Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813

Active link spammer, WP:COI editor, and WP:UAA is back logged

Resolved

 – Both have been blocked now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've observed User:RMP Arts making a significant number of edits adding content like this and this, promoting the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative. I advised the editor, via {{uw-coi-username}} of the problematic nature of their edits (see their talk page). I received no response. I then place a second warning asking them to stop their edits [1]. Again, I have received no response and the editor continues apace. I reported the username to WP:UAA [2], along with another username (User:Rmp updates) that has performed very similar edits, though inactive since last October. However, WP:UAA is quite backlogged at the moment. I've undone all the edits constituting COI/LINKSPAM from both accounts, but the currently active account continues. I'd rather not chase them around all day. And still going. Some assistance please. Editor has been informed of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

To: Hammersoft, I do not see the issue with the postings I am making and wish you would have given me the chance to respond instead of deleting my posts. The posts are facts and are honors these artists have been awarded, please stop deleting these posts and if you have further issues please send a message — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMP Arts (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I did give you a chance to respond. You ignored my requests. You have a direct WP:COI with the subject, and are link spamming. This needs to stop. The only reason it got to this level was because you ignored the {{uw-coi-username}} post on your talk page, and then ignored the second stop request on your talk page. You have had multiple chances to explain yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

After seeing the RMP Arts addition to the Martin Scorsese biography I was headed over to RMP Arts' user page when I saw that Hammersoft had already tagged the user as having an inappropriate username, signifying a group account. As well, I would have gone through all of RMP Arts' contributions to discover whether the same link was being added in multiple places, but Hammersoft beat me to it. I think there is room to name the Rolex Mentor Program in certain articles on Wikipedia but the connection should be made using WP:SECONDARY sources so that the connection can be assured of being significant to the topic rather than promotional for RMP. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb: continual disruption after RfC and block

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

---

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs)

Joefromrandb has a history of personal attacks, profanity towards editors, and edit warring, as noted by this RfC, where a number of editors agreed that his actions were unacceptable. He ignored the RfC altogether, and continued personally attacking other editors (like with this diff). This illustrates a perennial problem with Joe: his WP:IDHT mentality. Often, rather than acknowledging wrongdoing, he proceeds to attack editors who point out bad edits on his part, sometimes profanely.

A day or two ago, Joe acted disruptively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, which led to User:Floquenbeam slapping him with a 24-hour respite from editing. Joe's actions during the block exemplify his IDHT mentality and frankly warrant another block. Instead of using his talk page to appeal the blocks as is the only appropriate action when blocked, Joe uses it to attack Floquenbeam and other editors (many of whom I might add had nothing to do with the AfD or the block), and to advocate punishment of Floquenbeam for blocking him. When User:TParis, User:Ks0stm, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:Technical 13 all tried to talk him down, he attacked them as well, as part of a general tirade against admins who had the audacity to tell him he acted wrongfully (and removed his rollback after he edit-warred a year ago). These include the following diffs:

• Threatening Flo with action here over the block (with an inappropriate edit summary)
• Filing a completely inappropriate admin-help request
• Bringing TParis and User:Ks0stm into this discussion, even though they had nothing to do with the AfD or block
• Continual insulting of Floquenbeam
• When ESL tries to explain what's wrong with Joe's actions at AfD, using profanity and alleging an admin cabal
• Began a fishing expedition in an effort to recall Floquenbeam
• Responding to TParis with profanity
• Profane personal attack against User:Ks0stm
• Refusing to accept User:Ks0stm's attempt at conciliation
• Admitting to holding a grudge
• Creating a whole section on his talk page to say how Floquenbeam's block rationale is a blatent lie
• Responding to TParis' comment with BS x4, plus one in the edit summary for good measure
• Claiming Technical-13 is on drugs

It's time for Joe's actions to stop. My proposal is the following:

1. Joefromrandb gets hit with a two-week block, partially due to the actions that warranted the RfC, partially due to ignoring the RfC's findings, but mostly due to the tirade during his block
2. Future personal attacks or edit warring should result in even longer blocks.
3. One-sided interaction ban with User:Floquenbeam

pbp 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Series of escalating blocks for Joefromrandb?

1. Support as nom pbp 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Oppose unless that is what is required based on Joefromrandb's inability to get it in the interest of protecting the encyclopedia. Technical 13 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
3. Support, but oppose. Any future blocks should be a series of escalating blocks (as per standard practice, I would think), but I do not support a reblock based upon his actions during this last block. He was mad, he said a few regrettable things, but nothing that warrants re-blocking now that his original block has expired. Better to just let the fire burn itself out than add more fuel to it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

One-sided interaction ban with Floquenbeam?

1. Support as nom pbp 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

   I assume there's no need to respond to this drivel. This kid has been told by multiple users to find something to do that doesn't involve me. His obsession with me is both unfounded and creepy. Ping me if there's actually anything that needs addressing. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

   @Joefromrandb: The fact that pbp is following you around doesn't absolve you of your inappropriate remarks. -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose on the grounds that Joefromrandb remains civil to Floquenbeam. Failure to do that should simply result in a 24 hour block for each offense which may be set into place by Floq if any other capable editor would have done the same. Technical 13 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Other comments

• I'm curious why no one thought to revoke Joe's talk page access during his block. Anyway, yes, there's definitely a problem here, although perhaps I'd start with a week, rather than two weeks. That being said, pbp, can you explain how you encountered this behavior? You weren't involved in the offending AfD, so it seems like you're still following Joe's every move in the hopes you'll find something. Just as you point out that it looks like Joe hasn't taken the RfC to heart, perhaps you should take heed of the points during the RfC that you need to find something better to do than constantly being on the lookout for Joe's transgressions. -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  To clarify, I think the next block should not be two weeks, but maybe closer to one week. However, I don't think the block is needed right now. Several experienced editors (including administrators) observed the offending exchange, and none of them seemed eager to extend or modify Joe's block. (PBP doesn't count.) If (or when) it continues, that's a different story. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Joe can earn his own blocks, PBP, please stop pushing the issue. Let someone else take Joe to task.--v/r - TP 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason for additional action against Joe, yet. Yes, WP:IDHT is deafening, and I feel sorry for the poor deadhorse, but easrly symptoms of deceased equine flagellation and martyrdom are not reasons for blocks...yet - oh, and no need for IB's yet either as nothing has been proven above that would require such ES&L 16:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Honestly, I'm not all that fussed at the comments he delivered to me, but I have a thick skin. The only part that got me a little offended was his calling me "little boy" when I'm 20 years old, but that's easy for me to overlook. I'm not of the opinion that any of his comments to me were blockworthy, but I have no opinion on his comments to others since I haven't looked at them (and don't intend to). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Can someone explain what Purplebackpack89 has to do with any of this? There are some pretty experienced editors aware of the posting on Joefromrandb's talk page, and I don't think any of us need any protection. Am I correct in my hunch that PBP and Joe have some long previous history? If this is just an opportunity to get a few kicks in, I'm going to be disappointed. No additional block for anything that he has said on his talk page, no interaction ban with me, and it's probably not a good idea for anyone to provide him with more helpful advice on his talk page right now. Either it will blow over, or blow up without outside help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think PBP was instrumental in Joe's RFC/U ... well, in it's filing at least - I believe that their participation was actually one of the reasons it failed to gain traction either in the community or by the "target" ES&L 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• PBP needs to drop his long-standing grudge against Joe right now, and stop poking him, or it'll be an interaction ban we need to discuss next. And I join Floquenbeam in calling for everybody to stop offering advice to Joe on his page. Please go read User:Geogre/Comic. Internalize it. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 27 September 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.

Continuous vandalism on Template:Islamism in South Asia

User:Handyunits is constantly putting original research in the template's Events and controversies section where there are no references or citation in corresponding articles to support the edits and even without leaving any notes on the template's talk page. Such similar problem was solved for {{Hindu Nationalism}}'s Events and controversies but an edit war is going on for the template {{Islamism in South Asia}}. The user has been warned on his talk page but he has also reverted that. I'm seeking to resolve this issue. Thank you!--Benfold (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have full-protected the template for 1 week. Both Handyunits and Benfold were edit warring. Also, Benfold: Please don't label the actions of other edits in a content dispute as vandalism, it does not help the situation. Monty₈₄₅ 17:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Benfold, I agree with your assessment above but, in future, seek admin help (at [[WP:RFPP] or here) rather than edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting and i apologize for labeling content disputes as vandalism but this is because the user showed no interest to discuss the matter in the template's talk page and keep reverting since a tfd closed. Dear RegentsPark, thanks for the suggestions. I'll keep that in mind if such situation occurs in future. Thanks again to both of you.--Benfold (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

uncivil/NPA at Huey P. Newton

I have had trouble figuring out what to do about recent comments that are, in my view, clearly uncivil (if not personal attacks, as i interpret them to be) and not substantially about improving the article at Talk:Huey P. Newton, by Pokey5945.

Because this article, and the discussion there, figured so heavily in my recent ARBCOM case, I am unsure of how to proceed. I certainly want to keep the discussion there on-topic and as strictly about improving the article as can be managed, since NOTFORUM and personal attacks have been an issue there in the past.

If anyone can take a look, I would really appreciate it. I am inclined to re-collapse the uncivil comments, but do not want to do so before soliciting other opinion. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I should also clarify that I'm not sure how to deal with comments that are in part about the article and in part attacks on other editors. i am loath to cut someone's comment up into sections, but perhaps sometimes this is warranted? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I went to that Talk Page looking for a long, feisty debate but I just see a few comments of disagreement. Is there more than has been deleted? Because it seems like an ordinary content dispute, judging by what's posted there now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now it's just a couple of assertions that other editors (I presume me among them) are POVPUSHers, etc. It's pretty minor by most standards, but that has also blown up pretty severely in the past, so I am eager (perhaps overeager, given my history, which is why i was soliciting comment) to keep the place civil. And, well, it has an impact when anyone asking a question gets sniping at other editors in response. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• It is pretty minor, but Pokey5945's comments are pretty useless and sound very hollow. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC at List of new religious movements

Is there any chance of a ruling or closure on the RfC and extended debate at talk:List of new religious movements? The narrow issue is whether the sources justify the inclusion of Landmark Worldwide in this list, and the wider issue is whether there is any merit in defining the term 'New religious movement' in some specialised sense, or whether the phrase should simply be interpreted to mean what the everyday meaning of the words suggests. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo of bacon camp s.f. logo.jpg mislicensed, still fair use?

The image File:Photo of bacon camp s.f. logo.jpg was (IMHO) almost certainly mislicensed by the original Flickr photographer, since it's a straightforward reproduction of artwork I would assume (in the absence of further evidence) they do not own the copyright to?

In your opinion, would the image still be usable under "fair user" criteria in the Bacon mania article (where it was originally put)? Ubcule (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The photographer has licensed the photo by a free license, but as a non-de minimis photo of a copyright logo, it is clearly a derivative work of the logo's creator, and makes the photo non-free. The license should be a non-free one, and in light of that, the logo of an event that is discussed only in one paragraph is not necessary for understanding the topic, and thus should be nominated for deletion. (Things like these can be brought up at WP:NFCR as it is not an immediate admin incident to be dealt with.) --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback (and for bringing NFCR to my attention). Yes, I knew it wasn't free, I just wanted to confirm whether it was still acceptable for free use- you made quite clear why it isn't. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope use of user / talk page

I would like to know what to do about editors who use their user talk page for things other than the usual.

two examples are Joemeservy (talk · contribs), who apparently uses his talk page for article development. Nathanbennett (talk · contribs) appears to use his user page in the same way. Nathanbennett is recent, but Joemeservy has been doing this since April 2012.

Both are linked from Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. Advice please.--Auric talk 23:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Depends. Joemeservvy is easy, since it was truly article experimenting, and I moved it to a sandbox, filling the new talk page with an ANI notice (!). The Nathan user page looks like copies of real articles, and typically editors choose to go the MfD route, citing WP:FAKEARTICLE for instance. That's what I would do. It's 300,000 kilobytes of wasted electricity. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do.--Auric talk 00:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Angry reaction to my looking through edit history and fixing problems

I have been looking through the edit history of IP editor 209.3.238.61 (IP registered to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC) because I saw some problems with the editor's contributions at Max Weber. I reverted some of this editor's work, and I fixed other entries as I saw fit. This editor started today to go through my various contributions to revert me out of spite rather than for the improvement of the encyclopedia.

One of the places where this issue is being discussed at User talk:ItsZippy. User:ItsZippy thought my reversion and revert/fix were appropriate.

Am I off base here? Should I have refrained from going through this editor's contributions to see what other problems were being put into the encyclopedia? I do not want to WP:Hound this editor off the project, but I want to make sure that contributions are useful, relevant and high quality. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Were the edits sufficiently egregious to warrant excision, or might discussion have had a reasonable result? If they verged on vandalism - then by all means remove them. If they are simply of questionable value in your opinion, then usually discussion is likely to cause less rancor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether these particular reverts were justified. But I do know if you repeatedly revert another Editor's work, you're likely to get a negative reaction. Especially if your Edit Summaries were not informative or, worse yet, completely omitted. Bottom line? You could be very well be right, but a reaction is fairly predictable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've had some engagement with this user in the past - a couple of weeks ago he was making some changes to Irenaean theodicy and Augustinian theodicy. Another user and I felt that, although the concerns he raised were valid, the edits he made were not helpful - in the end we discussed it with him here and he was very amenable to the consensus making process. I was slightly concerned yesterday when he asked me to protect the pages to maintain the version that we'd agreed on two weeks ago, but I think that was more down to a misunderstanding of how consensus works, rather than any maliciousness. In this case, I think discussion with the user will be very effective - he seems very willing to listen and learn. He has the potential to become a useful editor here, provided are supportive and encouraging to him. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've also notified the user of this discussion, something you ought to have done yourself. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 09:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the IP editor. I was under the misapprehension that IP editors could see through WP:Notifications that they had been mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It says clearly at the top of this page and right above the edit box that you must notify the editor, ip or registered user; a talk page notification is required, not a reliance upon wp notifications. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

We're getting off track here, but the notice at the top of the editing window says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." It does not say that there is only one way to achieve notification. That's what I was looking at when I was creating this topic. Of course the top of this ANI page, in normal reading mode, says the user's talk page must be used, so there is a disconnect between the two versions. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The specific direction to tell an editor on their talk page was added by Bishonen in June, a little over three months ago. Little changes of that nature are probably missed by a lot of people who have been coming to the same noticeboard for years. I know I missed it until today. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I see they don't say the same thing. However, I think registered users can turn off the notifications, so it should best say talk page in both locations. Yes, off track, but thanks for the reply. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

User:Bink on the Max Weber Talk page is trying to block an Admin report I am trying to prepare there by doing section deletes every time I try to pull the materials together. He is apparently upset that there is agreement between my edit there with User:Petrus (Petrus wants some added strengthened citations which is good with me) and is oddly trying to block this report being made and the edit itself being posted. Last Friday he requested Admin protection against posting the otherwise agreed upon format for the edit (misrepresenting that a 3rd editor was involved by not mentioning him) at the same time I was requesting Admin help. His Admin report got serviced first, not knowing that there was an agreement edit about to be posted, and his Admin protected the page without knowing this. I waited 2 hrs for my Admin to arrive without his/her arrival. My request is that there is an agreement between two users about posting the edit against a single disgruntled user who seems upset that the agreement about mods with another User is not in his favor. I would like to post the agreement edit (with any mods for cites as needed) for the constructive benefit of the Max Weber page. Max Weber was a trained attorney and this appears to be a situation of a Music major (User:Bink) having his feelings hurt and still wanting to have influence outside of his field. It seems odd that this full history was not posted by him here. He has also been posting an agenda against all anonIP-Users in a picture/poster campaign on his User page and on the Max Weber Talk page which is Conta User:Jimbo and contra-Reagle which must be seen to be believed. He is presently at 14RR on the Max Weber page and appears intent on setting a record. Odd that he mentions none of this here in the above exchange. 209.3.238.62 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a basket full of misconceptions brought forward by IP 209 in the post above. I have no wish to stop 209 from making an "Admin report", whatever that means. (I guess it is simply a complaint about me brought to admin attention, which 209 has now achieved.) The text I have deleted at Talk:Max Weber three times [3][4][5] was a copy/paste repetition of two previous talk page entries, one by Special:Contributions/72.68.5.132 (which is the same IP person as 209 but at a different computer) and User:Piotrus. There is never any need to repeat somebody's talk page entry in the same thread—in fact it is detrimental to have so much text on the page.

The idea is incorrect that there are two competing admins, one for me and one for 209. I had no idea User:Mark Arsten would step forward and semi-protect the Max Weber page when I asked for some help at WP:RPP on 20 September.

209 apparently thinks that Piotrus agreed to a proposed text addition on the talk page. The specific entry by Piotrus said that he was in favor of adding the proposed text only if it contained better references, and "hopefully incorporate Interpretations of Weber's liberalism from see also directly into the body" which Piotrus said was important for the article's development. In response 209 composed some text and added it to the article prior to polling everybody on the talk page, that is, prior to getting my take on it. 209 said on the talk page, "By agreement per above discussion", even though it was only Piotrus so far, and even though Piotrus gave only conditional agreement, with not all the conditions met.

This IP editor has repeatedly accused me of pushing an agenda against IP editors, simply because of a photo taken of me by Wikimedia Foundation product manager Fabrice Florin, the photo being my response to Fabrice's question of what improvement would I like made to Wikipedia. My response was to think immediately of IP vandalism. The photo shows my (quixotic) wish that Wikipedia would make a very big change and require user registration, a very unlikely step which would eliminate IP vandalism in one step. (I spend a lot of time dealing with IP vandalism.) Of course a secondary effect of such a change would be that constructive IP editors such as 209 would have to register a username, but they would not be stopped from contributing. Our friend 209 represents this stance as a personal attack, which of course it isn't.

209 needs to realize that disputed text under active discussion on the article talk page needs to gain consensus before being moved into the article. It is a group effort rather than a win by whoever is the most insistent or pushy. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some more OT: Hi all, about my change to the "notify the editor under discussion" note at the top of the page three months ago.[6] I do think my version is an improvement, but in any case, of course the note on the page and the edit notice ought to say the same thing. I don't do edit notices [shudders at the memory of when User:Writ Keeper kindly tried to explain it to me], so would somebody like to change the edit notice please? Or, I suppose, otherwise make them the same. At WP:AN too, please. Bishonen | talk 08:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

I've changed the wording of the edit notice to match what the header says, per the request. Cheers, all! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Beats trying to explain stuff to me, doesn't it? Don't teach 'shonen to fish — she'll starve to death. Just give her lots of fish. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

I have never been anywhere interesting in my life

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.

---

Or if I have, I don't have any photos of it.

So why are you asking me every bleeding page I am on Mr. Jimbo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.132.25 (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is why you shouldn't edit Wikipedia while intoxicated, kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonMetropolis (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr Moon didn't mention it, but you've forgotten to notify Mr Jimbo of this discussion. (I would do it for you, but I haven't edited his talk page in seven years and don't plan to start now.) Just copy and paste {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=I have never been anywhere interesting in my life}}.Mr Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, someone closed this, but what silly advice. The IP's getting a standard header message that you and I can turn off in our preferences because we have user accounts. Yeah, the IP deserved to be blocked for their vandalism, but couldn't someone have been less WP:BITEY and actually commented on the substance? ES&L 12:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Is that what this was about? I really didn't get anything out of the OP's bizarre, incoherent posting.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

...and you're still being bitey? If you don't have the ability to read the request when it's posted, maybe you'd best not make smartarsed replies on an admin noticeboard in the future. Their message was very coherent - to all but you. Suggesting it was "bizarre...incoherent" is extremely uncivil ES&L 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I picked up on the issue right away as well since I see the banner on mobile even when logged in. Technical 13 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 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.

Wikistalking and Wikhounding by User:Cavann

This user has lately filed two non-actionable AN3 reports against me [7] [8] in the last 3 days, he has falsely accused me of making racist comments [9] (when I ask him what is racist about my comment, he is unable to answer [10]), and has lately taken to following my edits [11] and reverting to spite me [12]. In this instance he reverted an edit of mine from well over a month ago. Can someone tell this guy to back off? The false accusation of racism is by itself blockable. Athenean (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not revert to "spite you." Get over yourself. I have edited similar articles before [13] and I wasn't the only one concerned about you blanking an entire section [14]. Your comment was irrelevant and offensive.Cavann (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• AFAICS:

1. Cavann's revert of [15] Athenean's removal of sourced content[16] relates to a dispute about whether the publication concerned was retracted. Have two two editors discussed this point before bringing it to ANI?
2. Athenean's contested comment[17] could be read as being subtly provocative, by implying that objectors to this viewpoint are "nationalist"; they may disagree on many grounds, and it is unhelpful to presume motive. Athenean should take more care in phrasing contributions to sensitive racial topics
3. Cavann's accusation of racism[18] is a blatant assumption of bad faith. I hope that Cavann will withdraw it

Both of you, please can you try to sort this out between yourselves? I see nothing actionable at this stage, just two editors who need to a) practice WP:BRD, and b) be more careful about how they write and more tolerant of what they read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that may require admin attention is Athenian's potential sockpuppet behaviour with the single purpose IP to circumvent 3rr [19] Cavann (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed a clear wp:own behaviour by Cavann in another article (Turkish People) the last months. Actually the activity of the specific user became more extreme after a topic-banned wp:spa DragonTiger23 informed him that he should adopt a more extreme national agenda [[20]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"extreme national agenda" is funny coming from you. Apply WP:NPA Cavann (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's weird someone defends a permanently topic banned wp:spa account after his restriction was imposed some months ago. Off course wp:npa is irrelevant in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

HBC_AIV_helperbot5

Doesn't seem to be cleaning up the WP:AIV properly. is something wrong?  A m i t  웃   18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Still no bot edits, for nearly a day now. I have posted a message on the bot operator's talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust denial trolling

See the contributions for 76.235.57.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). [21] and [22] pretty much say it all. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 31 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin removing referenced content and making political edits

I saw that CFredkin was removing huge sections from Martin Heinrich (here) and Mark Warner (here) saying they were unreferenced when they clearly weren't. I inquired on CFredkin's talk page and CFredkin said the links were broken which is very different than "unsourced". Some simply had a random space in the URL which was easy enough to fix, some needed archive links and others worked just fine yet he removed them anyway. I fixed the space issue and added archiveurls for the dead links.

I noticed that CFredkin had earlier made a load of edits to Joe Donnelly removing information. Here is a grouping of 15 edits that all claim to "Remove unsourced content" and you will see it is all referenced. Some are indeed dead, others (like this link and this and this) work just fine yet CFredkin removed them as "unsourced" anyway.

After finding archiveurls for Martine Heinrich and readding all that information, CFredkin turned around and removed a referenced sentence claiming "There is no mention of the Act in the source" yet the first sentence of the source says Today U.S. Representative Martin Heinrich (D-NM) cosponsored the Stop the Congressional Pay Raise Act.

On Bill Nelson there is another example of claiming "Remove unsourced content" when it is very much referenced. What CFredkin did do was removed something referenced and add in "commonly called ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act" which is something CFredkin likes to do in articles (here, here and here) In fact, other edits seem to be just adding who voted to restore funding to "obamacare" (here, here, here, here and here among others)

I told CFredkin "It is every editor's responsibility to make the encyclopedia better, not simply to strip things out he/she doesn't like." and CFredkin replied "Where does it say that?" Does a policy really need to be created to explicitly noted that editors should try to improve articles? When another editor asked him to stop blanking content, CFredkin simply deleted it without reply something I know CFredkin is entitled to do but this shows I am not the only one who is noticing this behavior. That editor, DD2K, mentioned use of socks and repeated editing without talk page consensus so this may be a bigger problem.

All of these articles are Democrats and coupled with the need to add "obamacare" to articles there may be a politcal point being made here. Anarcham (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And as I was writing this, CFredkin added an unreferenced addition to Jeanne Shaheen. It may very well be true, but on CFredkin's talk page he or she stated both " But I will remove anything that's not properly sourced" and "My point is that I am making articles better by ensuring that any content is accurately sourced." Since it seems to be OK for CFredkin to add unsourced content it makes the previous edits seem even more political motivated. Anarcham (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this editor is that they make POV edits to articles using original research (1,2,3,4,5) in a negative manner on issues the editor believes is negative. And then goes around on many of the same articles removing sourced material that is positive to the BLP subjects(1,2,3,4). There is an obvious attempt to make mass changes to articles without any Talk page discussion, in an obvious POV manner. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Propose to ban User:Hasteur

Nothing to see here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 28 September 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. User:Hasteur edited other's comment in WP:Archive.is RFC diff:[23] replacing it with {{collapse top}} box with highlighted text. This highlighted text is not relevant to the original comment, but it repeats the point expressed by the same User:Hasteur earlier in the same RFC. Being pointed to this, he just undid the comment he does not like. diff:[24]. 79.47.98.149 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC) IP appears to be very familiar with the rules of wikipedia. IP declined to notify me as required by this boards rules. IP edited my statement long since entered into the collective knowledge with respect to this RfC. I reverted the IP address citing It's exceedingly poor form to edit others comments... Please feel free to quote, but DO NOT edit other people's comments. IP tendentiously (and with WP:POINT obviously in mind) changed my comments so that when I reverted they could call the previous tendentious editing by yet another IP address who was listing other sites that used the archiving service. Per WP:TPO it is granted to collapse content when the content is not relevant to the topic at hand, which I assert that a blanket list of other sites that have used Archive.is at least once is. IP should beware the WP:BOOMERANG that they have already invoked for coming to this board with unclean hands and for also disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point in what appears to be an orchestrated effort by individuals external to the Wikipedia community. IP has not presented evidence commensurate with the opening of a ban proposal. I therefore propose that the IP's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for the duration of the RfC that the page be semi-protected to prevent astroturfed viewpoints from further disrupting the consensus building exercise. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC) IP has also proceeded to edit war with another editor, EuroCarGT, as to the interpretation of the disputed diff and the applicable policies therein ([25]). It is suprisingly curious that this is now the 3rd or 4th IP that has sprung up that voices a very rigorous defense of Archive.is. I reiterate my statement that Any action designed to improve en.Wikipedia's disposition to Archive.is should be met with guarded hostility. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 27 September 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:Lowercase sigmabot II is malfunctioning

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.

---

Look at what Lowercase is doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox&diff=574861634&oldid=574861519 ! Adding more and more sandbox templates! Ban him befroe the entire wikipedia becomes a sandbox template crowd! . Wanabeadnim (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You and your IP are edit warring—with a robot—in a sandbox. Kafka could have used it in a play about the futility of human existence. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Malfunctioning? The bot's JOB is to ensure the top line remains in the sandbox. Looks like it's working just fine, thank you ES&L 12:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I would say it looks like a minor malfunction at best. There should be one header, not two. Have you attempted to contact the bot owner? Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. I'll get to it. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:28, 28 September 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.

Apparently it only malfunctions on toolserver. No idea why, though. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

IP anon editor failing to stop making changes on an article, despite being reverted by several editors

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

• Terra Nova (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Terra Nova episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On the surface this is just a simple content dispute, but this anon ip is obviously on the negative side of consensus. The anon has been reverted by no less than four separate editors in the past five days. Deciding to edit war than to accept that there is very little consensus for these edits. The anon has been informally warned in edit summaries that if he/she continues to edit war, the ip address could be blocked. Even the single editor who supports the ip also warned the ip not to edit war or there may be a block. The ip is not respecting WP:BRD, thinking that the article should reflect his/her version while the discussion is going on. I ask for a block for edit warring and failing to respect WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry JOJ, but I think ANI should be for more intellectually challenging stuff. I don't get paid my ridiculous salary for simple cases of edit warring--that's what Bbb23 was hired for. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's about time you got off your high horse and did something useful. BTW, Ponyo, bless her, left a cheese burger on my talk page because of my ridiculous salary. Why don't you have a bite?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• While you lazy bums just stood around and argued, I actually did something about it. The people they hire as admins these days...:-) Both pages semiprotected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, uh, I did block the IP for edit-warring... The note below by AussieLegend is interesting. It doesn't alter the case for the block on the IP (given the number of editors who reverted, for instance), but it does indicate that something needs to be done, and it does not reflect well on Jojhutton. What that something is is, perhaps unfortunately, outside the scope of ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, this isn't just a "simple case of edit warring" and the consensus that Jojhutton is claiming isn't really consensus at all. There was a long-standing consensus, but Jojhutton and two other editors decided to overturn it in the space of a few hours then refused to discuss when it went to DRN. Comments by uninvolved editors at a subsequent RfC demonstrated the alleged consensus wasn't as strong as Jojhutton and friends claimed, although they ignored it. The IP is definitely edit-warring, and there is evidence in his edit summaries that he has misinterpreted WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO but Jojhutton should know better. Jojhutton has been reverting the IP, even when the IP added a source supporting his claim. Instead of discussing the matter on the talk page, Jojhutton has just warned the IP, citing the supposed consensus. Even now, Jojhutton doesn't want to discuss.[26] There's edit-warring here on both sides, from an IP who doesn't know our procedures and an experienced editor who should know better. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio...

We've been having an issue with Mmay2's repeated use of copyrighted material from other sites; examples include:

• [27]
• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]

It has been raised on their talk page, but without any response, and the copyright violations have continued. As noted here, there seem to be some wider editing issues as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You may also wish to start a thread at WP:CCI. Looks like a competence block is necessary as well, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CCI would be a very good idea. Mmay2 has never posted to any talk page, never responded to any warnings. Thus I've blocked indefinitely - of course, if the editor can show that we can be sure there will be no more copyvio, any Admin can unblock. There's far too many editors like this around, and I'm guessing most don't get found. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CCI opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mmay2. Could someone please enact Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Plot summary copyvios to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future? MER-C 03:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack

See the third post here. The thread is not fragmented, in fact, I did not reply. I could not understand what they are trying to say. Few months ago, when I went to Wikiversity to request admin's attention towards a long pending deletion discussion, he asked me support him at Wikiversity and promised to delete my requested pages "Request for custodianship", I did not support him (actually I opposed), previous two discussions: User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_30#Talkback_message_from_Draubb and User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_30#What_is_wrong.3F. And today's discussion was the immediate next discussion. --Tito☸Dutta 22:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No one likes being ignored. I'll talk to him, you delete the comment that bothers you, and we're done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Six hours? Cripes, if not getting a reply in six hours is cause for a personal attack then Wikipedia's going to hell faster than I thought it was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AS92813

Rollback or other attention may be appropriate: User:AS92813 (I am editing via a mobile device, I normally copy/paste tildes to generate Talk: signature but none are provided when editing this page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.155.165 (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've undone one edit and left them a welcome message especially regarding using sources and participating in AfD. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AS92813 is engaging in sockpuppetry through the use of multiple IPs on Major League Baseball rivalries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), could an admin please deal with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare violating topic ban again

After having it clearly pointed out to him only a month and a half ago that he is still topic-banned from LGBT subjects, he has added a shooting at an anti-LGBT group, evidently motivated by their anti-LGBT positions, to Domestic terrorism in the United States: here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning, rather than a block, in spirit of AGF. GiantSnowman 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have thought that the whole big discussion last month was clear enough. This isn't ignorance of the restriction, it's Instaurare trying to see how many times he can violate it without being blocked. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

If that was the case then there would have been more than one borderline edit. GiantSnowman 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Could someone clarify to me the boundaries of the topic ban? I thought this was outside its reach. Instaurare (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure; the topic ban applies to ALL LGBT articles broadly construed. This means that even if it is close to the topic then it is within the scope of the topic ban. ANY discussion at ANY venue about a LGBT-related subject is also within the scope of the topic ban. Any future breaches of this topic ban WILL lead to blocks. Are we clear? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Domestic terrorism in the United States is not an LGBT article, is it?. That's where I'm confused. Instaurare (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No, but "a shooting at an anti-LGBT group" on Domestic terrorism in the United States is a "LGBT-related subject" and, therfore, within the scope of the topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Does it extend so far as to prohibit editing articles of LGBT persons about any subject? Like could I edit Tammy Baldwin about health care? Instaurare (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban DOES extend to the above example. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if it has nothing to do with her sexuality? Instaurare (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The way to get a topic ban lifted (or not extended when it reaches its best-by date) is simple: when in doubt, don't. If you feel the need to ask, at all, run away, run away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just afraid of making an honest mistake and getting blocked for it. Instaurare (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you've already made "honest mistakes" that violated your ban at least twice, you could just be careful and responsible instead of reckless in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's the point, I haven't been reckless. Instaurare (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact; multiple editors believe your edits were reckless instead of WP:BOLD. Take more care. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing by Harirajmohanhrm

he has been warned numerous times about removing content from Indian musicians, films, and actors. he has even added articles to WP:GA without any review or nom. he is removing entire sections from articles that have passed GA, PR, and FA. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 07:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert

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

A couple of days ago this editor began a series of edits that involved the removal of articles from 'from' categories.

• Billy Mayfair, he removed[33] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' from this golfer's article even though his article says he resides in Scottsdale.
• Aaron Watkins, he removed[34] Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona even though the article says he resides there. Edit summary- residence not notable
• Mike McCullough (golfer), he removed[35] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' from this golfer's article even though his article says he resides in Scottsdale. His edit summary- 'Not from Arizona enough to be put in that states's golfers cat'. As I pointed out[36], as long ago as 1979 it has been reported[37] that McCullough lives in Scottsdale.
• Amanda Blumenherst he removed[38] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' and replaced it with 'Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona' even though the Blumenherst article clearly says she was born in Scottsdale and still resides there.
• Aaron Watkins (golfer) he removed[39] 'Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona' even though the article says he resides in Mesa. His edit summary- Current residence not notable.
• April Steiner Bennett he removed[40] 'Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona' with the edit summary- Not notable for being born in a place. Edit summary- Not notable for being born in a place
• Misty Hyman Almost the same as Blumenherst, he removed[41] 'Sportspeople from Mesa' and replaced it with 'Sportspeople from Phoenix' even though the article says she was born in Mesa.
• Julie Dusanko he removed[42] Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona and replaced it with People from Scottsdale Arizona though Ms. Dusanko is a former professional baseball player.
• Michelle Estill he removed[43] both Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona and People from Gilbert Arizona even though the article says she was born in Scottsdale and lives in Gilbert.
• Martin Laird he removed[44] Sportspeople from Scottsdale even though the article says it is his residence. Edit summary- No from Scottsdale.
• Mina Harigae he removed[45] both Golfers from Arizona and Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona when the article says Ms. Harigae resides in Mesa.

