Lake, Desktop Developers' Conference, Linux Symposium, and List of open-access journals. Many of his edits have been helpful. But he has sometimes reverted my work without stating why he doesn't like it: example 1; example 2; I can provide more if you like. Do the reversions seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING to you? About WP:HUSH: Does the policy create a posting prohibition if Yworo merely requests it, or does it only apply if I have been " placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' " on his talk page? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC) If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, you shouldn't unless you really have to, and if you really have to, you take extra steps to be respectful. This is just how you would treat someone in the real world, and Wikipedia is the real world. Policy quotes aren't necessary for this. Common sense and basic respect overrule policy. This is because they are the basis for the policies. The WP:Five pillars cover this, in particular #4 and #5. If people would just treat others here the same way they would if they were face to face and knew each other's real names, most problems here would go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Fair explanation. Thank you. Bumping thread for 10 days — dear admins: I wonder if you could please also respond to my question about Wikihounding? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Quite obviously no (if you had read WP:HOUND you would already know the answer)...although it may be Wikipoodling. PLEASE stop bumping threads that are not going anywhere. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mieszko 8 block evasion

• Mieszko 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Confirmed sockpuppets used for prior block evasion per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mieszko 8
  • 109.76.169.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 109.77.151.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 93.107.216.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 93.107.93.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

After the sockpuppets were confirmed, User:GiantSnowman unambiguously clarified to them: "You, the editor, are blocked - not the account. If you continue to try and evade your block then I will increase your block to indefinite." That happened during their Nationality-of-Copernicus-EW-related block a month ago, and due to continued EW after unblock, Mieszko 8 has been re-blocked [219].

• Current block evasion:
  • 109.77.142.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([220] etc)
  • 109.77.175.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([221] etc)
  • 109.78.220.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([222] [223] [224] [225] etc)

I think in this case we can shortcut SPI per WP:DUCK (content of contribs and IP geolocate). The socks' posts are deceptive as they speak of Mieszko 8 in the 3rd person and are written to solicit support against the blocking admin. Thus, I ask for

• setting Mieszko 8's block to indef per GiantSnowman (who is on holidays, that is why I post here)
• tag and categorize the IPs just as it was done at Mieszko 8's prior block evasion.

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I extended Mieszko 8's block to indefinite per the prior recommendation of GiantSnowman, due to the continuous block evasion. I'll let GiantSnowman know about this action in case he has any further comments. Since Mieszko has an infinite supply of IP socks I suggest that we rely on semiprotection if it is needed in lieu of trying to chase the socks. Someone who is familiar with range blocks might see if there are any that would make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Shortcut to the WP:CBAN option? Blackmane (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• • 109.78.195.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([226] etc.) --- this one, too, for reference. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. User 109.78.195.206 posted a message on my talk page and did nothing else. Please stop the witch hunt. Skäpperöd is involved in a series of content disputes regarding German history in Eastern Europe right now, which needs to be taken into consideration also. This is not only about "Copernicus" (see above). Poeticbent talk 17:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, sorry for the delay in responding, been away for the weekend - fully support the indef block, if he continues to sock then we should consider a ban. GiantSnowman 08:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae

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

---

The user with above username Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly induldged in combatic behavior and has repeatedly passed personal remarks and insults. This user has repeatedly accused of me having combative and implotic behavior while he himself has induldged in combatic behavior with many users which can be seen from his talk page in order to enforce his personal opinions and also bullied them. He has behaved with me in the same manner. He has personally attacked me many times. It can be seen on [this section] of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where he has said in one of comments that, "So if you're in high school now and you've been on Wikipedia for five years, I'm not sure exactly how seriously to take edits made at, what, age 11 or 12?". I'd like to ask what does the age of any person has to do with editing Wikpedia. Also what is his business in knowing what age I was or if I'm in a high school. He has also insulted me in [this section] of my talk page where he has said that " That barnstar you kept going on about was on March 19. It's got nothing to do with now. You talking barnstars? I've at least a dozen. What's your point? You constant haranguing of me is the definition of combative, "But I've had enough of being ranted at by a high school kid. Please stop leaving messages on my talk page." Even if I had been ranting this statement is a direct personal attack and he has absolutely no right to personally attack others. Also the comments which he had dismissed as rant were actually an attempt to prove my innocence and assure him that my behavior is not combative. He has also passed personal remarks in the [revision history] of his talk page. It is clearly visible that it is behavior which seems combative. Also he is grossly misrepresenting my statements. When I said that I suggest him to drop his accusations it was clearly meant as an advice. I had already said and accepted that while my behavior is rash it is not combative. In none of the discusions earlier anyone had said that my behavior is disruptive. That is because it is cooperative. Even after this I am being blamed of having disruptive behavior just because I have demanded proof for the statements said by users at [this section] of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and this [this section] of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I ask what is wrong in demanding a proof? This user has made false accusations, has deliberately misrepresented my statements and has passed personal remarks and has personally attackec me. User:BattleshipMan has said that "it is my fault that this dispute happened" but he should know it is a Tenbrae's own responsibilty to keep my behavior in check. But at the same time Bluerules has also agreed that Tenbrae is passing unnecessary personal remarks. This kind of behavior is completely unnaceptable. I request the administrators to do something about this editor so that he never repeats such kind of behavior again in future. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae's comments, while not horrible, are fairly bitey, and you're right in saying that age isn't a factor here; if one can edit competently and learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if they're 10 or 100.

However, to be blunt - you're actively engaging the other editor, KahnJohn. Tenebrae did ask you to stay off their talk page, which is a fair request. There was no point in you coming back and saying things like "there are a hundred other editors like me".

Ultimately, I don't think this is that big of a deal. I'm sure Tenebrae can be persuaded to keep non-constructive statements about age tucked away. Meanwhile, you may benefit from not butting heads with other users; if you feel you are getting the short end of the stick, let an administrator know or find a way to resolve the dispute without antagonizing the editor even further. m.o.p 08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend the usual medicine. --Dweller (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for commenting on Tenebrae was of trying to help him so that he didn't do this behavior with others too. Many users might have same behavior like that of mine. I didn't want him getting into trouble for that reason. I should have stayed away from his talk page but I thought it will be better to make him realise his mistake so he does not repeat it accidentally with someone else. I'll like to apologise if I ever had unintentionally insulted him and I'll like him to know that I respect him. Thank you very much for your help admins. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is: Look at the 545-word block of text at the start of this section, combined with his returning to my talk page when asked not to, and decide for oneself if that is not defensive, combative rhetoric. I also ask editors to go to KahnJohn27's talk page and look at the first words, which he himself chose to say and to put in that prominent position. I would disagree age and maturity don't matter on Wikipedia — any more that it wouldn't matter with any encyclopedia. I also find his starting an ANI to help me keep from "getting into trouble" to be remarkably passive-aggressive.

Several other editors have found him combative and disruptive at the WP:FILM talk page. That's not simply my position in a vacuum. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn: Tenebrae is a veteran editor who has been around for years. Your goodwill in attempting to help is appreciated, but I don't think you need to concern yourself about it. On Wikipedia, if someone has asked you to abstain from talking to them, it's best to find a third party who can liaise between you, just to avoid pressing anyone's buttons.

However, given that you both seem fairly calm and civil about this now, I don't think this is a matter for ANI anymore. I'll be archiving this topic. If either of you would like my assistance in mediating at WT:FILM then feel free to give me a shout on my talk page and I'll stop by. m.o.p 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

185.15.59.204

This IP, registered to the WMF, apparently got blocked (autoblocked maybe?), and WP:UTRS received 8 unblock requests from apparently completely different people all from this IP. Some of the users' accounts themselves were blocked, but happened to share the same IP (at least according to UTRS). It appears to no longer be blocked, but still I'm really confused right now. Does anyone know more about the nature of such an IP address? Or is this because Toolserver is acting up? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any previous block for this, or a range around it (although I'm not sure the best way to check ranges). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly the basic range (185.15.59.192/27) isn't rangeblocked. I can only assume that this is/was an autoblock that has now expired. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• But that still doesn't explain the fact that several accounts were directly blocked, and they all happened to come from this IP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this a few days back - a lot of them were using private VPNs or the like and they, too, were autoblocked. No idea what's special about this IP, though. m.o.p 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

please block User:Петр Утёс and his probable sock puppet User:DoubleVigie

This user proposed an edit on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI that was rather "out there" as most editors agreed. It seemed to fall into WP:HOAX and / or WP:ORIGINALSYN I happened to be the last commentor and the strongest against his proposal before User:Aunva6 closed the discussion citing issues with WP:BLP. User:Петр Утёс then copied the discussion onto User talk:MPSchneiderLC and added more commentary (I believe the closed discussion was copied correctly but the rest was added). I responded on his talk page and my own. User:DoubleVigie then responded on my talk page accusing of something that is not true (how did he know unless he is a sock puppet or user:Петр Утёс told him and thus violated WP:CAMPAIGNING?). I warned User:DoubleVigie and then deleted the whole commentary. User:Петр Утёс copied it back and made the exact same accusation as User:DoubleVigie. I will copy {{subst:ANI-notice}} on both users' talk page to inform them, is that all I need to do? Thank you. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

He also copied this discussion to User talk:Петр Утёс under the title Retaliation. I don't know if that changes anything. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Without a doubt the same user as NummerSechs as well. Quite obviously WP:NOTHERE and edit warring with other users at their talk pages is weird.Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have just re-removed a copy of the discussions that had been put into Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, JacofOz had previously removed it. An I may have messed here too as I noticed they copied the whole business to M.P.Schneider talk page and removed it there too as it deleted a comment that M.P.Schneider had made to their own page. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, indeed.

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

---

Check it. Very funny also, but-

Basket _Feudalist 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've left them a welcome template, a link to TLDR and answered one of their questions. Not really an ANI issue. You also didn't notify them, although I would prefer someone just close instead. Often when there is a person that needs proper greeting, WP:Teahouse is a good place to refer them to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for that. I wasn't reallly reporting for anything malicious, it just seemed slightly odd, as contrary to the message, i haven't had any interaction yet. Will try and find him the pic code he want to make up for it. Basket _Feudalist 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attack and false accusation by 5.65.40.227

Could someone address the content of this edit summary, and perhaps the other warnings that fill User: 5.65.40.227's talk page? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Revdel'd. Oddly enough, the IP hadn't gotten a level 4 warning, so out of my fondness for bureaucracy, I've given them one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucracy or no, no one would have blinked an eye for instablocking for that kind of hatred and vitriol, but I will leave it to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Unforgettableid reported by User:Yworo

That's all folks. Let's move on to something that's actually important. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Dear sirs: Yworo claims harassment because of some user warning templates I put on his talk page. He made some edits, and I responded with the templates. First: Yworo edit 1; my response. Later: Yworo edit 2; my response. Even later: Yworo edit 3; Yworo edit 4; my two-part response. In my two-part response, {{uw-npa2}} is in response to Yworo edit 3. Do you agree that there was merit to my responses, and that I responded coolly and calmly? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Were you asked to stay off their talkpage, and did you understand the request? There are millions of editors who could place a valid warning if needed and nearly a couple of thousand admins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC) if Yworo has banned Unforgettableid from commenting on his/her talk page but continues to post on Unforgettableid's [227] then it's not unexpected for Unforgettableid to post on Yworo's. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC) You both need to avoid each other then. And Yworo, you need to dial back the "pimping", "common sense" and the calling someone an ass. Seriously, you are asking for trouble and you accomplish nothing by this type of inflammatory language, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your replies. I would like to try to avoid Yworo by avoiding editing the same pages as he does. But this would currently be difficult. He has lately been looking carefully into my past contributions, visiting various pages I have created or edited, and modifying the pages. Some examples of pages which I have created in the past decade, and he has touched in the past week, include: Alameda County Study, Linux conference, Scrabble variants, Go Home Lake, Desktop Developers' Conference, Linux Symposium, and List of open-access journals. Many of his edits have been helpful. But he has sometimes reverted my work without stating why he doesn't like it: example 1; example 2; I can provide more if you like. Do the reversions seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING to you? About WP:HUSH: Does the policy create a posting prohibition if Yworo merely requests it, or does it only apply if I have been " placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' " on his talk page? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC) If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, you shouldn't unless you really have to, and if you really have to, you take extra steps to be respectful. This is just how you would treat someone in the real world, and Wikipedia is the real world. Policy quotes aren't necessary for this. Common sense and basic respect overrule policy. This is because they are the basis for the policies. The WP:Five pillars cover this, in particular #4 and #5. If people would just treat others here the same way they would if they were face to face and knew each other's real names, most problems here would go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Fair explanation. Thank you. Bumping thread for 10 days — dear admins: I wonder if you could please also respond to my question about Wikihounding? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Quite obviously no (if you had read WP:HOUND you would already know the answer)...although it may be Wikipoodling. PLEASE stop bumping threads that are not going anywhere. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mieszko 8 block evasion

• Mieszko 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Confirmed sockpuppets used for prior block evasion per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mieszko 8
  • 109.76.169.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 109.77.151.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 93.107.216.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 93.107.93.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

After the sockpuppets were confirmed, User:GiantSnowman unambiguously clarified to them: "You, the editor, are blocked - not the account. If you continue to try and evade your block then I will increase your block to indefinite." That happened during their Nationality-of-Copernicus-EW-related block a month ago, and due to continued EW after unblock, Mieszko 8 has been re-blocked [228].

• Current block evasion:
  • 109.77.142.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([229] etc)
  • 109.77.175.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([230] etc)
  • 109.78.220.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([231] [232] [233] [234] etc)

I think in this case we can shortcut SPI per WP:DUCK (content of contribs and IP geolocate). The socks' posts are deceptive as they speak of Mieszko 8 in the 3rd person and are written to solicit support against the blocking admin. Thus, I ask for

• setting Mieszko 8's block to indef per GiantSnowman (who is on holidays, that is why I post here)
• tag and categorize the IPs just as it was done at Mieszko 8's prior block evasion.