There's at least another 8-12 of these edits, but I stopped with these. All the above edits have been reverted by me or another editor. IMHO a few of this editor's edits, Michelle Estill for instance, border on vandalism.

Clearly there is something wrong. He removes categories because the person who he thinks their only connection to the town was that they were born there but in other cases removes categories because he feels residence isn't notable. That seems totally contradictory.

Consensus has long been that athletes aren't from a town that they are represent through being a sports team member from that location unless the athlete is from the town.(For example Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig aren't Sportspeople from the Bronx because they played for the New York Yankees) A sports athlete is therefore a Sportspeople from somewhere else than the place they take part in their sport.

Johnpacklambert, aka JPL from this point forward, shortly after having some of the golfer edits reverted started CFDs for both 'Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona[46]' and 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona[47]' along with other occupation categories for Scottsdale.

I think the CFDs are a bad faith attempt to get around the reversions. These sportspeople categories are clearly well populated and the people are from there. Both The Sportspeople from Scottsdale and Sportspeople from Mesa CFDs he proposes merging articles into the generic 'Sportspeople from Arizona' category even though the person is from Scottsdale or Mesa. JPL has tried moving people into Sportspeople categories that are patently incorrect, namely with Blumenherst and Hyman. Note that JPL also removed people wrongly from these categories and then CFD the categories. At another CFD[48] not too long ago, several editors were bothered by JPL removing articles from categories that were up for CFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 September 2013

I don't expect JPL to reply for about 5 hours, but there's some discussion between these two editors at User talk:Johnpacklambert giving his rationale for some of these edits. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that JPL has been submitting a large number of categories for deletion. It appears based on conversations that he feels less is more in relation to categories. He recently submitted several regarding military awards where he stated he wanted to eliminate all military award categories except maybe the Medal of Honor ones. This seems excessive and counter to being helpful to Wikipedia. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This is hardly JPL's first rodeo. A cursory examination of his talk page will reveal numerous notices for edit-warring to add or remove categories against consensus. His use of CFD borders on OWNership. Frankly, categorization would be better off without JPL pbp 15:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Response I was under the impression that we had determined that the mere place of birth is not notable for a person. I am sure I have read that in the guidelines somewhere. I found it. It is the opening line in the place section of Wikipedia:Categorization of people. "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." So I think the guidelines are on my side in that case. In other cases, I will admit that some of these edits might not have been the best. Still, I question categorizing people by a place where they only have temporary residence there. On the issue of nominating categories for deletion. I am trying to implement an at least possible interpretation of WP:OC#Award. There is no rule against nominating lots of categories for deletion. I am trying to follow procedures in doing so. Clearly there are categories that we do not want, some of the military award categories were deleted. This seems to be a case of just attack John for doing anything you don't like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Considering the guideline in categorization of people, and considering that all the connection that Estill's article asserts to Scottsdale is that she was born there, I find it very hard to understand how we can justify categorizing her as from that place. It is definitely not justified to call it "bordering on vandalism". It is a removal built around a lack of any in-article assertion of a connection beyond birth, and the guideline on categorizing people by place suggests that in general people should not be categorized by where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment' You also removed Estill being from Gilbert Arizona when that's her residence. Why? The possible vandalism part is that and your moving Misty Hyman to Sportspeople from Phoenix when there isn't a single mention of Phoenix in her article and the same for Amanda Blumenherst who you moved to Sportspeople from Phoenix in place of Scottsdale when her article says she is both born and resident of there....William 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The central principal of Wikipedia is verifiability. Categorization must be verified. We only put people in categories that they verifiably belong in. Thus, it would seem that if place of birth is not notable to the individual that one needs something else to put the people in a place category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Verifiability, Really? This article[49] comes up on the first page of a google search containing the words Michelle Estill and Scottsdale....William 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Well, I have explained my view on people being categorized based merely on birth. The residence issue is much trickier. At least one case the only mention was that the person died in Scottsdale. Does it make sense to call someone Category:Actors from Scottsdale when they were not from Scottsdale when they were an actor? However lets look at some cases. Category:Brigham Young University alumni is not a sub-category of Category:People from Provo, Utah although alumni of BYU in almost all cases resided for some time in Provo. With the residents of Scottsdale, many maintain 2 or 3 residences. Are we really going to put everyone who keeps a vacation home in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in Category:People from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Being from somewhere is a complex, hard to define issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Vandalism is not the right term. Both people were moved to Phoenix because the text places their formative life in Phoenix by placing them in high schools there. "Vandalism" is not the right term. I am really annoyed by the accusatory nature of this. I will admit that I made some unwise choices. That is a scary thing, because it seems some other editors want to punish and ban anyone who makes choices that they do not like. My basic theory is we should categorize people by the defining aspects of them. I was wrong. I admit it. Will this help. I doubt it, since at least one of the users here has maintained a determination to punish me for 10 months or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Your moving to Hyman to Sportspeople from Phoenix totally contradicts your explanation. The word Phoenix does not appear anywhere in her article. As for Blumenherst, she is clearly identified as a resident of Scottsdale and you moved her to Phoenix because she went to school there. At best you have an argument for putting her both not removing her from Scottsdale entirely. Doing so makes it a case of vandalism....William 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The claim the CfDs are "bad faith attempts to get around the reversions" makes no sense at all in any way. 1-the CfDs were all started before the reversion. 2-CfD is a totally logical way to respond to reversions. If one thinks a category is being misused, but others persist on still using it in that way, one possible response would be to start a CfD. That is not really what is going on here, but do we really want to classify that as bad faith. CfD is a place meant to discuss categorization policy, so to call going there "bad faith" in most cases makes no sense. 3-It is just plain not making sense. I have presented the view that people born in a place lack a personally defining connection to the place, thus we should not categorize by that. If I am wrong, and we have a general consensus to categorize by place of birth, we should change the language of Wikipedia:Categorization of people in the "by place" section to say "people should almost always be in categories for the place they were born". Either we need to conform our practice to our guidelines or conform our guidelines to our practice. Yes, the result of the CfDs if they happen will not be the removal of people from being categorized as being from Scottsdale, so I do not achieve the result of my edit by the CfD, so calling it an attempt to achieve the same result does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe I did or did not face some reversion before starting the CfD. However, I can tell you that I intended to start the motion on Scottsdale before I even looked at one article on a golfer. I had already started general nominations that included Category:Sportspeoeple from Modesto, California for example. This whole motion seems to violate the basic principal of assuming good faith. At a basic level, I in good faith believed that people who just reside in a place to play golf are no more connected with a place than those who reside there to play football. Or should we put Ziggy Ansah in Category:Sportspeople from Detroit, Michigan?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There is another issue that is at play here, that needs to be addressed. It is not clear if Category:Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona is meant to only cover the boundaries of the city, or if we are using Phoenix in the sense of the greater metro area, and if Category:Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona should be a sub-cat of the Phoenix one. Closely related to that, is the question if an actress grew up in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, assuming we keep the categories for actors from those three places, should she be in Category:Actresses from Queens, New York, Cateogry:Actresses from Brooklyn and Category:Actresses from the Bronx or should we just make it simple and put her in Category:Actresses from New York City. I think, realistically, we should go with the later course. I think the balance between category clutter or the one hand, with the other having the competing interests of category completeness, category useability and category relevance on the other, would suggest this decision. You can disagree with me, but it is a reasoned idea. The one issue that goes against my view is the view that Category:Actresses from Queens, New York should include every actress who ever lived in Queens. However is that really the best way to do such categories. Well, maybe it is if we have them, which is maybe why we don't want them. However, I think someone who grew up in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx is best described with the general appellation of New York City and not the three more specific apellations. I think with such high level of movement they become from the place as a whole. In the same way, someone who grew up at 10 military bases in 10 states is not really accurately described as from any of those places. Having known many people who grew up in the military and who when asked "where are you from" respond "no where", I think actually usage supports my understanding here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Verifiability means that unsourced statements in articles are removed. It is not the duty of editors to look for sources to statements that other editors have made. It is the duty of those introducing the statements into the article to include those sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Seemingly compulsory pointless bold bit JPL likes to edit categories and gets upset when people disagree with his editing. Some people don't like that, and they get upset too. Is there something ANI can do about that? I've seen it here many times, yet Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Johnpacklambert says "There is not even a hint of a consensus that there is even a problem to be resolved here". Am I missing something? Or is it just something we have to put up with having here, like "Neighbours" at 5.30 used to be - annoying but unavoidable? Begoon ^talk 18:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Probably nothing that ANI can do, alas. There are behavioural issues but a quick look at the RfC suggests that while a lot of people are upset there is indeed no real consensus. JPL has a tendency to swamp discussions with umpteen consecutive comments etc, as in this thread. It ties everyone in knots and I wonder if perhaps a bit more thought before making a comment, adjusting a category or nominating something at CfD might go a long way to easing the issues? FWIW, I, too, have become very frustrated with JPL of late but in part is coincides with my thoughts about the CfD system: the fact that he is so familiar with it and yet even recently has had to be reminded to notify people of discussions is a particular niggle. Perhaps just try a bit harder to be more accommodating and perhaps try to answer more of the points raised on your user talk page, JPL? - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is a-not about CfD, it is about editing categories. It seems this has now become a "pick on everything John does" section. Also, when I don't explain my reasoning in depth enough people attack me for not stating clearly and precisely why I think what I do. I did notify the creator of at least a lot of the most relevant categories, and even asked him to stop creating such categories until we can come to an agreement on which ones we really need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• JPL, do you have any idea how to nest talk page comments? I didn't, btw, say that this complaint was about CfD. I was merely enquiring whether if you were to spend a bit more time cogitating before doing something then whether that might avoid some of the issues being raised. But no worries, if you're going to carry on doing what you do then that is your choice and doubtless someone will open another RfC in due course. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Separate the issues. Unfortunately, this discussion is conflating two different questions. The question of whether individual articles belong in any given category which exists is a separate one from whether that category should exist at all.
  JPL is quite within his rights to nominate any category for deletion, unless the intent is purely disruptive, or it is a tendentious attempt to re-open an issue which is already settled. However, it is quite wrong of JPL to write that "CfD is a totally logical way to respond to reversions". That is not the purpose of deletion discussions, and those CFDs have been disrupted by the separate argument over reversions.
  Similarly, this ANI thread is disrupted by arguments which belong at CFD. (Disclosure: I support the removal of these categories, but not the drama which has surrounded them, or the rambling, TLDR and off-the-point contributions JPL has made to the CFDs, such as these off-topic posts[50] today).
  Yesterday I supported discussing the specific categories at CFD[51], but at this point I think that they are too contaminated by the the off-topic chatter. So I suggest the relevant CFDs should be closed, pending an RFC on the question of people-by-occupation-and-place categories.
  As to the contested edits to individual articles, this clearly needs some centralised discussion. JPL needs a warning not to use CFD in this way, and also for the disruptive way he has pursued this disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think BHG is totally not understanding how I am using CfD. This is really frustrating. The reasons for the CfDs have nothing to do with what articles are in them in this case. They are built around a belief that the intersection of being a sportsperson and being from a specific suburb of Phoenix is not notable. To kill the CfDs because of other comments on them would just discorage comments. There needs to be somewhere where the rules of categorization can be discussed. This whole process is frustrating. Especially since my point clearly shows that the directive is on my side, and we do not in general categorize by place of birth. If that directive is not how we do things, than it needs to change. But it is clearly unfair to try and punish me for having a view on this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Let me try this one more time. The claims about my motivation in creating the CfD are false. I intended to create the CfD on Category:Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona before I made any edits to any categories. When I actually created it is not at all relevant to this issue. I did not, let me repreat, did not create it, as a reaction to any reverting of any edit on my part. I created it because I do not think that the intersection of suburb of Mesa and occupation, at least in the case of sportspeople is notable. That is my view, and that is the key question at the CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • ...JPL, please indent your comments/replies here. Failing to do so makes the discussion nearly impossible to read (and continuing to do so after being requested to do so has been found disruptive in the past). I have done so here; please do so yourself in the future. Also, please stop placing Comment before each of your posts, AN/I is all about comments and it only makes things even harder to read. I honestly find all of the above nearly impossible to comprehend because of these two issues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • • Sorry. This whole discussion is very frustrating to me. The initial attack seems to largely be based on my 1-following what appears to be the guideline of Wikiepdia:Categorization of people under the place section. 2-a result of my hesitancy to accept that residence means "being from there", at least initially prompted by the fact some people had 2 residences listed. I have admitted I was probably too quick to remove people based on residence. I am not convinced I was too quick in removing anyone based on accident of birth, even in the vases where further evidence has been brought forth to show residence past birth. Why my second view, because we categorize not by what is, but by what is verified, and until articles have statements in them that indicate a categorization is appropriate, the categorization should not occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • JPL, you have enough editing experience to know how to address different types of issue.
        if you disagree with individual reversions, try discussion with the other editor(s). If there is an unresolved disagreement about what constitutes "from", then open a centralised discussion at WT:CAT ... but that is a separate issue from how "people from" intersects with people by occupation, which is the only issue which belongs at a CFD about people-by-occupation-and-place categories.
        You are using these CFDs to discuss an question which arises at a higher level of the category tree; that is a misuse of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • The discussion of specific cases involved in the category was not started by me but by User:WilliamJE. If you want to criticize someone for bringing up specific cases in a CfD, then shouldn't you criticize him. Why should I let back and let someone claim "John is doing wrong removals from the category" when Wikiepdia:Categorzation of people clearly says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual". You act like I brought up individual cases, that was another user. It is unfair to blame me, and to threaten me with punishment when it was another user who engaged in such. Why should I let false claims of a consensus stand?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Ok, maybe I did start the discussion in the case of Scottsdale, but it seemed evident to me that the existence of lots of people in the category who only maintained residence in that location part of the year was problematic. This whole process has become very frustrating. If CfD has low participation, one should look at the talk page for Wikipedia:Categozation of people. Until I just made a comment there, no one had commented since last june.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Misty Hyman's article says she graduated from a specific high school in Phoenix. That to me says she is from Phoenix. I may be wrong, but the claim that there is nothing in the article connecting her to Phoenix is not accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I have now added a clearer indication that Misty Hyman's high school was in Phoenix. However the article already mentioned Paradise Valley, Arizona. Paradise Valley has a complex relationship with Phoenix, with most institutions identified as being say Paradise Valley Community College actually being within the boundaries of Phoenix, and we do not have Category:People from Parasies Valley, Arizona. Classifying people who are from Paradise Valley as from Phoenix may or may not be an agreed on course of action, but it is not an issue worth bringing up here. Especially since This issue, and most of these other issues were never brought up on my talk page. This all feels like a blindsiding attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• On the issue of Mike McCullough being brought up here this seems totally out of line. All the article had was a mention that at some point McCullough was a resident of Scottsdale. That was not even in the main text, but in a side info box. True, User:WilliamJE has found by doing some sort of google search an article that mentions McCullough lived in Scottsdale in 1979. Does the article link to that source or incorporate the finds of that source into the article even now? Not when I last looked. Categorization should follow the text of an article. People do not have some special pass that allows them to add categorizes because somewhere, somehow they know they apply. They need to add categories that are based in the text of the article. This is a logical minimum requirement for categories. The proper response to removal of people when their articles do not have any in the article support that they have lived in a place long enough to be from there is to place it in the article. I could not know that McCullough had lived in Scottsdale for 34 years because it was not incorporated in his article, and the fact that WilliamJE has to use an old newspaper search to demonstrate this suggests it is not a commonly mentioned thing in McCullough's biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• I think User:WilliamJE should have someone tell him to tone down his attacks. His accusation "it was vandalism" and "John Pack Lambert knew it was wrong and still did it" are just not justified. He seems to have gone beyond acceptable behavior in attacking me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What I find most disturbing is the note "your dead wrong" left on my talkpage. Such notes are inherently uncivil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Why am I accused of "getting upset" when it is another user who said "categorization would be better off without John Pack Lambert". Such downright rudeness is really unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's safe to say that JPL and I disagree a lot at CfD. He frequently wants to delete categories that I think are valid, useful and serve a purpose in a larger context of categorization. But we manage to co-exist at CfD.
  

My complaint about JPL at CfD though is that he often doesn't notify the creators of categories and the relevant WikiProjects that the categories are being debated and might be deleted, merged or renamed. I know this because I often follow-up and post notifications on Talk Pages where I think the Editor(s) might have a stake in the outcome (whether the view is "pro" or "con"). Admittedly, about half of the time, the creator is no longer active, so no notification of the creator is called for. But, on the other hand, I think that if Category:African-American players of American football category is up for deletion, the discussion would benefit from hearing from Editors who write about African-Americans and those who write about football. Is this a useful category? Is it biased? Or is it part of a larger structure of categories about African-American athletes?

It's likely that JPL will say my concern is a separate issue from the one brought up in this complaint. But the larger question is how CfD includes or excludes Editors from the conversation of what happens to Wikipedia categories. Yes, there are guidelines on how categorization should be done but there is also the taxonomy of categories that WikiProjects work to put together. Categories aren't important in themselves and shouldn't be reified, they are a tool that organizes articles in order to help Readers find what they are looking for. They are partly navigational tools. The people who have a deep knowledge of Indian actresses or military honors or Muslim comedians should be invited to participate in the CfD process about those topics and be welcomed, not discouraged, from giving their input.

Yes, regulars like JPL who has been active at CfD for years know the guidelines backward and forward. Often I find his logic correct but the outcome wrong because we have to also consider how deleting categories impacts people who write articles about these subjects, whether the way categories should be corresponds with how categories work or function in practice. And that's why we often differ on decisions at CfD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my first point would be that this is not really about CfD at all, it is a complaint about edits to specific articles. My second point is that I did notify the creator of Category:Muslim comedians that the category was up for deletion. On the other hand, with Category:21st-century Indian film actresses it was largely a follow up to the discussion of Category:20th-century Indian film actresses, and the person (someone other than me) who started that discussion (which I stayed out of, because I really am conflicted about such categories), did not notify the creator (the same as the creator of the 21st-century category), so it is clearly that I am not by any means the only user who starts CfD's without notifying the creator, so why do people want to single me out for it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In hindsight, now that I've had a day to reflect, I can see that my comments above are more suitable for a RfC on the topic of notifications and not here. I won't strike it out but I can see it was out-of-place in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert and categorization of dogs

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 noticed that Johnpacklambert has removed a bunch of categories from the Rin Tin Tin article, apparently taking the view that a dog cannot be an actor, that a dog cannot have a nationality. The same tack was taken by Johnpacklambert at Ace the Wonder Dog, that a dog cannot be an actor. I would like to ask the community whether they would allow a famous dog to be categorized by place or as an actor. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

JPL may not be trying to disrupt Wikipedia, but it's abundantly clear that his edits are having that effect. As for the dogs, if an animal can be an actor (which seems to be accepted), then an animal should be able to be a "serial actor", a contract player, an American actor, etc. And why would an article about a male dog be excluded from Category:Male dogs? --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This `is not an ANI issue, and shouldn't be here. But since you asked: Category:Actors is a sub-category of Category:People by occupation.
Do Binksternet you and Orlady Category:Dogs to be a subcat of Category:People?
If not, then don't categorise individual dogs as people.
(Somebody should move this sub-thread to WT:CAT.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:: Category:Animal actors has been a subcategory of Category:Actors for nearly 7 years. With that kind of precedent, unilateral efforts to take individual canine actors out of "actors" categories look like disruption. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Orlady, specific cases like this aren't really the purview of AN/I (as I understand it). Similar decisions are made daily at WP:CFD. The question I'm left with after reading your comment is a) how to publicize discussions about categories like Category:Animal actors when they are proposed for deletion, merging or renaming and b) how to get people who care and know about the categories & subject taxonomy to participate in the debate.

To be honest, CfD, even more so than AfD, has a relatively small group of people who weigh in with their opinions about the fate of categories that are being challenged. It would be great if there was a "sorting" system, similar to what occurs at AfD, so that different WikiProjects would be automatically informed if a related category was up for discussion. Right now, I think CfD could stand to improve their notification system but that is really a proposal for a separate RfC.

As for adding or removing individual categories to an article or to a subcategories, any Editor has that ability. And like with any edit, any other Editor has the right to revert that decision and discuss the proposed change on the article or category Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that until we sort out the problems with categorizing people by place (and probably occupation) we are likely to have arguments. An RfC seems the only solution. People move around, some more than others. Someone might graduate from high school only having spent 2 years in that area. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the example you give is exactly why I hate dealing with categories. The false supposition is that Category:Actors should only include human actors because it is a subcategory of "people by occupation". That is a mistaken conclusion—the category of actors can never be a complete subset of human occupations if animals can be actors, which is clearly the case. The set of "actors" is larger than "human actors", though you would never know it by looking at categories on Wikipedia. I think the fact that a category is technically a subcategory of a parent category should not restrict the first category from including elements outside of the purview of the parent category. The more blindered, narrow interpretation is apparently being followed on Wikipedia. The whole field of Wikipedia categories makes me crazy because of nonsense such as this, and because of the embarrassing male v female occupation dispute which started with "American novelists" v "American women novelists", and centered on the activity of Johnpacklambert. Makes me wanna scream. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

They're dogs, why the hell should we care if they are listed as "20th century American actors" or just referred to as "animal actors"? It seems rather silly to me for them to be included alongside human actors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It's nonsense to list them aside humans. And 'acting' isn't the correct word for dogs. Dogs are trained - 'trick trained' - to perform in certain ways by people (I know people who do this), and what they do isn't what I would consider acting. Maybe 'performing', but not acting. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Dogs aren't actors, and dogs do not have nationalities either. People have nationalities. A dog may live in a country, and it may be owned by somebody who has the nationality of that country, but the dog does not have a nationality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Dogs are actors. Bears too. "Performing" vs. "Acting". Ever seen a John Wayne movie? ;) Doc talk 05:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Those arguing that dogs can be actors have taken Suspension of disbelief too far. The dogs are doing tricks. They haven't read the script. They're not interpreting a character from it. Cute and clever they may be, but they're not actors. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we deal with Bart the bear if he was not an actual "actor"? IMDB credits him in various ways ("The bear", etc.). But that animal is undeniably credited as an actor. Can O' Worms? Meh. Doc talk 07:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

We tend not to regard IMDB as a terribly reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Regardless: Bart the bear was an actor. He was a single animal, and he performed under different credits. Should animal actors be as overcategorized as human actors? Probably not. Can an animal be considered an "actor"? Yes. Doc talk 08:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The thespian status of canines causes the taxonomy of Wikipedia categories to collapse. Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I just looked up Acting. It tells me "Acting requires a wide range of skills, including vocal projection, clarity of speech, physical expressivity, emotional facility, a well-developed imagination, and the ability to interpret drama. Acting also often demands an ability to employ dialects, accents and body language, improvisation, observation and emulation, mime, and stage combat." There's an awful lot of those things that dogs don't do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

A credited role in a film goes to an "actor". If a dog goes uncredited, it's "scenery". When an actor goes uncredited, it's still an actor. Now when a dog is credited - it's an "actor" for all intents and purposes. Doc talk 08:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

To "act" means to "perform an assumed role". The concept entails a conscious activity of pretending. No animal ever pretends to be something other than itself. An animal may "appear" in a film, or maybe it may "perform" in it, but it doesn't "act" a role. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If we want to get philosophical we can, but we shouldn't do it here. My incisor teeth indicate that I am an animal myself (at least a vestigial one). Some dogs are actually considered humans under the law: killing a K9 police dog is likely to earn a "murder of a police officer" charge. Overcategorization of animal actors? Hell, no. Disregarding animals like Bart as actors because they are animals? No way! Doc talk 08:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting into a pretty far-fetched tangent here, but just for the record: this thing about police dogs is a rather ridiculous urban legend. The law can impose heavy penalties on killing police dogs, but even in a place with a legal system as baroque as that of the US the law cannot magically define dogs to be humans. People who kill police dogs are not charged with murder, but with cruelty to animals. Police dogs are no more people than dogs used in movies are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• one can certainly understand why anthropomorphism would raise categorization issues, but its not an ANI issue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 28 September 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.

Report of a "Legal threat"

apparently under WP:NLT i should report that 122.163.229.138 (talk · contribs) wrote this " If you continue doing the same , we can also report the case to Cyber Crime Cell in New Delhi , India . They will hunt you down . Keep this warning in mind . " on my talk page.

based on the timing, my guess is that it was User:Shivamevolution had logged out to make that edit before he created User:Prakharveedang as another sock puppet to reupload the same copyright image to commons that had been deleted when Shivamevolution claimed that he had sourced the image from his blog. but thats just a guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what 'legal threats' you're talking about here, but the other user is not a sock puppet of mine, if that is what you are implying. You may ask an admin to investigate the same if you think it's necessary, but it'll just be a waste of time and energy. --Shivamevolution (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added more details about the "threat" above. You may also wish to go to Wikimedia Commons and explain your lack of socking there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I had blocked Shivamevolution for sock/meat puppetry before, and this falls very close to the earlier pattern, while the two users may be different, they operate only to embellish one article. The new user is clearly a sock of one of the older groups (there were two groups according to SPI and the linkage between the two groups was inconclusive). Also, the post on RedPen's page follows from this post earlier by Shivamevolution, so there's at least some collusion involved. I'll be away from computer for a while, so I can not respond quickly to any queries. —SpacemanSpiff 14:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, now an SPI is unnecessary, the first Commons image was uploaded by Shivamevolution, the second one by Prakharveerdang and now sourced to a flickr account of the earlier sock. So irrespective of technical evidence, this is editing in a group. —SpacemanSpiff 14:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for the legal threat, and will leave it to someone else to sort out the socking question. Monty₈₄₅ 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked both Shivamevolution and Prakharveedang indefinitely. The collusion, disruption, and deceit are fairly obvious to me. In keeping with the outcome of the sock puppet investigation itself, no user has been tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• The issue of socking has been confirmed by CU on Commons -- Link to COM:AN post.—SpacemanSpiff 03:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this user is back as 101.62.174.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). That account just left another complaint at User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom which they signed as "Wikipedia Editor", just like the blocked IP did [52]. Both IPs are registered to an ISP in New Delhi. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Revdel required

I've spotted something that needs revdel'ing for BLP reasons but do not want to post the diff here. Can an willing admin stick their name below - I'll email the diff to you. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

- Sitush (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

IP User Continuing to Ignore WP:SOURCE

There is an IP user, 88.159.238.200 who continues to ignore the rules of WP:SOURCE to Jonas Brothers articles, and related pages. And whenever I remove the fansites/social media sources, they automatically add them back in. They've been blocked on two occasions, and are continuing to ignore why they've been blocked. And they're also ignoring proper citation styles per Wiki guidelines. The articles they're editing are in extreme poor quality, and are written in the format of a fansite page, and are not even acceptable to be on Wikipedia as their standing. If proper re-construction were to even possibly begin on these articles, this IP would certainly get in the way of doing that. I'm sure their intentions are well of providing proper information to the fans and readers, but continuing to go against Wiki policy for doing so is unacceptable. I was told to bring this matter here, so I'm hoping you'll be able to help in this situation. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 14:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Suicide/violence threat in Monta Vista High School

In this diff, some kid is saying that they want to "burn the school down" and "run away from life". Already emailed emergency@wikimedia.org, and per Wikipedia:Threats of violence, it goes here too. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit has been removed from the public revision history, so the admins have presumably taken the necessary course of action.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sophus Bie, thanks for bringing it to an administrator's attention and contacting the emergency email address. However, just a friendly reminder to all readers of this thread (because it is sometimes easily forgotten): as per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, it is best to contact an adminstrator privately in these circumstances, especially in cases of suicide threats. Increasing public attention on the specific threat of violence is unneccessary and often counter-productive. (This logic applies to all oversight requests.) Singularity42 (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I've updated Wikipedia:Threats of violence to match policy at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, since it had contained incorrect instructions to post to WP:ANI. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 23:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

There's yet another reference to ANI on that page -- footnote 2 says "Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, has advised "it is very important that we respond appropriately to threats" and "I encourage people to err on the side of caution and report things to AN/I quickly." I don't feel comfortable editing that page, so will leave it as is.--Larry (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) Well, since it's just reporting what Jimbo said and not conveying instructions, it should be okay to stay. Ansh666 20:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Editor blanking AfC submissions

Recently, I noticed an editor that was blanking many pages that appeared in Category:AfC submissions with missing AfC template. There may be more, but here's one diff: Diff of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Click Effects . APerson (talk!) 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this the right diff? The editor in the above diff has not edited since January 2013. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated NFCC violations (Result: 48 hours)

Judgeking (talk · contribs) needs blocked for repeated violations of WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) After looking at the page edit history, this looks like it belongs more on WP:AN/3, no? Technical 13 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Already filed, but the user repeatedly violoates NFCC and will not discuss it. There has been a discussion about this already, but the user is owning the page. Werieth (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. This isn't a simple matter of editwarring, since unfair use of nonfree works is copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not question anyone's judgment here, but I would like to discuss this a little. Werieth is doing a great job of protecting Wikipedia here, I'm just finding myself asking if perhaps he's being a little overzealous at times here. It appears at this time that is current method for dealing with these has been driving away editors (at least it appears that Special:Contributions/Rachael89 has been driven away). I've noticed that his communication/language skills make him difficult to understand at times, and I believe that if some of our more sensitive and English attuned editors could make some cookie cutter responses for him to use in edit summaries or whatnot (I could make a userscript for him that would make it easier for him to get rid of such images and use these edit summaries at very least) that it "might" help our editor retention at least a little. Technical 13 (talk) 04:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Use the standard {{uw-nonfree}} when warning users. You will find that some users just dont like our restrictive policies on non-free media. Unless we make a drastic shift in our stance about copyrighted material (which wont happen) it will make users unhappy. Werieth (talk) 04:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• No way this should end in applause for the OP, this went through twenty-three (23) reverts and un-reverts by my count. I don't care who's on the side of the angels, this sort of edit warring crap should not be happening on Wikipedia. 3RR is 3RR. If you get to two, seek outside help. Trout smack. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR#Exceptions #5 Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy Thus this isnt 3RR. Werieth (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Hence my overzealous comment Carrite. I'll start development of an NFCC assisting script tomorrow, it should be fairly easy based on Anomie's User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js and some other image related stuff I started this morning for Monty845. I'll just need those edit summary ideas to add to it. Thanks if you can help with that. Werieth, I don't agree that they all necessarily violate #1 and #3, although #8 is a maybe in my eye and I'd rather stay on the line of they should have been removed for that. The question becomes, would you be willing to use a script to help you remove those with better edit summaries that are clear, concise, and less offensive to the editor whom you are removing the images of? Technical 13 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Whenever we use nonfree content in a way that doesn't qualify as fair use, we're infringing copyright. Page histories for the article and for WP:AN3 show that Werieth reported soon after they got past 3RR, so he followed the "seek outside help" long before it reached the extreme proportions where it ended up. I came close to blocking Werieth, but only because I got confused who was doing what; as soon as I saw the situation, I planned to block the user who was adding the content and to leave unblocked the user who was removing it. No comment on Wereith's interactions with other users, since I've not seen such interactions. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not an unambiguous, slam-dunk violation of NFCC. THIS is the file they were warring over, which is only flagged for deletion if no presentation of a valid fair use rationale by Sept. 27. This is a content battle at root. There should have been 3RR repercussions for both parties well before the war got to 23 reverts... Carrite (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, I think you need to review WP:NFCC. It was more than just one image. Files have a fairly high bar to meet, something that was quickly skimmed over in the background (was on screen less than 30 seconds) and is not critical to the article fails NFCC#8. There where a total of 5 files that I removed due to NFCC issues (The article had a total of 6), most film articles only have 1. Take the image of Jennifer Connelly as another example, it is a picture of a living person, no significant makeup, no major alterations to her normal visual appearance. We have 4 free images of her on her article. Completely replaceable non-free content, (non-free media of living people is fairly well defined as prohibited). I could break this down image by image and explain every violated point but I would recommend you review NFC. Werieth (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Good block. I count 23RR on that edit war. That should have been stopped way before that by some other admin. (I mean I know we've briefly discussed about 3RR this past summer, but still there is some ridiculousness to all this stuff.) --MuZemike 05:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So Werieth is back after he made a similar report here where he made eight reversions in a 13-hour timespan recently. Now we have an instance of 22 reversions in a half hour. Even if these reversions are considered exempt for the purposes of WP:3RR, which they may not be unquestionable violations, this in my opinion should still be considered edit warring. Werieth should have stopped after making the report at the edit warring noticeboard but he made 17 reversions after that. Werieth also should have stopped after making this section but he made 12 reversions after that.

I agree with Techincal 13 that Werieth's editing and communication style is lacking. It leads towards other editors getting pissed off, edit warring, threats of blocks and bans and editors leaving Wikipedia. Better communication could really help relieve a lot of what has been happening. At the very least can we get Werieth to step back from reverting after he has submitted for admin help with an edit war? If there is a clear 3RR/edit warring violation then the other party will get blocked or the article will be protected and there is no immediate need for the image to be removed that could not wait until an admin could help out. Aspects (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The catch is that that last bit could easily be read as "there is no immediate need to remove copyright violations". It takes two to tango; the fact that there are editors who are willing to 23RR to defend NFCC violations is troubling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Erb? I think the point is that it would be good if communication here were improved. I don't see anyone defending the user who was blocked as much as wondering if better communication wouldn't have resulted in less conflict and perhaps an outcome other than a block. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Aspects, once you're past 3RR, it doesn't matter how many more reverts happen: either your reverts are exceptions from 3RR, in which case you shouldn't be blocked no matter how many you make, or they're not exceptions, so you're liable to be blocked, even if you don't make any more. Carrite, I'm not very sympathetic to objections such as "oh, it's missing a point from the rationale, so we have to get rid of it!" I agree that a slightly flawed rationale is nowhere near a good reason for revert-warring. I checked the images in question, but only fast enough to see that (1) they were marked as nonfree and (2) too complicated for PD-simple; with that checked, I blocked because the user was adding way way too many nonfree images, because no rationale could possibly justify so many of them. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that a violation of NFCC is not necessarily a copyvio, because NFCC is more restrictive than copyright law and American common practice as determined by the courts. I personally think that's a mistake on our part, that NFCC should follow legal precedent, but it does not, therefore it's not a slam dunk that an NFCC violation can be actively pursued that way an obvious copyvio can be. This means that a violation of NFCC (an internal policy) should not be treated the same as a violation of copyright law, and editors who wish to use "copyvio" as reason to exceed 3RR need to make the case that the NFCC-violation is an actual copyright violation in order to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• While that's a fairly technical argument, I've got to say I agree with it. People should be aware of the difference. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Arguably even most of these images could be used under claim of US fair use law (you're not required to attribute or the like); just that removing non-compliant NFCC does help us stay far below any legal threshold that may trigger a suit. I do, however, point that the Foundation wishes us to remove non-frees used inappropriate in a timely manner. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • None-the-less, calling it a "copyvio" is factually wrong and as such, doing so should be avoided. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's my point: one should use "copyvio" only for those instances where an actual violation of copyright law has taken place -- and should be removed as immediately as possible -- and otherwise refer to NFCC violations as just that. The imperative to move NFCC violations is not as strong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, I agree on that point. There's copyvios (like uploading a full ripped movie) and then there's images that probably fall within fair use but fail NFC. --MASEM (t) 02:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The point is that we've gone beyond fair use when we're using numerous images in this manner: we're really not using them transformatively. I say "fair use" and not "NFCC" intentionally, because my point is that we're exceeding the fair use criteria, not just Wikipedia's NFCC. Aside from confusion/misunderstanding/etc, there's no way I'd call a page a copyvio when it was full of unnecessary cc-by-nc images, for example: it's plainly at variance with NFCC, but not a copyright infringement because we're a noncommercial entity. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Truthfully, no. The state of the Labyrinth article before the image removals was 5 images - cover, 2 screencaps, a production photo and a piece of concept art. They were "transformed" by the fact the article writes around those pieces, and compared to the volume of the work for the movie, the size used was very small and respected commercial opportunities. I would be hard pressed to find a legal court in the US that would find that page in that state a violation of fair use. It would take a lot more copyrighted media on that page to push it into a state where legal challenges may occur. But from an NFCC perspective, yes, there were images that did not comply with our policy (for example, we don't need a screencap of books that appeared in the movie that were thematically similar to point out that fact), and the number was somewhat large for what we typically allow for film articles. A problem with meeting the free mission goal, but certainly not an issue with copyright violations within the bounds of US Fair Use law. There can be copyvios as relating to images that are above and beyond NFCC: claiming ownership of a copyrighted image, using significant portions of copyrighted works at high resolution, etc. that WP:COPYVIO basically handles, but most of the work done at NFCC effectively helps to keep a large buffer between WP and fair use law. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Again referring to the legal "fair use" standard versus NFCC, I believe Masem is correct here. The more copyrighted material is used in an article, the more the article is a violation of NFCC, but, on the other hand, under the legal standard all the copyrighted material must owned by the same entity. In other words, having an article with a dozen non-free images is clearly an NFCC problem needing resolution, but if all the images are owned by different entities, the article is still compliant with the legal standard of fair-use, because each instances is separate from every other in the article.

                This just serves as another reason to keep "copyvio" and "NFCC-violation" strictly separate unless it's appropriate to do otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Judgeking definitely should be blocked for refusing to engage at all, and while in general Werieth was in the right to remove repeating without the issue, I am going to caution Werieth again that his choice to what to remove is a bit questionable, particularly in the case in this specific example for Labyrinth, as at least one of the files (the concept painting) has a reasonable chance to be used. (He did a similar wipe over here that took out a screenshot used to describe the gameplay of a video game, a typically standard allowance). If there are many multiple non-free, that is a problem, but if each image has a rationale for use on that page, a license, and otherwise don't fail NFCC#1 (freely replaceable) or #2 (commercial opportunity - aka press images), then this issue is how subjectively the rationales meet #8 and whether there is more minimal use per #3, which is not something the the 3RR exemption for NFCC allows for edit warring over. Yes, bolding removing excessive images once is a problem, but if it the a judgement call as to what are proper images the next step is NFCR or the talk page or the like. Werieth needs to be aware (I've tried to tell him this even though I back his NFCC work) that these actions are not always the right approach. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth's actions should be censured. His insistence that his revert warring is protected by policy leads to articles such as Elizabeth David bibliography being locked, and then all the previously non-free reviewed media being deleted by default.

At Hey Ya!, a good article on a pop song, he removed the audio sample, which was then deleted by default. When a user disagreed with Werieth's actions and opened up a discussion on the talk page, Werieth described it as disruptive. Werieth's extreme interpretation of WP:NFCC is not standard practice. He should not receive a get-out-of-jail card by dressing up disruptive action as policy enforcement. - hahnchen 17:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You where told that the usage of non-free media on Elizabeth David bibliography wasnt acceptable. After discussion, one possible two images where deemed justified. Not the multiple that where removed.

On Hey Ya!, the article needs more critical commentary to justify the usage (which it lacked when I removed the file). When I remove media its because the article does not currently have justification for the included media. That is not to say that justification cannot be created, just as the article is it cannot support the use of the media that was removed. The sound clip lacks any critical commentary which is required for usage.

In this case I had a discussion with a different user, and attempted to discuss it with Judgeking, and was ignored. There is only one image that has a change of being re-added, however the article needs more critical commentary to support it before that can happen. Werieth (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• He should be censored for absolutely correctly removing a NFCC-violating gallery of non-free images from Elizabeth David bibliography? Er, I think not. Werieth can be a little over-enthusiastic (I have told him before to flag up the issue with an admin or at WT:NFC when faced with a group of editors who haven't read the policy, like that example), but we don't censure editors for upholding policy. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Trout to Werieth, there is a reasonable limit to how far the edit warring exemption for copyright violations goes. I personally would have gone up to 10 reverts before soliciting advice from another editor who is familiar with the policy/procedure regarding the rules. One against one is difficult to determine who is in the right. Two or three editors all upholding the same viewpoint against a single editor is much more favorable when admins come in to hand out sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur Given the facts that the user was re-inserting, refusing to discuss and blanking attempts at their talk page, and I filed a 3RR and after getting no response I came here, I did just about as much as I could have done. To this day the user has refused to explain why they think the files meet NFC. Werieth (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Werieth You should have gotten a 2nd editor who is familiar with NFC policy to review the reversions as it would reduce some of the concern of you riding the exemption so far. I'm not chastising you, just suggesting that in the future when you get to 5RR claiming one of the EW exemptions, it's better to have annother editor review and see if the policy call you're making is correct. Hasteur (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To Hahnchen: A nonfree audio clip is not a "freebie", and is not appropriate for or allowed in every song article. It would only be appropriate in cases like Bohemian Rhapsody, where the audio qualities of the song are the subject of significant critical commentary and the nonfree clip will greatly enhance understanding by allowing a reader to hear what the article is talking about. Nonfree media is not allowed to be "ear candy" any more than "eye candy", and the use in Hey Ya! failed NFCC #8. At Elizabeth David bibliography, similarly, the book covers were not needed. We generally allow one nonfree cover in an article about the book for identification purposes, but in something like a bibliography, discography, or episode list, we generally do not, unless the covers themselves are the subject of significant commentary and are correspondingly discussed there. Otherwise, they are decorative, and again fail NFCC #8. I wish nonfree patrol weren't necessary, but unfortunately, with stuff like this, it is. Wereith was absolutely right in both these cases.

Werieth: That being said, would you please consider using venues like nonfree content review rather than a 23-round edit war, even though technically you can? In the end, that might do more long-term good. We would have very likely come to the same conclusions you did in the cases I've seen here, would have gotten a better chance to explain to the editors using too much NFC where they're in error, and it would have been done in a calmer venue. That makes it much more likely that they'll gain understanding, and that gives all of us less work to do and less friction. You are generally right, so you've nothing to fear from putting it up for discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Armenians in Cyprus

Resolved

 – Neo^ blocked indefinitely

This issue has become ridiculous. It seems that any change I make, no matter how small or big, is reverted by someone "clever". After being blocked for a whole week, I made 7 small factual corrections in one edit and then I made another edit to balance social life. Both of them were reverted by PantherLeapord. Please tell me what to do! I am tired with this stupid argument. When there is a mistake, it needs to be corrected. When we need to balance something, we need to balance it. I cannot go into that much trouble to spot the mistakes and rectify them and someone "smart" coming and undoing everything and purely saying "Participate in the DR case and wait for that to close before further reverts". It seems that some people are more interested in the formality not the actuality... Neo ^ (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Beware the aussie flyin' stick Neo! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting without explanation was incredibly bad judgment. not the first time, either: [53]. — Lfdder (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo ^ persistently fails to understand that there is a dispute here over the sheer amount of detail that is appropriate for this article. There is a consensus of everybody except himself that the article was simply too long and overly detailed. His second edit today, which he here glosses over as being just to "balance" something was in fact a re-insertion of more than 6,000 bytes [54], all of which had previously been in the article and had been removed in the context of pruning the article down. He refuses to understand that such edits are by their very nature contentious, both for being reverts and simply for being so voluminous. He has had several escalating blocks over the exact same issue already, and shows no sign of understanding what's wrong with his approach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but the way some people have approached Neo about it is provocative, intentional or no. — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Listen to me. The balance issue cannot be counted with bytes. There are certain organisations within the community. You cannot choose to keep one (AYMA and its satellites) and not make mention to the other important ones (AGBU, Armenian Club, LHEM, Nor Serount etc). This has become insane. One needs to look at this...

What you pruned you didn't look well. Let me put it in different terms. The community has organizations A, B, C, D, E, F and affiliated organisations v, w, x, y, z. The way the article was, you had organization A and suborganisations w, x, y, z. What I did was rectify the situation. Clear your head guys of all prejudice... You have demonised me... Neo ^ (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo; please familiarise yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS have to do with what he's saying? — Lfdder (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"you cannot choose to keep one and not make mention to the other 'important' ones". To me that portion of the text screams WP:OSE PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

OSE is about drawing parallels btn WP pages, not the real world. Mentioning one but not the others is WP:WEIGHT, so Neo is right this one time. Do we need a whole bloody paragraph on each though? No, probably not. — Lfdder (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually while you're right OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't come in to play and UNDUE (also WP:NPOV) does, you're wrong about the intepretation. If one is highly significant and notable but another has miniminal significance and is barely notable (or not notable), there may be good reason to mention one but not the other particularly if the mention is brief. Whether this applies here I dunno, but the fact remains nothing in UNDUE and other relevant policies like NPOV suggest we need to cover one just because we cover another (we should consider it, sure). Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we establish that? These are all barely notable to begin with. You'd be hard-pressed to find them mentioned in lit anywhere. — Lfdder (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This report has indeed boomeranged. I became too familiar with this user over the last month through his increasingly obtuse (not that they didn't have far to go to begin with) unblock requests, and now after his third block he has just started this up again. So I stuck a fork in him. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This s--- is getting old", "sent off", "stuck a fork in him" and "had it up to here and back again". Are you sure you're in the right state of mind to be blocking people? I've not administered an online encyclopedia, but people who need to make such a big deal over blocking someone (block summary, edit summaries, comments here and on the user's page) strike me as unfit for the job. — Lfdder (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) While that's probably true, I don't think the result would have been any different if he had let someone else do it. Ansh666 20:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Neo ^ has stated he/she will stay away from this article. I think this hasty block should be lifted. Mentoring would probably go a long way towards helping this Editor know when he crosses the line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am far from convinced that it was a "hasty block," given the state of his user talk page, and honestly, the comments of his unblock request don't inspire a hell of a lot of confidence that he may not go on to other related articles in the same problematic way. I think mentoring might help, but that if the block is to be lifted a topic ban or maybe some sort of mandated editor review might be called for. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

After their recent behaviour I do not believe that for a second. That being said; I will support an unblock if and ONLY if they are put on an indefinite 0RR restriction. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess we need more Editors to weigh in on this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Slow edit war at Curse of Ham

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

A user called "User:WatchingEyes" has been engaged in long edit war with several users, removing reliably sourced in information which he insists comes from "zionist sources". He has not broken 3RR yet, but simply continuously reverts to remove the information that Muslim writers supported the concept of a "curse of Ham". He has so far removed the content and been reverted 15 times. The editor has ignored attempts to raise the matter on the article talk page, but has responded with a long, rambling comment on my talk page [55] (which I have copied with responses from another editor to the article talk page). He then blanked his own talk page and replaced the content with "jews are masters of the slave trade, known fact." It is clear that Dispute Resolution would be pointless with this editor. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

He has returned as an IP. [56]. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

He's escalating. The article, I think, needs to be semi-protected. Paul B (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just done it. Deb (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP, it appears the IP is just looking for controversies to inflame, and is probably not related to the editor here. Monty₈₄₅ 15:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• And range blocked... Monty₈₄₅ 15:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the IP seeems to be more interested in Pop culture than Jews. Thanks for the interventions. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Request block for threats of bodily harm

Danpolitiet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a sock of long time vandal Amanbir_Singh_Grewal (his lastest sock was blocked the other day (pr. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Amanbir_Singh_Grewal:_ban.3F)), aparently took offence with me blocking him indef on dawiki and choose to express his recentment om my usertalk, User talk:Knud Winckelmann.

While that's nothing new to me, it's not every day that I'm threatened with slitting and lynching. Could an admin take a look and take the appropriate action? Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Regards Knud Winckelmann (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Holdek and sources templates again

I am sorry to bother the community with this user for the third time, but I am afraid this goes over the top. I am afraid they need at least a topic ban for this article, given the previous history of editing. Would someone please inform the user of this thread, since last time they told me I am not welcome to post at their talk page. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Done for you. Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And as a note, Holdek has removed the notification from their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I was willing to give Holdek WP:ROPE that they are merely enforcing WP:V, but his latest actions look increasingly disruptive and not in the spirit of collaboration. Looking at his past 200 edits or so, he seems to be only gaming the system. Another example is this. I support an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, there's nothing "gaming the system" about asking for sourcing of content. Rather, reliable sourcing is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Per WP: Verify: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (Bold mine.) Pretty basic and easy to understand.

Oh also you are confusing WP:ROPE with WP: Assume Good Faith. Holdek (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You said "The photographs in this article need to have citations." and nothing about captions. And here you didn't tag any caption. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The White Ribbon "For Russia Without Putin"

That's because Template: Citation needed did not show up when I tried to put it on all the unsourced captions on Russian opposition. (It did work for one of them, though.) So I put it on the talk page. As for the caption for the map of Moscow, I'll reinsert "Moscow" as the caption. Holdek (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And even if they did tag the caption, I am not sure how I can best source that the map shows Moscow. Source it to the recent edition of the atlas of Moscow?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That would work. Holdek (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is simply trolling. I'd venture a guess that 99.99% of the maps used as images on Wikipedia don't have inline citations in articles. Indicating the source on the image page rather than the article is what commonly done. If you're serious about inserting such inline references in the numerous articles that use that map, you can do it yourself by copying them from Moscow#Administrative divisions. The same style of spamming tags, deletion of content, "accompanied" by zero positive work towards satisfying those frivolous citation requests got Curb Chain topic banned. However, in your case, Holdek, it's hard to think of a single topic area that would suffice. The experience with that other editor showed little improvement after such a topic ban, and plenty of wikilawyering for admins to put up with, so I think indef block works best for such cases from now on. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, are seriously asking for a citation for the caption of the photo to the right? Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Holdek (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Could this user please be topic-banned from all Russia-related articles? The answer shows they have no clue and just try to prove the point.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Then you are definitely note here to build an encyclopedia, Holdek. You strongly remind me of Curb Chain who persisted on a similarly disruptive campaign of spamming citation tags and removing content while doing zero positive work in referencing material himself. The caption is simply a translation of the clearly visible Russian text in from the ribbon itself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, based on your accusation, I'm finished talking with you. Holdek (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, they still seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and add source requests to the lede on a regular basis. This one is truly ridiculous, and I do not see how this potentially can improve encyclopedic content.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to keep assuming good faith with Holdek when the issue is well referenced (even with sources in English) at Federal cities of Russia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding clearly demonstrated battleground mentality [57].--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from all topics related to Russia

I think Holdek's wikilawyering and battleground attitude are just a prevalent elsewhere, but he has been recently spamming articles on Russian topics with frivolous "citation needed" tags for what is common knowledge while doing zero work himself toward referencing any such material even when such references are easily found in the main Wikipedia articles on the topics, e.g. the map of Moscow, its status in the Russian constitution etc. I think we'll be back at ANI for other topics, but for the sake of doing something about stemming the disruption (as in Curb Chain|a similar case), I formally propose a six-months topic ban on all topics related to Russia for Holdek. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously support, based on the above argumentation.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Support, but with alternative scope. Based on the examples given above, and the demands to cite photograph captions (which, a quick glance across Wikipedia will show, is something we do not do) like this particulary egrerious example and its followup, I belive this to be appropriate. I'll also point out that, with the exception of controversial statements in BLPs, edits like this and this are inappropriate; WP:V only requires that verifable reliable sources exist, not that they be in the article at all; the proper thing to do in a non-egreriously-and-blatantly-wrong case like that one is {{cn}} if a cite is needed, not outright removal. Holdek's comments above showing no sign of listening to the concerns about these edits and how they reflect on his editing style convince me that a topic ban here is necessary, although I might query ifbelieve it should be Removing or tagging of content as unsourced, excluding BLPs and unambiguous vandalism should be the scope of the topic ban instead of "Russia". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. WP: Verify: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. And "Any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

Furthermore, I always add a citation needed template to non BLP material and give time for it to be sourced or source it myself before removing it. --Holdek (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Everybody can check that your statement is incorrect: [58]--Ymblanter (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moscow_mayoral_election,_2013&diff=564936031&oldid=564933179 Holdek (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that you have to challenge the material first - via the {{cn}} tag. And the funny thing about saying "always" is that you have to be right every time for it to be true - but only wrong once for it not to be, and there are multiple cases there where you have not tagged and given time - when a cn tag is removed because, as in the diff you provide there, it was added in a particularly egregious example of WP:TAGBOMBING, you need to start from scratch. Your statement above has only strengthened the case that you need to be topic-banned, not from Russian topics but from WP:V related activities, not weakened it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Then provide your evidence that I don't challenge the material first with a cn tag (please reread WP:TAGBOMBING to see what it explicitly does not apply to). Otherwise, you don't have anything here to go on and

• someone should close this ANI; this is the second spurious ANI that Ymblater has started about me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#User:Holdek). Holdek (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I can close it if you like, but on the basis of the links above I would close it with a block for disruptive editing. Even core policies like WP:V need to be used in good faith and in a reasonable way. DGG ( talk ) 19:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC) .

Disruptive behavior from User:Ryulong

Okay, this has gotten out of control real fast. I made an edit to Pokémon hoping to arrange some information in a way I felt was best, as a certain inaccuracy arises from the way it is now (see talk page). Ryulong reverted it stating "The series is "Pokemon" in Japan too."; completely reasonable, but my edit was for the same reason. So I asked him to explain further on his talk page, but he reverted the new section I had made and then went on to revert some edits I had made on some other Pokemon-related pages with no explanation. Then he had this to say on my talk page... despite the fact that the edits were made to resolve some clear, sourceable errors; one of the edits he reverted had actually been made at least two days ago with no opposition. So now I have to bug the talk page every time I want to make a change to any Pokemon article ever? What is even going on here? Despatche (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's called Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I explained my point on the article talk page as well as your own. This need not escalate to this just because you think things should be done a certain way on multiple websites.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong could certainly stand to be a little more civil, but otherwise, this just seems like a content issue that should be hashed out on the talk page, and/or posted at relevant WikiProjects if there's not enough discussion going on... Sergecross73 msg me 14:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Ryulong has been a continual problem in this area with bitey, arrogant and rude behavior coupled with persistant long-term abuse of the rollback function as seen here.[59][60] Ryulong removes his talk page discussions concerning any objectionable behavior making it difficult and tedious to find such actions, but they are frequent and fall on deaf ears. When Despatche brought the matter to Ryulong's talk page to discuss, Ryulong removed it with "I saw, it doesn't work". [61] This is part of a larger scope concerning the abuse of the rollback feature; which is constant, like on Pokemon X and Y,[62] Pokemon Origins,[63] and even corrections of the heading to match the text by IP users in Kamen Rider Wizard.[64] He does this at AFD even, where an explanation is most certainly needed.[65] Now going through only edits in the last two days shows more abusive behavior. Including frequent all caps yelling while removing good faith additions by IP editors. Three instances alone in List of Power Rangers Megaforce characters history.[66][67][68] Though also in the history of this one page shows a lack of discussion by Ryulong and more abuse of the rollback function.[69] Ryulong has ownership issues, constantly reverts good faith edits without explanation and doesn't engage in discussion, instead, often yelling at the editors in his reverts. I think Ryulong needs to have the rollback rights removed, I've asked him previously to use rollback function properly and he quickly removed the discussion and continued to abuse the function.[70] Ryulong's "consensus" and BRD argument only works if the reverting party intends to discuss and Despatche did attempt discussion only for Ryulong to remove it. There are numerous other examples that can be provided. Many show rudeness, lack of AGF.[71][72] The issue is deep that even editors who assert what a source says get reverted and the talk page discussion removed without even a reply.[73] Frankly, this behavior needs to stop and quickly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm allowed to do what I want on my user talk page, even with rollback. It's spelled out at WP:ROLLBACK. This has been proven time and time again whenever I use rollback on a talk page message and then someone comes to complain about it at ANI. I had already begun discussing this issue with formatting on his user talk page and the article talk page, but he insisted on opening another thread and I did not want to discuss the same subject on 3 different pages. Also, rollback can be used to revert multiple problematic (although good faith) edits in quick succession, so long as a message is left on the user talk page of the one reverted, which I did, and I see that I was a bit rude looking at it 12 hours later. However, I have been a bit too enthusiastic at List of Power Rangers Megaforce characters, but I am dealing with IP editors who constantly add WP:OR despite requests that they not, and unnecessary formatting changes, overly detailed plot summary, etc., particularly when I have to deal with the same IP editor making the same mistakes and deleterious edits over and over because they do not know how this website works.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I've had my fair share of problems with RL in the past. I especially don't like that someone with such a limited range of Japan-related articles s/he edits effectively controls MOSJ (unilateral edits by Ryulong are okay, but consensus-backed edits by others are not). But in this case I have to agree with him on the substance. There is no feasible way to incorporate the information Despatche wants to into the opening sentence without cluttering it, and any changes like that that are reverted really should be discussed before being re-added. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a man, thank you. And the edit you made to change the MOS never had consensus while mine changed nothing major.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That I can understand, but I cannot understand why he felt the need to revert other perfectly valid edits because I "didn't have consensus", despite the fact that one had been sitting around for at least two days at the time and both match up with Wikipedia consensus (one was an error and the other was missing information, which I'd really like to readd by the way).

But obviously, this isn't about the content, it's about the way he handles everything. Related: I'm tired of characters like Sergecross trying to hide stuff like this as a content issue (he's got some problems himself), because it's obviously not. People assume I have "hidden motives" because ????, when they have clearly shown their own desire to ignore reality. What do I do about these people? Despatche (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It only had been sitting around for 2 days because no one noticed it until you mentioned you had made several changes and I had initially thought they were unwarranted. Everything you've done and I mistakenly undid has since been properly formatted within the pages other than your insistence that Wikipedia no longer translate Poketto Monsutā as "Pocket Monsters" which is a content issue. And again, I am free to use rollback within my user space and I am allowed to use it to revert several edits in a row, provided I contact the user in question afterward (although I often find that this is fruitless for IP editors).—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When did I ever say anything even remotely like that? I said that Pokemon articles as is try to put forward the idea that the series is known as "Pocket Monsters" in Japan, when that hasn't been true since before Wikipedia even existed; those sentences need to be rewritten to reflect how Nintendo has been doing its branding. And why do you keep trying to make this a content issue, refusing to talk to me about it where one is actually supposed to? Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure what "problems" exactly you're accusing me of, but regardless, my point is, your opening paragraph above concentrated a lot about not seeing eye to eye working on a Pokemon article, which sounds much more like a content problem. It's one thing if you're presenting it like Chris G did above, but a centerpiece of your opening comment was "I don't want to bring it to the talk page all the time", which is ridiculous, that's what you do if someone disagrees with you. My point is, here we are, once again you're clashing heads with editors who don't see your way, and you're way too quick to run to ANI, instead of talking it out, contacting Wikiprojects, starting up RFCs, etc. You need to learn to work with people, discuss, and concede to consensus when necessary, not just run off to ANI to attempt to "rat them out". Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am an unknown third-party in this situation but I have been watching Ryulong's talk page for some time now. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the remarks that he comes off as demanding and arrogant. Yes, WP:ROLLBACK says you can use it freely on your talk page, but the way Ryulong uses it looks as though he is "covering up" certain discussions. Again, that's not a violation of Wikipedia rules, but Ryulong seems to be following an "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality. It's more of common practice to keep old discussions on talk pages and archive them as the page becomes longer.

Aside from that, Ryulong seems to not assume good faith at times which was when I started watching his page after a comment made on another user's talk page where he threatened them that they will "face the consequences" if they didn't stop adding unsourced information. More recently he's made comments like "Stop enforcing your damn proposed changes to the formatting when you do not have anything close to consensus behind you." on User talk:Despatche and insisting his correctness as it concerned Japanese because he "lives in Japan" on User talk:Ash Pokemaster.

All in all, I don't think Ryulong is a "bad" editor, I think he's merely passionate about editing Wikipedia and keeping it factual and tidy to the point where he can get heated at times. He needs to stay cool, be more civil overall, be able to talk disputes over, take constructive criticism and not take edits to his talk page and pages he follows so personally. Antoshi ☏ ★ 23:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"I don't want to bring it to the talk page all the time" <-- Wow, shows where your priorities lie. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works, and I'm really sick of you ignoring every little thing I say for the sake of whatever reason there may be. You are no longer in the "good faith" zone, not anymore. Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right, I don't really like how he treats people either. I wish he'd tone it down a bit, be a little less aggressive. But he keeps it within the bounds of Wikipedia's civility standards for the most part, so all we can really do is ask him to summer down a bit, and Despatche to follow he proper channels before blasting into ANI... Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But this is the only proper channel to actually report people for behavior! There's nothing else, except real vandalism channels and the like. I don't think he's a vandal, but I do think his actions make him look like one. Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As others have said, I do not believe Ryulong to be a bad editor, but his attitude towards people who don't agree with him needs to be worked on. For instance, on the discussion of many of these matters, he says something along the line of "Nobody else thought this was a problem until you came along". It is a VERY WEIRD thing to say as it really doesn't mean anything, and sort of is pointy and goes against assume good faith. Just because somebody is the first to bring something up does not mean it is an incorrect way of doing things. It is entirely possible that other people may actually agree with this person. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify my position. My issue with Ryulong is rollbacking of good faith edits on article space, not on the talk page. Given the ArbCom case against Ryulong which included the rollback issue and is cited at the page, I challenge the acceptability of these rollbacks because they are done in good faith and typically by IP users and almost entirely on a single page or small subsection of related pages. This does not seem to qualify as an acceptable usage. Whether or not discussions are rollbacked back is moot, but refusing to discuss while continuing to rollback these edits are a problem. Ryulong may often be right about the content, but getting this point across in a civil and friendly manner needs work. Ryulong should stop using rollback as a substitute undo button or lose the right to use it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This right here is why the whole "you must open a discussion for every single little edit before you make it" is ridiculous. "Edit first, ask questions later" is good--that's the point of Wikipedia--we're supposed to have good faith in people by default. "Revert first, ask questions later" is bad; it is subtractive, negative, and combative, no matter how hard you try to stress otherwise.

(Content-wise, it's one versus one (actually at this point Sergecross would probably side against me every single time just because), and something that needs to be taken to 3O maybe.) Despatche (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I was notified about this AN/I since I'd had some interaction with Ryulong in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, where I weighed in on a proposed addition to the guidelines by another user. I advised Ryu several times, both in the discussion and on his talk page, that he was being unnecessarily antagonistic toward other users, and that I saw no evidence that they were deliberately hounding him as he claimed they had been. I advised him that he should cool off and keep the civility policies front and center. I'll note that he reverted all of the comments I made on his talk page, and apparently didn't even read my first one (since at one point he believed I'd only ever posted one comment there when in fact I had made three edits). I don't have any other specific experience with this user, but from what I've seen, I agree that his attitude could certainly use some adjustment. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I've had (and am having right now, in fact) similar frustrating experiences with Ryulong and his tendency to revert edits without/before even checking if they might be correct. See the recent sections on my talk page, for example. I also remember depressing discussions over at the talk page of the Manual of Style for Japanese articles, where Ryulong was so confident about his Japanese skills that even native Japanese speakers had to give up... Basically, for the past few years, whenever I realize I'm editing a page Ryulong has been working on, I know there's going to be trouble. I've avoided certain articles specifically because of that. Erigu (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You never explained why I am wrong for the Baoh thing until today. You just kept reverting me without any explanation when I've shown that the translation is possible. Everyone just reverts without giving an explanation and I am also guilty of this, but I've attempted communication multiple times just to get nothing in return but editors consistently reverting me because no one wants to back down from their point of view and come to a consensus.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're saying "until today" here nor why you said on my talk page that I have been edit warring over this for the past week. I first edited that bit just a few hours ago.

I also don't understand why you'd keep reverting something simply because you think the edit could be wrong. That was your argument: your translation is possible. And so was the one you kept reverting. You were reverting based on a mere assumption (well, maybe several of those: "for all I know you've been reading some illegal scanlation rather than an official English release"). Maybe you could (should?) have checked the manga to try and see which one was actually correct, before reverting. Erigu (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I see now that others had made similar edits (which you immediately reverted) over the past week. You apparently (and wrongly) assumed we were all one and the same. That's a lot of assumptions.

I also note that you said on my talk page "I reverted because it was the status quo before your proposed change". That particular bit was first added (by you) to the article not even ten days ago. A bit short to be talking about a "status quo", especially considering it's not an overly popular article and very few people have edited it since then. Also a bit dishonest to tell me about a "status quo" when you know very well that you're entirely responsible for it, that you've been forcing your version with immediate reverts of dissenting edits.[74][75][76] Erigu (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am wrong in saying that you were in any way related to the multiple IP addresses that have been making the exact same edits over the past week since the text was added as I was under the mistaken impression that they were simply using an overly literal translation of the phrase. However, I still find it ingenuous that no one bothers to go to the talk page after they're reverted and it just fosters an edit war.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And I find it unfortunate that you'd so quickly skip over the part where you made those reverts in the first place (not just this time around either, as the recent subjects on my talk page show), as if there were nothing to discuss there anyway (I got a similar "there couldn't possibly be an issue with my behavior anyway so why even talk about it?" vibe from your comment on this very discussion: "an ANI discussion that should have never been started in the first place")... I have to say it's a bit frustrating to regularly be treated by you like I'm wrong by default, to get yelled at like a vandal when you clearly didn't take the time to actually check. Erigu (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I need to use twinkle gadget to add edit summaries instead of using the rollback rights. I'm sorry for this. But I am right in that this conversation should have not been started by Despatche just because I would not budge in an argument over the title of a Pokémon game. What I find disruptive is his insistence that literal translations are fake because official ones exist and his response to me essentially asking "Why did you put the word 'Version' in parentheses" was to append every single instance of the games' titles on the page with the word "Version" as a means to disrupt to make a point. I have found that I am getting relatively heated lately, but it is always when I have reached a point when I expect an editor to discuss something rather than consistently edit war to institute their own preferred version of things when there was no opposition to the original form.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Ryu, given that there's a clear pattern going on here, perhaps you should take a moment to see this situation from the point of view of the editors you're reverting. While it's fine to use WP:BRD when you see edits being made that appear incorrect, you should still make sure to be polite to the users whose edits you're undoing. I see a strong pattern of WP:BITE and borderline WP:OWN going on in the interactions you're having here, and those behaviors discourage other editors from engaging with you - frankly, I don't think I'd want to try to discuss any of those topics with you either, were I the one involved. Further, while you are entitled to do whatever you want with your own Talk page, keep in mind that instantly removing other people's comments is often seen as hostile behavior, and the few responses I've seen you leave there have most certainly come off as hostile. My experience has been that most editors, especially newcomers, tend to do what they can to avoid interacting with users like that, which makes things more difficult for all sides. If your intent is to get people to discuss changes, you need to invite that conversation in a less hostile manner, and you need to assume that others are acting in good faith - again, experience has shown that the vast majority of the time, people aren't here to cause trouble, and it's usually really obvious when they are. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

BTW, just wanted to add a note: I don't know if this is specifically spelled out on WP:ROLLBACK (I don't have time to read through the whole thing right now), but it's a common courtesy to leave actual edit summaries for reversion edits when the cause for the revert is anything other than simple vandalism (and even then, Twinkle and the built-in Undo feature both make it easy to note vandalism when it happens). Rollback is to be used sparingly, and originally was an admin-only tool (frankly, I think we might do well to consider changing it back to admin-only because I've seen far more abuse of it than what I'd consider legitimate use that couldn't be handled with Undo). My point, tho, is that if you're going to revert another editor because you disagree with their content, you really need to tell them that in an edit summary, and as I said above, you should do so in a way that invites and fosters conversation, rather than being accusatory or bitey. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I get it. I will cease relying on WP:ROLLBACK and stick with WP:UNDO and WP:TWINKLE and curb my language to be more approachable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that'll go a long way toward making things run more smoothly for you. From what I've seen, people generally agree that your grasp of content policies is quite good and that you do have the best interests of the project at heart. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Invalid Edits by Wiki User User:Titodutta

I am adding an image link to a page which is not copyrighted but is being intentionally changed by the user. Page: Jeet Gannguli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Titodutta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs)

File:Jeet Ganguly.png and File:Jeet Ganguly Photo.jpg have both been deleted from the Commons, as they are copyright violations. Almost all images you find on the Internet are copyright and thus not available to us.-- Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees

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 Rambling Man tries to give me blood pressure at List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees. I've tried to remove non-Indians or foreigners of Indian origin from the list, but he keeps challenging my edits and doesn't appear to understand that there is a nation called India with Indian citizens. He repeatedly asks on talkpages "what are the inclusion criteria for this list?" as we could "possibly" list non-Indians there. Any other user would get a block for this disruptive behaviour ! It's not a content dispute, it's mere disruption ! -- Dravidian  Hero  18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, simply having a list of "Indian Academy Award winners" is open to interpretation and it's not spelled out on the page. Is it Indian citizenship? A person born and raised in India? Ethnically "Indian"? It doesn't even specify that it couldn't be an Indian-Canadian or a white filmmaker who was born and lives in India. It's ambiguous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is the list of the Indian Academy Award (informally known as Oscar) winners and nominees" Now try to check linked Indian people. It says "Indian people or Indians are people who are citizens of India," , It's sooooooo ambiguous!!!!!!!! -- Dravidian  Hero  19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, having blood pressure is good. Too much of it is a different kettle of fish! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, let me think... "content issue", "go discuss it", &c &c. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not an ANI issue. I suggest that you raise a general point at WT:INB because it affects numerous equally-ambiguous lists concerning India, eg: List of Indian Christians. Be prepared for much discussion about definitions (pre- and post-partition India etc). - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's becausing people like Rambling Man support nonsense in Wikipedia. What could be ambiguous about Indian Christian???? Indian citizens of Christian faith! Holy shit, this looks impossible to handle!!!- Dravidian  Hero  19:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Proving Indian citizenship would be even more difficult that proving "from India". I've just massively pruned that "Christians" list, which contained Canadian born people and all sorts of other dubious stuff. Take the general issue to WT:INB, open a RfC or try dispute resolution. There is no administrator intervention needed here. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 30 September 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.