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I extended Mieszko 8's block to indefinite per the prior recommendation of GiantSnowman, due to the continuous block evasion. I'll let GiantSnowman know about this action in case he has any further comments. Since Mieszko has an infinite supply of IP socks I suggest that we rely on semiprotection if it is needed in lieu of trying to chase the socks. Someone who is familiar with range blocks might see if there are any that would make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Shortcut to the WP:CBAN option? Blackmane (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• • 109.78.195.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([235] etc.) --- this one, too, for reference. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. User 109.78.195.206 posted a message on my talk page and did nothing else. Please stop the witch hunt. Skäpperöd is involved in a series of content disputes regarding German history in Eastern Europe right now, which needs to be taken into consideration also. This is not only about "Copernicus" (see above). Poeticbent talk 17:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, sorry for the delay in responding, been away for the weekend - fully support the indef block, if he continues to sock then we should consider a ban. GiantSnowman 08:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae

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

---

The user with above username Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly induldged in combatic behavior and has repeatedly passed personal remarks and insults. This user has repeatedly accused of me having combative and implotic behavior while he himself has induldged in combatic behavior with many users which can be seen from his talk page in order to enforce his personal opinions and also bullied them. He has behaved with me in the same manner. He has personally attacked me many times. It can be seen on [this section] of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where he has said in one of comments that, "So if you're in high school now and you've been on Wikipedia for five years, I'm not sure exactly how seriously to take edits made at, what, age 11 or 12?". I'd like to ask what does the age of any person has to do with editing Wikpedia. Also what is his business in knowing what age I was or if I'm in a high school. He has also insulted me in [this section] of my talk page where he has said that " That barnstar you kept going on about was on March 19. It's got nothing to do with now. You talking barnstars? I've at least a dozen. What's your point? You constant haranguing of me is the definition of combative, "But I've had enough of being ranted at by a high school kid. Please stop leaving messages on my talk page." Even if I had been ranting this statement is a direct personal attack and he has absolutely no right to personally attack others. Also the comments which he had dismissed as rant were actually an attempt to prove my innocence and assure him that my behavior is not combative. He has also passed personal remarks in the [revision history] of his talk page. It is clearly visible that it is behavior which seems combative. Also he is grossly misrepresenting my statements. When I said that I suggest him to drop his accusations it was clearly meant as an advice. I had already said and accepted that while my behavior is rash it is not combative. In none of the discusions earlier anyone had said that my behavior is disruptive. That is because it is cooperative. Even after this I am being blamed of having disruptive behavior just because I have demanded proof for the statements said by users at [this section] of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and this [this section] of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I ask what is wrong in demanding a proof? This user has made false accusations, has deliberately misrepresented my statements and has passed personal remarks and has personally attackec me. User:BattleshipMan has said that "it is my fault that this dispute happened" but he should know it is a Tenbrae's own responsibilty to keep my behavior in check. But at the same time Bluerules has also agreed that Tenbrae is passing unnecessary personal remarks. This kind of behavior is completely unnaceptable. I request the administrators to do something about this editor so that he never repeats such kind of behavior again in future. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae's comments, while not horrible, are fairly bitey, and you're right in saying that age isn't a factor here; if one can edit competently and learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if they're 10 or 100.

However, to be blunt - you're actively engaging the other editor, KahnJohn. Tenebrae did ask you to stay off their talk page, which is a fair request. There was no point in you coming back and saying things like "there are a hundred other editors like me".

Ultimately, I don't think this is that big of a deal. I'm sure Tenebrae can be persuaded to keep non-constructive statements about age tucked away. Meanwhile, you may benefit from not butting heads with other users; if you feel you are getting the short end of the stick, let an administrator know or find a way to resolve the dispute without antagonizing the editor even further. m.o.p 08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend the usual medicine. --Dweller (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for commenting on Tenebrae was of trying to help him so that he didn't do this behavior with others too. Many users might have same behavior like that of mine. I didn't want him getting into trouble for that reason. I should have stayed away from his talk page but I thought it will be better to make him realise his mistake so he does not repeat it accidentally with someone else. I'll like to apologise if I ever had unintentionally insulted him and I'll like him to know that I respect him. Thank you very much for your help admins. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is: Look at the 545-word block of text at the start of this section, combined with his returning to my talk page when asked not to, and decide for oneself if that is not defensive, combative rhetoric. I also ask editors to go to KahnJohn27's talk page and look at the first words, which he himself chose to say and to put in that prominent position. I would disagree age and maturity don't matter on Wikipedia — any more that it wouldn't matter with any encyclopedia. I also find his starting an ANI to help me keep from "getting into trouble" to be remarkably passive-aggressive.

Several other editors have found him combative and disruptive at the WP:FILM talk page. That's not simply my position in a vacuum. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn: Tenebrae is a veteran editor who has been around for years. Your goodwill in attempting to help is appreciated, but I don't think you need to concern yourself about it. On Wikipedia, if someone has asked you to abstain from talking to them, it's best to find a third party who can liaise between you, just to avoid pressing anyone's buttons.

However, given that you both seem fairly calm and civil about this now, I don't think this is a matter for ANI anymore. I'll be archiving this topic. If either of you would like my assistance in mediating at WT:FILM then feel free to give me a shout on my talk page and I'll stop by. m.o.p 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

185.15.59.204

This IP, registered to the WMF, apparently got blocked (autoblocked maybe?), and WP:UTRS received 8 unblock requests from apparently completely different people all from this IP. Some of the users' accounts themselves were blocked, but happened to share the same IP (at least according to UTRS). It appears to no longer be blocked, but still I'm really confused right now. Does anyone know more about the nature of such an IP address? Or is this because Toolserver is acting up? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any previous block for this, or a range around it (although I'm not sure the best way to check ranges). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly the basic range (185.15.59.192/27) isn't rangeblocked. I can only assume that this is/was an autoblock that has now expired. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• But that still doesn't explain the fact that several accounts were directly blocked, and they all happened to come from this IP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this a few days back - a lot of them were using private VPNs or the like and they, too, were autoblocked. No idea what's special about this IP, though. m.o.p 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

please block User:Петр Утёс and his probable sock puppet User:DoubleVigie

This user proposed an edit on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI that was rather "out there" as most editors agreed. It seemed to fall into WP:HOAX and / or WP:ORIGINALSYN I happened to be the last commentor and the strongest against his proposal before User:Aunva6 closed the discussion citing issues with WP:BLP. User:Петр Утёс then copied the discussion onto User talk:MPSchneiderLC and added more commentary (I believe the closed discussion was copied correctly but the rest was added). I responded on his talk page and my own. User:DoubleVigie then responded on my talk page accusing of something that is not true (how did he know unless he is a sock puppet or user:Петр Утёс told him and thus violated WP:CAMPAIGNING?). I warned User:DoubleVigie and then deleted the whole commentary. User:Петр Утёс copied it back and made the exact same accusation as User:DoubleVigie. I will copy {{subst:ANI-notice}} on both users' talk page to inform them, is that all I need to do? Thank you. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

He also copied this discussion to User talk:Петр Утёс under the title Retaliation. I don't know if that changes anything. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Without a doubt the same user as NummerSechs as well. Quite obviously WP:NOTHERE and edit warring with other users at their talk pages is weird.Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have just re-removed a copy of the discussions that had been put into Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, JacofOz had previously removed it. An I may have messed here too as I noticed they copied the whole business to M.P.Schneider talk page and removed it there too as it deleted a comment that M.P.Schneider had made to their own page. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, indeed.

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

---

Check it. Very funny also, but-

Basket _Feudalist 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've left them a welcome template, a link to TLDR and answered one of their questions. Not really an ANI issue. You also didn't notify them, although I would prefer someone just close instead. Often when there is a person that needs proper greeting, WP:Teahouse is a good place to refer them to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for that. I wasn't reallly reporting for anything malicious, it just seemed slightly odd, as contrary to the message, i haven't had any interaction yet. Will try and find him the pic code he want to make up for it. Basket _Feudalist 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attack and false accusation by 5.65.40.227

Could someone address the content of this edit summary, and perhaps the other warnings that fill User: 5.65.40.227's talk page? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Revdel'd. Oddly enough, the IP hadn't gotten a level 4 warning, so out of my fondness for bureaucracy, I've given them one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucracy or no, no one would have blinked an eye for instablocking for that kind of hatred and vitriol, but I will leave it to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Future Perfect at Sunrise is BLOKING talk page

Hatters gonna hat, sockers gonna sock, WP:DENY. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I wanted add my concerns regarding Rouge administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise to his record: Mr. Future Perfect at Sunrise is blocking freedom of speech/ accademic disccussion on Talk Page. See his BLOCK for Talk Page for Nicolaus Copernicus Article. This is just blocking users with inconvenient arguments for keeping his POV on top, It also was busting up the investigation against me (207.112.105.233) and others; although I did not edited the article but only added historical facts to the Talk Page. See the unnecessary investigation aganis every person in oposite (Polish party) @ [236] --207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Notified Future Perfect at Sunrise on his talk page. It is semi-protected so new / IP users cannot leave a message. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 18:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Semi-protecting the talk page was absolutely right, given high leves of sock-disruption. I would suggest checking if the IP (207.112.105.233) is also one of the socks. In any case, all I can see here is an unwarranted personal attack on Future Perfect at Sunrise, nothing else.Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Oh dear. Guys. Ever heard of WP:DENY? A single look at the IP's block log could have shown you that this is obviously another instance of ban-evasion. Why did anybody bother to even respond to this crap? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johncheverly

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

---

Johncheverly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (prior ANI thread: here)

Johncheverly was indef blocked in September for, among other things, disruptive editing and incivility (see prior ANI for diffs). In January, he was unblocked by Yunshui (talk · contribs) and evidently was mentored by Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) and/or TheOriginalSoni (talk · contribs). I am coming here from a recent encounter with Johncheverly at WP:EAR, where he called for involvement in a dispute where there was "considerable discussion". There appears to be neither a dispute nor considerable discussion at Talk:Common Core State Standards Initiative (rather, one editor proposed expanding the criticism section, and two other editors agreed with the proposed wording). Johncheverly's only involvement there was to post a list of sources (mostly unreliable) calling for greater changes, spam the article with templates, and about 16 hours later simultaneously open EAR and DRN threads. I warned Johncheverly about the templates (with respect to that and two other recent cases of template misuse), which set off a discussion at my user talk that is frankly quite incivil.

Having looked at Johncheverly's other edits over the last month or so, I've noticed that little has changed since his last block and mentorship, except perhaps (until now) the incivility. We're still seeing some very poor editing choices including page blanking and incorrect/misleading edit summaries (diffs: [237], [238], [239], [240]) or both, as well as uncovering more instances of template abuse (diffs: [241], [242]), and other issues (such as this talk page comment that may run afoul of BLP, misuse of AIV).

I admit, I have not been extensively involved with this editor at this point, but I am greatly concerned with the tenor of his most recent comment at my user talk page, which significantly resembles the sorts of incivility and denigration of other editors' contributions that resulted in his original indef block. It really looks like mentorship has not worked for this editor. What can we do to resolve this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, John went through an adoption program (mine, though most is adapted from Worm's) and he was OK when it came to "theory" stuff, but when it was time to put it into practice, he rarely did too well. Same was true on his culminating test. He expressed an interest to work with templates, which is when TheOriginalSoni jumped in since my knowledge of templates is extraordinarily limited (that's about all I can do) and I haven't seen him do any work on what Soni posted to try to help him. I tried to warn him about tag-bombing articles, obviously to no avail. I think John is acting in good faith, but at this point it seems we have a major case of WP:IDHT and even some possible WP:COMPETENCE issues in some areas. Go Phightins! 14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, dear... First he was blocked after I filed an ANI report over a threatening email and his harassment of IllaZilla, which is water under the bridge. Now, I think he is acting in good faith, but I agree with Go Phightins that we have a serious issue regarding his refusal to get the point and some competence issues. What should we do about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• At this point, I think it is only fair that I be allowed to advocate for myself. This Noticeboard is all the result of Mendaliv . Specicifically, he got his nose out of joint after I tagged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative article. Prior to tagging, I reviewed the talk page and found there were several users that felt the "Criticism" section of the main article was not reflecting all the criticisms of the federal education program due to be implemented next year. My main concern with the article is that it does not give equal time to Christian critics of the program. Five states have voted NOT to implement the program and seven more are having grave concerns and are in the middle of legislative debates as to whether they want to give the federal government that much control over their state education programs. Christians are particularly concerned about the effect that it will have on parochial, private Christian, and home schools.

Look at these very recent news releases on "The Core":

http://www.fox19.com/story/21967690/anderson-tea-party-hosts-info-session-on-common-core-standards

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2013/apr/12/letters-concerns-about-state-education-standards/

http://tbo.com/pasco-county/group-opposes-new-common-core-standards-b82476226z1

http://www.cabinet.com/bedfordjournal/bedfordletters/1000159-308/parents-should-know-new-academic-standards.html

I posted other critical news articles on the CCSI talk page the other day.

I don't why Mendaliv nose is so out of joint and he is coming down so hard. Is it because he she has a vested interest???johncheverly 20:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is such a thing as a mutual restraining order on Wikipedia, but maybe that would be in order, because apparently Mendaliv does not like my style and I don't particularly care for his abrasive manner.johncheverly 21:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do watch out for the boomerang. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize and am disengaging.johncheverly 00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So at this point, Johncheverly has apologized for his incivility, and that is a good sign, but there remains the problem of his editing issues that even my learned colleague Go Phightins!'s skilled mentorship has not resolved. As we say, competence is required. All I can say is to look at the diffs, comparing those from this and the last thread. It's not good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• All right, so John has apologized. It seems to me, that at least in the civility department, he should be issued one final warning and let off blockless. The other issue would be his editing pattern. I tried to help him with this in adoption, and it may have had to do with me not having as much time as I normally do to dedicate, a communication breakdown, or something else, but at the end of the day, I did not, apparently, do a very good job teaching,so I will take the blame for that. That said, it is still an issue. Perhaps another adopter would be able to work on. I tried, but failed. . Go Phightins! 11:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would not say that, GOPhigtens. You were a very good mentor. Why do we live in a sin/blame society? It didn't work before Immanuel was offered up by God as the Anointed Savior and it doesn't work now. This particular issue is with Wikipedia itself. And we have discussed this: It does not have a universally accepted, systemic editor training program in place. Instead of picking each other apart, competency tests should be developed by the Wikimedia Foundation and, after those tests are administered, both the individual and the Foundation can determine where the individual's strengths are and assign him accordingly. For instance, one person may be skilled at layout and design, another at fact checking, and so forth. Don't keep cursing the darkness, light a candle, for Jesus Christ's sake. johncheverly 12:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • John, I am not disparaging (or at least not trying to) you in any way. I am saying that it is my job as an adopter to get you to a point where you can apply policies and have a good idea how to edit without getting into too many conflicts. You are not at that point yet, so that is a failure on my part. I couldn't agree more that we would be a better place if everyone was fully competent with everything we have, but that seems rather unrealistic. This issue is bigger than you; it is a project wide issue, and it is something that should be getting discussion in contexts other than ANI and user disputes. I don't know what the answer is, but I certainly do hope we find a good one. Go Phightins! 16:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• • If I were "assigned" an area based on a WMF employee and was told to only work in that area, I wouldn't be here. Most people wouldn't be here. We are here because it brings joy, not because our proficiency has been deemed adequate using an arbitrary written exam. We depend on ourselves creating and maintaining a collegiate environment, which means give and take from everyone. That you and I are allowed to participate is solely due to the consent of the greater community here, which the WMF (the actual owner of Wikipedia) has given the authority to decide. Your utopian vision of Wikipedia would empty the place so fast, there would be no one left to blow out the candle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal question