Jaguaré Bezerra de Vasconcelos

May some administrator please simply remove edit in the above article from

• 09:06, 4 July 2012‎ 186.221.156.37

and forward. Improvements later are less significant than crapification then. I don't intend to sort out details with means given to me. If my request is ill placed here, please forward to where in place. Just get things done. Thank you. Researching the article was work. Cheers, Oalexander-En (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Getting thing done" usually means doing simple things yourself or politely asking for help from a fellow volunteer. I've removed the unsourced nonsense from the article. For future reference, this is what Talk:Jaguaré Bezerra de Vasconcelos is for or Wikipedia:Help desk is another option. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"Talk" is read rarely, because it is abused by the "scope" and whatever crap - which should have an own tab if considered useful at all. "Talk" had some value to look at before that, when it not generally only contained content by maniacs that are to lazy to actually create content or doing something else that is useful.

Judging, that an article rates "0" on importance and whatever is about as low as it gets around here, where "volunteers" - to use your term - apparently make extremely often extremely useless contributions.

Can you kindly refrain from being condescending in the discharge of activities you chose to do. Else, just do something else, if you don't like it. It is because of people like you that people like me who have a flair for providing content just vomit too often and do something else.

Now, why shall I thank you for your job here? I have created well in excess of 200 WP articles from scratch plus substantial revisions - nobody has ever thanked me. Not in the slightest.

Congrats for whacking an "copyedit" tag on the article. I trust, somebody will take care for that. Oalexander-En (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

PS: People may be invited to look at my contributions an their time differences. It is because of master race users like talk to me that are extremely superior. I am not sure if low-life like me deserves hanging out with them. Oalexander-En (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Oalexander-En: What User:NeilN is trying to say is that there is no reason to post here. He's not an administrator, but still managed to do what you wanted. Your tone was slightly condescending ("I'm above doing this work"), and he replied in kind. Ansh666 00:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't ask for your thanks. It was a two-second job (cut, save) that I'm still not sure why you couldn't do yourself, given that you are familiar with editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Stiarts erid

User Stiarts erid has repeatedly launch personal attacks, first when editing The Fog (2005 film) and now George of the Jungle 2. People have warned him repeatedly (User talk:Stiarts erid), and yet he still does it. He started 3RR again on George of the Jungle 2 as he did on The Fog (2005 film). He needs to be blocked.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this a continuation of this discussion from the 3RR board? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

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 move review discussion for 30 seconds to mars,was recently closed by User:Jreferee as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - TP 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jreferee did respond;[77] PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee just replied with the following:

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.

What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked B2C and SmokeyJoe to comment here, as their comments (and lack of follow-up) contributed (inadvertently, most likely) to this report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, Jreferee, was upset with PantherLeapord because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--Earthh (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds..."[78], but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.[79]. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds".[80] MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds".[81] The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars".[82] Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it.[83] If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Wikipedia is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read WP:COMMONNAME).--Earthh (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the Prince (musician) issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Wikipedia is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• They currently use both "30 Seconds" and "Thirty Seconds". 30 Seconds to Mars has been the official name since 1998, only in 2013 Thirty Seconds to Mars became the official name. 30 Seconds to Mars should remain the title of the article since it has been the official name for almost the entire band's career and we should write that more recently the band is also known as Thirty Seconds to Mars.--Earthh (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you guys are getting a bit off-topic. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I failed to follow-up after posting this in the move review:

• Pending explanation - This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn. --B2C 06:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

However, the closer, BDD (talk · contribs) did provide a full explanation:

• Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have.

I disagree with BDD's finding; I think absent a policy based argument favoring the move, it was at best "no consensus". Finding WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in favor for the move by finding a marginal majority of such a small self-selected sample through counting !votes is not a reasonable explanation. If I had followed up, I would not have endorsed (I wish someone would have notified me to follow up before closing the move review...). Overturn.

What's relevant here is that my input should not have been viewed as an endorse in the closing of the move review. --B2C 23:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous. There's a 2.5-to-1 majority against endorsing the original closure, and this smacks as the SECOND !supervote in this case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You think closing "it" as no consensus is ridiculous? By "it" do you mean the original RM, or the RM review?

    You think "this" smacks as the SECOND !supervote in "this case"? What is the first "this" referring to? Does "this case" refer to the original RM, the RM review, or this ANI review of the RM review? --B2C 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• For fuck's sake, if you're going to make this pointless/stupid of a comment, then don't bother commenting at all. As a ten year old could tell, the move review closure is what was closed as no consensus (the RM wasn't closed as no consensus), both closures have been !supervote's, and you're wasting people's time when you attempt to distract from people's comments like this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In my comment I wrote that the original RM (BDD's finding) was "at best 'no consensus'". You replied to that saying you "think closing it as no consensus is ridiculous". There was no way to know you were referring to the no consensus result that actually occurred at the RM review, and not to the "at best" comment I made about the original RM. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. We agree the no consensus finding in the RM review is incorrect. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that during the requested move, the nominator had been canvassing, leaving a message on User:Noyes388 talk page to notify him of the requested move, which he supported (read this).--Earthh (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Overturn per above post by myself and failure to adequately explain actions in the interim as well as the input of B2C and PantherLeapord. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Overturn original MR closure - Clearly a textbook supervote and should be reversed ASAP. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that we found a consensus. Could someone proceed and restore the original name?--Earthh (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The RM review and the original RM both need to be overturned. --B2C 04:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• The information page Wikipedia:Closing discussions provides process regarding Requested moves and reviewing requested moves. Consensus was decided at the Requested Move proposal and that close was reviewed at Move Review. Some of the same editors in the move request or move review discussions wanting to continue their move positions or move request positions in this AN thread. However, the discussion close and review of that close process provides for closure so that the community can move on. In regards to the request of this AN thread - "Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus" - I was happy to provided it. In further details of that, I do appreciate the above feedback, but my reasoning reposted 04:40, 10 September 2013 above from here is still valid. I close the Move Review based on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I considered, but gave less weight, to arguments that merely posted a conclusory statement or did not focus on strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly on arguments. B2C posted, "This close should have been made with a full explanation of how the closer found consensus in favor of the move. If this explanation is provided, as an addendum to the RM, and it's reasonable, I will fully endorse. Otherwise I will support an overturn." BDD provided that explanation on 28 August 2013, B2C did not reply, and the discussion was closed 9 September 2013, so I think reasonable to have seen B2C's position as fully endorse and give it the weight I did (more than SmokeyJoe, less than Cúchullain and BDD), within the confines of that discussion. B2C's position in the move review does not make or break the close any more than any one position does. In looking at the discussion as a whole, the collective move review endorse and overturn arguments - which both fell in the spectrum of weak to strong arguments - resulted in both sides providing strong arguments in their reasoning of whether BDD's interpreted the requested move proposal consensus incorrectly. There was no general sense of agreement one way or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And the community has disagreed with that reading. Please do the right thing and undo your closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 01:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote my comment at the RM review saying I endorsed pending a reasonable explanation from BDD, I fully expected BDD to provide a reasonable explanation. I was so sure about that, I neglected to come back and check until I was notified about this ANI discussion on my user talk page. My bad. Surprisingly, the explanation provided by BDD on 28 August 2013 was, frankly, borderline pathetic. Certainly not reasonable:

Some editors here have asked for an explanation of the close: here goes. There were no real policy-based arguments to weigh. The nominator claimed the move per WP:COMMONNAME; the oppose voters thought the status quo was the common name. No one bothered to dredge up evidence. (And no, their Facebook and Twitter don't count; those "sources" conflicted anyway.) So I went with a headcount. After about two and a half weeks without decent arguments, I went with the majority position. So there you go. Not the most elegant decision, but you make closes with the arguments you have, not the arguments you might wish to have. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"No real policy-based arguments to weigh". And, yet, BDD found consensus? That's reasonable?

"So I went with a headcount...I went with a majority decision". That's reasonable?

Finding consensus in such a vacuum is exactly the kind of RM decision that needs to be reversed, and your RM review failing to see that is exactly the kind of RM Review decision that needs to be reversed. For the record, I have no position on the original RM question. I have no personal preference (never heard of the topic before), and don't know which meets COMMONNAME better. --B2C 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously considering taking this to arbcom unless the closure is reversed even if it is only so the community's will can be enacted. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thirty Seconds to Mars (also commonly stylized as 30 Seconds to Mars) is an American rock band from Los Angeles, formed in 1998

• RM1: The result of the move request was: not moved. @Jenks24: (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• RM2: The result of the proposal was moved. --@BDD: (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• MR: Thirty Seconds to Mars – Endorse Close. - There is no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as Endorse Close. No action is required on the article title. -- @Jreferee: (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

On a re-reading of the above discussions I see: RM1 was clear. RM2 was a stretch to close this way, and definitely so if RM1 is considered. MR is a cautious "no consensus" that another admin may have read a rough consensus for Overturn or Relist.

• Is Jreferee at fault?

1. Could another another admin agree with the close? Yes Jreferee's close is defensible, and well defensible in isolation.
2. Did the closer have a COI or was he otherwise INVOLVED? No
3. Is there now so great a problem that it can't be worked on? No

No, Jreferee is not at fault. This discussion does not really belong at ANI. But where? So, ways forward?

(1) Jreferee could unclose the MR so that it might receive further attention.

(2) A fresh RM could be intiated to reverse the close on the basis that there was never a consensus to move (undermining the standing of the MR process and returning to the old endless "If you don't like the RM result, start a new one").

(3) Do nothing (offensive to an ordinary editor who believes that both BDD and Jreferee erred).

(4) Initiate #2 as an RfC.

(5) Go to Arb Com (my view: in the absence of even an allegation of poor conduct by any user, they should see no role for arb com in this question).

I recommend #1, failing that then #4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I suggested (1) on Jreferee's talk page[84]. I suggest others encourage him as well. If he refuses to comply with our requests, I agree #4 is the best course of action. --B2C 23:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No response, yet. --B2C 22:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee (talk · contribs)... we're waiting for your response to my question on your talk page[85]. Thanks. --B2C 23:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If there is no comment within 48 hours of this comment then I may take action to overturn the closure and allow another admin to review it. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well, for the record, Jreferee said he was not going to. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well as long as they do not revert the reversal of the closure then things should be fine. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here? I've just nominated Thirty Seconds to Mars for the Good article status, fixing multiple issues and expanding it, but how will we resolve this issue?--Earthh (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The simplest way to resolve this is for Jreferee to revert his close. That way I can clarify my position (as it has been misinterpreted), others will have a chance to chime in, and someone else can close it. However, for reasons I cannot understand, Jreferee (talk · contribs) is not cooperating. I mean, he cites lack of policy basis to revert - but that's an excuse. Anyone can revert anything they've done, including a close. He doesn't need "policy basis" to revert his close. I, for one, am still hoping he'll change his mind, because the alternatives are:

• Someone else reverts the close (preferably an admin after reading this thread - it certainly can't be anyone involved so far, other than Jref).
• Someone starts a new RM as an RFC per SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs)'s #4 above.

--B2C 17:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee (talk · contribs)'s obstinacy on this matter is disappointing, to say the least. All that we're asking for is a revert of the move review so I can clarify my position, and give it a few days to see if others have anything to add, and let someone else evaluate the discussion. His refusal to cooperate is bewildering and contrary to the spirit of WP as I understand it. But there we are. I suppose someone else can revert the move review, but it really should be an uninvolved admin. Otherwise, somebody who cares (not me) needs to start another RM. --B2C 23:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am seriously considering doing just that. As long as Jreferee does not try to get it speedy closed due to some imaginary waiting time then it should be able to get a clearer consensus on this. I will give Jreferre another week or so to do the right thing before I start it. I know that I am being STUPIDLY generous with waiting for so long but I always assume good faith in that Jreferee will do the right thing and revert their closure before the 7 day deadline expires. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Their official website is http://www.thirtysecondstomars.com/ where they call themselves Thirty Seconds to Mars. FreeRangeFrog stated "As disclosure, I have been in contact with two of the band's reps via OTRS who requested essentially the same thing". If the band says that's their name by confirmed representatives emailing Wikipedia, as well as on their official site, then that's the name that should be used. Seeing what is written on their album covers, they once used the name "30" on their debut album, and then spelled it out as "thirty" on all future albums. Dream Focus 09:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have proof of the ORTS interaction? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to contact the person making that claim and ask them. They should be able to easily link to it. Dream Focus 17:24, 28 September 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.

Long running case of casting aspersions

Could someone please ask User:Jclemens to kindly drop his stick and quit casting aspersions all over en wikipedia and make accusations only in the proper forum. The most recent incident of bringing up actions from over three years ago is User_talk:Jclemens#Apology but they have been ongoing for over a year [86] If he really thinks there is an issue, he needs to take his evidence to SPI. If he lacks the evidence, he needs to drop the stick and quit WP:BAITing the user. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. I haven't cast any aspersions; referring to established events is not casting aspersions, and a review of my contributions will not yield any inappropriate attributions. If you have specific, actionable diffs where you believe I have recently accused of anyone of anything without evidence, please... present them. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Jclemens only "accusation" was a reference to inappropriate behavior that was documented in two sockpuppetry investigations. While it is indeed a personal attack to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, that does not appear to have occurred here. While it may not have been necessary for the history to be brought up in that conversation, there is no rule against doing so. This doesn't seem like a situation that needs admin intervention. It seems more like a case of a few editors who just don't like each other very much. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While a single reference to a really old event may "not be necessary", repeating the "not necessary" event over and over again for over a year becomes problematic as laid out: Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another. (emph added) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Diffs, please? You realize that making accusation without providing evidence, which you are doing in this thread, is exactly the same thing as you're accusing me of: casting aspersions. Only I haven't accused anyone of sockpuppetry, merely made reference to the established judgements of other admins, on en.wiki and it.wiki, to which the named party and yourself have taken offense. Please provide one single diff within, say, the past year where I've accused anyone of current sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There is one big difference, I have done it in the proper forum. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

in addition specific examples that I initially posted, see the ones listed below by FdF. and its not like we havent been here before "Jclemens is reminded not to use the term sock casually. Investigate possible socking, but don't throw the term about otherwise. All editors are reminded of the value of dropping the stick. LadyofShalott 14:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's review the evidence so far: You have posted none--nothing new from the past year. Folken de Fanel has posted things he doesn't like, but nothing so far that supports what you've accused me of, which is currently casting aspersions about editors. The reason you haven't is actually pretty simple: I've never engaged in any such behavior, and for the third time I invite you or anyone to post any evidence that I've accused anyone of active, current sockpuppetry in the past year. The fact that you are in the right forum for founded complaints does nothing to protect you from the fact that your accusations are unfounded. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I have posted diffs of you casting aspersions on me from last month, and others from the past year to show your smearing campaign against me has never stopped. You haven't accused me of "active, current sockpuppetry", but of past sockpuppettry on en.wiki, which is unfounded, thus a personal attack.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how describing past misbehavior, absent any accusation that the behavior is still ongoing, constitutes a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Note further that you are explicitly disclaiming the basis of this complaint as brought by TRPoD. So, to summarize: 1) You admit I didn't do what TRPoD said I did, and 2) what you accuse me of, bringing up your past record, isn't even covered by WP:ASPERSIONS, the principle that you reference. Oh, and 3) Misuse of IP addresses is covered under WP:ILLEGIT and there is no separate category for abuse of IP addresses rather than registered accounts, so yes, you were sanctioned for sockpuppetry. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You haven't discussed any past misbehavior that I can see, you just made up false accusations of sockpuppetry that never happened on the English WP, and pursued me with the claims to an AfD page, which certainly isn't an appropriate forum to bring up (imaginary, in this case) user conduct, per WP:AVOIDYOU. 1) This specific thread was opened because you are harassing me with false claims of past sockpupettry, but TRPOD is right to bring up your history of using groundless SP accusations against your editorial opponents, thus highlighting a general trend of bad faith, uncivility and misuse of the term "sockpuppetry", to which the current issue pertains. 2) the issue is two-fold: first you brought up false past record, second you brought it in a forum (AfD) which isn't made to discuss user behavior, which is thus a personal attack per WP:AVOIDYOU. 3) There is no "misuse" of IP that I can see and no I was never sanctionned for sockpuppetry on En WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) You are the one who is linking to that wiki jargon shortcut, and attempting to pigeon hole any of your behavior outside of what may be specifically outlined there. However, I was using the word in the general language usage of the intent of the Pillars WP:CIV that people [who are Wikipedians follow, things like It is as unacceptable to attack a user ... even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. People make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia and It is sometimes difficult to make a hard-and-fast judgement of what is uncivil and what is not. Such a judgement may need to take into account such matters as ... (ii) whether the behaviour has occurred on a single occasion, or is occasional or regular; (iii) whether a request has already been made to stop the behaviour, and whether that request is recent;" and Other uncivil behaviours (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. You have not provided any rationale for why you seem to feel the need to bring up LONG PAST behavior except that it will continue to cast a cloud over the user and likely bait them into actions he would not have taken if you had not repeatedly kept poking and poking and poking for no other reason than to poke and provoke - that is uncivil.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record I don't see those so-called "sockpuppetry investigations". One only shows that my login cookies expired during a discussion and I forgot to log back in (I hadn't edited for two weeks before coming back to the discussion) . The admin called it "obvious", and I indeed would really be stupid if I hoped to sock while continuing the same discussion and still referring to my account "Folken de Fanel" as "I". Sure, I was blocked for the coments I wrote back then, but not for sockpuppettry. The other one is from the Italian wikipedia, which, for all intents and purposes, is outside of the English WP jurisdiction.

Given that I have never been blocked for sockpuppettry on en.wiki, Jclemens's choice to manipulate an earlier report so as to portray me as a sockpuppet, or to unconditionally call me a sockpuppeteer on en.wiki while using extra-en.wiki, years-old and out of context evidence, is a personal attack, as an experienced admin, he should know the difference. The fact that Jclemens likes to pursue me with sockpuppetry accusations in inappropriate forums also shows a behavior that is borderline wikihounding. Jclemens has a history of personal attacks and unfounded accusations against me which is unbecoming any administrator, and the "sockpuppet" approach is only the newest angle of his smearing campain against me. At one point, that behavior needs to stop. Jclemens may not like me, as Mark Arsten puts it, and I guess it is bound to happen on WP, but I don't see why I'd have to put up with so much abuse that's been going on for more than a year. That it comes from a user supposed to fight this kind of behavior and not to relish in it is is even more concerning.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

it may be that Jclemens feels his construction of not a wikipedian only applies to certain people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's ironic that someone like TRPOD, who in my experience has little regard for following WP:CIV in discussions towards users with whom he disagrees, is now complaining about other another user with whom he has had a highly antagonistic relationship for over a year. I found this thread on his talk page particularly compelling, for example, to get an idea of how many users seem to have a reason to complain about his approach. You can find quite a bit of antagonism from TRPOD and FDF towards Jclemens documented at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel as well. BOZ (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Correction: Antagonism from BOZ and Jclemens towards FdF. I'm not the one who is calling opposing users "clueless", "disengaged from reality" and "experiencing mental illness", or speculating that any user in disagreement must be a sockpuppet. Jclemens is. So the most ironic comment of all is yours, BOZ, when you seek every little fault in others in an attempt to divert attention from your buddy Jclemens who, as an admin, should be above this kind of behavior more than any of us mere contributors. When users like Jclemens, supposed to uphold the CIVIL policy, are the ones abusing, how are regular users supposed to feel ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, at one point over the past year Jclemens decided to make me the target of his vendetta, and I thought that since he was an admin he could be reasoned with or understand when to stop...unfortunately he never stopped pursuing me with groundless accusations of misbehavior or past history whenever we happened to interact and disagree on the same subject. And I'm not the only user to whom he does that, as seen very recently at AfD. In short, he has a tendency of accusing those disagreeing with him of all kind misbehavior or bringing up past conduct anywhere (usually at AfD) but on the specific forums made to discuss user conduct such as WP:ANI which, in effect, allows him to launch smear campaigns in attempt to discredit his editorial opponents (instead of bringing valid counter argumentation) while avoiding the consequence of potentially abusive user conduct reports, a specific type of personal attack depicted at WP:AVOIDYOU and for which he has already been admonished at ANI. Jclemens is certainly a competent admin overall, but such bullying and hounding tactics whenever the notability of fiction is in question are unacceptable and need to stop.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment- FdF made two logged-out edits with no attempt to conceal his identity, and the block wasn't even for sockpuppetry. It doesn't seem reasonable to be bringing it up at every opportunity, on completely unrelated discussions, three years afterward. I think FdF and Red Pen are right to object. Reyk _YO! 09:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pronoun fun on Christine Love (visual novelist)

Resolved

 – Semi-protection should take care of this. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocking and locking would be cool I guess tia. 96.231.152.235 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

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.

---

Obviously a very controversial topic, but SaltyBoatr is being highly disruptive. He has created FIVE talk page sections today [87] , all making essentially the same complaint. He is repeatedly failing to WP:AGF and making personal attacks accusing all the editors of extreme bias. Several editors are attempting to engage him, and address his concerns, but he continually making accusations and highly sarcastic comments. A few choice comments from today (basically every comment he has posted today).

• Regardless of lip service to the contrary, this has all the appearances of biased 'mediator' serving the purpose of defending one POV at the expense of another.
• This is proof that constructive conversation on this talk page is difficult to the point of being hopeless. S
• and these responses from Gaijin42 have the appearance of bad faith debate diversion tactic.
• I find your sarcastic question to be extremely offensive. Further, I am astonished that measuring undue weight quantitatively by counting biased words is not "evidence". That assertion appears to be harassing and a stonewall. I consider your use of the talk page in that way to be highly disruptive
• [...] the apparent intent of suppressing the non-pro-gun point of view. Evidence of a NPOV balance problem here.
• The word appears fifteen times in the article! Maybe that is a little bit on the "undue weight" side of a POV push? Get real.
• Only six times. (laugh) One time would be sufficient
• GregJackP, provides even more evidence that this article suffers from ownership by a brigade of long term 'pro-gun' editors

I'm tempted to ask for a topic ban, but at a minimum a trouting to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and let one conversation go through, rather than starting up 5 sections all saying the same thing would be appreciated. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

In terms of a topic ban, I note that Salty's block log is decently extensive, and all related to gun topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Gaijin42 your porcine misspelling of my username 'Saltyboar' is insulting and harassing and over-the-top offensive conduct. Do you really mean to describe me as swine and piggish? Wow. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, This was completely unintentional. Your sig uses an unusual font, and I misread. However your over the top reaction to an innocent mistake is certainly part of the larger trend of why we are here at ANI. WP:AGF please. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your apology, without even bothering to correct your insulting porcine misspell of my username (seventh word, opening sentence), falls short. Assuming good faith comes into play when there is a chance of a good faith explanation. In this case, your deeply insulting mistake which you claim to be innocent remains uncorrected in the opening sentence. What assumption should I take from the reality of this persistence of your insult? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[Reinstated SaltyBoatr's comment, which seems to have gotten lost in an edit conflict. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)]

That's ridiculous. You want him to back and correct a tiny typo you have already blasted him for, and that he apologized for? Mountain, molehill. No, smaller than a molehill. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Salty, It's an easy to make mistake with that font. I made the same mistake once, and I'm guessing that other people have too. And "Saltyboar" sounds like a cool name, not all of that stuff you describe, and it's clear that none of that was intended. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Right--now I see it. "Salty" pertaining to the sea, and "Boatr" a slightly more economic version of "Boater". I didn't get it until I saw the "get wet" bit (it is an unusual and tiny font; it was difficult on my old eyes). "Get wet" is obviously a playful reference, a virtual invitation to jump into the lively brine that is the editor's world. They're not really asking us to take a bath, I think. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming what I've seen Salty do before. Extremely aggressive fighting. Most painfully, using large amounts of general accusations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for feeling frustration, but perhaps my feelings are understandable considering the hostility, edit warring and stonewalling aimed at me for my good faith efforts. The crime I have committed, at least according to my understanding of the barrage of attacks recently aimed at me, is having the audacity to attempt to edit in an article that has a POV ownership problem by a group of like minded editors. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am a relatively new WP editor, but I get the impression that Salty and some of the editors he's engaged with on the page in question have a past on gun topics. As for editors currently active on the page, I have observed not-AGF and not-NPOV behavior from several in recent days. Although I have only been an active WP editor for less than two months, my experience in that time leads me to suspect that this article might suffer from some sort of pro-gun or anti-ban editor ownership problems. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ya think? ;-) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• SaltyBoatr is obfuscating the hell out of everything there. The claims of gangs of POV ownershipper is ridiculous. Their demands are overblown, and they are clogging up the talk page with their whining about things that should be obvious. I mean, someone who points at Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast, and the LA Times and claims they're of the pro-gun lobby, such a person has no business editing an article where common sense and a basic knowledge of facts are required. I say block 'em next time they make any of these ridiculous claims on the talk page or elsewhere, or ban 'em from that article altogether, and anywhere else where they're preventing editors from getting some work done.

  Also, I'm with the anti-gun gang (we don't have a lobby, just a room in the basement). Every conceivable kind of gun should be banned, and your bullets too. If you want to hunt elk or whatever, learn how to thrown stones, you pussies. <--This is my disclaimer, lest SaltyBoatR (hope I spelled that name correctly--they're so sensitive) thinks that I'm part of the pro-gun lobby as well. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Salty didn't claim that Salon, The Hill, The Daily Beast or the LA Times were pro-gun. The authors of the cited sources weren't the publishers or their editors. The articles weren't corporate editorials. Lightbreather (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Eh, please give me an alternate interpretation of "Does the 'cosmetic' sentence really need six footnotes? And all from 'pro-gun leaning sources?" Those are the sources that include the ones I mentioned, and these are SaltyBoatr's words--are they not? The rest of your sentences I don't understand: yes, the sun looks yellow and typically rises in the East, from where I'm sitting. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Im not sure you have a clear understanding on how wikipedia judges reliable sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, with their 22:41 post above, Salty is illustrating one key aspect of the problem. Rather than discuss the particular item at hand, their approach is that they just hurled 5 accusations and attacks in that one post. This has been the nature of their approach / "discussion" there. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, considering saltyboatr's history, that a topic ban would be very appropriate. The article was very stable, and has become a mess. Saltyboatr has accused me of making POV edits, ridiculous accusation since I actually supported the ban. When on Wikipedia, we should be Wikipedians first, and advocates second. I've had a very long trouble free history on Wikipedia working in this way. No, prior to these disruptions, the article was very "whitebread", and uninteresting, and STABLE, qualities which I feel made the article very NEUTRAL. All it needed was perhaps a few tweaks, not a wall of undiscussed edits that amounted to complete rewrites of the article. A topic ban is in order here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sue. If I understand positions correctly, Sue, LB, and Drmies are more on the anti-gun rights (er, gun control, ;p) side, while I'm on the pro-choice, support gun rights side. I really don't have a clue who else is where, nor does it matter. We've been discussing things in a rational way and able to come to agreement. Not everyone got what they wanted, but everyone saw consensus. Unfortunately, Salty would not discuss matters. Based on his history, I don't anticipate that changing. Support topic ban, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 05:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is one case where I would agree with a topic ban. There was a massive amount of discussion, rarely pretty, in the two months since Lightbreather began editing the article in earnest; It never crossed my mind to suggest, consider, propose, or participate in a topic ban, even with behavior that was unbecoming at times (but ostensibly 'forgiveable' by a newcomer). However, what happened on friday was outrageous; saltyboatr burst through the saloon doors and began knocking over tables and and trying to instigate fights, relentlessly. When other editors either demurred or tried to engage, we were met with - sorry, it has to be said - this editor's standard refrain that everybody else was acting in bad faith, that we're all horribly biased - practically a conspiracy - and that we were all attacking him. Completely unacceptable editor behavior. I tried in numerous responses to tease some semblance of actual engagement or rational discourse; none was forthcoming, only the repeated refrain above. It was one of the most disruptive displays I think I've seen on wikipedia in a very long while. Things have been silent this weekend; if it remains so, then of course there's no need for a topic ban. If it resumes on monday - enough. Anastrophe (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• In light of their recent comment on the talk page, where I find nothing but a reiteration of hollow-sounding claims, and in light of the rather ridiculous attack leveled at Gaijin42, I fully support a topic ban from all gun rights articles, broadly construed. If they want to work on stuff like .22 CHeetah (not my finest work, I admit), that's fine--but no articles discussing guns and rights, legislation, politics, or other controversy. Basically, per Anastrophe. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

(involved) Based on the continued issues today, I withdraw my suggestion for trouting, and support the topic ban Gaijin42 (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Each time I've crossed paths with Salty, they have been at firearm-related articles, their approach seems to be to aggressively make large amounts of accusations, to me it seems as a way to further their goals. The exchange in this very thread regarding the easily-made user name error also seems an example, as does the other exchange in this thread where they put 5 more accusations into on short post instead of discussing the question at hand. 6 blocks on firearm-related articles seems to reinforce the above impression. Support topic ban per Anastrophe and Drmies. I think that the only other viable alternative (or a route out of the topic ban) is some type of mentoring or close oversight on these and such seldom seems to happen. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again this morning editor saltyboatr has taken the time to share an unremitting string of directly personalized attacks on his peers - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFederal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&diff=575299122&oldid=575273753 . Is there any remedy for this disruption? Anastrophe (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for Closure

Can we get an admin to look at this and close it per WP:SNOW? Every editor that has commented is in support of the topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 16:52, 1 October 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.

A lot is being undone here

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.