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

---

Resolved

I've got concerns about the question posed by an IP address (216.125.251.254 (talk · contribs) and also 209.174.186.165 (talk · contribs)) on a couple of the reference desks.[243][244] He's trying to figure out a way to figure out what e-mail addresses someone has besides the one he knows about. He claims it's legal and that he can get that info by paying, he just wants to get it for free. I don't think this is a proper ref desk question, because we don't do legal advice there, and I'm not at all sure that his claims are true. I'd like to hear from someone who's a bit more knowledgeable about this topic - and also about whether entertaining that question could get Wikipedia in trouble in some way. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify with respect to where he's asking for legal advice? From what I'm able to discern, he's asking if anyone knows if and where he might find a free reverse-email look-up site, as opposed to a for-pay reverse-email look up site. As an aside, I don't think the former exists; the operators of those databases generally want to be paid for their services. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, to clarify, it is ME asking whether this is legal or not, and hence whether we should entertain such a question on the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As far as I know, these types of services are legal. Basically, the databases are built and acquired through legal means, then access to the information is sold, typically on a per-instance basis (maybe $5 to $10 USD). I would tell him we don't know of any "free" services and maybe he should try Google searching, but without a business model on which to base such a service, it's hard to imagine reasons why such a free service would exist. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what you're saying, such a service would compile a list of publicly known e-mail addresses and build a mix-and-match database. So there's no guarantee, whether pay or free, that such a list would be complete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, their databases are guaranteed to be incomplete. How could they possibly know every email address that exists, etc.? Generally, the way such services work, the client queries to see if there is an email address on file for a given person before purchasing. If an address is on file, the service indicates it's available and how much it will cost to get the answer. Of course, the client may pay for it only to discover it's an old and non-responsive email address, and the person they are trying to reach does not write them back because they are no longer using it. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's generally how those services work, yes. I've always been fairly wary of this type of service anyway, because although the access to the data may be legal, what they then choose to do with that information is beyond our, or any service's, control. What would be our standing on this as Wikipedia, as there are very few particularly legal or moral reasons I can think of a user to want access to such information in this manner. It skirts the line of the target's privacy, and would we want to get involved with aiding this? drewmunn talk 21:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight to put on the privacy issue as long as the information was acquired legally by the service holding the database. While we would find it abhorrent if someone used such a service to find a target's email address and commenced harassing them, there are legitimate reasons why people might want to use this service, not much different from when people used to call 411 and try to look up people's phone numbers because they wanted to call them. I suppose you could say "if they want someone's email address, then ask them for it." But perhaps they can't reach the person any other way, and haven't been able to turn up an address or phone number through other means. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For crying out loud, what is this doing at ANI??? 'EEng (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because I wasn't sure where to take it. In any case, I got some good answers here and posted a summary on the ref desks. So, barring any unexpected new developments, this case is closed. Thank you for your help, support, and spare question marks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

2013 Boston Marathon

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

---

I request that this be protected at once; it's already had some sick vandalism strike it. Ravenswing 21:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Brocach

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

---

Does this comment by Brocach (talk · contribs) merit some sort of warning? The comment is a week old, but the fact that it has not been redacted in that time suggests that it was a little more than a heat-of-the-moment line.

The conversation preceding it was not very civil, but I think that Brocach crossed a line there.

(I have a long history of disagreements with Brocach, which is why I will take no action myself). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You do indeed have such a history, as does the person who made the comment to which I reacted - on my own talk page. Have you nothing better to do than to assess the politeness or otherwise of an editor responding on his own talk page to an unsolicited insult from a notoriously disruptive editor, with whom you also frequently have rows? Grow up. Brocach (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As a completely neutral third party in this matter, I would say while not the shinning example of WP:CIVIL, he was antagonized by this edit first -- while not as strong an insult, still an insult nonetheless. I won't even get into his response to BrownHairedGirls comment. Mkdw^talk 05:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Jeez Brocach, there is a way to disagree without being so disagreeable, like your "Grow up" comment here. I'm not one to block over a single instance of incivility (and tend to be a little more lenient on a person's own talk page), but if there is a pattern of being incivil to other editors, all bets are off. The comment here bothers me more than the talk page "tit for tat", frankly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Show me the "pattern", Dennis... oh sorry, you can't because there isn't one. I treat other editors with civility and assume good faith unless/until there is a good and sufficient reason to do otherwise. Every substantive WP article edit that I have ever made on Wikipedia, nearly 7k of them, was intended to be constructive and improving, and an overwhelming majority were accepted and remain in place. Some people find being disagreed with disagreeable, but I disagree: if I stupidly proposed someone for "some sort of warning" about a matter that had nothing to do with me, and found that any non-stupid person looking at the facts disagreed with me, I would be agreeable to withdrawing my stupid complaint.

This is about one admin, BHG, who has had disagreements with me about the hugely important matter of (drum roll) Irish county categories, discreetly visiting my talk page and seizing on an exchange between me and a third-party notoriously disruptive editor (with whom BHG has also had many disagreements, often about the same hugely important matter) in order to find something to found a belated and trivial complaint about me at ANI. Totally inappropriate and immature behaviour, hence my comment "Grow up". As for the comment that BHG pretended to find offensive on behalf of the silent offendee, that other party provoked me, as was his intention, took the riposte on the chin and didn't complain. The word is "uncivil", by the way. Brocach (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Chronic vandalism

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

---

Resolved

This IP is guilty of chronic vandalism Can an Admin take appropriate action please? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Final warning added to their talkpage. For future reference, AIV is thataway... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Dr.K. removes my messages in ANOTHER user's talk page

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

---

I made these edits in User talk:Athenean [245]. They were reverted by User:Dr.K. [246] [247]. In Dr.K.'s talk page, I tried to tell him/her that saying someone doesn't understand a policy is not a personal attack and that he/she shouldn't remove content from other people's pages, [248] but he said the following: "I know which month it is. You don't get to put a section starting with a month here" [249]. Again, he removed content from User talk:Athenean [250]. Cavann (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Whether or not he thinks the edit summary was a personal attack (I don't think it was), removing the warning is uncalled for. If he was truly concerned, he should have addressed the edit summary, not the template. Now it looks like he's going to use edit summaries about the 3RR warning as a "weapon" of his own.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• By my count, he's reverted the template 4 times in less than an hour. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• No. It is not only the edit-summary. Do you think that a good-faith user reverting only once on Turkey deserves a level 3 blanking warning on their talk? I was reverting a clear attempt at intimidation. Please see also below. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if you think it was the right one. Edit warring over it is not the right answer. And that template is not only for blanking. It says "or remove portions of page content" as well as blanking. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• So for one revert you jump to level 3? What about the pattern of the past attacks of this user against Athenean? I guess you do not see a pattern. But I do. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing in 3RR exempts you because you "see a pattern" or think it's the wrong template. You're so busy shifting blame that you're failing to own up to your own misuse of Twinkle (something we haven't addressed yet). Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Removing another editor's talk page comment without their permission and without very good reason is a clear violation of WP:TPO. Per WP:RUC, "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." In this case, I see no personal attack (at worst the edit summary was a bit uncivil), so the removal of the comment was unwarranted. Indrek (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I repeat: Do you think that a good-faith user reverting only once on Turkey deserves a level 3 blanking warning on their talk? I was reverting a clear attempt at intimidation. Please see below the continuous personal attacks this user has inflicted multiple times on Athenean before as well as other users. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad this user brought me here. First let me start with today's events. Athenean reverts Cavann at Turkey per WP:CRYSTAL. Then Cavann goes to Athenean's talkpage and gives him, wait for it, a level 3 blanking warning, reserved only for repeat vandals: Template:uw-delete and adds another message with an insulting edit-summary: more. Do not delete reliably sourced content citing Wikipedia policies you do not understand) part of his usual attacks and attempts at intimidation on users he disagrees with. :Examples:

On the talkpage of Turkey to Athenean:

Learn to read. Primary component =/= Only component. Saying X compromises the primary component does not necessarily exclude A, B, C backgrounds. The point that there are other ethnicities in Turkey is already made in the lead, with an entire paragraph. Cavann (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the time periods, learn what Neolithic means. Cavann (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

On the talkpage of Istanbul to Alessandro57:

Alessandro57, learn to read...

and tells me on talk:Istanbul with an attacking edit summary Responding to ignorant statements:

...Educate yourself before wasting space in the talk page.

I think it is time the intimidation and personal attacks from this user stopped once and for all. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should start a discussion about his conduct if you feel it merits one. This almost looks like an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you were edit warring over a template on a page that wasn't even yours. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• This almost looks like an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you were edit warring over a template on a page that wasn't even yours. So much for AGF. Again, this user has attacked Athenean in nasty ways multiple times in the past. I simply had to stop this intimidation. Once more: A level 3 blanking warning for a single revert at Turkey is a clear intimidation attempt. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. Did you miss the part that said "this almost looks like"? If you'd like to throw AGF out the window (which you're apparently ready to do), just let me know. I'm game. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I didn't come here to play games. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• So that makes it ok for you to ignore what I actually said and just make up your own version? Whatever dude. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of those comments are from last month, and the debates were heated, with Dr.K. violating NPA himself, even though giving me warnings himself: "Seeing your condition, I don't need to defend anything. I just wish you a speedy recovery." [251]

I can not decide if this is a sock puppetry case. Dr.K. knows the discussions in Turkey,[252] even though he was not involved. Both Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) use similar phrases like "it's high time you lean NPA" [253] [254]. Plus they have similar edit histories, and now this, with Dr.K. reverting as if it was his own page. Cavann (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There is no point bringing a "he hit me" report to ANI without providing at least a clue about what is the underlying issue. Cavann (talk · contribs) is a six-month old account, and templating the regulars (two known-good editors) with stuff like "Do not delete reliably sourced content citing Wikipedia policies you do not understand" in the edit summary (diff) is not appropriate. Obviously this relates to a disagreement about an article, and the discussion should be on the article talk page. It is extremely unlikely that either of the two editors who received "warnings" have violated policies. Is the issue this edit by Cavann which added a forecast concerning growth by 2025 to Istanbul? Stuff like that needs to be discussed on the article talk page, without aggressive warnings on user talk pages. Are there three editors who oppose the forecast? If so, the warnings are very inappropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Dr. K was wrong in removing the template 4 times. Whether Cavann is "aggressive" or not doesn't suspend 3RR and being a regular doesn't exempt one from 3RR. If Cavann is wrong, then discuss it on his talk page or the article talk page. Wrongly tampering with another talk page isn't the answer. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes I was wrong. I should not have done that. But I have had it with the constant insults and intimidation of this editor against me and many other editors which destroy the collegial environment of Wikipedia and poison the editing atmosphere. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

So, a "six-month old account" should not challenge "the regulars"? The point is that you cannot remove content from another editor's page. It is obviously up to Athenean to remove it. Cavann (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• A battlefield mentality is observable from the inception of Cavann's account. As such they are not blameless when a skirmish ensues. My76Strat (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My76Strat, thank you for substantiating that observation with diffs. Johnuniq, the issue is not Istanbul. Cavann (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Strat. Here is a sample:
• NOT under a field entitled "Established". Editors should read before answering.). Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Another: Your google scholar argument is a stupid one, especially.... Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Another: Did you just say "there are no records from the neolithic"? LOL, I'm not wasting any more time with you.. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Look, Wikipedia is not here so you can consolidate your Turkish-Cypriot-British identity, so try not to see the entire article from your point of view.. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The most serious personal attack among all these examples is from you, Dr.K.: I can only say that you look completely over the top and out of control. Seeing your condition, I don't need to defend anything. I just wish you a speedy recovery.

And some of those examples are from 2012. Cavann (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That was in reply to Your google scholar argument is a stupid one, especially.... And some examples are also recent and they establish your WP:BATTLE approach to editing here. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• It was perfectly appropriate for Dr K to remove those misguided and aggressive warnings. If there's some rule against his actions that can be squeezed out of a narrow reading of WP:TPO, I call WP:IAR: if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Cavann, please note that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy nor a battlefield. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC).

Ok, I acknowledge my mistakes [255], but deleting reliably sourced information based on false pretenses [256] does not improve Wikipedia. Cavann (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that a single revert of a forecast about what would happen in 2017 at Turkey caused you to issue an "April 2013: Please stop your disruptive editing" warning to an established editor? And there has been no discussion at all on the article talk page? Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And that's not all John. There was another forecast in the same edit which actually went to 2060: [257] ...and one of the fastest in the world through 2060 and in the lead of Turkey of all places. And yes, no attempt at discussion on talk and a level 3 to Athenean for blanking for a single revert. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This is another WP:CRYSTAL edit by Cavann to the lead of Istanbul, about projections to 2025, which was reverted by Alessandro57: [258]. And here is Cavann today trying to hide the <!-- Template:uw-own3 --> warning he gave to Alessandro57 on April 14 for Alessandro's single revert of Cavann's WP:CRYSTAL edit on Istanbul: [259], accusing Alessandro of WP:OWNing Istanbul. And no attempt to use the talkpage. Athenean opened a discussion more than an hour after Cavann templated Alessandro with the level 3. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted myself to be more cooperative after input here. How can you try to hide something that can easily be seen on diffs? Cavann (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In what way do you cooperate by removing a level 3 warning more than a day after you gave it? The damage is already done. You gave Alessandro a level 3 for a single revert and without attempting to discuss it on the Istanbul talkpage. And since you feel so cooperative why don't you remove the level 3 you gave to Athenean, again on a single revert and without discussion on talk:Turkey? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm down. I cannot revert anything there since I already reverted 3 times. Athenean can also remove it when he signs back in. Cavann (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm down [citation needed]. In what way do you think my reply above was not calm? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Dr. K. should not have removed the warnings 'cause it is a violation of WP:TPO -- which should be observed not because of some bureaucracy rule but rather prudence. Posting a bogus warning a a six year WP editor is hardly the end of the world. The better option would be to simply follow the warning with a note to the effect Obviously a bogus warning, best ignored and then address Cavann's real or imagined sins regarding the article on their talk page. NE Ent 01:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you NE Ent. But I have watched this user over a long time with his attempts at intimidation of other editors including myself with personal attacks in his replies and edit summaries. When he gave a level 3 blanking warning to Athenean, including an attack on the edit-summary, I wanted to stop the intimidation by template abuse. But you described it correctly. It was a bogus warning. But it still poisons the atmosphere, especially when taken together with the rest of the battleground mentality of this editor and has got to stop. Your analysis however is spot on and I accept it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Trout and close Obviously both editors are at fault here. Dr. K was overstepping when he removed the templates, and Cavann shouldn't have added them in the first place. Both editors have acknowledged that they acted wrongly, so I think we should close this thread before things really get ugly. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User G-Zay and BLP concerns

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

---

Per a discussion here, I have decided to open a thread here concerning G-Zay (talk · contribs) and claims that he is violating the BLP guidelines. My main concern, and that of the other editor who chimed in is that he is taking advantage of our trust in foreign language sources (in this case, Japanese), in order to write libel about persons and companies.