---

Right now SporkBot (talk · contribs) is busy ripping out templates from every IP tagged as a sock based on the TfD discussion. I don't think four people should decide such a drastic thing in such a short amount of time. Is this enough of a consensus for this? Should this have been better advertised when the consequences are so large? Doc talk 00:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is enough of a consensus for it, following several discussions on tagging IPs as socks outside of WP:HSOCK policy. The discussions were held at VPP, at ANI, and at HSOCK, just to name a few of the places. First off, unless the IP has been previously blocked, policy prohibits the IP from being tagged as a sock. Going through the list manually shows that a vast majority of the IPs are tagged in violation of policy and, in some instances, being subjected to harassment without cause. GregJackP Boomer! 02:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

No. The consensus at the TfD Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock is overwhelmingly AGAINST deletion. The bot needs to be stopped, just like people who are emptying categories before the category deletion discussion is finished. They are destroying evidence. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Real evidence or super-secret, can't tell you evidence? GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless an IP has been previously blocked it cannot be tagged? Ridiculous, really. What this is doing is taking a tool for tracking disruptive editors away. Sure, some people get abused when the tag is abused. I can't believe it's come to this. Doc talk 02:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think tagging suspicious IPs is a useful endeavor, and should be supported. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Many of the editors here share the same views about this and have edited the same page here. I guess I have a lot of sockpuppet tagging to do on these editor's pages. Now remember, you are not allowed to take them off without further reprisal, possibly blocked without further warning, they don't time out ever, and there is no apology template to retract them if I am proven wrong at a real SPI. That would appear to be OK from the sockpuppets I have identified with my methods I use. I can use the WP:DUCK assumption to back me up because I know when I see one, proving it, because that is the way it has been done for so long. It's a really useful tool for me to keep track of all those voicing the same view in the same time frame. DUCK's your uncle. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you tag the page of any editor participating in this discussion with a sock tag, you will not like what happens. DUCK is not some sort of a free pass to provide zero evidence for tagging an account. Quite the contrary. I agree with the IP at the bottom of this thread that this should be closed. No editor misconduct has occurred and the issue has moved to the TfD page. Doc talk 03:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the IP like it? Tagging an account is not, in your view, a personal attack, and he states that he has evidence and will take it to an SPI. It seems like it would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, under the guidelines that you are proposing we follow. GregJackP Boomer! 03:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with his to his being an IP. Anyone that uses these tags without very good evidence, especially to prove a point, is ill-advised to do so. Doc talk 03:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I still see no answer to Greg's question there but rather just a repeat of your same point. I do see your claim that implies only editors with a named account and a personal reason may use sockpuppet tags. Doesn't this constitute the reason so many want this template usage stopped? Now you have never answered a question I have put forth to your snipes of my comments before but perhaps you could actually discuss your opinion on this one and not sweep in under the rug without discussion. Again, why is it OK for some editors to place sockpuppet tags based on their own single personal opinion buy not for others to place them based on their own single personal opinion? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 10:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand the notion of DUCK. So, if you want to, throw sock tags around using just your intuition. As an IP or a named account. Try the IpSock template on a named account, for laughs. I'm done explaining it to you now. Doc talk 10:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have searched the whole page and yours is the only mention of "intuition". I will only base the sockpuppet tag, I place on your page, on WP:DUCK. As I stated in my hypothetical scenario, I see you arguing this same fringe theory as Brangifer and in the same forum venue! That's WP:DUCK and that doesn't need anybody else's input to place such an invaluable tool for tracking of your disruptions here. But don't worry. It isn't harassment or a negative thing so why act so concerned and defensive about it? 174.118.141.197 (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tag me up. Then please: be quiet. DUCK describes what good sock hunters go through when determining something: and it is always reviewable by the community. All of it. The vast majority of those who use the tag know this, and if they don't they get reprimanded. Doc talk 11:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Can you give us some examples of those who were reprimanded? GregJackP Boomer! 13:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of confirmed blocked IP socks using this template. Has any consideration been given to the 'confirmed' parameter? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly there was not. The basis for this that I'm seeing is roughly "It gets abused sometimes, so it's bad." I, for one, do not buy that as a rationale for removing it. Doc talk 03:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone should probably mention the TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:IPsock. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would love to see the empirical evidence that going through them manually shows that a vast majority were tagged in violation of policy. For example these three

• HarveyCarter (talk · contribs)
• Bambifan101 (talk · contribs)
• Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs)

people are long term vandals (and all three still pop up) who used 100s if not 1000s of IPs and not all of their IPs were blocked. But, the tagging of them helps in tracking their hopping. At times simply placing the tag stopped them from using the IP. It also help to show admins who are unfamiliar with, or new to, the problem editors just how pernicious they are. The discussions linked to are disparate and, in no way, can be construed as indicating approval to remove the tags. We should work to reduce the abuse to our articles and the harassment of editors who work to stop this abuse rather than increase it by acting like there isn't a problem. MarnetteD | Talk 04:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! The people who do this kind of work appreciate the tags. Another PITA is Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs) who continues a Hong Kong-based IP evasion of his ban as we speak.[88] Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So what do you recommend doing with the editors who tag IPs as suspected socks because the IP is dynamic, and who tells IP editors that having a dynamic IP is automatically a violation of the socking policy? Or the users who tag anyone who disagrees with them as a sock? The policy was changed because at one time, 1 in 5 of the suspected socks of Scibaby were false positives. 20% of the blocks were innocent users. Say, oops, sorry? Or enforce the current policy? If you have proof, provide it, get them blocked and add them to the list. Otherwise it is just another personal attack without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who tags (or says) that using a dynamic IP is in violation of policy will be corrected by those who know policy better. It is certainly not in violation of SOCK for any editor to use a dynamic IP address. When people abuse that right to edit anonymously from an IP, we get problems. Which is why the template exists. Doc talk 05:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't happened yet. I can show one editor that has been told repeatedly that using a dynamic IP is not a violation, including by WMF staff, yet has tagged at least 50 and probably many times that as socks and told many more that having a dynamic IP was automatically a violation of the socking policy. No one stepped up until an IP editor started raising the issue at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 05:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

But you can't show one editor who has done it recently after this debacle, so going back in history is not fair. Even by your strict interpretation of an illogically worded policy, tagging IPs being used for block evasion is proper. When a registered user or IP is blocked, and they continue to edit and comment with other IPs, we have ALWAYS used Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets. You're not just reinterpreting history, you don't even KNOW the history of how this template and category have been used! @MarnetteD:, @Doc9871:, and @Binksternet: (below) are right. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Gee. I guess the fact that I don't have a problem with it being used properly, in accordance with policy, means that I shouldn't be concerned about the past violations? Have you ever apologized to any of the dynamic IPs you falsely accused of violating the socking policy? GregJackP Boomer! 22:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. One or two false positives are not enough to stop using the system. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not one or two false positives. At the point WP:HSOCK was changed, it was 1 in 5 false positives. All you have to do is provide your evidence. If it supports a block, then tag it. If it does not support a block, do not make a personal attack by labeling it as a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not a realistic view of the situation. You are saying there must be more red tape in order to tag any IP because sometimes people abuse a tag. SPI is backlogged enough. Anyone who has had extensive experience dealing with socks knows that to require they be blocked first is unworkable. Stretching a sock tag into a "personal attack" (thus in violation of policy) is remarkably creative. And frightening. Doc talk 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So I take it you would not have a problem with a sock tag being placed on your user page? I mean since it is not a personal attack, does it really matter? I've been accused of being a sock (and cleared through CU) - I can guarantee you that it is a personal attack. It was also frightening, that some editors could get away with accusing others of being socks based on "secret tells" which of course they could not share with anyone. It was sort of like what I imagine the Salem witch trials to be like. Especially when the "sock" is blocked and can't defend themselves at SPI. "She turned me into a newt!" GregJackP Boomer! 06:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to accuse an account of being a sock. It just isn't. Doc talk 07:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Gee, then why is it listed as a form of harassment? Or noted as an "inherently personal attack" over 8 years ago in a template discussion? Or that only sock hunters think that it is not a personal attack? The history in the project shows very clearly that accusing an editor, whether an IP or registered, of being a sock is a personal attack unless you can provide evidence to substantiate that the editor is in fact a sock. GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be very annoyed if Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sheynhertz-Unbayg is depopulated. Only about 3 other editors even care about his ban evasion, so hindering me from dealing with his constant stream of sockpuppets is going to be counterproductive. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

A spotcheck of that cat showed that all of the IPs had been blocked or sent to an SPI or both. None appeared to be in the category outside of policy, unlike several others that I've checked. GregJackP Boomer! 05:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned with edits like this. There exists an agenda to stop tagging IPs, yet there is no real community consensus aside from policy "changes" like this to rely on. It's an ongoing issue. RfC time? Doc talk 04:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Greg. The vandalism is a far bigger problem than a handful of IPs not being able to edit for a short time. Some of the vandalism that Pé performed sat in the article for more than a year. We say "oops sorry" all the time around here (because none of us are perfect.) I would rather say it to an IP whose short block had expired than have the articles vandalized and/or the editors harassed or trolled who deal with these problems. MarnetteD | Talk 05:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not that simple. First, the "oops, sorry" rarely happens. There is a discussion right now on unblocking a user who was mistakenly blocked and just wanted an apology. Many editors will not apologize, feeling that being blocked is minor and easy to get over - it's not minor and it's not easy to get over.

I would rather have proof before we lock someone out or label them as a wikicriminal. GregJackP Boomer! 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It is that simple and I can't speak for other editors ability to apologize. As to proof perhaps you are unaware how things work at SPI. Socking can go on rapidly but response to reports about it do not. I filed a report on Pe [89] including proof that he admitted to being a sock that saw ten days go by for any action to be taken on it. So you are saying that I should not have been allowed to tag any of the IPs he was editing from before or during those ten days? I am sorry (see!) but that is taking a simplistic and absurd view of how thing work around here. IPs who have received an improper block happen (and some of those are for reasons other that socking) if you feel that is wrong then that is your prerogative. Articles that get vandalized by socks and editors who get trolled by those socks occurs much more often and my concern over removing the tools to deal with that is mine. I am logging off now so this takes care of stating my opinion on the subject. MarnetteD | Talk 06:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unaware of how things work at a lynching. Someone makes an accusation, and then someone gets hung. Sometimes the hangee is guilty, sometimes not. As long as you're part of the mob, everything's fine, but it sort of sucks to be the one that is falsely accused and standing under the tree branch. GregJackP Boomer! 22:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice piece of OTT sophistry. Adding a suspected IP tag isn't even a block so what hardship are they facing. In the case of an IP that is blocked having to sit out a few hours or days is in no way comparable to a lynching. On top of that they have options wherein they can continue editing. They can post an unblock request. Though not required they can even register. It is always odd that an editor thinks they are more anonymous by staying an IP. It only takes a few clicks to find out where they are editing from where a registered user can create a user name that has nothing to do with who they are or where they are and, thus, be much more anonymous. Once again your concern for the occasional IP is fine. Our larger concerns for the damage done to articles and editors who get trolled are hardly going to be changed by this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric. MarnetteD | Talk 05:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Request close

1. The TfD was closed, innocuously, as delete (3-0-1) by @Plastikspork: at 23:33 28 Sept 2013 [90]. It looks like they just went through TfD and closed a whole batch -- SOP for regular admins.
2. This ANI was opened at 00:51 29 Sept 2013. I don't see where Plasticspork was notified??
3. Discussion was initiated at User talk:Plastikspork#IPSock Template at 01:37 29 Sept 2013.
4. Plasticspork asked if Doc9871 wanted it relisted, and then did relist it at 02:30 29 Sept 2013 [91].
5. The balance has now shifted to not delete.

• So why is this here? It was resolved peacefully with the admin on their talkpage. Every single comment above should be at the TfD. Please close. Rgrds. --64.85.215.69 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Look at the large number of IPs in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rovers Forever - the tagging of IPs is an invaluable tool in range blocks for blocked and banned editors. As far as I am aware nobody else edits from these ranges. GiantSnowman 11:42, 1 October 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:Harassment from User:Binksternet

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.

---

FYI, FYI User:Binks is currently continuing his Edit Warring on multiple pages even as this investigation is taking place. These other pages include "Max Weber", "Augustinian Theodicy", "Iraneaen Theodicy", etc. This is apparently being done to flaunt the seriousness normally associated with an WP:ANI. In addition a long list of his history of the WP:Gaming of Admins has also been recorded on the Max Weber Talk page. Apparently he has learned to present himself in a warm-and-cuddy version of himself when making edit warring complaints for Admin action while selectively misrepresenting his conduct in leaving out key details. The receiving Admin sees a report that looks perfectly reasonable on the surface and make a corrective action because of the deceptively but practiced wording of his Admin requests. He has also posted a campaign against anonIP-users in a picture and poster campaign on his own User page and on the "Max Weber" Talk page which is Contra user:Jimbo and contra-Reagle. At last sighting of his contrib history, User:Binks is apparently on an edit spree to delete multiple sections on as many wikipages as he can visit causing countless hours of repair time to conscientious wiki editors. The picture and poster campaign of User:Binks against all anonIP-users must be seen to be believed. (On the "Max Weber" page and on his User page.) 209.3.238.62 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have warned a user three times to stay off my talk page (1) (2) (3). Following each of my warnings, he continued to post inflammatory templates falsely accusing me of edit warring and threatening to block me (4) (5) (6). The claims of edit warring are specious, making the harassment motive all the more clear. For instance, he twice accused me of edit warring on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a page which (on both occasions) I had done one total revert on over the course of several days.

This is WP:harassment, plain and simple, and I'd like to see a temporary ban imposed to teach Binksternet that harassment is unacceptable. Steeletrap (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bink is on a roll: he's simultaneously edit-warring, removing other user's talk page comments and trying to get me blocked for pointing out that he's edit-warring. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I posted an edit warring note on Steeletrap's user page because it is required to do so before filing a report at WP:3RRN. Steeletrap uses hyperbole in the above note, saying the standard templates are "inflammatory" and that I am "threatening to ban" Steeletrap. In fact, I have only used Twinkle's standard edit warring templates, so no discussion of banning is possible.

Steeletrap appears to be unaware that an editor may be reported for edit warring, and blocked, for long-term edit warring, or for tendentious editing. Steeletrap has engaged in all of the above at various articles I'm aware of including most recently Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the latter a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a lie. You're the one edit-warring, along with SRich. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet will get another WP:* for defending the Wiki against WP:TE editors once this nonsense is over. Baseless. WP:GAMING. Bullshit. That's about it. – S. Rich (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

boomerang, the response to generic warning #1 was to question Bink's competence then adding revert over the course of several weeks does not constitute an edit war, which actually is warring. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

[reply} Dark, What on earth are you talking about? He posted a template threatening to block me for "editing warring" (on a page I had 1 total revert on over several weeks) and I questioned his competence for his 1) Erroneous accusations 2) failing to respond to my previous request to stay off my talk page Steeletrap (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

you questioned Bink's competence in the same breath you proved your incompetence. 1. a single revert is edit warring when discussion is ongoing. 2. asking someone to stay off your talk page does not exempt you from your disruptive behavior. 3. if you were smart, now would be a good time to find the exit and move on to a new topic. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet has been harassing and hounding Steeletrap for months

User Bink has been attacking, misrepresenting, and hounding user Steeletrap for months now. It's a long complicated history and has driven away many editors who might otherwisew be here to affirm Steeletrap's complaint. I recommend that any Admin who chooses to step into this mess review the long-term pattern of hit-and-run attack and harassment. It seems to have begun when user Binksernet began following various articles relating to libertarianism and the Mises Institute. Shortly thereafter Binkser went on a campaign of personal attack against Steeletrap, and a few other editors, driving them away from these topics -- (see Ad-hom, here) -- but Steeletrap continued to work on content and articles which aroused Binkser's ire. I would say that Steeletrap is within her rights to request relief in this matter. SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So which of the "many" editors did I drive away? Please name names. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

To name just one, uninvolved, well-respected user:Stalwart111 ended his good-faith efforts to improve Mises Institute-related pages, in part because of your misattributing quotes to, and making false allegations/personal attacks against, him (1). Steeletrap (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I was sorry to see Stalwart111 go, but to me it looked like he became initially frustrated with Carolmooredc's work to stem the bias introduced by Steeletrap and Specifico, a bias he had not recognized himself. When I joined the effort to stop the bias Stalwart111 found the topic's complexity and the talk page debates to be too much. So Stalwart111 left the topic; that makes for exactly one editor out of the "many" I have supposedly chased from the article, according to Specifico. As long as we are talking about editors leaving out of frustration, we can add Carolmooredc to that group. She left because of constant attacks against her made by Steeletrap and Specifico. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

What fabulous historical revisionism! I left because the discussions were too complex? Get real. I left (and said so several times) because Carol's completely unsubstantiated personal attacks, deliberate misquoting and disruptive editing made involvement in the topic area futile and unpleasant. Having been completely discredited (withdrawing many of her attacks when she couldn't back them up) you picked up where she left off and repeated her ad-hom rubbish verbatim. When I challenged you to provide a single shred of evidence you couldn't. And for the record, Carol's work to "stem the bias" involved "protecting" sometimes completely unsourced BLPs from the inclusion of sourced content she didn't like. When I pointed that out neither you nor she could provide an answer. Contributions histories are there for all to see. Stalwart111 14:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet crossed a line with me with this edit. It seems innocuous. But there is a problem. I think the word "misconstrue" describes it. You can't make an argument that fails to correctly acknowledge the points of contention. A WP:TALK page is useless if it is not used properly. Bus stop (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, the diff you show is completely unrelated to Specifico, and does not shine any light on the matter at hand. Perhaps you can explain your point more clearly. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet—Editing Wikipedia and interacting with other editors is not identical to Gamesmanship. If we are disagreeing over a point, there is an obligation to stick to the point of disagreement. You can't just pretend that some unrelated argument is taking place. You can't argue against points that are not even in play. To make up your own point of contention and then to argue against a position which is not even maintained by another editor is to present a straw man argument. Doing so creates an atmosphere of distrust. Bus stop (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, I had no idea back then that you were feeling this way about my statement at the Whaam! FAC2 page. You made no indication at the time—nothing. I thought I was stating my position clearly enough, that I had supported the FAC the first time, and that I would continue to support it the second time if the improvement points I had earlier indicated remained addressed satisfactorily. I continue to think that the Whaam! article requires some perspective from the cartoonist angle, which it now has. I did not take part in the FAC so that I could argue finer points with people there; instead I took part in the FAC in the manner of a voter who has only one vote. I gave my (very few) thoughts and then I checked back from time to time to see if they were implemented. I was not there to engage Tony and the other FAC reviewers in debate. I'm sorry that I did not meet your expectation of being a dedicated debater. I'm sorry I angered you with my simple position statement. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to hear that was your experience with Binkser, because that is exactly what he did here in this thread -- launching into entirely irrelevant accusations against user MilesMoney. SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

When tightly coordinating meat puppets/tag team players like Steeletrap and Specifico constantly engage in biased editing (including adding negative poorly sourced material while removing neutral better sourced material that might make a BLP look good), ignore neutral editors comments (brought from various noticeboards), and when appeals to various noticeboards to sanction these editors go no where, any editor might lose their temper. I was losing mine and had to stop editing articles with these editors, unwatched them (and now notifications that mention me in them), and am doing my best to avoid them (despite occasional lapses). (Also have unwatched half of my articles in frustration with Wikipedia.) (Note that per Binksternet, their personal attacks on me certainly aggravated the situation, especially repeated various vague and false accusations and, once they discovered Wikipedia:Competence is required, repeated false and/or exaggerated allegation of my incompetence in a harassing manner. )

If some neutral editor who does not edit these articles but has seen (or chooses to review) the pattern of disruptive editing by editors Specifico and Steeletrap especially would bring a topic ban on their editing Austrian economics and libertarians/libertarianism to WP:ANI, and it succeeded, it would be a great boon to the project. User:Carolmooredc 16:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What total, utter tripe! As was comprehensively laid out at RS/N, many of the BLPs you were trying to "protect" had few (or in some cases no) sources before SPECIFICO and S. Rich started editing them as part of a broader clean-up of unsourced or badly sourced BLPs. You disagreed with some of the material being added and rather than discuss the issues or start RFCs, you started a campaign of forum shopping, making the same allegations (mostly editor-related rather than content-related) everywhere you could. When anyone bothered to respond (often to tell you that you had either misread a talk page discussion or misquoted a diff) you ignored them and moved on to the next forum, claiming each time that you had been "ignored" at previous noticeboards. Eventually your allegations became simply outrageous and (honestly) incoherent. Some were just completely off-the-wall, blatant personal attacks. Unfortunately for Binksternet, that's the point at which he became involved, repeating your claims that certain people were trying to "attack" BLPs (by adding reliable sources). In some cases, SPECIFICO, S. Rich, Steeletrap and myself were the only editors who had touched certain BLPs (beyond minor edits) in years. Articles that were originally created by COI editors and were entirely unsourced in 2012 saw a flurry of activity and are now, even with ongoing content disputes, in much, much better shape than they were only last year. Jesús Huerta de Soto, which you got particularly upset about in a number of forums, was sourced to a single dead-link press release right up until the point that SPECIFICO started cleaning it up late last year. It now has 33 sources and gives a full account of his background, ideas and written work. There are outstanding disagreements relating to a specific section but it is infinitely better than it was only 12 months ago, thanks in large part, to the editors you want topic banned.

This re-writing of history (where you claim you left because others were "frustrating" you) needs to stop. You left because people finally stood up to your bullying and harassment, forced you to withdraw the worst of your ad-hom commentary and personal attacks and you haven't been back to make them again. I don't recall citing WP:CIR myself but I can tell you it would certainly have applied to a good number of your noticeboard posts where you misquoted other editors and then used those quotes to attack them and claim all sorts of things about their character and backgrounds and personal lives. If the constant misquoting was a mistake then CIR certainly applies. If it was deliberate then you should have been blocked a long time ago. Stalwart111 02:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm not sure how to read this. Are you defending Binksternet regarding the harassment & hounding allegations? (Even with reservations?) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what Binksternet has been doing lately and haven't been involved in any articles in this topic area for a couple of months. I was around when he joined this topic area and he did so with an absolutely awful attitude and little-to-no assumption of good faith - introducing himself by accusing editors (myself included) of all sorts of things without any evidence beyond Carol's earlier accusations. But while I think he has an awful attitude that probably needs some serious mentoring to adjust, it never manifested as harassment or hounding of me personally. I did not leave the topic area because of his clumsy and juvenile ad-hom, I left because of Carol's bullying. Stalwart111 03:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm always for replacing primary source material with secondary source material. That's not the issue. The issue is POV editors finding the most negative things they can find from their POV and making it the focus of the article, while making sure information that may be from better and more neutral sources that makes the individual look somewhat or quite credible is taken out by hook or by crook. Including by supporting the idea that the essay WP:Walled Garden (and non-Wikipedia variations on the same) can be used to over-rule Wikipedia reliable sources policy. And there have been a number of editors who agreed with me over the months but who got too disgusted to continue; I finally was smart enough to follow their example. Except for those pesky notices that told me my name was mentioned. But now I've gotten rid of them... User:Carolmooredc 04:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you've told yourself your own tall tales so often that they've become your truth. Stalwart111 05:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This portion of the thread, which started with Steeletrap's complaints about Binksternet, has gone wayyyyy off topic. Is there something that should be done with regard to Binksternet's interaction with Steeletrap? If so, why? I think any admin looking at this would appreciate Diffs. – S. Rich (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's all in Steeletrap's initial statement above, diffs, policy rationale, and cure. Have you read it? If so, what do you think is missing? If you have not read it, why comment? SPECIFICO talk 04:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I read everything. But I am not going to comment on Steeletraps's complaint. And I read this stuff which does not address Steeletrap's complaint – so that's why I commented. I am restating the obvious with the hope that Steeletrap can receive whatever redress is justified. E.g., this side issue does Steeletrap's complaint a disservice. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 2 October 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.

Belittling personal attacks on Binksternet and Srich32977

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:MilesMoney has engaged in personal attacks against me and User:Srich32977 in the last four hours, apparently for the purpose of belittling the contributions of me and Rich, to WP:HOUND us off the articles we are interested in; all in violation of WP:No personal attacks. Here is what MilesMoney has posted recently:

• "The SRich and Bink Show: Welcome to the show of shows, where our pair of entertainers will dazzle you by tag-teaming to edit-war!" This is a belittling comment completely inappropriate for an article talk page.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• "The show goes on. Binksternet is embarrassed by this description of his tag-team edit-warring, so he keeps violating the rules by deleting it. Too bad nothing ever really gets deleted on Wikipedia. But what's really too bad is that the show goes on. Bink tagged Rich and now the latter is edit-warring to keep those photos out. It's hilarious to watch the lengths these two will go to violate Wikipedia policy. Let's see if Bink tries to delete this, too. It would be fun to watch him incriminate himself by doing so."
• "... the Rich & Bink Show." A belittling comment.
• "Oh, look, it's Bink's partner in crime, supporting his buddy. How sweet." A belittling comment.

I reverted the first MilesMoney post with an edit summary referencing his violation of WP:NPA. I reverted the second MilesMoney post using Twinkle to place an "only warning" on his talk page saying that he should stop engaging in personal attack. After two more posts I reported MilesMoney to WP:AIV where DanielCase said I should be reporting here.

MilesMoney is usually more balanced and objective than this. In the past few hours he is not his normal self. I think he needs to wait out this tendentious period of time. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The comments cited above are remarkably mild/do not constitute personal attacks and by your own admission, are out of character for Miles. This tedious ANI should be closed immediately. Steeletrap (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of tag-teaming are rarely a good thing unless the point can be proven. - Sitush (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The guideline WP:NPA speaks against those who would "comment on the contributor" rather than the content. MilesMoney's article talk page post was wholly focused on belittling two contributors; it was devoid of article content. I was within my rights to immediately remove each of these comments as NPA directs "derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor." MilesMoney was in the wrong by repeatedly replacing his belittling personal attacks, no matter how "mild" they might seem. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm commenting on the content, which is that you and Rich are tag-teaming on Murray Rothbard. Each of you goes up to the red line on 3RR, then then next takes over. You keep reverting regardless of what reasonable compromises other editors propose and you absolutely do not have any sort of consensus. These aren't attacks on you, they're a commentary on your poor behavior, which comes down to various forms of tendentious editing. MilesMoney (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing personal about these remarks. MilesMoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously upset about something. We need to ascertain whether he has good reason to be upset. If so, we should solve the underlying problem, not punish the person complaining about it. Jehochman ^Talk 17:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  It looks like Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a fairly long block log for past edit warring and a prior 6 month 1RR restriction, though they've not been blocked since 2011. I don't think edit warring is the way to solve a problem. Participating in an edit war and then complaining about opponents, well, I take a dim view of that. Could you all please agree to use dispute resolution to settle your disagreements? Reverting doesn't solve anything. There's no urgent BLP issue. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've already taken a step back to avoid getting further embroiled in their edit war. Instead of being part of it, I commented critically about it on the article talk page, which I believe is the appropriate place. I would be glad to use dispute resolution mechanisms, particularly if Rich and Bink stopped edit-warring and joined us in discussion. If not, then the rest of us can come up with a consensus even without them, although I suspect they might edit-war against that consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, user:Binksternet has a history of repeated, unsubstantiated personal attacks on various editors including User:Stalwart111, User:Steeletrap, myself, and others. He is, shall we say, "selective" in his concern for NPA and other WP policies. At any rate, I hope that editors will return to discussion of the initial topic of this thread, namely, the harassment of Steeletrap. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Stale

 –
No new points being made, and I (one of the "victims" of the belittling remarks) do not consider the remarks worthwhile of this extended discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 1 October 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.

Proposal

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.

---

FYI, FYI User:Binks is currently continuing his Edit Warring on multiple pages even as this investigation is taking place. These other pages include "Max Weber", "Augustinian Theodicy", "Iraneaen Theodicy", etc. This is apparently being done to flaunt the seriousness normally associated with an WP:ANI. In addition a long list of his history of the WP:Gaming of Admins has also been recorded on the Max Weber Talk page. Apparently he has learned to present himself in a warm-and-cuddy version of himself when making edit warring complaints for Admin action while selectively misrepresenting his conduct in leaving out key details. The receiving Admin sees a report that looks perfectly reasonable on the surface and make a corrective action because of the deceptively but practiced wording of his Admin requests. He has also posted a campaign against anonIP-users in a picture and poster campaign on his own User page and on the "Max Weber" Talk page which is Contra user:Jimbo and contra-Reagle. At last sighting of his contrib history, User:Binks is apparently on an edit spree to delete multiple sections on as many wikipages as he can visit causing countless hours of repair time to conscientious wiki editors. The picture and poster campaign of User:Binks against all anonIP-users must be seen to be believed. (On the "Max Weber" page and on his User page.) 209.3.238.62 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

In light of the statements of a cross-section of editors here, I propose a topic ban for user Bink on articles related to libertarianism, broadly construed, subject to standard rights of appeal. The only statement in support of Bink appears to be from user Srich, whose own tendentious behavior on these articles has been noted recently, and his comment is "bullshit" -- not a convincing counterargument, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for Bink, per above. SPECIFICO talk 15:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support I believe this is the only way to avoid long, long blocks for the both of them. Either one can be reasonable, but when they act together, they run roughshod over libertarianism-related articles. Removing the worst of the two gives the other a chance to reform. MilesMoney (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Inappropriate proposal – This discussion started with a thread about the warnings that Binksternet had posted on Steeletrap's talk page. Diffs were presented for inspection. But no resolution of that editor behavior issue has been made. Moreover, it switched gears into accusations about Binksternet's alledged harrassment of other editors. Then we have Binksternet's complaint about MilesMoney (which I agree did little to resolve Steeletap's initial complaint). But that subtread spun out of control with comments about EW on other articles. As Specifico said, the discussion of the initial topic of the thread should be the focus of this discussion. With that in mind, a topic ban is not appropriate. If Binksternet was pushing POV, then that issue should be raised on the WP:NPOVN because that board addresses concerns about how editors contribute topic-wise. If Binksternet is harassing Steeletrap, then administrative action should be taken to address that particular behavior. – S. Rich (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're talking about Steeletrap when the subject is Bink. If I didn't WP:AGF, I'd almost think you were trying to distract us with something completely irrelevant. Is this the famed Chewbacca defense? MilesMoney (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

As Specifico said above: "At any rate, I hope that editors will return to discussion of the initial topic of this thread, namely, the harassment of Steeletrap." – S. Rich (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The harassment is what the topic ban will fix. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• *Strongly oppose. A cross-section of editors, is it? What nonsense. Bishonen | talk 19:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC).

Could you please be more clear about your reasons? I'm not sure I understand them. MilesMoney (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – The "bullshit" here is characterizing a cadre of folks with a bone–to–pick with Binksternet as a "cross-section of editors". Mojoworker (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that sure is hostile and counterproductive. Do you have anything to say on the issues? MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I encountered several of those involved here at Hans-Hermann Hoppe which I saw on a noticeboard. It turns out that Hoppe has stated some strong views—views which are easily misinterpreted by quoting phrases out of context. Wikipedia has no defense against groups of editors who want to expose the evils of the world, no defense other than individuals like Binksternet. Johnuniq (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are factually false but also irrelevant to Bink's outrageous behavior on libertarian articles. The falsehood is that Hoppe himself wrote about how these views were focused on by his colleagues and used against him, which means that nobody can claim Steeletrap or any other editor is doing original research or "quoting phrases out of context". Anyhow, even if you weren't dead wrong about this, it wouldn't excuse Bink. MilesMoney (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A word of advice, MilesMoney, commenting after virtually every oppose vote is not going to do your argument any favours. It tends to give people the impression that you are harrassing. - Sitush (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me for not being familiar with the protocol here, but I'm pretty sure that nobody is going to be mislead by such a false impression. MilesMoney (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (multiple ec) I cannot see that Binksternet has done anything that is disproportionate. This report and proposal does have the appearances of ganging-up and I do agree with the sentiments of the other opposers above, especially Johnuniq. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• *Qualified Support An apology and admission of wrongdoing and hounding by Bink might moderate my thinking in these respects. With all the off-topic banter, I encourage readers to read my original post clearly documenting hounding by Bink. Off-topic Though Bink's behavior has been egregious on libertarian-rleated forums, these particular charges are off-topic for purposes of this thread (and would need to be meticulously substantiated to justify a topic ban). I urge editors to please refer to my original complaint -- that bink is harassing/hounding me -, and the evidence (diffs) I use to document it, in my original post. Please do not get side tracked with these side issues. Steeletrap (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Another example of one of the worst editing antipatterns infesting Wikipedia -- a cascade of reverts, followed by the amplification of grievances, and then one group of editors coming to AN/I to get the other group banned. Talking about the issues (not the editors!) is the first step of dispute resolution, followed by third opinions and possible topical RFCs. Try it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute, it's a recognition of the fact that Bink's behavior is routinely beyond the ken when it comes to these articles. Please address the issue at hand. MilesMoney (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as Binksternet has behaved this way in many different topic areas in the past. Hopefully this will cause him to watch his behavior elsewhere. Instaurare (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I echo Stalwart111 below. A topic ban won't fix the root problem. Instaurare (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. You haven't even begun to make a case for action this drastic. At best, Binksternet should be asked to stay off Steeletrap's user talk page and leave the templating to others. Gamaliel (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Help me out: What, in your eyes, would it take to justify this topic ban? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilesMoney (talk • contribs)

The presentation of evidence of multiple, long-term violations of core content policies like NPOV and RS on multiple articles within the scope of the topic ban. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Though there may be merit to these charges against Bink, I would really like everyone to focus on my original complaint, since this is my thread (two of these sub-sections, one of which relates to Bink's allegations against Miles, are completely off-topic). The specific complaint is that he keeps hounding me on my talk page, with false accusations of edit warring and threats of blocks, despite being repeatedly warned to stay off. This is an obvious violation of policy re: WP:Hounding and WP:harassment, which I have documented in diffs. It should be swiftly dealt with by an admin such as you, Gamaliel. Steeletrap (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's all one thing. Together, Rich and Bink exhibit these behaviors in a variety of contexts, most of which seem to be focused on their ownership of all things libertarian. Rather than blocking them both for a long period, I think it would be more effective to take the worse offender and banish him from the articles on the subject that drives him to such extremes. This would give Rich a chance to sink or swim on his own merits, not his membership in a gang-of-two. MilesMoney (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, having interacted with Bink for a long time now, I completely agree with your concerns and am sympathetic to your proposed solution. But this thread is devoted to my (much more modest) charges against him. Your "meta" allegations deserve their own thread, and will need to be meticulously documented. Steeletrap (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, despite having been the subject of some of Bink's most vitriolic and unsubstantiated "bullshit". Topic bans won't fix generally problematic editor conduct. I think the topic here could be cheese or sky diving or physics and it wouldn't matter - the problem here is Binksternet's willingness to resort to ad-hom and personal attacks first and collegial discussion a distant second. This 8000 byte rant (repeating, almost verbatim, the unsubstantiated claims of another editor) was his "introduction" to this topic area. When the other editor subsequently withdrew most of her personal attacks and deliberate misquoting, Binksternet doubled down, dug in and simply repeated his claims over and over again (still without providing evidence). Topic bans are designed to prevent disruption - all a topic ban would do here is push Binksternet into another area of the project (with which he is not familiar) where the attitude would likely remain the same. His historical revisionism above is laughable, as is the suggestion he is "defending" BLPs - a claim that was comprehensively put to bed when it was revealed Bink & Co. were "protecting" entirely unsourced BLPs from being sourced. No, his attitude is a problem bigger than can be solved with a topic ban. Stalwart111 00:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank your for linking to that post. I composed it myself, taking quite a bit of time to do so. I didn't copy "verbatim" any editor at all. I thought the argument would be quite convincing after listing 57 of the notable people who were in the "walled garden" (the observation that the Mises Institute people were not neutral with regard to each other), this phrase being one that you first brought to the discussion back then. It's kind of a far-ranging walled garden, don't you think? More like an estate or park? Yeah, I'm proud of that post and I wish it had achieved more of its purpose. Binksternet (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• What rubbish - you listed 57 people and then claimed those were people I had referred to when I'd not even read most of those articles, let alone referred to them and had specifically listed (multiple times) those articles I was referring to. It was a blatant misrepresentation of my previous comments (the same blatant misrepresentation Carol had tried and was forced to strike) and when I challenged you to provide evidence (any evidence at all), you couldn't. It was a strawman argument designed to play the man rather than the ball and I'm genuinely surprised you're not completely ashamed of it. You should be. Stalwart111 05:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not only have the complainants not made their case, but they're guilty of the same behavior of which they accuse Binksternet. MIlesMoney in particular seems to have a battlefield mentality, engaging in edit warring and invective that is completely inappropriate for this project. Funnily, his battlefield behavior is almost identical to now indefed editor StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). A coincidence, I'm sure.