Yesterday, I responded to a request on OTRS here that details quite thoroughly what he is doing. This includes falsifying information from the Japanese sources, as well as mixing it up with legitimate truth. He also does not use page numbers for this information, and I invite him to provide page numbers that corroborate this. One example is this section, which cites the "Final Fantasy VI Advance Official Complete Guide" for information on the game's development. The problem is, the book does not mention anything on the development of the book, including claims that are outright contradicted in reliable sources. Rumors are also included, as seen here, and then added to gaming forums as something that was found on Wikipedia and needs attention drawn to it. Articles most affected by these issues include Hiroyuki Ito, Yoshinori Kitase, Motomu Toriyama, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Chrono Trigger. This would all be fine and well, but this information is now finding its way into news articles as “fact” and could lead to issues of circular referencing of these fallacies down the line.

He has also been banned from other sites for doing these things, and has engaged in sockpuppetry on those sites as well. This includes creating accounts in online cafes in order to avoid topic bans, so I any action taken here should take that into account.

I think a topic ban needs to be explored, as this user has already been reported to ANI in December, and nothing came of it, even though there was evidence that he performed the issues brought up above. This includes the part where he said, "There was also a rumour I created in July 2012 about GamesMaster magazine revealing Final Fantasy XV having already been in development for 4 years with Hiroyuki Ito as the director. The rumour spread around the internet but was eventually debunked once the deputy editor of the magazine confirmed the rumour was not published in the magazine. However, my intention making that rumour was not to mislead people, but for the rumour to eventually reach Square Enix so they could publicly debunk it themselves or provide statement about it." The fact that they have admitted to doing this on another site means that there are likely many issues that are on this site as well. The whole thread ended with nothing being done, but it is still concerning to have this brought up before nonetheless.

The user who sent the request has offered to send us the pages in question if we would like to check these claims, and I would like it if G-Zay could respond to these accusations, as they are pretty serious no matter what the truth is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks really serious in my opinion and Ktr101's examination of the situation is accurate. Also, damaging the integrity to Wikipedia is not acceptable behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

These are very concerning allegations. Diffs would be helpful, but from a sense of G-Zay's contribs, I see that there's some merit in the allegations. So, support a topic ban. Chutznik (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Of specific concern to me when I saw the ticket is the claim that the editor allegedly added this, referencing an offline source (which may or may not have been Japanese), and then one day later allegedly posted this in a forum, stating that he had "found" it in Wikipedia. The previous ANI report seems to back up the use of the "Galvanizer" alias. This is very troubling for obvious reasons, not the least of which are the possible real-life effects a rumour started in a supposedly trustworthy source (Wikipedia) might have on a company, its products or employees. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see the OTRS matter, but the timing of these two allegedlys are really close. 17:20 Nov 25th versus Nov 26th and it just happens to be by the guy who essentially wrote the Ito article and still does? [260] This is highly suspicious. It doesn't seem to be the first time either. 'Fake news' removed by an I.P editor. [261] The content was also added by G-Zay. If true... I think we need to react appropriately, this is a major concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP or not, the subject of the articles doesn't matter here. What matters is someone who appears to be introducing subtle hoaxing in numerous articles. Hoaxers don't get topic-banned: they get sitebanned or simply blocked indefinitely, since we have no reason to trust anything that they've written. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While true, we should at least have hard evidence of this matter before we commit to the ban. Right now it looks bad, real bad, but I'd say we should at least see the evidence before banning. If we have clear evidence of the information being false, anyone who attempts to use it in a circular referencing or tries to reintroduce it can be notified and directed to why it is false. That and I do not believe in banning before seeing and verifying evidence of wrongdoing. I'm tagging Hiroyuki Ito as disputed for the time being, other things may be wrong with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said "appears" — the evidence hasn't yet been presented, and I didn't have time to investigate myself. I expect that I'll support a siteban request or a simple "please levy an indefinite block" request if they're presented with more evidence; my point was simply that we shouldn't just try a topic ban. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately gaming the project to support factually inaccurate claims about living persons? Let me put it this way - how could we ever trust this person's edits on any topic, ever? I would absolutely support an indefinite ban, if the allegations are proved to the satisfaction of the community. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and blank the majority of these pages until we figure out what to do/what exactly is wrong with these pages? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, post-haste. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have blanked the person pages, except for the intros, and I cleared out the section on Final Fantasy IV. In terms of the other two, I am hesitant to do anything since I don't know of any issues being presented. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why no action was taken before? It looks pretty clear cut here; he openly admitted to adding false info to a BLP article in order for his own selfish desire of weaseling information out of a corporation. What was the hold up a few months ago from action being taken? Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI needs to be really checked out. I don't think everything has been potentially sought through. The recent contributions have been purged, but the ones stemming from 2011 are still included. As per this edit by G-Zay.[262] For a FA article, this is unacceptable. I will gladly add my support for an immediate ban whenever evidence is conclusive. I did not look back further then 2011 to see if G-Zay has other contributions here, but it hasn't been dealt with completely yet. Also... I have not removed it, I'm no expert on that game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Further details: the earliest content edit G-Zay did to the page was February 13, 2011, with one previous edit to the infobox on January 7, 2011 that has long since been overwritten. The "creation" section currently in the article is a copy I made of the last edit prior to February 13, 2011, and as such includes nothing that G-Zay added. Any edits that he made to other sections of the article have not been checked/removed; based on his general editing habits, I would expect these to only deal with the lead and the infobox. I can take care of combing through the FF6 article when this thread is finished (I'm both an admin and a lead contributor to other Final Fantasy video game articles); it's the BLP articles that are going to need the real work, seeing the massive amount of content that had to get removed from them as G-Zay was the primary author. --PresN 19:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? "Final Fantasy VI was originally directed by series creator Hironobu Sakaguchi, but he eventually stepped down as director due to becoming too busy with other commitments at the time." is in the lede with no source and no mention in the article and was added by G-Zay. That jumps right at out at me. And the edit summary is 'all sourced' with the issues as the m.o. of G-zay. [263] Could you double check it real quick? And secondly, I find no German magazine by the name of 'Gamezone'. A legit Japanese magazine and a terrible U.S. magazine existed, but even counting a translation issue, the closest source would be the new 'Spielplatz' magazine and it most certainly did not do an interview with Ito in volume 57... And as everyone should know, Volume represents the number of years the magazine has been in existence and not the issue number. I'm moving to ban and purge. Real information mixed in with deliberate hoaxes. This kind of thing is inexcusable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I removed his contributions from the "creation" section; I haven't touched the lead yet or any other section. I'm sure his edits to the lead refer to things that have now been removed from "creation" and will need to be removed as well. I'll be going through all his contributions to the article later today. --PresN 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I only blanked the pages because there was the potential for so much harm occurring, and it was best to take the precaution of that instead of waiting for our reputation to be destroyed. I'm sure he hasn't touched all of the article, so that should be kept in mind when reviewing and selectively adding things back in. I just reverted this edit from earlier which includes an unexplained refactoring of the information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted some of G-Zay's edits, not that they were so contentious, but the communities trust in him have been questioned and rather then coming to a notified ANI, G-Zay insisted on putting back information. Here is my revert at Hiroyuki Ito. [264] While it is bold, I believe that this user should not be placing anything into these pages. The edit to respond to the axing was 'updating with verified sources'.[265] Despite the questioned material remaining with, while self cut down in this edit,[266] this is not good response to an ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And a final warning has been issued on G-Zay's talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't actually see Chris' notice until later, but I don't suppose it will hurt at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first learned about what G-Zay had done to the encyclopedia, I was bewildered by what has happened. While something really needs to be done here at this point, I agree that the final warning would not hurt unless G-Zay ignores it. I assume that G-Zay was doing things in good faith, but I feel that he is chronically incompetent. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadly... I do not think it is a matter of (in)competence. Quite clearly, we have valid and well written material mixed with false material that is supported via filled out templates and such. It is more unnerving because incompetence would be material that is easily disproven or amiss right from the beginning, this is far worse because the references were filled out with the templates and they consisted of foreign language print media that is not online and very hard to come by. And some of the false material cites an existing source that is mixed in with real material. The deliberate creation of false references to fake material which does not exist is not a matter of 'competency', it is a simple matter of bad faith. A clerical error for page or dates is fine, but making them up and fabricating sources for any purpose is wrong. Even more so that it was used to compel a company or the subject to respond to this false information. G-Zay is plenty competent and appears to be gloating about the material with the alias of Galvinator, G-Zay should speak up about this or face ban for the confirmed hoax material already known and done under the Wikipedia account alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. At first, I thought what G-Zay contributed was useful, but after learning about what had happened over the course of a few months, my opinion him mostly changed. I think this is kind of like a certain incident involving User:Legolas2186, who was also involved in creating hoaxes in Wikipedia. The evidence is way beyond my control to stand up for him now. Something truly needs to be done about this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Making this for evidence with diffs or other details that shows G-zay is not here to build an encyclopedia.

1. Added deliberate false information in this edit.[267] iOS Gamer magazine does not exist. The real iOS Gamer is a wordpress last active in 2011. Later changes magazine to the nonexistent iOS Gamezone. [268] Which also doesn't exist. A real Japanese and U.S. magazine named Gamezone existed, but not a German one and definitely not with 57 volumes (years of publication) when removed by an IP editor.[269] Content remained for a month. (Added by ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

What GZay has done has caused some consternation between myself and other users. These edits are profoundly detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. I will add some more evidence a little later. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ban discussion

• Support ban for the obvious reasons. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban Per reasons above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban per the above reasons. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia is seriously unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - Confirmed systematic creation of hoaxes and is not an isolated case, it disrupts and poisons Wikipedia's articles including our FAs. Off wiki interaction aside, the edits alone are enough to warrant ban even without confirmation on G-zay = Galvanizer identity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - I still want to see difs before this happens, but if true, and unless he gets on his hands and knees to ask for a topic ban and ongoing supervision, he can't be trusted to edit on his own at all. It is a real shame. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - Per arguments given, and the fact that 1) He hasn't bothered to come defend himself and 2) his only reaction to all of this seems to be "Darn, the company didn't confirm or deny my hoax theory directly". That's all he seems to care about, not that he's used Wikipedia as a medium for knowingly spreading lies and trying to trick companies into disclosing information to him. WP:NOTHERE. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban massive waste of other editors time in fixing the mess he's created. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban manipulating Wikipedia through false sources in order to further manipulate a company is disgusting behaviour, and for fear of WP:NLT I would also say borderline (if not over the line) illegal. There's no place on this project for that level of discrediting activity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban on grounds of betrayed trust. Shii (tock) 16:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban This type of thing is extremely troubling. The evidence I see is enough to make me believe the editor may be passionate about these topics, and I don't believe his intention was to hurt Wikipedia, but nonetheless that's exactly what he could have done, assuming the damage isn't done already. We can't trust people like these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - Hello. I think I should chime in here seeing as I'm the centre of this discussion. I freely admit to posting poorly referenced information on Wikipedia. Granted, not 100% of my contributions have been poorly sourced and anybody who has closely monitored my contributions can testify to that; there have been numerous legit and well referenced contributions I have made. However, I've abused the system and my knowledge. If I knew something as fact but couldn't find a valid reference for it, I would add it anyway and include a reference to verify it, usually from one of the official books in Japanese. In essence, what I was doing was not spreading lies, but spreading the truth with references that were lies. I freely testify that my action was wrong. I also believe that this method of contributing gave me the motivation and drive to write such lengthy and in-depth articles for the Hiroyuki Ito and Motomu Toriyama pages. Looking back, I feel I became absorbed in my own deceitful tactic and used it as a spring board to write such long articles. It was even worrying for me as when I looked back at those aforementioned pages, I saw bloated and excessive articles that lacked brevity; I went overboard with how much content I added and how much detail I provided, even if I knew that it was all true. A simple short bio and table of works would have been suitable for most readers. Anyway, I digress. I support this ban for two reasons:

1. My actions have been wrong and I believe I should be excluded from editing ASAP. I say this for the sake of Wikipedia readers, other contributors and for my own psychological well being. If nobody discovered what I was doing, I fear it would have eventually spread over to other pages outside of Square Enix staff.
2. It's become an addiction for me. Not just my misleading edits, but editing Wikipedia in general. It was something I started just correcting some spelling and grammar and it has now evolved into typing entire, lengthy pages with fake references. I think my ban is a much needed rehabilitation.

Having said all this, I apologise for my actions. If possible, please IP ban me, too. That way I will have no way to edit pages should the temptation crawl back. Once again, my sincere apologies to you all. I saw a gap in the reference system and abused it to the point of it almost becoming a natural way for me to contribute. Please make sure I can never do such a thing again. I only hope there are other people out there that are as knowledgeable about Square Enix staff as I am and also have the references to back up their contributions. Thanks for reading and sincere regards. --G-Zay (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well, your apology has been accepted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Ban - Since the user himself agreed and requested a full ban/block, I was about to go ahead and implement it, but then remembered I had opened the December AN/I thread and that my neutrality could be in question; I'll let another admin complete this. But I'd like it to be noted that the ban is community-endorsed, but also endorsed by the user himself, and that should hold weight if an eventual return to editing is requested. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Ban per G-Zay. Wikibreaks can be nice sometimes, whether voluntary or mandatory, and this one is going to be both. Steel1943 (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Done I took care of the indef block part, others can handle the ban stuff and closing of this thread. — Ched :  ?  10:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Good block. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/99.109.126.72

A suspicious editing pattern (definitely not a newbie nor a casual editor). Probably, a block evasion? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor displays reasonable familiarity with editing, most edits have been adding or removing links (as I am writing this). Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way, though I would not recommend it. Unless you have specific edits and evidence, your suspicions of block evasion seem very far fetched, not to mention you are not even sure which exact block is being evaded. Editing =/= block evasion. There are a large number of reasons as to why this IP has no previous editing history aside from today yet has a good handle on how to edit; rotating IP, editing out of anonymity, moved locations, editing from a location other than home, clean start, etc. WP:SOCKPUPPET applies only IF multiple accounts are used improperly; Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. As far as I can tell, this editor has seemingly not had any disruptive edits. I would recommend you leave it alone, and not challenge them with their editing experience until they have done something wrong or you have found substantiate evidence to support your theory. Mkdw^talk 05:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, SPI will not detect clusters of IP addresses, if there is no recent use of a logged in account. There is absolutlely no credible doubt that this IP is the same person as one who has been blocked multiple times as evading blocks. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list (no longer often maintained by me) for other IPs with the same edit pattern and the same general geographical area. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) SPI's conduct more than simple checkusers. SPI simply means sock puppet investigation. If we suspect this editor of evading a block by socking, then an investigation is the appropriate venue to present your case with evidence. Mkdw^talk 06:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations (SPI) is where Wikipedians investigate and resolve suspicions of sock puppetry (editor abuse of multiple Wikipedia accounts). If you believe there is good evidence from Wikipedia edits, that one or more individuals are using multiple accounts or IPs to violate our policy on sock-puppetry, to abuse or manipulate editor discussions or processes on Wikipedia, or to evade blocks or bans, then this is the right place to open (or re-open) an investigation. Administrators and others with experience in dealing with sock-puppetry will determine from the evidence whether to take administrator action. -WP:SPI

It's not multiple accounts, it's multiple IPs. I was wrong, though; checkusers can't help in this instance, but SPI would be the way to go if the behavioral evidence was not too obvious to ignore. It's either the same person behind all the IPs or the newer ones are pretending to be the (blocked) older ones. In either case, if you want to bring an SPI case to try to disconfirm that they are the same person, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you want to revist the (still active) blocks of the IPs which were not merely for block evasion, there must be an appropriate venue. It's probably WP:ANI, but it might be WP:AN. In any case, this thread is not the proper venue, but the initial blocks would need to be revisited. If those were recinded, then the new blocks for block evasion might also be recinded. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't challenge your decision to block, but the IP's edits were adding suitable links to articles, and seem generic that it would be difficult to pin on a single person since so many people do the same task. No evidence has really been provided except to say this IP is with these. The initial ANI simply says experienced editor so seems like block evasion, so you can also see my initial scepticism. Mkdw^talk 06:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the initial reasoning is not adequate for a block, but commonalities between this IP and others which have been blocked include: adding Wikilinks to Portal:Current events; adding (or removing) Wikilinks, particularly in articles loosely related to global warming, and often WP:EGG and otherwise incorrect Wiklinks; edit summaries which consist only if the Wikilink added or removed; adding comments to talk pages consisting only of an external link and a quote, without indicating the text which might be added to the article (and often a different article, at that); adding wikilinks within citations; adding additional "current" references to existing references, which often don't support the existing article text; adding multiple Wikilinks covering the same text, when one would do; and a few others which I don't recall. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Behavior dispute at Male privilege

I am reporting myself for this edit, which another user found to be inflammatory. There is already a hostile atmosphere there. Intervention in whatever form is appropriate would be appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for the strike. We aren't censored and people are free to express themselves in a variety of ways assuming they stick to the merits of the article. It isn't necessary that you or I like the phrasing. Sometimes discussions are heated, which is why you need thick skin if you participate in a collaborative project. The rest of it needs to go to WP:DRN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material.

Hi there. Recently, I came across Male Privilege and found it to be lacking encyclopedic quality. One section in particular, Male privilege#Male privilege in the U.S., had multiple issues: it is poorly sourced, appears to be a copy-paste from a college-student's essay with inline APA style citations and no actual references, and it solely covers the topic of Gender pay gap, without any sources clearly linking pay gap to the concept of male privilege. I attempted to delete this section, stating that it was inappropriate subject matter for the article, even if sources were found, because it belongs in the Gender pay gap article. I also erroneously removed primary journal articles that were used as sources, attempting to follow WP:RS, which was discussed on the talk page and I conceded that they should be re-added. Anyways, user:UseTheCommandLine, proceeded to revert all of the edits I had made, and then complained that I removed sourced (no it wasn't) content. She also still seems to fail to understand that inequality does not always mean oppression, and that a whole section on gender pay gap, which has its own article, doesn't belong, when it does absolutely, positively, nothing to demonstrate how it relates to male privilege.

When I proceeded to then go through the article, not removing any content, but instead adding inline tags on the material I wished to discuss on the talk page and remove or cite, User:UseTheCommandLine again reverted my edit, without first discussing on the talk page. She also went on to edit content that I had written on the talk page, which I find deeply offensive and also worthy of administrator intervention. It is not appropriate for another wikipedia editor to edit my signed content on a talk page. She appears to have reverted it, though refused to apologize, and decided to instead fork the discussion into a new topic because she felt the word "terrible" was too "hostile" (Essentially, "I don't like you, so I'm just going to ignore you"). I have tried to AGF through this entire thing, but frankly she has been violating WP:OWN the entire time by not allowing other editors access to the page, demanding that I run every edit by her before making them, and then making her own edits without discussion on the talk page first. She has a history of displaying this sort of behavior on the similar page, White privilege, which recently was locked for a week due to her edit warring, immature behavior, and inability to reach consensus with the other editors on that page. She appears to have a strong feminist ideology, which she has been POV pushing onto these two topics and possibly others for quite some time, without offering anything constructive. I would very much like to be able to edit Male Privilege so that it meets the basic criteria for encyclopedic standards, and I believe User:UseTheCommandLine has been actively opposing my ability to do so, not because I have violated any wikipedia policies, but because she has an agenda to push. Although there is a pending WP:DRN, which I started, I felt that her continued behavior following my request for dispute resolution has crossed the line into something an Administrator needs to be involved in.

Kindly, Rgambord (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: as this is now under discussion here I have closed the WP:DRN case as per DRN guidelines Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. I just read over Talk:Male_privilege#This_article_is_terrible. and it appears to me the editor may lack knowledge of some of the intricacies of encyclopedia writing. For instance, when you mentioned you wanted to remove the gender wage gap section because the source didn't discuss the link between that and male privilege, he or she didn't seem to understand this was problematic, which indicates they might be writing the way they would a research paper. The editor also seems to have opened two separate AN/I reports at the same time, including one on his/herself. Perhaps a bit of mentoring would help. Sædon^talk 10:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that User:UseTheCommandLine has decided to take an extended wikibreak. I would like to revert to my most recent edit prior to the beginning of the edit war, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&oldid=549106687 I am aware that this leaves the article POV (critical of the concept), but I intend to continue editing it to add more balance. I feel that the bad parts need to be cut out before I am ready to start adding in content; after some basic editing, I will attempt to find an interested editor on one of the feminism groups on wikipedia who will be willing to collaborate with me to provide a balanced and informative article. Also, I would like to request that User:UseTheCommandLine be blocked from editing this page, so that we don't end up with another edit war should she decide to return to wikipedia. I will attempt to collaborate with the editors on White privilege and Christian privilege to reach a consensus on how to format these pages. As I stated on Talk:Male_privilege, I also think the most neutral and encyclopedic thing to do might be to rename articles to: Gendered privilege, Religious privilege, and Racial (or ethnic) privilege. Though I do agree that white christian males enjoy a great deal of privilege in the western world, I would argue both that this does not adequately cover other regions of the world where these groups may be a minority, and also that white christian males experiencing privilege does not mean other groups or minorities do not enjoy certain privileges, and that those privileges aren't detailed in credible sources. I await input before I take any action so as not to further inflame the situation. Thanks! Rgambord (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it has been 24 hours since my previous edit. I'm going to go ahead with editing the page as I detailed above, and add this to the article's talk page. If any objections are raised, please notify me on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Thank you, Rgambord (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM at White privilege

Apostle12, despite having been on WP for many years, consistently breaks WP:NOTFORUM or WP:SOAP, and has just done so, again, at White privilege with these edits. This is a consistent, recurring pattern over that this editor engages in over many different pages. The list is far to extensive to delve into here, but these these examples might be sufficient to establish a pattern. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(I should also mention that I have many, many times called this behavior out as WP:SOAP, which seemed to be the appropriate guideline, though perhaps in retrospect WP:NOTFORUM might have been more clearly applicable. Mea culpa. But in no case was the response anything other than a flat denial of violating any of WP's policies, either in spirit or letter.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I read the first diff and I'm not seeing what you mean by WP:NOTFORUM. He seems to be clearly discussing the article and proposing changes.--v/r - TP 12:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with TParis. Seems to be using sources to discuss the merits. He is sharing some personal experiences but acknowledging they don't belong in the article. These are controversial topics, and I don't see fault in his attempts to discuss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

the mention of sexually transmitted infection rates is clearly off-topic. Honestly, I'm tired of the thinly veiled racism he displays at every turn. So, fuck this place. I'm gone. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So based on your new user page, I'm guessing that in "UTCL Land" that folks who do not explicitly agree with your viewpoint are racist and sexist? Clearly your POV is beyond ranges that allows collaboration and open discussion. The user is trying to discuss statistics. Statistics do not tell racist stories, they don't tell any stories. It's what you interpret from the statistics that can become racist. Discussing the topic, even proposing to discuss it, is not automatically racist and sexist. But that's beyond your alarmist and extreme viewpoint so what's the point of trying to reason with you?--v/r - TP 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior dispute at Male privilege Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material. Rgambord (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@Rgambord. Looks to me from the edit history like you were the one in the wrong removing masses of sourced material from male privilege under flimsy (probably POV-driiven) pretexts. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will make two last posts before commencing my wikibreak. This will be one of them.

If you have any doubts as to whether I an simply a WP:POVPUSHer, or whether I can WP:AGF and come to consensus even on contentious topics, then I urge you to review my edit history. It will speak for itself, either reinforcing the judgement you have clearly made about me already, or, I hope, undermining that preconception.

I have tried my hardest to listen and operate within the stated boundaries of policy. I have asked for help, I have asked for input on my behavior, and have not found it forthcoming. For instance, I have had a request for editor review up that is as-yet unreviewed, that has been there since my third or fourth month of editing. I have been diligent in my attempts to become a better editor.

But this is all a moot point. I happen to edit sometimes at topics which some people take offense at. I have a thick skin, but have been accused, upthread, of needing to be moreso. This is dismissive of the very real and corrosive effect that a hostile editing environment has on the fundamental goal of WP, to produce an encyclopedia. Tone matters. I try and give every possible opportunity, when faced with a hostile environment, for everyone, myself included, to ratchet down a hostile tone. And then I go to noticeboards, which by and large have proven to be less than useful in the face of concerted POVPUSH.

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paolo Freire

My last edit for the time being will be at Talk:White privilege pointing to the discussion here. I will also note that another editor there who has in the past been quite critical of this concept has taken Apostle12 to task for the statement I reference in my initial posting. I do not expect to edit at WP for at least 3 months, if not longer. I have found many people here to be intelligent and good hearted, but I have no time or inclination to continue dealing with racists, sexists, or trolls of any stripe. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Taking on the cabal, brother! 'luck. Basket _Feudalist 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it, you opening this thread makes you part of that hostile environment. You are having an effect on another editor that is hostile. Do you want to try again with them in a way that is more welcoming to their POV?--v/r - TP 16:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The "POV" expressed here (for example) by Apostle12 (talk · contribs) is racist. Why should we be more accommodating to people who use this site to express racist views? Perhaps I'm alone on this one, but it seems to me that the problem here is that our articles on racial topics are being heavily edited by people with racist views - to the point that other editors are being driven off. We're pretending that UTCL is the problem, and demanding that he be more "accommodating" of people who say things like:

If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men... Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior. ([270]).

People here talk endlessly about WP:CIVILity. Here's what civility actually means in the real world: it means that racism isn't acceptable, and we don't ask people to "accommodate" it. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Amen.Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This isn't the kind of POV we should be more accommodating of, and suggesting we should be shows one of the many problems with Wikipedia. AniMate 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, in the above quote box you have artificially, and I believe disingenuously, compressed my statements, eliminating anything that does not support your erroneous premise that what I wrote is racist. For the record, here is what I wrote:

This article (Criminal black man stereotype) fails adequately to address some unfortunate realities.

I and other family members have been the victims of violent crime on a number of occasions--both on the street and in our homes. On each and every one of these occasions, the perpetrators of the violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, rape) have been black males. When I look at the statistics for violent crime in ANY large American city, black males outnumber any other group as perpetrators of violent crime; this disparity becomes even more striking when one looks at the percentage of violent crimes committed as compared to the percentage of black males in the population of those cities.

The "criminal black man stereotype" exists, not for historical reasons, and not because of racial prejudice, but because black males commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes--in other words the stereotype is NOT wrong. In the private sphere, I am committed to judging all individuals based on what I can learn of their characters; in the public sphere (on the street, for example) I do not have the time or ability to discern character, therefore I cannot afford to give unknown black males the benefit of the doubt. If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior.

It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

It might be accurate to call me a pragmatist when it comes to considerations of race. It is not accurate to call me a racist, and in fact my own heritage is multiracial. Apostle12 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This edit, isn't. As for that edit, I continue to hold that discussing racial stats on racial topics, although controversial, is not racist by itself. Apostle12's error was in adding in his own personal commentary and mixing it in with claims of statistics. My suggestion would be that Apostle12 should remove his personal remarks and fill in the blank spaces with links to these statistics he is referring to. Other than that, a warning to Apostle12 maybe that he is stretching good faith. Except for pedophilia, I haven't seen blocks for editors having opinions. I've seen blocks for racist actions, I've seen blocks for racial slurs, but I've never seen a block because an editor (on a topic about crime based on race) made a comment that was personal and contained racial remarks. Hell, we have neo-nazis editing around this place and the topic has been brought up a few times of Nazi or national socialist (however the name ends) userboxes on user pages. Thanks to all the worthless "yeah me too" comments that added nothing of substance but edit conflicted with me x3--v/r - TP 18:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But TParis, it is indeed racist. The worst kind of racist original research: the cherry picking of (unsourced) statistics purported to dispute the existence of "white privilege", culminating with claims about the high level of STDs in African Americans. Do you not see that something here does not compute here?

And I am sorry about your edit conflicts but actually, showing that there are several admins who disagree with the way this has been going down is extremely important. Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the differential outcomes (white people v people of color) I referenced, S1p1, could be interpreted as complimentary with respect to African Americans, some not--I offered no such interpretation or analysis. My point was merely that so far the White privilege article has cherry-picked differential outcomes that could plausibly be linked to privileges that white people enjoy. My point is simply that many such differential outcomes do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege; I believe some relevant discussion should be included in the article.