A look at MilesMoney's talk page and several article talk pages suggests that there is campaign on the part of SPECIFICO, Steeltrap and MilesMoney to control certain articles and portray those that disagree with their edits as incompetent and tendentious. This is not a productive way to settle content disputes, nor is ganging up on respected editors at ANI. - MrX 01:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Bullshit" is probably the kindest description of this clumsy power play by remaining, unbanned members of a political clique. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've severely cut down my editing of Wikipedia because visits to a number of noticeboards showed an inability of Wikipedia to deal with the incredibly biased, vitriolic edits against certain Austrian economists and/or libertarians by Users:Steeletrap and Specifico (User:MilesMoney later joined them). (I can provide multiple links to archives if people want to see them.) I'm amazed User:Binksternet and User:SRich have had the energy and stomach to continue to put up with their destructive and disruptive editing behavior. I think they both should be topic banned from all articles on Austrian economics and libertarians/libertarianism. User:Carolmooredc 02:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Um... no. You "severely cut down [your] editing of Wikipedia" because you attacked others, deliberately misquoted them and made all sorts of outrageous accusations without evidence, and when people stood up to you, you begrudgingly struck the worst of your personal attacks and you haven't dared try again since. It was you who drove people away from Austrian economics articles, not the other way around and your "alternate history" (which draws attention to Bink's blind support for your "protection" of unsourced BLPs) does Bink no favours. Stalwart111 04:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilariously, Carol just minutes ago (right after her "break" from these articles ended), made (1) and then deleted (2) another erroneous (and therefore libelous) allegation of libelous editing. The "libel" was a direct paraphrase (almost a precise quote) of the passage, which she presumably hadn't ever read when she characterized my interpretation of it as libelous. Steeletrap (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dividing the question: It looks like the Proposal, which addressed the behavior of Binksternet, will not be adopted. Assuming so, is there another course of action which addresses the initial complaint raised by Steeletrap? Or should the whole thread be closed? – S. Rich (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the "proposal" thread is totally off topic, it should be hatted promptly. My original concern hasn't even been substantively addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Carolmooredc, Carlton, MrX, Mojoworker et al. And Sitush also hit a nail on the head. Writegeist (talk) 04:41, 1 October 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.

Montanabw 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.

---

Montanabw has been making personal attacks on me that violate BLP rules at Talk:Labor unions in the United States I reverted (citing BLP) and she put it right back in a couple minutes ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States&oldid=575206902&diff=prev Rjensen (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is not the topic of a wikipedia article (in fact, he's not in the least notable) so no BLP violation. I removed the one bit about how he lies about his own credentials and moved it to his talk page here There also is no "outing" involved, as I just explained to him:

"You publicly disclose your identity on-wiki, so I am not "outing" you to mention what you yourself are apparently very proud to admit. In this link you post on your user page, so also no BLP issue involved; you aren't the subject of a wikipedia article (and, frankly, you aren't particularly notable, so that makes sense). But, I moved the personalized comment from the article talk: "You also behave in a deceptive fashion, keeping up the lie that you are a professor at MSU-B when a search of the current and emeritus faculty clearly shows that you are not." (Going back to 2009. You have a right to your POV, but you need to re-read WP:SOAP."

Frankly, I am sick of this POV-pushing right-wing editor, who PUBLICLY SELF-IDENTIFIES on WP (with first initial and last name plus a link to his works) and is also an administrator at Conservapedia, (see [92]) and has an obvious pattern of pushing a political agenda into WP. He's nearly derailed some FACs with his POV-pushing edits (see Richard Nixon and Thaddeus Stevens) and is now throwing a temper tantrum because he's getting called on his stuff. He's pissed because I removed his overactive adjectives from the article in question, but who needs to keep adding the words "liberal" and "left-wing" every three sentences, particularly when NOT adding the words "conservative" and "right-wing" in an equal fashion? Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently in a dispute on the article Real Clear Politics. The opposing editors are insisting adding "Founded by conservatives." By your logic, should they be blocked for POV pushing? What does being an administrator on conservapedia have to do with anything? BLP applies to all living persons named on Wikipedia, of which Rjensen is one so BLP most certainly does apply.--v/r - TP 23:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Montanabw's rhetoric above speaks for itself in terms of personal attacks on me. As for Montana State-Billings, I have been a Research Professor there for years see this Montana State University website Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, this was pointed out to you before you posted it here: [93] and that's the MSU-Bozeman library's page about the wikipedia ambassador site, not MSU-Billings faculty list. It also doesn't say you've been anywhere "for years" AND it looks like it's a resume you yourself submitted. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen is seeking to have me sanctioned in some vague fashion for calling him out on his agenda when he is the one doing what you decry (only in this case, adding "liberal" everywhere he thinks it needs to be added). The point is that he's being called on his POV-pushing and is throwing a fit because he's caught in the act. Rjensen is doing precisely what you are critical of, inserting POV language into an article and then making personal attacks. I try to keep things neutral. When he becomes all condescending and attacks me personally in edits and edit summaries, I called him on his shit: Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• creates personal attack section header titled, "Montanabw is misinformed"
• I responded (then fixed typos in a few subsequent edits)
• Rj responds with vague generalities
• I edit the NPA attack header and reply on-topic
• Rjensen claims neutrality, I call bullshit, but provide some suggested source material
• Rjensen essentially, in a tl;dr, calls me stupid
• Rjensen is dismissive of another editor who confronts him
• and we have the edit of mine that he dislikes

Okay, ya'all back off for a little while so I can look.--v/r - TP 23:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen Your comments toward Montanabw, while not a personal attack, have been highly uncivil. You've been patronizing, sarcastic, and dismissive. On the whole, your behavior on this talk page disrupts the building of an encyclopedia.

Montanabw Your comments toward Rjensen have included ad hominems, such as his adminship on Conservapedia, and accusations of POV pushing. That behavior is not constructive and counter-attacks are not excusable.

The both of you While I am intellectually mediocre compared to the both of you, especially on the subject of history, what doesn't take an idiot to figure out is that your current paths lead no where. This is a collaborative project. The bickering isn't helpful. You have clearly opposite political viewpoints, either of you could be considered POV pushing (Montanabw, white washing in your case by removing the liberal label). I am not going to rule on content, that's not in an administrators remit, however on the subject of POV pushing, I can see at least one case where I think you both could be wrong. As two intellectual types with advanced degrees, you have the opportunity to get this article well balanced and to GA or FA status if you can cooperate. So, what needs to happen here to get you two to cooperate?--v/r - TP 23:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to just drop the stick and declare a truce wherein the personal snark stops. I have other fish to fry than this particular article, I was only alerted to the problem via a third party post. I'm fine with the article as it is as of the moment (I did a bit of cleanup just now of my own last edit). My changes, which gave rise to this talk page spat, involved tossing what I viewed as some unneeded editoralizing. Through all the snark, Rjensen and I were basically disputing two issues: 1) Whether Ronald Reagan was a "liberal" (as opposed to merely a Democrat) in the time he was the president of the Screen Actor's Guild - and whether the qualifier was even relevant in any case; and 2) If strikes declined solely due to corporations threatening to close factories and move jobs abroad. So for #1, we seem to have dropped the issue on Reagan, even at talk - I agreed he had been a democrat and union president, Rjensen seems to have agreed that he wasn't a screaming liberal and that he was quite the anti-communist as SAG leader. For #2, I kept Rjensen's useful stats, and all I really wanted out of the union decline thing was to either keep the tone neutral as to causes, or, if causes were to be explored, then a truly full and NPOV exploration of all non-fringe views, including the impact of things like right-to-work legislation, the changing world economy, yada, yada... but we got all bogged down in snark. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

...have included ad hominems, such as his adminship on Conservapedia. That's not an ad hominem, that's a warning sign. --Calton | Talk 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly an ad hominem. It uses a person's characteristics to challenge the validity of the argument instead of actually providing a counter argument. The use of conservative as a perjorative on this site is startling. I've seen RS's like Fox News, Washington Post, and USA Today called non-RS's simply for their viewpoint. That an editor edits on a project with a conservative viewpoint doesn't mean they edit here with a conservative viewpoint. Ad hominems are not a substitute for discussion.--v/r - TP 13:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "a person's characteristics". It is a person's associations, which makes it ad hominem in the present case. Conservative is not a "characteristic" in that characteristics, (eg. skin color), are generally something the person does not choose -- political outlook for mature people is something they generally choose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rolls eyes* I can't believe we have to argue about the definition of a characteristic. But yes, a person's affiliations and associations are a characteristic. Skin color would be a physical characteristic. Despite that, the argument about what is a characteristic is pointless because you agree that the issue here is an ad hominem.--v/r - TP 14:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you gentlemen agree that words like "misinformed" in the contest used (a section header with my name on it) also constitutes an ad hominem personal attack, even if spread out over multiple tl;dr paragraphs of a talk page? Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Misinformed" isn't an ad hominem because it's not using one of your characteristic to discount your argument. It's a step above an ad hominem, but it's still patronizing though.--v/r - TP 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Misinformed" is not an ad hominum, because it is not saying that someone's argument should not be listened to because of who they are or who they associate with. Having your name in a section header is incivil, but that has been apologized for. You would do good to also apologize and you really should strike all your mistaken discussion about the university, as that seems BLP block worthy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the statement "Rjensen is not the topic of a wikipedia article (in fact, he's not in the least notable) so no BLP violation" is erronious; WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, to any living person, notable/article-having or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • However, Montanabw is correct that Rjensen does edit from a very definite political position. Most of the time he keeps it under control, but not always, and there's nothing at all wrong in pointing out those instances when he allows his POV to override his instincts as an historian. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• All true and fair enough, and it is just a heated talk page discussion, it actually began with Rjensen's personal attack on me, (his original section header at the article talk was "Montanabw is misinformed"), and he's mad that I called him on having an undisclosed right-wing agenda when he kept claiming he was "neutral." But no BLP issue here: I stated the truth, sourced, and I pointed out facts he boasts of on his user page. Rjensen self-discloses his identity and claims a number of academic credentials on his user page ( to be fair, most of them are true). Still, look at what he removed in the link above: criticism of his editing approach and calling him on his POV-pushing, which is not a BLP violation, and even then, a couple edits down, I decided it was more appropriate to move my comments about him being a Conservapedia admin and not a real MSU-Billings Professor (even though both true and sourced) to his talk page, where he promptly deleted them (which he is entitled to do). ;-) He also distorts his credentials on his user page and claims he is a "research professor" at MSU-BIllings, when the Montana University system has no such title as "research professor." (His link above is to MSU main campus in Bozeman, and it's his wikipedia ambassador bio, which he probably submitted himself) I've seen him listed elsewhere as a "retired historian," which appears to be true, and an "active scholar," which also appears to be true. But he's not on the faculty of the Montana University system anywhere and should not be presenting himself as such. Montanabw^(talk) 04:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have read through Montanabw's comments both here and on the article talk page and find his comments beyond what one would expect of civil discourse. See Talk:Labor_unions_in_the_United_States. Rjensen began this discussion thread by saying that Montanabw was misinformed about what Montanabw has here identified as their two points of disagreement - Reagan and strikes - and provided sources. Montanabw then replied by accusing him of personal attacks and of editing from a "right-wing view only." I do not see the disagreement as being left-right, but will discuss that on the talk page. I think Montanabw should redact his excessive attacks and promise to stop. Many editors have been blocked for less than this. TFD (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I removed the bit about conservapedia from the talk page already, and moved it to Rjensen's talk page, where he chose to delete rather than discuss. I also think his active presence on conservapedia is completely relevant, as the site exists primarily to attack the perceived "bias" of wikipedia and openly advocates inserting a conservative view into WP articles, which is permissible, I suppose, but surely not NPOV, particularly when connected with calling other editors stupid and "misinformed" for holding certain center-left views. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

for the record: 1) I am really annoyed that Montanabw continues to imagine that I have some sort of "right wing agenda" for Wikipedia. That is completely false. Like most historians and indeed many Wiki editors who work on political topics I do have my personal political views. For Wikipedia I do not broadcast them and have tried very hard to be fair to liberal leaders such as in the 364 edits I made to Franklin D. Roosevelt and my 469 edits to New Deal. Take a look. s) As for my agenda for Wikipedia I do have one and have presented it in public for several years now--it involves putting more scholarship into long-established history articles. see my 2012 statement here. 3) Montanabw calls me a liar, based on her failure in one poorly done Google search. I have been an official "Research Professor" at Montana State U., Billings, for years and have the formal letter from the chancellor to prove it, should anyone ask. (I've been officially retired for years; the appointment lets me teach courses and use the library; it does not pay a salary.) I have also officially been a paid professor at numerous other universities such as Illinois-Chicago, Washington, Michigan, RPI, West Point and Harvard (including even Moscow State University in the USSR in the days of Communism). 4) In the article at hand I also think Montanabw's edits erasing a few uncontroversial words of mine were poor ones and were motivated by a lack of good faith and a fear of having a conservative actually write for Wikipedia. That did indeed tee me off and I wrote in an angry mood that does not encourage civility--sorry. Rjensen (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently finished battling with Rjensen over at the US labor union article; noting that his editing style is right wing and not neutral is stating the obvious. Equally problematic is that he's largely unaware of this (see here [94]). To see an example of his POV pushing see here [95]. My fairly limited interaction with user:Montanabw has been fine. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How is it POV to note that after the 2010 elections, Republican state houses passed legislation limiting the power of public service unions? TFD (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

TFD, I see Rjensen thanks you in the credits of his paper linked below. Just noticed that. BTW, kudos to him for pushing for JSTOR access on WIkipedia, that's a plus Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen's comments strengthen my case. He makes unwarranted assumptions about my motivations (he has no clue, can't read my mind), and assumes bad faith, both constituting a personal attack. He deleted two paragraphs of my comments at the article talk, claiming "BLP" when there was one sentence that may have contained any BLP issue. As for others, his "putting more scholarship" into articles nearly derailed the FAC for Thaddeus Stevens (do read that talk and FAC, if interested). To the best of my knowledge, he has never been lead editor on one single FAC or even a GA on wikipedia (I've been lead or second whip on many); he makes hit and run edits across multiple articles, often with insertion of subtle stabs of "left-wing" or "liberal" where the context does not require such WP:POINTy adjectives. WhiIe I'm happy for him that he has been a "paid professor" at various universities and I am sure he is a genius (in spite of his own admission on his user page link that he currently edits history books mostly targeted for fifth-graders), he could not be an instructor or adjunct in the Montana University system without pay, (as he apparently alleges) and getting permission to use a library within the Montana University system is no big whoop. (I have similar access, they hand it out like Skittles). He appears to be a wikipedia ambassador, but does not appear on any lists of classes taught at MSU-Billings (I'm sure he can set me straight if he finds one), and while I could discuss his credentials further, I chose not to share other results of my own simple google search per WP:OUTING; I confine myself to verification (or not) of his disclosures on-wiki and closely related activities such as conservapedia, which is, basically, a wiki attack site. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban

• Support an interaction ban between User:Montanabw and User:Rjensen. We have two editors here who dislike each other. The details (having to do with ideology) do not matter, because their acting out of their dislike is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

  It's only gotten personal in the last week or two; before that, Rjensen was merely (as TP said) "patronizing, sarcastic, and dismissive" in discussions, not so much in edit summaries and section headers (which or more permanent records). Other than articles about Montana and the west, we don't interact much elsewhere, though we cross paths when I am helping others on various American History articles. Before you take this much farther, please note that Rjensen has a prior sockpuppet problem. Montanabw^(talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see anything actionable on Montana's part. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose We need more knowledge on our articles, not less. And both editors bring a good bit of knowledge. Find common ground or back off for a bit. There is nothing here that can't be solved by a little good faith. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no evidence that there is any problem beyond one article. TFD (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose These are both experienced editors that can work it out. Agree with User:The Four Deuces that the problem is limited to one article. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Oppose I don't see a ban actually accomplishing or solving anything in the greater scheme of things. Intothatdarkness 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – Unless it is self-imposed (I would encourage that), I don’t think a community interaction-ban is warranted. @BW and @RJ – It is much too early for cabin fever to set in and cloud your judgments. We have at least 2 more weeks of summer/fall (maybe three) to exploit here in Big Sky country. Get outside and enjoy it. I know I am. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose....Wikipedia needs divergent viewpoints to achieve neutrality. I see a difference of opinion in some editing issues that should be easily worked out.--MONGO 18:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. These people can work it out; the matter is not so divisive as all that. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Close this?

Given the interaction ban proposal directly above is going nowhere, and the comments from either side aren't the kind of thing we typically warn or block for (mainly a disagreement over who's following WP:NPOV and who isn't) I don't really see anything else for admins to do here. Can we close this, with perhaps a reminder to everyone to try to get along a little better? 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 1 October 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.

Threat of violence--does not seem credible, but reporting to be on the safe side

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 there. I reverted vandalism by an IP editor, 31.222.222.2, and shortly thereafter received a vitriolic message on my talk page that included threats to kill me, wipe my ass off the face of the continent, and so on. I hope you'll understand my not notifying this editor prior to starting this thread. Given that the person claims to have access to "the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps," I do not consider the threats particularly credible. However, I'm reporting them because that seems the right thing to do. Frankly, I wouldn't want another editor to receive a similar message. I've deleted the message from my talk page. Please let me know if I should take any further actions. Thanks very much. DoorsAjar (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/navy-seal-copypasta — Lfdder (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Figures. I should've Googled it. ;-) Thank you. DoorsAjar (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but like WP:NLT also applies to "chilling effects", whoever put that on your talkpage was also trying to create an effect. Still counts ES&L 09:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm glad I'm the one who got the message, because I hate to think how it might've affected a very young editor. I'm grateful to see that someone has given the IP a one-year block for persistent vandalism. Speaking generally, I'd be happy if messages as violently threatening as this one--meme or not--earned indefinite blocks. Is this a subject that has been previously discussed? DoorsAjar (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

However, we rarely block IP's indefinitely - the reasons are obvious why. We would likely block a named account indef ES&L 11:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I knew I've seen that post somewhere else, I've seen it elsewhere about two billion times. It's hilarious. Really. If the IP really wanted to kill you and were capable of doing everything they did they would have done it already. Besides, "Gorilla" warfare? I didn't know gorillas could type death threats over the internet. 173.58.106.118 (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't underestimate gorillas; one's the secretary to Dr. McNinja after all! More seriously the fact that Navy SEALs are not part of the Marine Corps should help be a red flag...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pissed not to be able to be the first to make a joke about the gorilla thing. But I don't know why you're so excited -- if I had someone who was offering to wipe my ass for me, I'd be very flattered at the fealty thereby implied (even if I didn't want to actually take advantage of that particular offer). Also the guy says he got his degree in Brussels so cut him some slack -- that must have been tough. EEng (talk) 15:15, 3 October 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.

400 articles about Transformers characters?

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 checking the number of transclusions for the Template:Infobox Transformers character, and the number of articles using it seems seriously excessive, there are 425 of them, which is almost as many as the total number of articles about video games characters (currently 622). I have not seen something on this scale since the days when each Pokeman had his own article so I thought it would be worth reporting somewhere. This is probably not the right place to discuss this, but since the notability noticeboard was shut down a week ago, I can't think of a more appropriate venue.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this relates back to a spate of AFDs that had been raised in the past on Transformers articles largely created by Mathewignash. Hard to think what encyclopedic value articles like these could be. Blackmane (talk) 10:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

bah, 400? thats nothing. check out the bazillion articles on D&D related creatures, gods, characters, locations mentioned once in a sourcebook. Like this guy Guardian daemon -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You could send the articles you think aren't notable to Afd or perhaps PROD them first, but you'd need a better argument than "this many transformers articles seems excessive". Reporting it here on ANI is not going to accomplish anything.--Atlan (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not sure what the notability requirement would be for a fictional transforming robot. And at least here I can find out if I'm not the only one who, yes, thinks that this many transformers articles seems excessive.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I get depressed about the number of topics on here that just really should go on some other website, but the best thing I find to do is to just ignore them completely and work on your own stuff - what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and there's no reason somebody can't look at me taking The Who to GA status and scoff at me for not going for more serious and highbrow stuff like Shakespeare or periodic table elements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know if even the people at WikiProject Transformers would agree that they need that many character pages, or if they just accumulated over the years because nobody bothered to delete them. I would ask the WP which ones they want to keep, but it seems pretty dead.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia going to run out of space? I think not. I have not created any of these, and probably haven't edited them except to make the occasional disambig fix or correct typos, but I don't see the problem here. The Transformers media franchise has been around for thirty years, including hundreds of different episodes across multiple TV series, a theatrically released animated film, three blockbuster live-action films, video games, comic books, not to mention the toys. Billions of dollars have been made from these. If there are stubby articles without potential for expansion, those can be merged into a group reflecting the next higher level of abstraction (the particular series they were featured in, for example), but it is not that surprising that such a broad media empire has this many articles. bd2412 T 12:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec)The same description can be made of other media franchises, like The Smurfs (55 years old, comics, 3 major movies, an extremely succesful and long-running animated series, heaps of toys and merchandising, ...). Yet we only have three (3!) articles on characters from the series, Papa Smurf, Gargamel and Smurfette. The others are combined into List of The Smurfs characters. 400 for Transformers is serious overkill. Fram (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Having an article on every Transformers character is what TFWiki is for. Having an article on characters with real-world notability, such as Optimus Prime, Megatron and Starscream to name three (but not to say those are the only three), is what Wikipedia is appropriate for. Those that don't have out-of-universe notability can, and should, be in lists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No surprise this was raised at some point. I once tried to start tidying up the area however found Mathewignash hard to work with as they kind of went about in an WP:OWN way with these articles which they are largely responsible for creating so I gave up and let them rule the place. Though looking at the whole project - it is seriously daughting, with the major problem being the reusing of names in the different Transformers franchises. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Being part of a 30 year old media franchise does not grant inherent notability to every passing character of that franchise. The requirements for a stand alone article are clear - the subject of the article needs to have significant coverage about it published in an independent reliable source. There are a number of Transformer character for which that is true. there are vast numbers of characters for which that is NOT true. Ignoring the problem and allowing such content to linger sets a bad precedent, as newbies who are not aware of the policy see an article for some throw-away character that appeared in one scene of one episode the impression that "Gee, we should have an article for Y".

but this is not really an ANI subject. probably better suited for Village Pump or Jimbo. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It was suited for here, but, like WP:WQA, somebody got the bright idea we didn't need it anymore. Oh, BTW, somebody should probably check on all those Pokemon articles; I get a feeling the number has snuck back up...significantly... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@TRPoD, The gravamen of the discussion is "there are too many of these", not "these lack coverage in reliable sources". One could as easily say, "we have over 180 articles on characters from Shakespeare's plays, that's too many". My response was addressed solely to the proposition that we have too many articles on this particular topic. However, I also noted that stubby articles can be merged up. bd2412 T 13:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I tried, a few years back, to cut this number down. I merged some obviously non-notable ones into lists (after a number of reversions), a few of the really bad articles got deleted, but many of the AfDs simply resulted in Keep-spam from the usual sources. However, 425 isn't as bad as it was - I think the number was something like 650 at one point. To be honest, I waas more bothered at the time with the outrageous overuse of non-free images, which no doubt has gone back up since I stopped watching the pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree that the vast majority should be deleted. Wikipedia needs a "bulk move to wikia" button. However, also agree that success at this venture is unlikely do to the cliques that will come out in support. Also we should delete the "page for every episode of every popular tv show" and many other crufty pages, but down that road lies despair. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a glut of articles on Transformers, Pokemon, lots of anime titles (and for some reason, roads and highways). I only object because the requirements for new articles is so high and yet these cartoon/toy pages seem to get a pass. The problem is that the people who would like to winnow down the number to just those that are notable are not the same people as those that are knowledgeable enough to separate the essential from the trivial. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about the highways and road ones. They cite state or federal documentation (after all, the government needs to know what it's supposed to maintain) but often little else, so in my view they fail GNG. Try and AfD one and they all go nuts. But then again, somebody else could equally come along and say, "look, we don't need those articles on Pink Floyd albums, just redirect them to a discography" and I'd at least put up an argument. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the Five Pillars; part of them is that Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a gazzeteer, and articles on geographic locations and state-level-and-above highways fall under Wikipedia's remit as a gazzeteer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Having taken a look at some of the articles listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Transformers character I have to agree with the OP that our coverage of these fictional robots is pretty excessive. I recommend starting an RfC, where the community can chime in on to what degree these robots need their own articles or can be merged to a list. Another option would be to start a batch AfD discussion, but given the small sample of articles I looked at do appear to be referenced (I can't vouch for the references being reliable sources, though) that would likely be a messier discussion than a structured RfC, where the initiator could proposal some reasonable inclusion standards. Either way, this isn't something AN/I can fix. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

True, this has turned out not to be something AN/I can fix but this conversation is happening now, seems to be moving forward and you made a proposal so strike while the iron is hot. Is there any way this pruning can be done through article assessment (low-importance, start/stub articles)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) To be honest, yes, this doesn't belong on AN/I, but since it's here, I may as well comment. There's been AfDs on these, D&D, and other crufty articles for years, many by User:TTN; he's had lots of concerns brought up on his talk page and even been brought to AN/I for it a couple times. Of course, he's right, but as is evident there's lots of obstacles here. Maybe a RfC could be useful. Ansh666 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I love some of the logic and the extremes put forth thus far, deleting articles on episodes of TV shows and such, which is completely off topic and can be considered rather extreme when some editors actually have excellent GA or FA level articles on individual episodes. Wikipedia is not a macro or micro encyclopedia and "move to Wikia" is a poor excuse to actually go by N/GNG. I chalk such comments up to the "Angelo Notability" issues of the past where "other Wikipedias should cover foreign topics". It is that kind of asinine mentality which causes more harm than good. Let's put it this way... many of the transformers can meet N/GNG, if you put a lot of work into it. Tier 2 and Tier 3+ probably have no need to be on Wikipedia outside of localized and specific character lists. Anyone here know of Feng Zhu? Doesn't have his own article, but the man's work is instrumental in the look and form of the Transformers movies and he's done even Star Wars. While the Wikia does far better than Wikipedia on these niche aspects, lets take a peek at one, namely Mirage (Transformers). Numerous different series, media and a line of toys, and a presence in the new movies. The problem is that Mirage is not one robot, but many different ones all bearing the same name and the inuniverse discussion is 90% of the article. The page needs to be restructured and refocused, but this could possibly be one that can be saved since thirty years of appearances exist and this character is likely tier 2. Many "tier 3" are already redirects like "Star Saber" though even the "list of autobots" is glaringly wrong about "Star Saber". The entire franchise is extremely complex and downright nonsensical from an educational point because the same name refers to different robots or concepts. A disamb would be needed for some of the bigger names and this includes ones like Bumblebee (Transformers). Many of these character pages serve as "transformers named X" and despite the individual pieces not meeting N/GNG, the entirety may also not meet N/GNG but exists solely because any other presentation is overly long, overly complicated and confusing to even avid fans of the series. Transformers has a huge problem of organization; not even Transformers is decent, so why expect character lists of multiple robots named "Bumblebee" in the Transformers universe to be any better? I don't got the time to fix this, but clearly someone with great organizational skills COULD fix this - until then I say keep the pages because it isn't hurting anyone or anything. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I love some of the logic and the extremes put forth thus far, such as We cannot even keep the main article clean so why should we be expected to keep the bazillion of non notable spin off articles clean? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So if articles are poorly maintained that's a reason to delete them? Better start the AfDs for 90% of Wikipedia's articles then. As a bonus, many of those will be BLPs, where there's a chance vandalism/etc. can cause real-life harm to people, as contrasted with someone posting "bumblebee is gay" on the character's page. People are constantly kvetching over Wikipedia covering things that aren't "serious," but the problem, in addition to the fact that "only cover 'serious' stuff" isn't in the project's policies anywhere, is that everyone's definition of "serious" is different. Many people in the world think Salman Rushdie's works are blasphemous garbage that should be destroyed (and the author possibly locked up or killed), yet I don't see lots of Wikipedia editors complaining about our coverage of his works. Either all art is worthy of coverage, or none of it is; there is no objective distinction between high culture and low culture. Quality of articles is a different matter, but the solution to that is not deleting articles wholesale but editing and improving them. I get the feeling much of the "opposition" to certain topics comes from, "I don't like this topic, so I will never edit articles on it because I don't find it enjoyable. Why can't these articles just go away, so I never have to think about them?" --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see anyone stating that we should be deleting the articles because they aren't "serious"? people are stating that we should be deleting them because they are not and will never be covered in a significant manner by reliable third party sources. So yes, poorly maintained now and unable to ever be properly maintained because there are no sources is in fact a reason to delete.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Chris, "Many of these character pages serve as "transformers named X" and despite the individual pieces not meeting N/GNG, the entirety may also not meet N/GNG but exists solely because any other presentation is overly long, overly complicated and confusing to even avid fans of the series." - if both the individual pieces and entirety do not meet our basic inclusionary guidelines, should they stay? You cite WP:HARMLESS - might be good to read that section.

@108-IP, that's a massively WP:POINTy WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument laced with some WP:AGF failures.

I still think a RfC would be useful here, to determine to what extent we want to cover this. Then, the WP:HARMLESS precedent issue will go away. Ansh666 20:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about WP:HARMLESS, I'm pointing out that the articles don't have any negative impact on the function of Wikipedia in the sense of NOTPAPER and that these articles are a list and do not necessarily need N/GNG because a reading of CSC says that the main topic needs to meet N/GNG, but a list article does not. With that being said, I recognize the functionality and the limitations of such pages and say that they should be merged provided proper reorganizing can be done. You misunderstood me, but that's okay, if anyone happens to have a readable system of organization for these pages, I'd say let's work to fix the problem. After all, deletion is the last resort, it is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original post in this section when he said "This is probably not the right place to discuss this." I also am not aware of any rule about a limit on the number of articles covering characters in a fictional series. Until a rule is established limiting that number this subject is pointless. Mathewignash (talk) 20:57, 2 October 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.

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

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

---

Unacceptable commentary regarding the BLP subject and transgendered people during the debate was a big problem the last time a month ago. I see the first such comments in the second RM have already come along, with User:KoshVorlon making inflammatory and disrespectful commentary regarding the article subject.[96]. His comments were redacted by one editor, then reinstated, and he has refused on his talk page to make any changes to it. -- Josh Gorand (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Fluffernutter has already stepped up to patrol it. Other uninvolved admins are welcome.--v/r - TP 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, anyone who wishes to make outrageous comments while an ArbCom discussion is contemplating sanctions for other editors who have made similar comments is fishing for trouble. I am quite certain that this sort of thing will be dealt with accordingly, without being raised here as the sort of "incident" that administrators might not be aware of. bd2412 T 16:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd call them nonsensical (I could use stronger words), not necessarily outrageous. IMO. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If one compares Kosh's comments to those currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision#Proposed_remedies, his words are similar to those editors who are unlikely to face sanction if the votes continue to trend as they have been. There appear to be only 3 editors who face a real possibility of a topic-ban for their incvility; IFreedom1212, Hitmonchan, and...you yourself, Mr. Gorand. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at it. I'd appreciate a fuller explanation from Josh Gorand as to the specifics of why he thinks the language unacceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not really helpful, Tarc. Despite picking each of Fluffernutter's actions to selectively support or oppose, we should just be happy that some admin is willing to subjecate herself to torture to try and keep some resemblance of civility. Let's give her wide discretion and support because I doubt anyone else is willing or could do it better.--v/r - TP 16:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact , my comments are not outrageous. Please close this up as an attempt to chill discussion on the move page.−  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's issues like this that show why this move request should have been put off until the ArbCom case had closed. But, ultimately, I don't think there's anything that needs to be done with a comment like this; KoshVorlon is entitled to say He is NOT Chelsea, not legally, not biologically, not even reliably. The best choice of words? Probably not. Inflammatory and disrespectful, at least to the degree that warrants admin intervention? No, I don't think so. And if you look at the proposed decision in the related ArbCom case, you'll see that it doesn't look like the ArbCom will sanction comments like this.