With respect to original research, I am a stickler about that. If I were to create a section within the White privilege article discussing differential outcomes that do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege, I assure you that impeccable sourcing would be included. Apostle12 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but your very statement here shows that what you are doing is the epitome of WP:OR. Here and elsewhere you are discussing the truth or otherwise of "white privilege" using your own arguments (in this case cherry picked statistics). If you want to create a section about differential outcomes that do not fit into the conceptual framework of white privilege in the article, then you need to find sources about white privilege that discuss precisely that. If it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims.Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that "if it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims." I assure you that any section I write will be based entirely on RS. Many of these sources, some of which already appear in the article, caution against over-reliance on the white privilege conceptual framework and point out the limitations of this framework. My original comments had to do with UsetheCommandLine's proposal to change the first sentence of the lede, which I generally supported. My only objection was that the first sentence not include a reductive list cherry-picking those topics where the impact of white privilege might be plausible. So I spot-lighted a few examples of differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible. Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Breaking my rule already. You say you've seen people blocked for racial slurs?

While I'm here, two points.

1. statistics are not immune to criticism or judgement simply because they are numbers. statistics can be collected in a biased way, or presented in a racist manner. taking statistics out of context is a big red flag for this, which is exactly what this editor was doing. It was not in any way germane to the discussion about the content of the article.
2. you seem to be suggesting that goint to DRN or ANI is prima facie evidence of hostility. that seems to imply that my options when dealing with hostile editors are either to tolerate them, or to leave. why, then, do we even have a noticeboard, if it is not to have some kind of enforcement mechanism for acceptable behavior?

I also want to call attention to the other filing about Male privilege, above. It seems to be to be mostly the same issue.

I am seriously gone now, for real, no takebacks. olly olly oxen free. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@TParis Actually, I think much of what you wrote here is pretty worthless, and if you're concerned about edit conflicts, the "worthless" messages were posted 8 minutes apart. That's hardly a deluge that would stop you from replying in a timely manner. As for your reaction to the original complaint, it looks like you only read the first link, which I agree is the least problematic. However the other three are, each relying to some extent on Apostle12's real world interactions with scary black people, are problematic. Looking at those three along with the edit that MastCell brought here make me distinctly uncomfortable about this editor's interactions in race related articles. A block may not be in order, but a topic ban certainly may be in his future. I get that you are apparently super sympathetic to Apostle12 for some unknown reason, but I think a firm clear warning about keeping his personal life and personal opinions about other races off article talk pages is much more helpful than the hand-holding you've been giving him here.

And for the record, I worthlessly agree with what Slp1 wrote above as well. AniMate 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still with TParis. The comments may be unintentionally inflammatory (and worded awkwardly, note the last of this comment admitting it was a stereotype), but some saw the Pound Cake speech in a similar light. Anytime someone has an opinion on the culture surrounding race, they are treading on thin ice, but not the same as racially motivated vandalism either. Was it insensitive? Perhaps. Was he intentionally claiming one race is inferior to another? I didn't see it that way. Like TParis, I think he is pushing the boundaries a bit more than he should, and maybe more than he realizes, but when discussing statistics and race, this is always a risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Animate, for more nonsense. Anytime a sensitive topic is approached from an unpopular viewpoint, labels are thrown out. Pause for a moment and consider that maybe fear of unpopular opinion has contributed to bias in the popular direction. I'm going beyond the topic of racism here, whether it's religion, sexism, racism, sexual orientation, politics, you name it, there are degrees of opinion. Folks are too quick to draw a line and say your one side or the other. It's a load of crap. If Apostle12 has actual statistics to refer back to, they should be discussed in the context of those articles. If not, then he's as you describe him. But until you know which one it is, hold your labels. The correct response, from UTCL to Apostle12, before coming here should have been "Hey Apostle, put up or shut up." Instead, UTCL ran here to scream racism/sexism because their viewpoint is not being explicitly agreed to. That is what makes Wikipedia hostile. Has anyone yet asked Apostle to show us what stats he is referring to? Hell, we're being accused of being hostile to Christians, Pagans, and atheists at the same time because no one stops to think they should have to get along with whatever labels they can come up with to throw at the other person.--v/r - TP 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@DennisI couldn't disagree with you more. He's cherry picked statistics to make a point and has made several really inflammatory, completely unhelpful or encyclopedic remarks about black people, from how often he and his family are victims of crimes by black people to his college girlfriend who lived across the street from the Black Panthers. Not only are his actions completely inappropriate, they also make for a hostile editing environment. For someone so interested in editor retention, I'm surprised by your reaction here. UTCL hasn't behaved perfectly by any means, and I would advise all involved to kick this up the ladder of dispute resolution as it may be to complex or a noticeboard. In the past, surveys have shown that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. Dismissing a report like this and minimizing the actions of someone who appears to be pushing a racist POV does nothing to make this an environment any minorities would enjoy participating in. Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you.

@TParis Ironically, I received a couple of edit conflicts while trying to post this reply. I'm tempted to characterize what you wrote as nonsense, but I don't think that's going to be helpful. Also striking out where I called your statements worthless. Attacks like that aren't helpful, so I'll let you be the only one that throws them out. I think most people reading the links provided by UTCL and MastCell can see how problematic his personal stories are and that they do nothing to help the articles or editing environment.

I again encourage those involved in the dispute to kick it up the steps of DR. If an RfC/U has been tried, why not go to mediation. Getting rid of civil POV pushers can be a hassle, and I know it can be frustrating when the admins that happen to be active don't see what you see when you lodge a complaint. Unfortunately, I don't think there is something immediately actionable here, so I'm going to recommend closing this. AniMate 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, I had hoped someone would ec with me. You don't know he's cherry picked anything until he points out what he's looking at. Please put the argumentative tactics away and ask the guy to support his claims before you throw them away. He's probably wrong about the stats, he's definitely wrong about his personal perspective (stats show that white males commit the most gun massacres), but the primary issue here is that he hasn't shown where he is getting his stats and instead of addressing that, you're rolling over it at racist instead because it's easier to ignore him that way.--v/r - TP 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to put what you say a different way, if you don't mind. I actually don't doubt that Apostle is right about the stats- in that he could probably find citations showing that his claims are true. But the problem is, as you point out TParis, that it is equally possible to find stats proving the opposite point. That's why I strongly disagree that asking Apostle to support his claims about the statistics is actually productive. WP needs and wants secondary sources about white privilege that analyze, contextualize and draw conclusion from all the various statistics. Then we summarize them. The talkpage of the article is simply not the spot to discuss personal experiences of black violence or to develop one's own research about whether white privilege exists or not. And, as an addendum, if anything shows what the intent, it is, as I pointed out previously, the inclusion of the STD stats of African Americans which has absolutely zero to do with even the topic Apostle was claiming to be proving. Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the talk page is the wrong place for discussing his personal opinion; all of Wikipedia is. But the first diff wasn't about his opinion, for the most part, and that was the diff UTCL highlighted as problematic. If he has reliable sources, he should produce them so their value can be considered for the article. They shouldn't be dismissed as racist having never seen them. If he can't produce them, or if he has misconstrued their context, then we shrug it off as racism.--v/r - TP 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree totally that sources are required. But it is critical that the sources be about the topic, not just sources that "prove" the individual points Apostle wants to make about "differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims". What was inappropriate about that edit was that it was cherry picked original research, and unhelpful for the building WP. I can do the same thing with golfball dimples. I can easily find sources for the fact that there are between 350-400 dimples on golfballs [271][272][273], but that would be ignoring those that have fewer [274] and those than have more [275]. That's why we need secondary sources to bring it all together for us. Answer for the record: typically 300-500 dimples, up to a max of 1040). Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that some of the commentators here have chosen to focus on the last point I listed (the over representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year) while discussing the fact that many differential outcomes (white people v. people of color) do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege. Was I racist when I referred to the over representation of black females among those who enjoy very high levels of self-esteem, with more positive outcomes (fewer eating disorders, less depression, less suicide) than other ethnic groups? Or was that merely sexist? Was I racist when I referred to the overrepresentation of Japanese, Chinese and Korean students at American institutions of higher learning - or was I merely demonstrating "inter-asian" racism for contrasting them with Laotian and Cambodian students? Perhaps I was stereotyping Ashkenazi Jews (as opposed to Sephardic Jews) for their overrepresentation in the sciences and among Nobel Prize winners. There also seems to be an assumption that I must be white (actually I am multiracial), or that family members victimized by black criminals (the discussion from "Criminal black man stereotype" talk page) were not "people of color" (some are). Lots of assumptions, all intended to paint me as a racist. I am particularly concerned about MastCell's distortion (see above) when he created a quote box that excluded any of my statements that might detract from his apparent intent to portray what I wrote as racist, especially when I wrote about the tragedy of the criminal black man stereotype for the majority of black men who are not criminal.

The fact is I seldom reference personal history on Wikipedia talk pages, despite UsetheCommandLine's efforts to create the opposite impression. When I do so, it is to explain why I might be committed to a certain editorial perspective that relates specifically to article content. As for personal opinions, it seems to me that talk pages are the appropriate place to express such opinions. Almost all of what appears on this page has to do with the sharing of personal opinion. In my opinion, entirely necessary and entirely appropriate, as long as opinion and original research stays out of Wikipedia articles. Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Look dude, your rants are getting annoying at this point. I am trying to defend your position, so it'd be helpful to me if you could just go ahead and start backing up your remarks with reliable sources.--v/r - TP 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, as multiple editors and administrators have stated here, the talkpages are not the place for your personal opinions, and that the specific personal opinions you expressed were inappropriate in the context of building this encyclopedia. And no, racism has not been the main argument for why that edit was inappropriate. See above. Anyway, that's my last here. I agree that this should be closed, as no administrator action is required for the moment. Hopefully Apostle12 will take note of the various comments here.Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be assured, S1P1, that I have taken note of the comments here. With regard to my comments on "White privilege" Talk, I could simply have eliminated the last example I gave, and next time I probably will. Even though multiple sources support the facts I offered (e.g.http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/AAs-and-STD-Fact-Sheet-042011.pdf), it seems apparent that truth is no defense here.

In this regard, TParis, I see little point offering reliable sources for each of the points I made. It would not be difficult to do so, but the primary objection seems to be that I spotlighted realities that have negative connotations for certain ethnic groups. If you truly believe backng up my remarks with reliable sources would still be useful (other editors thought not), I will do so. At this point I don't think it even matters that I am indeed a member of some of the ethnic groups affected--as Dennis Brown pointed out, Bill Cosby discovered this unhappy fact when he endured intense fallout after delivering his "Pound Cake" speech. I am surprised that you saw my attempts to defend myself as "rants." In any case, thank you for defending my right to frankly discuss controversial topics here at Wikipedia, even if it riles certain sensitivities. Apostle12 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I concur.

As a rule the problem has not been UTCL. I was an editor at White privilege for over four years, and during that time I encountered only one editor who was more abusive than Apostle12. Besides violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP Apostle12 has shown little regard for WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CANVAS, among others. After a recent RfC/U went nowhere, I decided to take a step back from editing White privilege; frankly I was exhausted from getting bullied.

Personally I think this is a loss. UTCL and I both made a lot of uncontroversial edits (e.g. spelling changes to conform to Standard American English) to help maintain the quality of the article in addition to the ones that drew Apostle12's wrath. But whatever you might think of me and UTCL, it is hardly unthinkable that allowing Apostle12 to continue to violate Wikipedia policy, especially those that are aimed at protecting other users from abuse, will drive good editors from the article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to step in here and mention that I am not siding with or lumping myself in with any of the editors on White privilege. I'm fully interested in collaboration, however. I'm not going to entertain UTCLs accusations that I am sexist for my edits to Male privilege. I have edited numerous articles on wikipedia and I have not treated the topic any differently than other articles. I removed content which was unsourced or dubious, with the intention of recruiting an interested editor to add reliably sourced sections concerning privilege, but UTCL immediately reverted my edits and violated WP:OWN in her actions and language. There is no requirement that I leave poor content in an article until good content is found to replace it. UTCLs actions have been, on the whole, unhelpful and bullying, and she refused to AGF from the outset, or to follow WP policies or common sense, because she immediately characterized me as a sexist without any basis for that claim. For someone like her, who is so concerned with a hostile atmosphere, she sure doesn't mind contributing to it. I have never before had a problem with another editor, or found another editor's actions to be so childish and unprofessional. UTCL epitomizes the angry feminist stereotype. I will copy my most recent post from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine_violating_WP:OWN.2C_and_reverting_removal_of_unsourced.2C_biased_material. to Talk:Male privilege, and I'd appreciate if those involved in this discussion would civilly comment on my suggestions. Thanks,Rgambord (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The people who try to bring a POV'd article to the center are the ones most often accused of being "POV warriors" (and other wiki-nasty things) by POV warriors, because they are much more credible and harder to "get rid of" and thus a much bigger threat to the imbalanced status quo at an article than actual POV warriors. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Animate, your comment " Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you." could be construed as calling me a racist, as if my objective is to retain only white people. (That I'm relatively white is already known since I publish my image on my user page.) Am I going to make a deal of it? No. It is called opinion, and in the heat of a discussion and I allow for such things. It is also wildly inaccurate. We retain editors by allowing them to express and discuss freely, without shoving political correctness down their gullets. As long as discussion is focused on the merits of the subject matter and not overtly and intentionally offensive, I'm pretty tolerant of opinions I disagree with if they aren't founded in hate. If you want to run people off the project, the quickest way to do it is to tell people what to say, what to think, and make damn sure they don't color outside the lines. Or insinuate that someone who disagrees with you is a racist.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• In no way did I mean to insinuate that you're a racist. I should have stated more clearly that the project has real problems when it comes to outreach to and retention of minorities. What Apostle12 is doing here seems absolutely crystal clear to me, and I was honestly stunned to see more than one administrator defending it. What I was trying to suggest, poorly apparently, was that this situation needed to be looked at in a different way than you were seeing it. I think it was a wonderful opportunity for you to attempt some editor retention. I also think you blew it. That doesn't make you racist, and I reject fully that you have done anything racist here. I also think if you had read all of what Apostle12 wrote and tried looking at it from UTCL's position, you would have had an excellent opportunity to retain an editor. AniMate 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes, a comment is accidentally worded so that it sounds much worse than the original intent. I did have to look at your comments twice, but I've seen you around enough that you weren't trying to insult me, it was just worded poorly. The timing was perfect to demonstrate my point, however, that we all word things poorly in our rush to communicate from time to time. Honestly, I don't know his history, but I'm not prepared to take strong action based solely on the diffs presented here. What I do focus on is getting people to overlook simple things, and the comments presented here were not so strong as to demand action. Sometimes, we tend to overreact as a community and push people away by over-policing, and we do this too frequently. Again, I don't have the full history but I saw reason to slow down and have doubt. Perhaps it is so subtle is requires looking deeper, perhaps we are not being as tolerant as we should. I'm not condoning anything, but before we block or topic ban someone, I think we should be damn sure it is the right choice and the only option, and the evidence is more solid than just the diffs presented here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