If you want to register your disagreement, go ahead. That being said, given the trajectory of the RM discussion, I'm not sure why you'd think it'd be worth your time. -- tariqabjotu 16:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Josh, KV's comments are certainly naive/ignorant (he demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of trans issues) but that does not mean they are offensive/unacceptanle/outrageous, and certainly not worthy of any sanction. GiantSnowman 16:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I redacted part of Kosh's statement earlier today on the basis of discretionary sanctions allowing me wide latitude to take actions I felt were needed to "ensure the smooth functioning of the project". My redaction was reverted by MZMcBride and I've not re-done it, but I would very much appreciate other opinions (preferably from people not already involved in this dispute) about both the acceptability of Koshs's comments and how the community would prefer problematic comments on the RM be handled. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that the discussion is not about whether Manning is male or female, or whether she intends to live as Bradley or Chelsea, I think KoshVorlon's comments are needlessly inflammatory. They are discriminatory in tone, as they disregard Manning's expressed gender (even questioning whether Manning actually wants to be Chelsea at all). The entire point of this RM is to discuss the article title and a proposed change to that title - not Manning's ability (or inability, according to KoshVorlon) to determine her own gender. I think Fluffernutter was justified in removing the comment, and I'd re-redact it myself if I had not commented at arbcom on this issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! is monitoring the discussion taking place and attempting to keep the waters calm. The recent comments on her talk page might be an indication that this is too big a job for one person. Can someone help her please?Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

.....and the current consensus on Fluffernutter's page is 3 to 1 with Fluffernutter being the lone dissenter. Again, please close this out, there's nothing to see here, just an attempt to silence discussion on the move  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, you are free to disagree with my judgment, but please do not accuse me of trying to "silence discussion." The only thing I'm trying to do here is keep things from spinning out of control, and I would appreciate you assuming good faith of me even if you disagree with me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't directing that at you, I already posted on your page that I realize you're attempting to keep the flames down over on that page (even though I disagree with you reverting my comment ), I was directing that Josh Gorand.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be no agreement over what constitute an acceptable comment, it might be best not to redact absent clear abuse directed at a community member.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is wise. In retrospect, it seems that the original Manning RM turned into the mess it did in no small part due to the largely hands off approach taken by admins while it was occurring. Now, I don't know what the best course of action for admins to take this time is, but I think waiting until the RM devolves into direct personal attacks and the like before taking strong action is probably a recipe for disaster. Simple Sarah (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• The redaction is reasonable. 1) The selective enforcement claim, is an argument for no discretionary sanctions, but there are discretionary sanctions, here. Second the selectively removed part does not change the gist of the User's support or its reasons, "He ..." (so no silencing); it was the belaboring/inflamatory that was removed in discretion. The other comments complained of for "even enforcement" don't belabor ('she is a woman like Christine Jorgensen,' 'she says she is a woman' 'she says she is seeking treatment' - none belabor); it is, moreover, another issue (a BLP/Civilty one) when you start arguing with the Subject of the article about themselves and needs to be addressed with carefully chosen wording (or not at all). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not arguing for or against removing the comments, I think Alanscottwalker has a point here. The problem is is this isn't a discussion in abstract but about a living person. In other words there's a difference between saying 'I reject the concent of gender identity and only follow genetics' in a discussion(even if that ignores the actual complexity of genetics) and saying living person X is a man. And the nature of BLP means that if person X clearly identifies as female, saying person X is female doesn't have the same problems as saying person X is male. For better or worse, that's the way BLP works. This doesn't mean there can't be problems from the other side. Clearly accusing other editors of being transphobic is problematic. The main saving grace here is that this is such a hot button public issue with so much external commentary that I'm not sure how strict we should be. (For example, if someone says 'recent US president Y is a war criminal' I don't know if we'll necessarily bother to do anything even though someone saying 'fairly unknown person Z is a war criminal' may be removed.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there might be a difference between calling someone a man and calling one a war criminal. The point is that one side of this argument does not recognize Manning as a woman. They may be right, they may be wrong. But removing their right to say so as "hate speech" doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. It would certainly have an effect on the debate, but I'm not certain chilling said debate is a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You can substitute 'not a Muslim', 'not Jewish', 'is gay' or whatever you want. However I think you have missed my point if you think this is about hate speech. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no "right" here. Saying "Manning identifies as a woman" is clearly true, and sourceable. Saying "Manning was raised as a boy" is also clearly true, and sourceable. OTOH, saying "Manning is a woman" or "Manning is a man" is not sourceable, nor necessarily true, since woman is a social construct, and what is included in that box, and under what conditions, is subject to social negotiation, and the parameters of that negotiation are still being debated. Our particular society, circa 2013, has not yet come to consensus on this, and there are for example women who exclude trans*women from certain spaces because they were born male. There are multiple points of view on this, and they all have some validity (see this exchange for an example of where accusations of transphobia go too far). But the main point is, NONE OF THIS MATTERS for the article title. Not one bit. There are oodles of arguments, that can be made on either side, that have nothing to do with what gender or sex Manning "is" (as if we could even sort that out definitively). Since the very discussion of such things here ends up pissing people off, and wikipdia is not a forum, I think the best route is to redact all mention of Manning "truly" being one gender or another, from either side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, but determining, as you do, the removed comment is irrelevant, is not a basis for restoring the comment that is, after all, irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If the comment's only problem is irrelevancy, then the appropriate response is to ignore it, not censor it. – Smyth\^talk 11:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think that would be a feasible course, though as it would not satisfy many, I doubt it will go forward. Have the article under "Private Manning" and perhaps have it begin "The person who identifies as Chelsea Manning, though legally known as Bradley Manning …" Or the opposite.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I won't object to that, although I do stick by my comment that per WP:BLP on wikipedia, since Manning has clearly identified as female, saying she is so does not carry the same problems that saying she is not so, does. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you read carefully what I wrote, I differentiated between saying "Manning identifies as a woman" and "Manning is undeniably a woman and should be treated as a woman for all intents and purposes" - the first is true, the second is much more debatable, as serves no purposes (even the first doesn't help with titling the article, we don't purposefully align articles to the gender of the name, otherwise RuPaul would be at "Paul". But Manning will serve her sentence in a male facility, so saying that per the army she is a man, or per certain lesbians she is still a man, or per certain conservatives she is still a man, and so on, is all TRUE statements of opinion. But there is no final "fact" to be had here. The same applies for assertions that Manning is a woman. So what? Why should I care, w.r.t. titling? Remember, "woman" is a social construct, there are no absolute facts.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

After taking another read-through of our DS guidelines, I've re-redacted the comment, since MzMcBride's revert was significantly against policy and the point of DS is that they are fast-track actions and are "sticky". Note that community consensus or appeal to arbcom can overrule a DS action; those things would be done at WP:AE if anyone wishes to pursue the matter. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

.....You're invovled as you've already voted against the move, and once again, there's already a 3 to 1 consensus against you. Please revert your action, that comment is fine as it was. I won't revert you as I can't (due to voluntary editing restrictions)  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh, it sounds like you're not really familiar with the concept of discretionary sanctions. I encourage you to read the page describing them, but in short, DS enables a single admin to implement a wide variety of sanctions or other actions, based on their best judgment, in hot-button topic areas. Once an admin has implemented a DS action, that action may not be undone except by that admin, through an appeal to arbcom, or based on community consensus on WP:AE. In this case, Mzmcbride short-circuited that process, which was very much against policy. I have restored it to the status quo, because until one of those three entities undoes my action, my action stands on the strength of discretionary sanction policy, backed by Arbcom's previous implementations of that policy. Is it possible the redaction was wrong? Sure, it could be. But the way to find that out is to appeal according to policy and find a consensus about it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that you didn't restore it to status quo. Status quo would be not reverting it to begin with. You're also involved, DS doesn't permitt that either. Go back and revert yourself, please  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so everyone's clear here: The following have created a shit-storm about my comment and are supportive of moving Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning :

1.) Josh Gorand

2.) TP

3.) Fluffernutter

I request Fluffernutter's action be un-done per INVOLVED .  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

When did discretionary sanctions start applying to redacting comments that do not violate policy? Kosh's comment was, ultimately, stating that reliable sources predominantly favor Manning as a man. Exactly how legitimate Kosh's opinion is would be up for discussion, but it was a policy-compliant opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The redactions I have seen Fluffernutter make, to Kosh's comment and to a comment that raised accusations of transphobia, have all seemed appropriate efforts to enforce the discussion guidelines and ensure that the move discussion stays on-topic and does not descend into the pit of tangential bickering, denials of peoples' existence, etc, which the previous RM turned into. (I also note that if Kosh's comment is to be unredacted, it would seem appropriate to un-redact the comments that "Manning is a woman" which were likewise redacted.) -sche (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any such redactions. In any case, I think the only way to be fair is to either say "No claims about Manning's gender/sex are appropriate" or "All claims about Manning's gender/sex, stated politely, are appropriate". Otherwise, you are eliminating perfectly valid opinions from one side of a debate - there is nothing essentially wrong with saying the Manning is a (biological) man - it just means your definition of "man" may be different than someone else's definition of what is a "man". But I don't think it helps the discussion in any case, so is basically useless here - as such all such claims should be discouraged and redacted, from either side.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"Transphobia" allegations are bullshit, sorry, but that's just what it is. There's nothing transphobic about stating what's verifiable information about Bradley Manning.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't do anything to explain the part where you speculated about a BLP subject's sincerity and intent to follow through with their stated identification as female. What relevance does that have? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kosh, the only involvement I have had in the Manning issue is in an administrative capacity. It is entirely false for you to assert that I support moving the page to either (or any) option and am thus somehow secretly involved. Where the article ends up is far less of a concern to me than the fact that the community is warring with itself and it needs to stop. I understand that you're upset and offended that your comment was singled out for action, but your reaction here is neither helpful nor constructive. Now, I have explained to you how to pursue an appeal of my action. If you want to do that, the Arbitration Enforcement page is thataway. If you don't want to do that, you're going to have to live with the action I took, preferably without being disruptive any further on the topic. Either way, this noticeboard is of no use to you in getting your comment restored, and asking that someone unilaterally reverse a discretionary sanctions action is of even less use unless your intention is to get somebody blocked for crossing one of our bright line rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly support admins using discretionary sanctions remove anything from talkpages that isn't, realistically, a useful contribution to the discussion and is likely to wind up other editors. I think admins were in dereliction by their inaction during the August RM. Given that it is settled that WP is using female pronouns for Manning, her gender is not realistically up for discussion and dissent about it is not useful at this stage. There is no issue of free speech or "chilling" discussion here, because WP:NOTAFORUM. Formerip (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing the user involved has been blocked and topic banned I think this should be closed now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. The block could be easily seen as a violation of WP:INVOLVED and the topic ban is, in my opinion, a violation of common decency. Personally, I think Fluff should have the block button taken away, but we all know that won't happen. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should be closed either. There seems to be significant abuse of authority here, and if people are blocked for the sort of !votes discussed here, then the whole move request is compromised. The discussion guidelines do say "Do not share your opinion on whether or not Manning is really a woman" but that has already been broken numerous times by people saying "Chelsea Manning is a woman". StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I'll reiterate for you what I told Kosh a few lines up: if you want to contest the actions I took under Discretionary Sanctions policy today, you need to make that appeal either to Arbcom directly, or to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. As much as discussion here might feel cleansing to you, it can do nothing about my redaction or the block because this isn't the route to appeal Discretionary Sanction actions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)wikt:discretionary: Available at one's discretion; able to be used as one chooses; left to or regulated by one's own discretion or judgment. That's what "discretionary sanctions" mean; the sandwich was well within the role the community elected her to perform. NE Ent 22:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary doesn't mean "block anyone who holds a view you disagree with." I thought Wikipedia was opposed to censorship. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's mostly applicable to mainspace. WP:NPA is a fat fuzzy gray line that Wikipedia has perennially quibbled over, never converging to a common consensus; KV was clearly in the gray. Given that the original discussion spiraled out of control into a huge mess that ArbCom is now trying to unravel, quick decisive admin action is both authorized (by WP:AC/DS) and warranted. NE Ent 23:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So why is it that the people who said "Manning is a woman" aren't facing sanctions? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply, I reject the claims that this action was warranted. The comment by KV was not egregious. The fact that it led to a block shows that the situation was wrongfully and high-highhandedly escalated. Fluffernutter caused a lot of the disruption and now she is hiding behind Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions. This is censorship. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 23:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

KV wasn't blocked or banned simply for making a comment, and people claiming that this is the case are either badly misinformed or deliberately acting in bad faith. When Fluffernutter redacted Kosh's comment, which was already in violation of the discussion guidelines Kosh claimed to have read, Kosh was warned that his comments were inappropriate, and repeatedly posted them back in anyway. Had he left well enough alone, he would still be editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I never said he was blocked simply for his comment. The supposedly offensive comment should never have been redacted and Fluffernutter is the one who should have left well enough alone. She didn't and look what happened. The discussion guidelines are not being applied both ways and now a somewhat involved admin has handed out both a block and a topic ban. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

While not a cited reason, I seem to recall that Kosh is currently under a 0RR restriction, as well. Repeatedly reverting the redaction doesn't quite work with that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I refer AutomaticStrikeout to this principle, which appears to be likely to pass in the Manning arbitration case. Kosh's comment was not in keeping with that spirit of non-discrimination, and as such it was entirely appropriate for Fluffernutter to redact it, and to apply a block and ban under the discretionary sanctions when said redaction was reverted. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this fiasco shows that there is a clear spirit of discrimination against people who hold the view that Kosh holds. Besides, that principle hasn't passed yet, so it shouldn't be enforced yet. At any rate, it's a bit of a stretch to even say that Kosh's comment was offensive. Have we really become a community that will only accept popular and politically correct views? Apparently, because I see no action being taken against the users who violated the discussion guidelines in the opposite direction from Kosh. Meanwhile, look what happened to him. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 12:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh wasn't blocked for his views. Kosh was blocked for his behavior. The opposite views of Arkady Rose (Support #47) were also modified by Fluffernutter and yet Arkady Rose isn't blocked. Why? Because she didn't edit war with the administrator enforcing discretionary sanctions.--v/r - TP 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Kosh was blocked because he rejected the suppression of his views. If the silly discussion guidelines are being enforced more evenly than I thought, then I suppose that's a good thing. Nevertheless, it is not Wikipedia's job to endorse specific belief systems and attempt to censor dissenting opinions. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 13:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a very thin line between objecting to the move and being offensive. It's easy to cross. So it comes down to an editor's intentions on whether or not to sanction the editor. Fluffernutter felt, in good faith, that the line had been crossed. Right or not, she's the only administrator who has volunteered and so we must offer her some level of support within reasonable discretion. I think she was inside reasonable bounds. Initially, because Fluffernutter couldn't know of Kosh intended to be offensive or not, she simply redacted the offensive part of the remarks leaving the vote and the majority of its text available. I believe that that action alone, leaving the vote and the majority of its content, defeats the argument of censorship. It was Kosh restoring it, despite other editors calmly trying to nudge him in a less offensive (even if his comments were to be judged on a already less or least offensive nature) manner of expressing himself. Kosh restored the comments. At that point, intent is expressed and Fluffy was forced to take a preventative measure by blocking Kosh to prevent him from restoring the remarks. Do I expect you to agree with her? No, I'm sure that some folks see it in a different light than her. But, ask yourself, was she so far outside of reason as to be abusive? If not, we need to trust her for now so she can focus on more pertinent matters like enforcing civility in this RM.--v/r - TP 13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What if Kosh wasn't trying to be offensive? What if he actually believes what he wrote? Is it our job to tell him what he is allowed to believe? I'd say we are setting a dangerous precedent here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. He has a right to believe whatever he wants. And if this were a US government owned site, he'd have the right to express those beliefs here. But it's not, it's a private site. And we're not telling him what he's allowed to believe, we're telling him what he's allowed to share on a private site.--v/r - TP 14:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. That's why we have discretionary sanctions. And that ban can be appealed at AE, and debated on the merits, and maybe it gets lifted - or maybe not. But we don't get to undo it here - nor should we. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And why is that? Explain to me why we shouldn't be allowed to discuss it here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 12:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently, ArbCom declared from their ivory towers that, other than them or the enforcing admin, only a consensus of uninvolved admins can overturn a sanction and said discussion has to be at AE or AN. Us lowly peasants ain't having no say, so we should get back to the fields and toil!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. It sounds like there is too much consolidation of power going on here. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 13:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you mean that Arbcom limited the ability of editors to be needlessly inflammatory in their comments about a very hotly contested issue, one that has already seen multiple blocks, a wheel war, three requested moves, and an Arbcom case, then yeah - I guess you're right. The fact that we're even having this argument should be proof enough that discretionary sanctions are warranted. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

We both know that is not what I mean. Here's part of my problem: Fluffernutter handed out a block and a topic ban without having to jump through a bunch of hoops to do so. However, if someone wants to appeal those sanctions, they have to go through a lot of hassle. If there's any gray area whatsoever, the admin is likely to win. Maybe this is why so many of us are starting to get really frustrated with the hierarchy we've been placed in. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you're smarter than that. The hoops were jumped through earlier in the Sexology case and passed as discretionary sanctions. Fluffernutter's action is an extension of work that has already been done. That's what discretionary sanctions are and we're all aware that they apply here.--v/r - TP 17:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notwithstanding, there is a problem when an admin becomes involved in a dispute with an editor and then proceeds to sanction that editor. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing the issue. You believe that Fluffernutter's use of rollback means she is acting as an editor. At no time was she acting as an editor. She even made this clear to Kosh. She was wearing her admin hat the entire time, has made is clear for weeks she's wearing her admin hat in this topic area, and enforces a discretionary sanctions. She was never in a disagreement - ever. Kosh may have been in a disagreement, but Fluffernutter was simply and impassionately carrying out her duties. AetomaticStrikeout - you've switch arguments three times now. First you argued she made an unacceptable action, and I countered that it was within reasonable discretion. Then you argued that she is making you jump through unreasonable hoops, and I countered that she is using discretionary sanctions which already went through their own hoops. Now you're argument is that she was in a disagreement with Kosh. At what point will you quit changing the argument? I've explained away many of your concerns. Can you please accept that she hasn't abused her admin bit? You're welcome to disagree with her on her action, even welcome to open up an WP:AE appeal, but I think it's time that you accept she didn't abuse anyone or anything.--v/r - TP 17:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I think: She made an unacceptable action in abusing her tools to block and topic ban someone who was reacting to unnecessary actions on her part. Unfortunately, her actions were covered under discretionary sanctions, making the appeals process more complicated. Thankfully, someone else already opened an appeal at AE, so at least it will hopefully get reviewed. To address one of your points, Fluffernutter doesn't become uninvolved simply because she tells Kosh she's uninvolved. Even if she was wearing her admin hat the whole time and wasn't technically involved, it still would have been better to let someone else handle it. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how anyone that followed the original Manning RM (Or everything that has happened since then) even slightly could think that the original comment Kosh made was not provocative and inflammatory to a sizable percentage of editors, since it was without question one of the kinds of comments that led to the train wreck a month ago that ArbCom and others are still trying to clean up. That's my view and that was the view of Fluffernutter and her view on this is the one that matters. She took the same view of the Support vote by Arkady Rose. It's just that only one of those editors (To my knowledge) then decided that the discretionary in discretionary sanctions referred to them (Likewise, some of the editors on this page seem to feel it refers to them). That is what eventually led Kosh to be blocked. If you have issue with the very clear processes in place, then fight back against them in general. Don't just go after someone who is following them.

And for everyone saying that there are Support comments that are also a problem, well, point them out instead of making general accusations of unfairness on the part of Fluffernutter. Simple Sarah (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

They have been pointed out in various places, including here. Furthermore, stating that Fluffernutter's view "is the one that matters" could also be seen as provocative and inflammatory. Her opinion is not more important than anyone else's just because you happen to agree with her. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:05, 2 October 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.

Without intending to reopen the discussion, I'd like to make a link to where this has been appealed to on the Administration Enforcement noticeboard, as the closing notice recommends. Of course someone at the Administration Enforcement noticeboard is writing that it shouldn't actually have been appealed to there... but so it goes. --GRuban (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(Pro-Gun?) Administrator Needed...

Resolved

 – --v/r - TP 17:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

...to close Wikipedia:Ani#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban, above, where in my totally biased opinion a totally objective consensus is easily discerned. First admin to act will not be furloughed (military personnel excluded). Drmies (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like this was directed at me :). Actually, I think a pro-gun or anti-gun administrator is not needed, but an impartial or uncaring one ;). I'll take a look.--v/r - TP 16:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just stuck the headline in to get some attention, hehe. Your bonus, at the C4 level, has been approved. The rest will have to wait for Congress to act one way or another. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: "uncaring" admins - I'm shocked shocked, that TParis would say this! Everyone knows that Wikipedia's admins are the most tender, loving and caring group of people on the Internets!!! If I could, I'd give every single one of them a great big bear hug and a kiss. They are truly the "Beautiful People" of the 21st century. Beyond My Ken (vote for BMK for dogcatcher!) 02:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the word TParis was looking for was "disinterested". I have no doubt he is always caring in his actions, even when disinterested. Risker (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh.... never mind. </Emily Latella> Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Disinterested does fit better. I care about the encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 13:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Implied legal threat

Resolved

 – False alarm. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User (Husky2014) is blanking page claiming it violates copyright laws (on this page). Reporting in the spirit of WP:LEGAL. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Reporting a WP:COPYVIO concern is not a legal threat. Unless Husky2014 is threatening to bring action, there's no threat, and no administrative action for a legal threat is required. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't appear to be a legal threat - more vandalism at this point. I note that he was not approached FIRST before reported here ... not even welcomed with the rules as per WP:IGNORANCE ES&L 17:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking more and more like vandalism, especially after this edit. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• (e/c) That's not a legal threat, nor is it reporting copyvio issues; they're just copying the notice above the edit window. It's a newbie either making test edits or screwing around, depending on your level of AGF. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I forgot to add the template on her page, but at this point it's moot since it's not a violation. Again, my bad. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of some test modules

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 can't work out how to tag these for CSD, so can an admin please delete this lot as G2 (tests):

KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 1 October 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.

IP 90.212.73.227 adding derogatory and racist comments to article

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

---

The following IP account Special:Contributions/90.212.73.227 has made a couple of racist comments about foreign nationals in the Coleraine article.

• Revision as of 21:05, 1 October 2013 [97] - "who all need to fuck off and go back to Poland where they belong"
• At 21:22, 1 October 2013 I revert and warn the editor: User_talk:90.212.73.227
• Revision as of 22:46, 1 October 2013 [98] - "who come here and steal our jobs and dont learn english"

They clearly ignored the warning and merit a ban for their racist derogatory additions to the Coleraine article.

Mabuska ^(talk) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the report. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 October 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 personal attacks by IP user 92.238.252.159

For the past couple of months, an IP user (last signed as 92.238.252.159) has been very pointy at Talk:Sega Genesis and Talk:Sega CD. He has been blocked before for this. At the center of the issue is that current consensus resides in maintaining the article names as "Sega Genesis" and Sega CD", their North American names, compared to "Mega Drive" and "Mega-CD", their worldwide names. There are a number of reasons for this particular naming selection, and an RFC on the naming debate closed in June as no consensus. It's been a hot-button issue for years, but that's beside the point. What is a problem, though, is that this user chooses to sling around personal attacks, such as this one, where the term "you nationalist yanks" is used in a derogatory fashion, and the user continues to hammer his point about bias without providing any significant evidence to back up his claim, see here for more and note the IP users are all believed to be the same person. This is not the only time he uses the term; the rest of the talk page has more. The user has also had edit summaries removed for personal attacks on Talk:Sega Genesis. What I'm looking for at this point is for the personal attacks to stop; for a longer block for the IP user to settle down and understand that this is not permitted. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This user wants you to censor all non yanks 92.238.252.159 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's another personal attack. You're really not helping your case here. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact, you are asking for users with a different view to yours to be censored, you are a yank... some revision on English comprehension might help you differentiate attacks from statements of fact... 92.238.252.159 (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for 1 month. That was a very easy decision to make. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) As I've said repeatedly, all we ask is that you come to the discussion actually prepared to discuss the issue and to bring information to the table that hasn't already been argued to death over years of consensus discussions. You obviously have an axe to grind, and I won't miss you if the international group of admins on this board decide to take action to curb your disruption. But you also obviously haven't been paying ANY attention to what we've been saying.

For anyone who's interested in looking into this further, there is a consensus on Talk:Sega Genesis that prolonging the dispute over that article's title without any new information would be considered disruptive, and I've given multiple warnings there for people to cool it with the accusations of North American bias. I also added an WP:Editnotice to that talk page specifically pointing editors to the title FAQ, which was also established through extensive consensus discussion. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Three yanks collude to stifle discussion, way to disprove that North American bias 41.130.195.106 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the editor's back on a different IP now: this edit came in just moments after the above IP was blocked. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Original IP reblocked with TPA revoked due to continued attacks, even in their unblock request. This IP blocked with the same settings as the original as the loudest of quacking WP:DUCKs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bwahaha, I was amused by your reference to {{megaphoneduck}}. :) ->  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe {{megaphoneduck|ultimate}} ( 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny) would be more appropriate! Ansh666 00:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; unfortunatly templates don't display in edit summaries or log entries. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Need block adjusted

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.

---

Mayugamou316 (talk · contribs) has been abusing their talk page as a sudo spam article. Can some admin please either salt or adjust the block? Werieth (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 2 October 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.

Part II

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.

---

Jamiah Citizen (talk · contribs) is doing the same thing. Werieth (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:43, 3 October 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:Grapestomper9

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.

---

In re comments here, everything from insults to a call to censor everything I've posted. Am I to be subjected to this, yet slapped with a block for less? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Grapestomper9 called Trekphiler a "dirtbag". This is unacceptable. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And elsewhere, a post so full of misrepresentations, I hardly know where to begin. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Also a "creature" you were called. Not very diplomatic language at all. Doc talk 05:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The following has been moved from a thread at WT:NPA opened by the same user.

On this page, Grapestomper9 (talk · contribs) has made his disagreement over content personal, with comments ranging from "juvenile" to "German hater" to "dirtbag". I presume this qualifies as incivil, but I find no way to have any Admin respond to it, despite having been on the receiving end of a block for (AFAIK) much less. So, am I forced to put up with it, yet be subject to punishment? Or is there actual fair treatment here? If so, how do I get it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler. I did not put any block on you of any kind. You have deleted every single word I have had to say on the Day of Deceit article, despite the fact that much of what I had to say was corrections of your juvenile and dirtbag extreme and radical point of view on this subject. Your outright mis-quoting. German hater came up in an extremely obtuse way (that you obviously are too full of wind to understand) when you accused me of essentially agreeing with holocause deniers (Which is absolutely absurd) simply because I agree with the idea that the US provoked the Japanese into attacking our assets so we could enter into the war. You used "weasel" language to imply most germans are Holocause deniers. Shall I mention your threats and your promise of obscene insults if I did not leave "YOUR" article alone? Well, I have grown tired of your dangerously radical and violent tendencies and threats and have not edited either the day of deceit article or the related McCollum memo article since, out of fear for "my" personal safety. I do not need a creature like you threatening me.Grapestomper9 (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

♠You're joking, right? Fear for your safety? Called Germans (or you) "holocaust deniers"?

♠OTOH, "dangerously radical and violent tendencies and threats"? Really? I invite anyone, indeed everyone, to read the linked posts. I invite everyone to read every single word I wrote on that page. Find even a single threat, let alone one of actual violence.

♠Then there's this....

♠"juvenile and dirtbag extreme and radical point of view". Obviously, somebody can't stand his POV being challenged. I rest my case. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

End of moved material. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is fun. Trekphiler, you are referring to a block from three years ago? Don't bring that up; it has no relation to this case or this editor. Anyway, to the meat of the matter: it's a decent morning here and I don't feel like blocking anyone yet. But Grapestomper9 will have to stop with the nonsense--the sneers, the ad hominems, the accusations (like this kind of stuff) or they will be blocked. No more of that, please. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that any more personal attacks, including in edit summaries, will result in a block. As an aside, I actually found the "dangerous villain" comment rather amusing due to its ridiculousness, makes Trekphiler sound like a Bond baddie. GiantSnowman 14:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

He's lucky ya'all have gotten here first. I think calling Trekphiler a "German people hater" is sufficient enough for a block among other things. I was about to do it until I saw you two here. I guess I'll just repeat the same, anymore accusations or battlefield behavior will result in a block.--v/r - TP 15:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• We're the good cops, TParis. No, the language is unacceptable, but I typically don't see much use in blocking afterward, without a kind of final warning (which is how I intended my comment above). If it happens again, I'll be glad to pull the trigger. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a 3yr old block, & clearly I'm being held to a different standard. I don't know why that surprises me anymore. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to relax, guy. Everyone here has sided with you and Grapestomer9 is on the verge of a block. What are you so bent up about?--v/r - TP 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

[ec with TParis, with whom I am in perfect agreement this time.] If anyone is interested, they may look at User_talk:Trekphiler/Archive_3#Bad_warning, where one will find ample warning that a block was going to happen if certain behavior continued; since that behavior continued, the block did happen. So I don't know what "different standard" is being referred to here, and it's a moot point anyway--I just note that since Trekphiler saw fit to bring up some perceived wrong from the past, they opened themselves up to an investigation of those circumstances. It has nothing to do with the current thread, and I suggest Trekphiler stop digging, and that they be pleased that Grapestomp has been duly warned. And that's all I have to say on the topic; as far as I'm concerned we can close this, unless Grapestomp wants to come by and say the right thing. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 2 October 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.

Continuous unconstructive edits/vandalism by 71.46.49.251, possibly block

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

---

User:71.46.49.251 has a long story of disruptive edits (User_talk:71.46.49.251) and two previous blocks.

After the last block expired on June 2013, the user has made unconstructive edits to several articles. The user has also made lawful edits during that time.

The IP in question is assigned to Bright House Networks, which in turn assigns IPs dynamically to most of its customers. Despite this, a look at Special:Contributions/71.46.49.251 shows that most of the edited articles are related to musicians/music bands, both before and after the last block, which could suggest that the IP has been used by only one person.

I suggest applying an anon-only block like the last time, even if the user has not been warned since the last block. Facugaich (talk) 05:54, 2 October 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 banning Axxxion from editing Edward Snowden

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.

---

Axxxion (talk · contribs · block user) has made at least 5 times mass removals of 2 due and sufficiently sourced sections (‎"Morales plane incident" and "Temporary asylum in Russia") from Edward Snowden without consensus in the talk page. His removals of the said contents (reverted by 4 different editors including me) were slow but consistent which are very unproductive. He was previously asked to stop in his user talk page and the article talk page to no avail. Therefore I request banning him from editing Edward Snowden, make him discuss before another removal. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Axxxion should be given a last chance to agree to stop, he should give a clear cut answer to that request in this thread. If he refuses to do so, then a ban should be imposed. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: usually on AN/I diffs should be presented accompanying the request/accusation/etc to make it easier for other editors/admins to track the core of the issue. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 01:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hes had enough warnings Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Gaba_p. I'm not diffs hunter especially in such case. All edits subtracting 3,447~4,405 characters in bold red font shown in Axxxion's contributions are the problematic removals in question. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose they should visit the talk page. But on that same talk page they are incorrectly accused of vandalism. At least Axxxion is providing intelligible and reasonable edit summaries, and their edits seem perfectly fine with me: the article is yet another current affairs affair with every possible bit of "news" thrown in; the removal of so many examples of "Lon Snowden also said" is article improvement. Axxxion is up against a group of editors who disagree, though, so they should seek the talk page and I hope they do. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

And really, do we have to call for a topic ban immediately? There's mention of a "slow revert war" on the talk page--but they weren't "reverting", they were making series of edits with proper edit summaries. Axxxion was reverted, twice now, not the other way around. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The trimming of the Morales section is perfectly legitimate as there is now a special article on the subject. Why should the section fully repeat that article? Opinions of Lon without anybody else's obviously violate NPOV; also opinions are in other sections.Axxxion (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also ask that measures be taken against those who charge me with vandalism on my talkpage ([99]) and label my edits as unproductive in edit comments and on my talkpage. They are based on the Wiki Guidelines and rules. It is obvious that there are some contributors engaged in this article who seek to pad this biography (the factual sections) with totally one-sided opinions and ideological rhetoric instead of laying out basic facts. Why has the "Prosecution" section been deleted? His prosecution is a FACT, whereas Lon's comments are mere opinions of a interested party.Axxxion (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The article must be further radically trimmed as it is simply too big and unwieldy (as well as unencyclopedic). The "Reactions" section would have to go as a separate article, apparently.Axxxion (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)18:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Axxxion, though I agree with most of your edits, you are clearly not listening. This is obviously a somewhat contentious affair; you must use the talk page (I'm bolding this in hopes of you paying attention). You open yourself up to all kinds of charges--"not listening" being the first, editing against consensus being a second. After all, there are editors who don't agree with you, and there is no consensus on the talk page--there's only two editors (myself included) who have broken a lance for your edits. Now, I hope no one starts reverting you, cause then we have a shit storm, but I should warn you that your actions are easily perceived as disruptive, and if you keep this up I cannot defend your actions, since it will be your behavior that's the problem. SEEK THE TALK PAGE (there, bold and in all-caps). Drmies (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice, Drmies, but there is no need for seeking consensus where the point is observing basic rules of this Resource. There is nothing ideological about my standpoint and my edits: Should a section copy in full the corresponding Main Article? Should the narration of someone's biography be peppered by ideology-driven commentary when there is a special section for that? These are basic technical issues as well as the size of an article. It is obvious that the article has been hijacked by a gang of ideology-driven wikileakniks who seek to use it as a platform for promoting their philosophy and political ideas in violation of the fundamental principles hereof. I would repeat my plea that measures be taken against those who flagrantly violate the Ethical standards of the Resource.Axxxion (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem, and why a topic ban is requested. Your view is that other editors have some horrible POV ("gang of ideology-driven wikileakniks") (a claim for which you've offered no evidence) and that - if i am reading you correctly - consensus and talk page activity is unnecessary because you are clearly Right. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, here are some diffs of Axxion's reverted edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 6. petrarchan47tc 00:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• The blind are leading the blind. One group of editors claim they're right and got nothing more to say than "you're wrong, see talk page", and their opponent claims, in turn, that they're Right, with a capital R. The one group (foolishly) makes my case for me by listing their reverts of the other editor, while the other editor vilifies the rest. Axxxion, there IS a need for seeking consensus, if only so you could get a talk page agreement that your edits are correct. They are correct, but you're acting like a total jackass and you're going to get blocked for edit warring. So that's all. What do you want? Play wikichrist and get crucified knowing that your stuff was good, or do you want a better article and prove the others wrong? I don't even know what shit like "a gang of ideology-driven wikileakniks" is supposed to mean--what I do know is that this is not going to end well: edit warring is edit warring even if you're right.