Based on the foregoing and his overall record of contributions, I propose to topic-ban Apostle12 from editing in the area of human race and ethnicity, in light of this principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This just seems like a complete no-brainer to me. Apostle12 has absolutely no business writing commentary like this on article talk pages. When somebody posts long screeds on talk pages about how such-and-such an actor is obviously the best actor in the world, it's irritating. When another editor spends volumes on trying to defend their country's ownership of some disputed territory, it's troublesome. When another editor, here Apostle12, uses our talk pages to interlace personal (i.e., arbitrary and capricious) commentary with cherry-picked statistics, without reference to secondary sources (or, given the nature of this topic, ideally tertiary review articles or really high quality academic books), and then lumps all of that together to draw a conclusion that (surprise!) proves that, in fact, there really is a legitimate justification for racism, well, that person should be shown the door. Quickly. If a topic ban will get rid of the problem, fine. If it won't--if this points to an underlying attitude that will simply be perpetuated in other, similar topics, then a block. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone where whoever wants to rant is given a forum and a microphone. We have a purpose: building articles out of high quality sources (and the topic itself will indicate what types of sources are needed). Apostle's editing directly hurts that goal, by 1) demanding an answer, thus transforming a talk page into a waste-of-time battleground and possibly trapping other editors, 2) creating a hostile environment that makes others less willing to contribute, if they know they have to wade through thinly veiled racist crap to actually get to the article. I could imagine a commitment that Apostle12 could give that would make this unnecessary, but me feeding it to him won't work--if he can articulate what was wrong with the aforesaid commentary and specifically state what he won't do in the future, I could see him avoiding the need for this. But, if not, he needs to be stopped, ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Where's the evidence of wrong-doing? I see some borderline comments that I find questionable, but nothing that warrants a topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support The personal commentary about his first hand knowledge of how bad black people are has no business on Wikipedia, and he clearly shouldn't be editing in the area. As Qwyrxian said, this is a no brainer. AniMate 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please provide some diffs where Apostle12 talks about "how bad black people are? If we are to topic-ban someone, there needs to be concrete evidence of wrong-doing.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• The best example of the commentary is his story about his family's experience with violent crimes here that apparently justifies the criminal black man stereotype. Stating that non criminal black men they need to emulate stereotypical asians.... if you can't see the problems there, you must be blind. AniMate 00:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support for sustained breaching of the required focus on reliable sources and the arguments of reliable sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Apostle12 has a long history of using White privilege as a forum to voice his political viewpoint while choosing words that hurt others. With the addition of racial bias we can see that Apostle12 has not learned from previous warnings and is instead getting bolder. My only question is why none of us proposed a topic ban sooner. (Qwyrxian and A Quest For Knowledge, if you need examples, read UseTheCommandLine's initial post to this thread, and be sure to read all the examples he gives.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: The editor has been misusing WP as a platform to air his own positions. "No-brainer" sums it up nicely. Surprised that the proposal is only for a topic ban. I would have supported a community ban. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Defense

I offered no "personal commentary about (my) first hand knowledge of how bad black people are." I referenced the fact that I and several members of my immediate family have been victims of serious violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with deadly weapons, and rape) and the perpetrators were all black males. Some of my ancestors were white, some black, some native American, some Ashkenazi Jews; and various family members are white, asian or, like me, multiracial and multiethnic. The only thing we have in common with respect to the "Criminal black man stereotype" I was discussing is that we have at times been attacked, held at gunpoint, robbed, threatened or raped by black men. As an early participant in the civil rights movement (efforts to expand voting rights in the American South, 1963) I have supported all efforts to end race-based discrimination in the United States and I continue to be committed to racial and ethnic equality in all realms. I do not believe black people are "bad." Quite the contrary, I am an admirer of black culture and its contributions to American life, both in general and the contributions my many black friends have made to my own personal life. I do lament the violent subculture that has taken hold in every American city, beginning with the Black Panthers during the late 1960s and continuing to the present; in this respect I am no different than most black conservatives. At the risk of sounding like Archie Bunker ("Some of my best friends are black"), I have maintained close friendships with blacks since my youth, our children have grown up together, and all of my children and friends know that I am a person committed to judging people solely on the basis of their characters. That said, as I pointed out in my commentary, I have found it necessary in the public realm, where I do not have the ability instantly to assess character, to be wary of black men who present themselves, through dress or demeanor, as members of violent subcultures. This necessary caution does not please me, and I wish it were not so, however I do not think it is racist; my wariness merely represents prudence, learned through long, harsh experience.

When it comes to editing Wikipedia articles having to do with race or ethnicity, I challenge anyone to point up instances of wrongdoing. Even in my editing of controversial articles, like The Black Panthers article I have consistently guarded against any editor who attempts to insert racist content, or who strives to bend the article in a non-neutral direction. Sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with mitigating harsh judgments of the Panthers by adding more supportive material (many Panthers were good people committed to racial justice), and sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with adding sourced material that is highly critical of Panther methods (anti-white rhetoric, criminality and violence).

But, I am getting off-topic. My point is that I am capable, despite certain negative personal experiences and defined perspectives, of editing without racial bias here at Wikipedia.

With respect to the objections UsetheCommandLine originally raised regarding some examples of differential outcomes that would be difficult to attribute to white privilege, I can see that the last example I offered, while true and easily sourced, came too close to that invisible line where offense can be taken. The other differential outcomes might be interpreted as congratulatory of positive black outcomes (high self-esteem among black girls), supportive of positive black outcomes (majority black presence among NBA and NFL players), or more or less neutral with respect to black outcomes - I should have stuck to those.

I do believe it is counterproductive to penalize Wikipedia editors who are willing to discuss racial matters frankly. Apostle12 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We are here to discuss reliable sources and represent them fairly in our coverage. These representations of your experiences are simply not germane. There is nothing there in your experiences for anyone to reply to or comment upon. Your friends, your assailants, your activism, your race, your family's race, are all off-topic (as you note). So long disquisitions on them are bound to be disruptive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - AQFK pretty much sums it up, but I wanted to point out that the editor has supplied a RS that supports some of the comments he's made ([276]). I propose an alternative: this editor is warned to keep his personal opinion to himself and stick strictly to reliable sources which he is required to present at the time of comment on racial topics.--v/r - TP 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually they haven't supplied a reliable source for the comments in any way. Precisely the opposite in fact. Exactly as I predicted, they provided a source simply showing that African-Americans have higher levels of STD. But that is exactly like me providing a source for a golfball with 350 dimples... the question is does the source support the notion that there are "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" as claimed by Apostle12? No. In fact the text says the exact the opposite: "While everyone should have the opportunity to make choices that allow them to live healthy lives regardless of their income, education, or racial/ethnic background, the reality is that inadequate resources and challenging living conditions make the journey to health and wellness harder for some, and can lead to circumstances that increase a person's risk for STDs. African Americans sometimes face barriers that contribute to increased rates of STDs" and goes on to list as factors (amongst others) the higher levels poverty, and poorer access to health care of African Americans as compared to other populations. It finishes up with the statement that "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." This source does nothing to support Apostle12's use of the talkage to speak about theories that "the impact of white privilege is less plausible". It says the precise opposite. --Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still. He supports "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" with this source by this line "The quality and consistency of STD care can also be affected by the fact that African Americans tend to use medical care services and treatments less than whites, which research suggests may be partly related to mistrust of the medical system." He is arguing that it is not white privillage, but mistrust of the healthcare system which affects the STD care of African Americans. A counter argument is made in the same sentence, "In addition, research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." But the point he is making is supported by that source.--v/r - TP 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still! It is disingenuous to claim that this sentence is making any claim abou that "white privilege" is less plausible. Why do you think that "mistrust" is there? If it isn't clear enough for you, the article actually spells it out for you "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience" --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

After ec: I'm sorry, but that's your own WP:SYNTH about what the author means. Before (edit conflict): Striking oppose. I'm fighting a barely defensible case that I barely believe in on principal grounds and it's just not worth the effort when Apostle12 continues to do the crap we're discussing here. I'll save my efforts for a user who is legitimately interested in the topic and not trying to toe the line while pushing his own agenda.--v/r - TP 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The editor has a COI but has attempted to bring some sources to it, while the personal history and preferences of editors are something that come easily, Apostle12 just went to a great deal of trouble with the 'defense' statement and at least tried to keep personal matters out of it. The subject matter is going to be a nightmare for just about any of our editors. This has gotten the attention of more eyes and as a result might introduce a better atmosphere. Warn Apostle12 as per TParis's suggestion and I second that any controversial (not just racial topics) be backed up with reliable sources pre-emptively and doubly so for contentious material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per TParis. Unquestionably, he has ruffled some feathers and many of his comments leave much to be desired, but I think TP's idea is more likely to have a lasting positive impact here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• I will limit myself to saying that I agree with Brad's proposal for a topic ban, and that some of the responses in this thread make me ashamed to be part of this project. We're talking about someone who goes around talking about the criminality of black men and how they should try to act more like Asians. In any reputable volunteer organiation, someone like that would politely but firmly be told that he or she was no longer welcome. But here, the first admin responding couldn't be bothered even to click on the supplied diffs before dismissing the complaint, and the second views this as simply a matter of "ruffled feathers". MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. What he wrote on those talk pages was insanely offensive and the response here is embarrassing and shameful. AniMate 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Look, it comes down to this. The threat of being called a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot, fascist, elitist, ect has the exact same chilling effect as legal threats. When you use them unrestrained (because some people, maybe even the subject, do deserve the title), then you are biasing Wikipedia to popular opinions. I'm not saying unpopular ones deserve equal attention or weight. I'm saying the OP didn't even both asking for sources and immediately started this thread calling the subject a racist and you've propagated that name-calling. So, Animate, yes, you should be ashamed.--v/r - TP 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sandstein's warning of WP:ARBR&I sanctions to Apostle12 seems appropriate. Various sanctioned users, some subsequently topic-banned, extensively edited articles like Race and crime in the United States. The articles might have been slightly different, but the general drift was the same. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, but mine as well let the proposal run it's course.--v/r - TP 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

TP, I agree that terms like racist can be used too cavalierly. But this is a case of "If the shoe fits, wear it." Honestly, can this be taken any way other than racist?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

Seriously, which part of this isn't racist? That black men have not met his standard of speaking out against crime, so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety? Or the bit where he says they should "emulate asian men" because their stereotype is "studious reflection and harmlessness."

Yes, he points out that stereotypes don't fit everyone... but he still treats them as valid. That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals and, besides, they should act like another group's stereotype!

I just don't see any way to avoid the fact that this is a racist statement. And it should not be endorsed on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety?"

"That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals" Ummm...he didn't actually say those things. That's your original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Right there in his statement: Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, referring to our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype". That's not OR, that's fucking blatant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere does he state that it's okay to treat all black men as criminals. Sorry, it's just not there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you're willfully blind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I just don't believe in imaginary things. But we don't see to be making any progress here, so let's just agree to disagree, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Okay, as Kyohyi points out, this statement is from last year. It's pretty clear in its intent but, if it hasn't happened since (and doesn't happen again), there's no point pursuing it now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Response by Apostle 12

The request for sourcing at time of comment on racial (or other controversial) topics is an easy one to observe. While I am a stickler for sourcing when editing articles, this is the first time sourcing has been requested for Talk comments. Perhaps this should become a WP policy for all Talk commentary. Question: Would it be useful for me to go back and provide reliable sourcing for each of the examples I gave on White Privilege Talk and on Criminal Black Man Stereotype Talk? I can certainly do so, however I suspect it might turn out to be more disruptive than not.

For the record, I have never referenced personal experiences or perspectives while editing any article, especially those having to do with race; at most such experiences have served as a reality check, and the emotions associated with such experiences serve only to increase my commitment to racial impartiality.

There is also no need to relate further personal experiences on Talk if the consensus is that such storytelling is objectionable. I have done so only rarely (UseTheCommandLine mined my edit history to provide examples) and this is the first time anyone has objected. Except for UseTheCommandLine, other editor comments have been positive. I do believe occasional storytelling is a positive endeavor, as long as it is not heavily laden with agenda.

I have observed that legal sanctions against racial commentary have been counterproductive in repressive societies (the former Soviet Union and Singapore come to mind), and those societies tend to make little progress in this area. My personal preference would be for more open dialogue. Apostle12 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum to dialogue about race. This is not a blog or a chatroom. This Project is not about your personal opinions of the Soviet Union or Indonesia, or how their societies deal with race, nor is it about your opinions about how black men, or asians, or urban areas, are or should be. The Pedia has a specific mission and your purported autobiographical material, personal observations, and the conclusions that you draw from them (your "storytelling") are getting in the way of it to such an extent that it has wound up here. However this goes, the advice you have received is to discontinue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of how this community sanctions discussion concludes, the conduct at issue here is also within the scope of the discretionary sanctions provision at WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended), that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". On the basis of the talk page contributions linked to initially, which are at least prima facie problematic in the light of the principle linked to by Newyorkbrad, I am issuing Apostle12 with a discretionary sanctions warning as provided for at WP:AC/DS#Warnings. This allows any further potentially problematic conduct to be reported and sanctioned via WP:AE.  Sandstein  10:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I was earlier prepared to let this off with a warning, but two factors lead me to see that this is not enough. First, Apostle12 has continued to use this very page as forum for their personal experiences and for arguments that "racial commentary" and "storytelling" should continue. Second, and much more seriously, despite the extensive comments above about the kind of reliable sources required to avoid OR, and promises from Apostle12 that they are stickler for good sources etc etc, the source they have come up with to support their cherry-picked statistic about "white privilege" being less plausible, [277], while confirming the statistic about STDs in African Americans, draws precisely the opposite conclusion from the one Apostle12 was trying to use it for. It is this misuse of sources to make a completely different point, despite extensive and recent coaching that tips me over the edge. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen any evidence that would warrant such a drastic sanction as topic-banning. I think that a reminder that talk pages are for improving an article, not for telling personal stories or general discussion should be sufficient. @Apostle12: You've ruffled a lot of people's feathers. While I don't agree with them, the fact is that this is a collaborative enviroment. You have to figure out a way to get along with everyone. If you're saying things that are pissing other people off, stop saying them. Otherwise, you will get topic-banned the next time around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support due to consistent soap boxing and consistently using his own personal experience for the basis of profoundly negative comments on talk pages. as an aside; I'm generally sympathetic to a very limited amount of off-topic posting if a person has a particularly salient point which may have some possible relevance, but the editors comments are determined from his own limited experiences with little critical analysis. There is a reason why people shouldn't base arguments off personal experience; it's subject to "hidden persuaders" like cognitive bias, hidden variables etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban On all race related topics at Wikipedia, editors with unpopular viewpoints are sanctioned for far less than their opponents are. If Apostle12 is topic banned, he will be another example. He has done much less than what people with the opposite perspective can get away with. For the diffs presented in this thread, Sandstein's warning is enough. Akuri (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The one instance that is being discussed is over eight months old. At this point I believe any sanctions would become punitive, instead we should take him up on his offer of not having any more personal commentary on these articles, and remind him that he should stick to talking about article content. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's a valid point. (And it's the only valid objection so far, IMO.) Though the comment he made was pretty blatant, 8 months really is long enough for this to be stale. If it doesn't happen again, that should be the end of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reasonable basis for a topic ban. The claim of "racism" seems terribly weak to me and based more on personal attitudes on the subject, which is why people shouldn't be sanctioned merely for expressing an objectionable opinion or being perceived as having a certain attitude on a subject. Detailing one's personal experiences or personal opinion is hardly a problem unless that is all the editor is doing and this does not appear to be the case here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So I got a couple of people emailing me about this. I should have turned emails off, frankly. I logged in to change my user page slightly. But I wanted to clear some things up and hopefully, provoke a little more discussion here.

I, of course, Strongly support the topic ban. But I challenge anyone to show where I called Apostle12 a racist. I may have said something at one time like "that sounds racist" or perhaps "it's very hard for me to AGF based on that comment" or the like, but it was users like TParis who initially made hay of the connection between racism and Apostle12's statements. I left in a huff, certainly, and I do not dispute that.

In going over this discussion, one of the things that troubles me is that people are focusing on these statements in particular. They were simply the most egregious ones I was aware of, and knew roughly the dates and times and places. But to be absolutely clear, the reason I filed this incident in the first place is because of the extensive, consistent, counterproductive soapboxing that i had repeatedly attempted to civilly suggest was unwelcome, and which despite this was continued.

And honestly, some of you who are admins are clearly not doing your due diligence. I am quite sure that this pattern of violating WP:NOTFORUM can be demonstrated throughout Apostle12's edits. Take a look at some of his speculations on Project MKULTRA or the 1951 Pont-saint-esprit mass poisoning. or look at the sourcing dispute I had with him about Huey P. Newton. Take a look at his comments on the Franklin child prostitution ring. Take a look at the failed RfC/U. This is an editor who flaunts or ignores policy when it pleases him and has a long history of doing so. And to see policy flaunted, especially for relatively new editors like myself who take great pains to learn policies and try and follow them, falsely believing that they are "the ropes" to be learned here, seeing them undermined, especially in this way, leaves me little faith in this Project.

Which, at base, is why I have decided to leave. I am still not sure whether this will be temporary. I have things in my life going on that require me to be less distracted for the next several months, and WP is one of my major distractions, so there will be, as noted, a minimum of 3 months of proverbial radio silence. I know I've broken that already, but I wanted to publicly acknowledge the words of affirmation I have received, and correct what I felt to be mischaracterizations.

I admonish all of you, please, look at the history of Apostle12's edits. I did not simply fly off the handle here. This was simply the last straw for a sustained pattern of abusive and policy-violating behavior, and for which I had no other recourse. Whatever you think of his racism-or-not-racism, that is not specifically why i filed the dispute, simply a strongly aggravating factor. I also challenge you to find similar disruptive or tendentious behavior or edits in my own history. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ shutdown -h now 01:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The MKULTRA comments seemed completely legitimate to me. WP:NOTAFORUM is not some absolute prohibition on all comments that do not explicitly concern edits. So long as editors stay mostly focused on content, commenting about the subject shouldn't be a big deal.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is likely, that what is being pointed to is Apostle12 calling the other editor a troll. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

tangential discussion and unrelated accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not clear either whether the views of the small tag team currently editing Race and intelligence from a race realist perspective should be taken into account. On previous occasions that group has accused Dougweller and KillerChihuahua of various misdeeds (meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry). Accusations of bias are now being made about MastCell following his comments in this thread.[278][279][280][281] Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC) If you want to call me and The Devil's Advocate scientific racists, do it outright. It would be a personal attack, but it would be less passive-aggressive than your hiding the link to the scientific racism article behind the words "race realism". Why should our opinions count for less than yours and your own little group of supporters? Akuri (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I have no opinions or supporters. Very few editors edit the mathematics articles I edit. I have the same reaction to you as MastCell. Bewilderment and astonishment at the degree of gamesmanship and attempted wiki-litigation in your edits. BTW "race realism" is the term used by the late J. P. Rushton to describe his own work. Try clicking on race realism to see the problem with the redirect. You have on several occasions explained how you have apparently been "studying" past arbcom cases or failed arbcom requests. That seems to be a misplaced effort. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. Even after making only 45 edits, a large proportion of them seem wholly unrelated to that goal. I have no idea why you grilled Dougweller on his talk page as you did (when editing in the range 101.0.71.0/24) or why you have apparently done the same to MastCell. They are fine administrators, well aware of how to perform administrative tasks as well knowledgeable in their own areas of expertise (archaeology and medicine). For your 40th edit you posted a "discretionary sanctions" warning on the talk page of ArtifexMayhem.[282] In the circumstances it would seem to carry no weight at all (e.g. it's unlogged). All very odd for a newly arrived user. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) You have no opinions or supporters? Really? And this finding of fact and this one, those are about what you did in a topic area where you have no opinions? Most people who have no opinion in a topic don't become so involved that they are the subject of multiple ArbCom rulings about said topic. You see, if I'm going to edit race and intelligence articles, and you're going to show up to claim things like that in every discussion that's even remotely related, it's essential that I know about this history. If I didn't, I couldn't tell so easily when you say things that make no sense. 101.0.79.22 (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It is your conduct that is the problem. Newyorkbrad already remarked that you appear to have registered the account Akuri on wikipedia with one of the main purposes being to "stir things up" in project space, as you are doing here. You have so far made unjustified attacks on Dougweller, Mastcell and me. The previous IP range that you used before was blocked because of that kind of disruption. You still persist in IP hopping.[283] You have already stated that you lack theWP:COMPETENCE to make edits in your chosen topic area (R&I) and that you will just lend your support to what others suggest.[284] Nothing about your edits looks good. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC) You think I'M trying to stir things up here? The Devil's Advocate and I weren't paying any attention to you in this discussion before you showed up and claimed maybe our opinions should be discounted. He can't respond to your claims because he has a one-way interaction ban with you. I'm commenting here because if he isn't allowed to defend himself, he should have someone else to defend him. You also showed up just to attack him here, on another article you don't normally edit. If you're going to accuse me of trying to stir things up, why don't you explain why you're following another editor around the project, making accusations against him that he isn't allowed to reply to. Akuri (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It was Newyorkbrad who described you as stirring things up at RfAr. Regarding your own "analysis", I have been editing the talk page of the Jared Diamond book since 2012 on the same issue, so your own reading of the situation makes no sense at all. The same applies to your comments about MastCell and Dougweller. Now, barely at your fiftieth edit, you are in dispute with KillerChihuahua on Talk:Race and intelligence.[285][286][287] You subsequently supported The Devil's Advocate's frivolous report on KillerChihuahua at WP:AE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to cause endless amounts of disruption. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I just looked at [288], and the only other time you ever participated in the talk page of that article was when you followed Academia Orientalis there, who is another editor who you followed wherever he went on the project. So yes, your participation in that article consists entirely of wikihounding your various enemies. Why not answer the question I asked you in my last post? You've now done the same thing to The Devil's Advocate again in his AE report. 101.0.79.14 (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose weak oppose It appears the comments in question are 8 months old. The noriuser may have a troubling POV, but nothing has been presented to indicate he can't work within the ruleng s. Hobit (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Theseyour aren't 8 months old: [289][290]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know if those had been raised before, I'd not seem them. One is still quite old (5 months?) the other much more recent. I'm not certain that topic-banning this person is the right call, but my AGF bucket is now empty. I'd prefer we wait an see if the warning is enough, but the topic ban isn't unreasonable, so moving to weak oppose. I'd like an acknowledgement from the user that personal stories and feelings on issues don't belong on the talk pages. I will say that on a quick pass the article appears to be fairly balanced. If this user is contributing in a useful way in mainspace on the article, I'd hope the closing admin would take that into account. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, all the problems were on talk pages, not articles, and they weren't overt. The solution isn't the ban hammer, not yet anyway. We do ourselves a favor if we use the least aggressive method of dealing with a problem that will get the job done. Since the person is communicative, there is a lot of time between problem edits and he is not combative, then a warning and education are a better first solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support per NewYorkBrad, Mastcell, et al. With all respect to those opposing, there is no need to let things get worse before taking this action. KillerChihuahua 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been dealing with editors who are far worse than this. At least Apostle12 supplies sources when he makes edits. No point in topic banning someone who's willing to observe NPOV on articles and do research. Shii (tock) 04:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't believe Apostle12 is a racist. Don't believe his experiences are racist. Don't believe his statistics are racist. Don't believe his comments are racist. Believe liberals can't handle the truth. Believe in free speech (for EVERYONE). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:FREESPEECH might be an enlightening read. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the editor's pattern (see [291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298] [299][300][301]) of making unsourced comments such as "it may be instructive to realize that many Jim Crow laws in the American South were instituted as a kind of "affirmative action" for whites, who found it difficult to compete in the labor market with skilled slaves freed at the end of the Civil War" (actually made twice [302][303]) and their (ab)use sources that either don't satisfy WP:RS or have been misrepresented so they appear to support a WP:POV that is not reflected in the source (see [304][305][306][307][308][309]). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I looked at some of the edits and I don't see how those sources were being misrepresented. As to his comment about Jim Crow laws, that would be a reasonable, albeit controversial, interpretation. One should probably see that aspect of the Jim Crow labor perspective more as being akin to the current attitudes regarding outsourcing or the employment of illegal immigrants in that you had skilled labor that would do the same work at less expense to the employer. Thus wanting to retain jobs for the preferred class, restrictions are made to prevent the aforementioned class from losing wage opportunities.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see them being misrepresented like this...

Misrepresentation of sources

(diff) POV pushing by using sources that fail WP:RS nine ways from Sunday. The article entitled "White Privilege" Re-education, published in The Michigan Review, is not a reliable source. "The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the U-M. Contributions to the Michigan Review are tax -deductible under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Review is not affiliated with any political party or university political group." And? Are you objecting because it is opinion or because it states its political bias or because it is a college publication? I'm not fond of this publication, but I know it fairly well and it has been a reliable, if biased, source in my experience. Of course, I'm also okay with taking larger school papers when needed and would agree that digging down to the Review is digging farther than one should need to for a topic like this. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I'm objecting because 1) it is opinion, 2) it is biased, and 3) it is not a publication associated with the University. Taken all together, in the context of this topic, I the source does not meet WP:RS. Determining the reliability of a source turns on the context in which it is used. At least that's the way I see it, I could be wrong. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I'd probably remove the section and cite for the reasons you give, but he's not misusing the source. That it is hosted on the UM website implies it is associated with the university even if it isn't funded by it. In other words: it isn't a stellar source but using it in this context I can't see how it could be considered sanctionable in any way. Hobit (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Hugh Murray's article, White Male Privilege? A Social Construct for Political Oppression, in the Journal of Libertarian Studies (published by Ludwig von Mises Institute) is not a reliable source on this topic (even ignoring the fact that Hugh Murray doesn't actually exist). (diff) This is a huge pile of WP:SYNTH. Just read the sources: [310][311] Conservative scholar and opponent of affirmative action programs, Shelby Steele at the Hoover Institution, believes that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated. Steele argues that irresponsibility is a larger problem for blacks, who may incorrectly blame their personal failures on white oppression. — cite (diff) POV pushing by misrepresenting Steele's comments. In discussing unequal test scores between public school students, opinion columnist Matt Rosenberg laments the Seattle Public Schools' emphasis on "institutional racism" and "white privilege":" — cite (diff)The opinion's of Matt Rosenberg, Director of Public Affairs for Dick's Drive-In Restaurants, carry absolutely no weight on the topic of white privilege. Lawrence Blum posits that white privilege analysis has been too narrow in its focus. Specifically it has failed to acknowledge important ethnic differences, especially among whites. And it has not adequately distinguished between "spared injustice, unjust enrichment and "non-injustice-related" privileges. — cite (diff) POV pushing by misrepresenting the source. Blum fully supports the reality of white privilege and is suggesting new ways to teach it, "Those of us who teach US American White students think it morally and politically important for them to learn to acknowledge their White privilege, and to do something morally constructive with that acknowledgment." The current University of Michigan Duluth "unfair campaign" has come under fire for implying that all whites enjoy unfair privileges, when it fact it is qualified minority applicants who are often shown preference in education and corporate hiring. — cite (diff) POV pushing by misrepresenting the source. "The campaign has attracted its fair share of criticism" from anonymous comments posted "to the university webpage". That's who.

As to your comment about Jim Crow laws, that would a ludicrous interpretation with no basis in fact. Of course, if you can supply some reliable sources to backup your claim, then I'll stand corrected. I'm also very selective when it comes to Sushi. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the evidence provided by ArtifexMayhem. We don't need POV-pushing editors of any kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't generally ban POV editors, we make sure we end up with a NPOV in the article. I think that's been successful. There are other editors of that page who also have a strong POV. But we aren't talking about banning them (admittedly their POV is more mainstream and more "correct" IMO). In any case, I think at least one of the arguments made by ArtifexMayhem is bogus and I've responded there. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Apostle, should understand that on Wikipedia everyone is a dog, all the nuances of a face to face conversation are lost and many a times the worst possible interpretation is assumed. They should keep their opinions to themselves, this AN/I has created enough fuss for them, they would be wiser now. They can be watched and their case re-visited in case violations continue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Having said the above, I think that Aposlte needs to understand what Wikipedia is and what it is not, that there is no place for opinions on talk pages too, that their research is of little value even on talk pages, and that talk pages are for collaborating to improve the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)