  Now, you all can ping me, or some other admin here on this board, when you see the light. Petrarchan, in case I did not make myself clear enough: your side is, apart from saying "Axxxion should seek the talk page", completely wrong, and y'all's behavior is an embarrassment. There will be no ban, and there is no need for admin action just yet (so someone can close this, if they like): you all, on both sides, seem perfectly capable of derailing your own train. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Drmies. I need you to explain what you mean by "my side" and "completely wrong". Maybe I'm stupid, but I truly haven't a clue what you're talking about, and frankly i feel as if i've just been slapped upside the head for some reason. Diffs would help, but you could probably explain without them, though I would appreciate a bit of a gentler approach if you don't mind. I'm here to help build the Wiki, and I am not knowingly doing anything wrong, so clearly I need some guidance. Thanks. petrarchan47tc 00:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if I misread your intentions with the diffs: let me state the case one more time, and I will leave you out of it; I thought you were also on the ban Axxxxion bandwagon. It doesn't really matter anyway. One side edits, and gives proper explanations in edit summaries. Another side reverts, offering nothing whatsoever in terms of explanation. The one side does not seek the talk page--foolishly. (And then goes on a rant about the Injustice of the world, foolishly.) The other side tries to get the first guy banned. The other side claims the one side is edit-warring, when the "reverts" (hence why I put you on their team) are reverts of the one side (Axxxxxxion), not by the that one side (Axxxxion). You'll have to forgive me my exasperation: I just reverted this, which is not just a continuation of an edit war (ie., pot calling kettle black), but also inept because it pasted an earlier huge version of the article into the current version, duplicating the information. Again, if I painted you with the wrong brush, my apologies. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would only add that I would support the idea of indefinite ban on editing the article as the topic is too controversial, current and contested, in order to keep it encyclopedic and not hot-debate-thread-like. It is difficult to foresee any new information emerging any time soon pertaining to the subject matter of this biography as the person in question has disappeared from public view for an indefinite (pardon, temporary) period of time. As somebody who has lived all my life in Russia I know full well that temporary measures in that benighted realm are the most enduring ones (a joke on the sidelines). On a more serious note, I have a much longer experience in Wiki than my record here might suggest (mainly in the Russian section) and I am very cognizant of the fact that when a group of editors (some of them occasionally same editors under different names) start reverting your obviously legitimate edits demanding discussion on the talkpage, they mean obstruction and nothing more, and thus any discussion on such terms is essentially going along with their sabotage. I am ready to discuss their arguments on the talk page why they think a scarcely relevant section should duplicate in full the existing article and why they think that facts of this bio should be interspersed with anyone's opinionated comments -- in obvious contravention of the basic tenets of this Project, after they have presented such arguments on the talkpage. Thus far, there is none.Axxxion (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. You argue from a serious amount of bad faith, and the BRD cycle suggests that after your B and their R, you should Discuss. I have tried to defend your edits, but I can't defend your attitude. This doesn't bail out those who tried to get you banned, of course, but it doesn't help your cause either. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 5 October 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.

Admin not explaining why he or she believes a passage is consistent with WP:Label

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 lede of the Men's Rights Movement article contains a sentence which appears to be in violation of WP:Label. Specifically:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has effectively forbidden further discussion of this issue on the article's talk page.[100] The same admin insists that there is a consensus in favor of the "misogynist" language and has repeatedly sanctioned users who believe the language should be changed, insisting that the arguments for a change are "weak", and saying that people asking for change are "disruptive".[101][102][103]. Full disclosure -- I was also the recipient of such a sanction, but that's not my concern here.[104]. In light of all of this, one would expect bbb23 to explain why it is he or she believes it is clear that the passage is not in violation of WP:Label. After all, if the arguments for changing the passage are weak, then the WP:Label argument must be weak, and there would be a reason for that weakness which could be explained. However, bbb23 has not, when requested, provided such an explanation.[105]. Furthermore, the apparent decision that this passage is consistent with WP:Label appears to be in contradiction with other decisions involving the same policy. For example, after a lengthy discussion, the Weather Underground is not described as a terrorist organization in the lede of its article, though the controversy of whether or not the label is appropriate is discussed in the body. That, despite the considerably stronger sourcing for the "terrorist" description of the WU than for the "misogynist" description of the MRM.[106]William Jockusch (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what Bbb has or has not said, but LABEL is quite clear: "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That condition is clearly met, judging from [107] and [108]. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That depends on what constitutes "widely used". Note that as shown above, the usage of "terrorist" in the Weather Underground case is considerably wider than the usage of "misogynist" in the MRM case. Indeed, the "misogynist" sources are both considerably more obscure and less numerous than the "terrorist" sources.William Jockusch (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed plenty of times on the talk page; please check the archives. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has, I agree with you. But it is remarkable that until your note above, I can't find anyone addressing the WP:Label issue from the pro-inclusion-of-misogyny-accusation side. What consitutes wide use? In the MRM case, we have some scholarly sources, up to seven so far I believe, including the "Gender and Sexuality" and "Women, Men, and Gender" links you provide above. In the WU case, we have the NYT, the WSJ, and Time magazine, with a total of over 50 references linked here.[109]. Which list of examples better exemplifies "widely used"?William Jockusch (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So you have seven scholarly sources backing up the statement, but you want it removed from the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct, they don't add up to "widely used" as they are relatively obscure. Additionally, per WP:UNDUE, a significant viewpoint should have prominent adherents. And the whole point of WP:Label is that before you label someone in a certain way, the term should be in wide use. Seven relatively obscure sources does not constitute "wide use." Additionally, none of the sources are particularly prominent, which makes it WP:UNDUE. Note that in the Weather Underground case, 50 sources, including prominent sources like the NYT, the WSJ, and Time Magazine did not amount to sufficiently "widely used" to put it into the lede. Yet in this case, the list of relatively obscure scholarly sources are apparently enough to put it into the lede. That's grossly inconsistent. Additionally, I want admins who are enforcing something to explain themselves in regard to the core issue, which bbb23 is failing to do.William Jockusch (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, in some cases (and I don't know if this is the situation here), a proposal has been sufficiently discussed that there is a clear consensus on what to do. At that point, it can be disruptive to keep bring it up over and over again. The best example is the people who want to add conspiracy theories to Barack Obama. They won't even entertain that on the talk page, since the last 9000 discussions came out the same way. So I guess it all depends on how much the issue has been discussed in the past. That's my view, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm here mainly to address my not responding to William's messages on my talk page. With respect to the first message, I intentionally didn't respond because he didn't ask for a response. He asked for me to "apply the policy the same way it is applied elsewhere on Wikipedia." So, that wasn't a request to explain any action I took. I suppose it was just his generalized disagreement with actions I've taken with respect to the sanctions in place for MRM-related pages. His second post ("It would be polite to explain yourself"), I intended to respond to but forgot. And my response would have been similar to what I just said.

William has been sanctioned twice by me. One was a 36-hour block back on June 6, 2013, for violating WP:1RR, and the other was a 3-month topic ban imposed on June 28, 2013. So, William can't be objecting to either of those because the edit-warring violation is stale and the topic ban has expired. My recollection (I'm not going to dredge up diffs) is that he did object to the topic ban at the time, and his appeal was denied, or at least not granted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Bbb. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. Not granted is correct. But, in the past, you have stated that a consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments on the various sides, not by the number of users.[110] So if the WP:Label argument is a strong one, the assertion that there is a consensus becomes false, does it not? Bbb23, would you please address this point specifically. I'm happy to move this to your talk page if that is preferable.William Jockusch (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything more to say that I haven't already said or hasn't been said by others in this topic. I agree with what @Drmies: said about WP:LABEL. I agree with Drmies that this issue has been repeatedly discussed. In the same vein, I agree with @Mark Arsten: that it "can be disruptive to keep bring[ing] it up over and over again." This is all pretty much a rehash of the same issue. You just refuse to accept that, and you find it frustrating. Not only can I not help you with that, but these kinds of issues are why the probationary sanctions were imposed. Please don't move this to my talk page. The best thing for you to do is to drop the (re)discussion and move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would accept it if anyone would address the core issue in a convincing way. That hasn't happened. I understand that you wish the issue would go away. I would drop it immediately if someone could explain how the relatively thin sourcing for "mysogynist" qualifies as "widely used" while the much stronger sourcing for "terrorist" does not. I'm afraid you haven't done that. For now, I will simply note that, for now, bbb23 has, sadly, again failed to address the core issue when asked to. And Drmies has briefly addressed it (thanks), but in an unconvincing way, and has not come back to deal with the problem in his or her initial statement. Therefore, the issue is not closed.William Jockusch (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that the WU article clearly states "The Weather Underground was referred to in its own time and afterwards as a terrorist group", which was one of the options proposed in that RfC. This is not different from the MRM statement "The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist"--which is, if anything, more specific and less categorical than the WU statement. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for not simply walking away from the issue. I greatly appreciate the respect implied by the fact that you are continuing to respond, and appear to be considering the arguments. The WU article does make a statement, but not in the lede. Instead, it is buried in the legacy section. That's a tremendous difference. Additionally, the WU article presents both sides of the "terrorist" issue. The MRM lede does not do this, and an attempt to do so was summarily rejected, and the person who made the attempt was warned. I could dredge up the diffs if that is important. Furthermore, the WU says, specifically, who characterized it as a terrorist group [namely, the FBI]. While it also, as you note, makes a non-specific statement, it does at least present the evidence. Summing up, the MRM article, base on much weaker sourcing, treats its subject worse in two or three different ways: (1) statement in the lede, not the body; (2) does not attempt to present both sides; (3) failing to identify who, specifically, made the accusation [which I regard as a third way, but you appear not to].William Jockusch (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

William, I really think by now this should take place on the talk page: we're into content, and no action is likely to be taken against Bbb (nor, unless I'm mistaken, are you still asking for any). Perhaps you can copy some of the relevant paragraphs to the talk page, where a more interested audience may be found. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are right of course, this should be on the article talk page. But as William has noted that isn't feasible due to Bbb23. Arkon (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies has now said [111] that I'm welcome to move the discussion to the MRM talk page. But I don't want a special dispensation from anyone. A topic should be either allowed in a certain place or not. Currently, this topic isn't allowed on the MRM talk page. I think that's unfortunate, but until the prohibition is removed in general, I intend to respect it. Therefore, I've moved it to my own talk page, here [112]. I hope people will contribute there. The discussion with Drmies, in particular, shows promise. I also hope that admins will not be quick to sanction anyone for contributing. A fair discussion is really not possible when one side feels under continual threat of sanction.William Jockusch (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

As Drmies has stated, the discussion should talk place on the talk page. A user space discussion will have no validity. Bbb23's close of 28 June is, in Wikipedia terms, "ancient history," and he did not impose a sanction on further discussion, as indicated by a lack of entry in the sanction log. Given the fact that the 28 June RFC, although not allowed to run to completion, was running very close to snow keep, due diligence impels me to warn William Jockusch that they should tread very lightly: any and all discussion should be focused on content, not the behavior of other editors and new (not raised previously) arguments backed by reliable sources introduced. NE Ent 12:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, it should be on the article's talk page, and I wish you were right about the ancient history. But as I note above, Bbb23 has continued to sanction people for alleged policy violations by bringing this up on the MRM page [113], while simultaneously refusing to engage intellectually with the question of whether or not the WP:Label argument is correct.[114][115] Administrators are expected to constructively discuss controversial issues [116], and I am concerned that Bbb23 does not appear to be meeting that standard.William Jockusch (talk) 01:43, 6 October 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.

Being wikihounded for sure

My letter to info-en-q at wikimedia dot org (re AFD on everything I am associated with musically in the open source and on the greatest online encyclopaedia ever

Haello all, delete my page but leave Adam Rabuck's and Mike Wagner and Josh Alpert's bands alone. This is my note to the ppl who are supposed to aid me against this duffbeerforme witchhunt against everything I have ever done.

[show]Copy of en email to WMF re a series of AfDs

Hi all, I know I am notable. So do you because I was told so unequivocally several times and have screenshots of chat room transcripts and more wiki archival correspondence to support what I started this email with. It's true. But Ellin Beltz and DuffBeerForMe in particular are ignorant of this.

The Dennis Donaghy page (abbrev 'DD') may need cleanup (again, first time Revent was the user that neutralized the DD page). But not AFD Deletion.

Why? I am a musician, subject to musician guidelines as far as living people.

Musician guideline 6 even as reads now and even without my note edit a few minutes ago, is how I was repeatedly told you can never really become un-notable unless they change the rules or something. IU may be mistaken but I have screenies showing vet wiki ppl tellin me this. Snapped shots just in case Duffbeerforme types who inevitably emerge to strike ppl like me (is how i truly feel) instead of getting up and earning a possible notability if thats what they want. I didnt ever want notability (actualy in '07 I unpromptedly made a page called Iteprunct (Multimedia Artist) but didnt contest the deletion, had fun with it. Having fun with this one too, as much as I can, but it's stressful and I thik it's unfair for this and here is why I characterize it as a witch hunt-

This Duffbeerforme person is AFD'ing everything I am associated with. He's trying to unnotable all the bands that made me notable. Look fer yerselves, dont believe me as I am the biased subject.

But seriously, I am aware Duffbeerforme is perfectly entitled to do these afd's the tags etc, but man it really seems like overkill, like you know, some OTHER motivation other than loving and defending the wikipedia. maybe jealousy or to prove a point, or to flex wiki muscles, I have no idea. I don't have and never had 'wiki-jealousy' or feel the need to slash away at ambiguously notable ppl. I have been simply trying to adhere to the rules, creating pages (Button King, Golden Eagle Regional Park and Sports Complex, and I just helped oon the Navy Yard Aaron Alexis thing) and not editing DD page except those two minor times after RRevents neut. where I made totally minor uncontroversial edits to correct wrong info.

Anyway, Duffbeerforme has quickly slapped tags on everything associated with me. I don't care what happens per se as long as it is FAIR.

It seems fishily unfair at this point to me and I am trying to be careful pointing fingers. It's weird for this user to start hacking away at a very admittedly grey area as if its some clear-cut flagrant violation of some highly prized moral code he's crusading on. I made a page about me, it was neutralized, I corrected it, uhh, LOTS of time transpired where I either did nothing, or edited other pages.

The DD page is a listing of a man, a person (me) who seems fairly notable despite fragmented open source citation material, and virtually or not virtually, admittedly absolutely zero major media. WHICH IS WHY I was characterized initially as OUTSIDER MUSICIAN! read the entry, thats me almost to a T but I digress...

For the interest of your time and efforts please realize Revent was the first user who neutralized the DD page. It can be done again, but DELETING Dennis Donaghy, Blanket Statementstein, and Dirt Bike Annie over this is seriously weird since I had nothing to do with either of those bands since I left, nobody was questioning their pages and now they are due to my page being suspect.

You guys should leave Adam's andd Mike's pages alone (Rabuck and Wagner) they don't deserve to be part of this witchhunt, if its me you want knock me out of the wikipedia I wanted that in the fucking first place

This is so frustrating, but thx guys (meaning guys and or gals)

Dennis

So that's it. I'm done. (with this afd defending myself bs, not done contributing quality volunteer work here lynching successful or no. squigglies. Phaedrx (talk) Phaedrx (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is the Help Desk for requesting help with using or finding your way around Wikipedia. AfDs should be discussed on the relevant discussion page. If you genuinely feel you are being wikihounded by a user systematically reverting your past contributions or nominating them for deletion, you can report it to administrators at WP:ANI, but their first concern, like any other users', will be with the individual merits of each revert or AfD nomination. Other than that I'm afraid there's little for us to do here, unless you have a specific question. - Karenjc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)"

in the interest of full disclosure I felt the need to prominently publish the above text, verbatim, on my personal Official Artist Website at www,phaedrx.com and use it as a platform to defend myself, however MY site's rules govern what I can do there. I am acting with love and in righteousness as I always do. I am not simply gonna sit and take this if I think it's wrong. Please be fair. Thanks. squigglies Phaedrx (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND THANK YOU ADMINISTRATORS. LOVE, PHAEDRX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrx (talk • contribs)

??? I have no idea what's is going on here, or what is being asked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief, I thought it was just me. Looking at his website, I'd guess he's cross with us. Not that what he's written there about us makes more sense. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So, we AfD'd some articles he created. Most were deleted by the community. He whined to the WMF, and is copy/pasting those e-mails here. He's mad because the community determined his "work" was not-Wikipedia-worthy ES&L 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, based on some of the comments, like "I know I am notable," I get the impression he's also talking about articles he or someone created about him, and is complaining that they were deleted. I think maybe WP:COI might apply as well. If this editor can establish through sources that the subjects of the articles involved, whether they directly relate to him or not, meet guidelines as per WP:NOTABILITY, then I guess he is free to create pages on them, although he probably should indicate his relation to the subjects of some of those articles somewhere. Otherwise, honestly, I don't know if there is anything that can really be done here, and I guess maybe, except for perhaps someone maybe advising the editor of some of the relevant policies and guidelines, this thread could be closed as there really doesn't seem to be in any way really actionable. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. He presumably ended up here because of my response to his email copypaste here at the help desk, which he's then repasted here along with my reply. The catalyst seems to be the AfDing of the article about himself but he was claiming a sustained campaign. I hatted him but offered links to WP:HOUND and here, with what I hoped was a suitable caveat, in case he found he did need admin assistance, but he's obviously not reading links or taking advice, just forum shopping. Sorry to give him this as another venue. -Karenjc (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this today, so it's new to me, too. It's a COI and a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. His associated IP account was blocked for edit warring on his bio [117], and in his dudgeon he's taken swipes at other editors [118], [119] and played with the music notability guideline page for WP:POINTY effect [120]. The subject interprets the AfD process as a personal attack, and is questioning the integrity and motives of other editors. JNW (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• A person with no wiki experience and little knowledge of our processes who is understandably (not "justifiably") irritated with what he sees as a concerted effort to wipe him off the wiki map. Pay it no mind, let the AfDs run their course, and this will all blow over. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're mostly right on all accounts, as usual, Drmies. But: he has edited at least since April, when he created his bio, and has subsequently edited primarily to debate his notability, using--per his admission and credible claim that there was no intent to sock--multiple accounts [121], [122]. This is someone with enough wiki knowledge to have created and, as much as possible, controlled their own bio. That's not unusual, but it neutralizes our response when the subject cries foul. JNW (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, maybe I should say "limited" wiki experience. I do believe that this will blow over. Then again, I'm not singled out on their website. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi: I was one of the people working with this editor from the beginning. On my advice he left a note on his userpage about his previous use of other names and various IPs, and has since edited under the single account of Phaedrx. The article on him was rewritten by an experienced editor to be more neutrally worded, and Phaedrx has been occasionally tweaking it to make it more accurate. (Those edits are in the record of course; I have the article watchlisted and did not see self-aggrandizement in them.) He's also written a couple of other articles about topics other than himself. His notability rests on his having played in various bands; now the bands have been taken to AfD as well as the article on him, and the nomination statement refers to it as a vanity article. Unfortunately his response culminated in his blanking most of the article while logged out, and I was forced to block him for edit warring, so he will not be responding for a few hours more. That's the short version. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a good summation of the history, Yngvadottir. Though for all your good intentions, perhaps you, too, will receive acknowledgment at Phaedrx's website. JNW (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you'd already been thanked [123]. This and Ellin Beltz's experience to be filed under the heading of 'No Good Deed'.... JNW (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As one of the ones getting the "barnstars" on this user's personal webpage, I too hope this blows over. The user asked me to review the article. I read the notability criteria for musicians, offered my observations on the situation and he was apparently displeased. While I found the writing in the article to be non-biased, the citations didn't have the content to back up the phrases in the article. Also I noticed that the subject's name as shown on the Wikipedia page did not occur in several of the citations listed, including "The New York Times". "The New Yorker" and "The Seattle Times" articles. There were valid links to his own website and a couple of blogs. Please let me know if there's anything else I have to do to reply to this ANI? Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to Yngvadottir and to Drmies (who thinks it'll blow over on its own), I have indefinitely blocked Phaedrx. It's mind-boggling (to me) that he's gotten this far with this kind of conduct. Too many examples of crap to justify giving him any additional latitude. That said, if any admin, including the two I've mentioned, wants to undo what I did (completely or partially), they can do so without consulting with me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

IP making unfounded accusations

IP 212.50.182.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been prodding a number of law-related articles created by David91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who no longer seems active on Wikipedia and is therefore unable to respond. While I have no reason to doubt that said articles do need reviewing by expert editors and the prods will follow their natural process, I consider that unfounded and malign accusations, such as these, supposedly "supported" by links that do not in any way support said accusations, should not be tolerated and need to be brought to admin attention and corresponding action taken, including removal of such comments.

Although circumstantial, I have consulted with an admin, who is also a lawyer and had a number of dealings with David91. Said admin is of the opinion that the latter is a lawyer with many years of law practice, which coincides with my opinion that the IP's accusations in that respect are, to say the least, unfounded. All of which seems to suggest that there is probably more behind this than an IP wanting to help clean up Wikipedia. --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While it is a hassle, you can remove PROD tags if you object, Technopat, and then if the IP user wants to nominate them at AfD, they will have to register and compose a nomination for each article which is more work than slapping a tag on an article. I'm glad you're watching over these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, Liz. While the prods themselves undergo their due process, I do think that the IP's unfounded accusations regarding the bona fides of a user who is no longer active should be removed by an admin.--Technopat (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, now I'm slightly doubting myself for assisting the IP user in the creation of this AFD. Seemed like the correct thing to do at the time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This may be worth mentioning. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The article "Civil recognition of Jewish divorce" was started by the then a 14-year-old Singaporean school pupil (([124]); ([125])), then in (secondary, or middle) school in England, but pretending to be a "retired "lawyer" " of 91 (([126]); (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive44#Searching_for_info_on_User:David91); (User:SouthernNights/Archive_5#David91); ([127]); ([128]); ([129]); ([130]); ([131]); ([132]) (see the words "retired" or "memory" on the pages given at the last six links)), who somehow thought that he knew Law by getting hold and reading one of (probably his father's) academic (not legal) titles (the difference between "academic books on law" and "legal books" is that between books about "how the law should be like, and how they should be changed accordingly" and books about "how should you practise the law as it is, as the law currently stands") (by one John Greenwood Collier, who only used to teach (a very specific area of) Law, possibly as a jurist and a legal theorist; there is no available evidence to suggest that Collier is himself ever actually a member of the Law Society as a solicitor or a member of the General Council of the English Bar as a barrister) (([133]); ([134]); ([135]); ([136]); ([137]); ([138]); ([139])) on the subject of Private International Law (Like his book, he even changed the name into "conflict of laws" after the title, and often wrote without even the article.), and started thinking that he had studied Law and could write about Law, when he had in fact neither—nothing, not even GCSE Law, International O-Levels Law, IGCSE Law, A-Level Law, International A-Level Law or IB Law (if the last in fact exists), as I had originally thought and opined accordingly, albeit upon a different page!


It was very unlikely that he was not giving out private legal advice, especially on divorce, perhaps by internal E-mail from his Wikipedia account ([140]); and the whole article was his private "crackpot" theory—like me, as an outsider, not being a Jew—on how to procure a Jewish religious divorce with unreasonable, immoral or unlawful terms (perhaps secured with the help and co-operation of an unethical Rabbi or Rabbis) to the benefit of one of the parties, and how to make such terms somehow "stick" and enforceable as if they were valid in civil and secular courts of law and record without the need to secure a separate civil and secular divorce for the marriage to be lawfully dissolved in the eyes of both Jewish (Orthodox) religious law and secular law, based upon his own private theories on Private International Law. (He believed that even mere academic theories, purely on the drawing board, of Private International Law (that he mistook as actual law), can somehow take precedence, nay override, national and international law without so much as a signed and ratified (and enacted, for some jurisdictions) treaty or convention.)


He certainly could not have been a "lawyer" (When was the English, Northern Ireland, Irish and Scottish distinction between solicitors, barristers, Scottish advocates and notaries public abolished?) in the United Kingdom and Islands or in any of the jurisdictions within any of the most other major Countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations and also retaining the use and application of the English Common law, if he thought that the Law Lords in the House of Lords (He simply described them as "the House of Laws", a layman's term, instead of "the Law Lords".) somehow had appellate jurisdiction over the Isle of Man, Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey—when the House of Lords did not, on almost all things since probably the last 200 to 325/350 years; the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey were treated as autonomous private fiefdoms of the English and British Crown, or, the Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, and the Parliaments of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not usually have jurisdiction over them, and it was long considered (by an extension of the legal principle—from the ruling detailed in the enrolled (with the Master of the Rolls) Memorandum from the Lords of the Privy Council for the King-in-Council, on the 9th. August 1722 ("...Acts of Parliament made in England, without naming the foreign Plantations, will not bind them ...")—to cover the Isle of Man and the Two Bailiwicks) that Acts of the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not apply or extend to the Isle of Man or to the Two Bailiwicks unless they are specifically named; hence their "Supreme Court" is (a Committee of) the Privy Council (originally a body of advisers to advise the King or the Queen exercising his or her Royal Prerogative independent of Parliament), not a few members (the Law Lords) sitting in a chamber (House of Lords) of the Legislature that is not normally supposed to have jurisdiction over those Islands) (A person who had actually been brought up in a British Colony when it was still a British colony would also highly unlikely to mistaken the Lord Laws/House of Lords with the Privy Council's Committee (JCPC), bearing in mind that Colonial capital cases in the 20th. century were sometimes referred to the Privy Council/JCPC, and were widely reported locally.); or even to think that the Isle of Man, Jersey or the Guernsey were ever a (constituent) part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—an unforgivable mistake that he would not had made, if he had even watched so much as the FIFA World Cup, or even the Commonwealth Games! (User_talk:Morwen/11#English law)


He lacked competence. He was a charlatan. He was a fraud. He was a pretended "lawyer" who had only read one (wrong) book, and too lazy to decide whether he wanted to be a solicitor, a barrister or a notary public. I have not yet even gone into his amateurish way of mixing American and English cases—something that only academics—but not usually actual practising or retired solicitors and barristers—are allowed to do (because English cases after the year 1776 are not usually considered "persuasive" in American Courts, and American cases have almost never been considered persuasive in English Courts)! And if he were an American attorney and not an English (or a Singaporean) solicitor or barrister, then why was he even giving out commentaries on English law in the first place? An American attorney who comments on post-1776 English law (but without also qualifying as an English solicitor or barrister), in the same way as what "David91" did, based upon his record of edits ([141] ), would definitely fall under the Competence rule!


I do indeed realise with much foreboding that each and every word of what I had written and about to submit can cause your most loyal, humble and obedient servant to be blocked, nay banned, yet I am a faithful believer of "calling it what it is", and I also faithfully, earnestly and sincerely believe that, by "role-playing" on Wikipedia like some kind of a game of Second Life, he MUST be considered to be partly acting in bad faith, and all this has to be said. All his misguided support (([142]); ([143])) did not in any way serve to refute my case, my allegations in any material way—playing the man (me) instead of the ball.


Supposing that I were to believed, if he could lie about his age, his education and what his did as an occupation, what else could he also not lie about? And could a 14/15-year-old really write in the way, manner and style that he did? Can it believed that his works was his, and his alone? I know that I could not, when I was at that age! It would be highly foolhardy and reckless of us to think that none of his words were copyright violations, either from any of the works of this John Greenwood Collier, or from some other source.


The evidence of his other glaring and unforgivable errors, unbecoming of either a solicitor or a barrister in England, include the following: (([144]); ([145]); ([146]); ([147]) ("Northern Island"? "Guerney"? Pull the other one!); ([148]); ([149]); ([150]); ([151]); ([152]); ([153]); ([154])) The fact of the matter is, in England, barristers and solicitors are not—and probably never, unless the trial was supposed to be wholly conducted in Latin—supposed to throw Latin legal terms and phrases about in Court as liberally as our "David91" and also a lot of our cousins in the American sister profession do. There is probably never a tradition in England for it (see the Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730, Chapter 26 (4 Geo. 2.)). — 212.50.182.151 (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question was last active in 2006. May i kindly remind you that this particular horse isn't just dead, it's actually been turned to glue. Kleuske (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A series of bad editing dating back some 7 and 1/2 years ago, if discovered, should still be exposed, in my view, and not in any way to seek to punish the now retired editor, but in order to remove the bad edits, bad information and the simple rubbish from Wikipedia. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making wild accusations and conjectures. I have found nothing anywhere in the impressive-looking wealth of "evidence" above that bears out any of the accusations. Needless to say, I have not even bothered to check out the external links provided, for obvious reasons. For the benefit of those who might be considering wading through all of the above, the vast majority of the links are completely irrelevant and the few that could possibly have a direct bearing on the "case" are so circumstancial as to be derisory, to say the least. Might I suggest that editors'/admins' time would be better employed to see whether the prodded articles are encyclopedic or not, which is what should really concern us. --Technopat (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tecnopat opened this thread without discussing with 212 first, includes vague accusations and an appeal to authority to an admin / lawyer who isn't participating, and now says reviewing the editor's response is a waste of time? Given that a longstanding editor supported 212's analysis at Talk:Conflict_of_property_laws -- indicating we've had a very poor article sitting in mainspace for over seven years -- we should be thanking 212 for improving the encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Circumstantial? There are none so blind than those who refuse to see! With the greatest possible of respect, and with no undue disrespect to Americans (or even Canadians), but a licensed New York Attorney (having personally confirmed his record of license, I have no reason to question that), practising or otherwise, is no more qualified to judge who is a "kosher" and "legit" English solicitor or barrister or not than my neighbour's black cat! The legal professions of England and the State of New York are far from identical, and the legal traditions of the two respective jurisdictions are even less identical, and so much so that all this is a little like an American telling me that there is nothing wrong with a counterfeit English one-pound coin with "dodgy" indentations, or with a forged twenty-pound note, and that I am somehow being rude for refusing to accept either of them.

Has it ever occurred to any of my detractors that he might had been simply making things up as he went along? Just delete ALL of his surviving creations that are in any way remotely "original" or "controversial", I say! Wikipedia is surely making a fool of itself by allowing the jokes of his kind of original legal research to stand! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia practice -- as mentioned in that wall of text on top of this page -- is to discuss issues with other editors before opening ANI threads. NE Ent 10:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:. Replied to NE Ent here. --Technopat (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

All the accusations by the IP that involve outing (i.e. any speculation about the identity, age, region, ... of User:David91 should be removed (rev-deled or oversighted) for violating WP:OUTING, and the IP told that he needs to stop or will get blocked. Food for thought; the IP claims that David91 is a 14-year old, based on this post he linked above. The problem is that that post is from 2010, but David91 joined Wikipedia and created e.g. Freedom of contract and Closed-end leasing in 2005, when he was thus supposedly 9 years old. Just to show you how dubious the sleuthing by the IP is. Really, we shouldn't care whether David91 is 91 years old or from 1991, what only matters is the quality of his edits. (Note, this post should be oversighted or revdeled as well of course). Fram (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do pay careful attention that barring the odd grammatical mistakes, I had used the past tense throughout. I claim that he was then (at the time) a 14-year-old back in the year 2005. There is and can be no "outing" when NO real names, real addresses, real telephone numbers or real E-mail addresses were ever given out. This is not "outing"—a deliberate private inflation of the term—but simply the supply of off-Wikipedia evidence. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it is completely reasonable that a 91-year-old Wikipedian who has an interest in law, a college kid born in 1991 who likes SimCity, a married-with-children Singaporean who helps ex-pats online, and a schoolboy in the UK are all the same guy. Please. I agree, your outing really isn't an outing because it is actually a ludicrous amalgam of a several different people who all just happened to use the not-uncommon username "David91" somewhere on the Great Wide Internet. You then created a very imaginative, but ultimately silly, set of theories to explain why our Wikipedian didn't write or conduct himself like a married 14-year-old British-Singaporean SimCity-loving, ex-pat with kids. Can we put this foolishness away now? Thanks. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark my words. I live in England, and he, "David91", does NOT AT ALL read like a 91-year-old in Wikipedia, but more like a young foreigner who tried desperately—like some Americans or Canadians in a Shakespearean school drama play—but not very convincingly to be an Englishman and a Briton. He is "about as British as Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins " " (an American actor who tried horribly to put on a London Cockney accent), as we say here in England! The whole sorry business reads like an earlier version of the Essjay business, Johann Hari and the Wikipedia biography controversy, and you absolutely refuses to see it! The man messed up a lot of the articles on Law! I say! I mean, the man who started this section is obviously himself some kind of a musician, or otherwise having something to do with music, and my question, the direct personal appeal I would like to ask him is, how would HE feel like it when someone just goes around and starts creating all sorts of downright dodgy or otherwise suspect original research and even possibly hoaxes on and about music and musicians, and are being frustrated at every step of the way by all sorts of mindless objections and hectoring—by persons out of the province of expertise with absolutely NO knowledge whatsoever on the subject, yet lacking the maturity or the decency to admit so—just the sake or for the "Drama" of it when he tried to remove and correct them, and with some just simply enjoying themselves having a good rant? The fact that this section was dated as started on a Saturday Evening—traditional drinking time if you are Britons and are not teetotalers for whatever reason—did not escape me. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh... so he's also an American and/or Canadian as well.... okay then! Frankly, and as Fram mentioned, it really doesn't matter who or what he is. It really really doesn't. What matters is the quality of his edits. If, as you claim, he has made some dodgy edits, then feel free to clean them up using properly cited, verifiable information from reliable sources. These unfounded and unsubstantiated theories about this user really and honestly have no bearing on anything at all and I strongly urge you to give up your fruitless campaign against this user. 1) It's not constructive. 2) It completely destroys your own credibility. 3) As you mentioned above, you knew your actions were unacceptable and went ahead anyway. The fact that you persist in it will not bring about the resolution that you desire. So, just stop. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 18:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: I suppose what I'm really asking here is just what action you want taken here. Let's assume everyone completely agrees with your assessment that this user was a fraud and executed an elaborate hoax on Wikipedia, filling it with lots of bad information 7-8 years ago. What relief from the community are you seeking? What do you want done? Do you want this user banned? He's been gone for over 7 years. Do you want every article he ever touched deleted? That isn't exactly feasible or fair for all the other editors who have contributed to those same articles in the last 7 years. Do you want all his bad information cleaned up? You can do that yourself without all this drama and without going on a big sleuthing mission. Just fix it. So, what exactly are you trying to accomplish here? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• David91 is an incredibly common username possibility. Whether or not these David91s on external sites have any relationship to the Wikipedia user, IP 212 needs to be blocked long-term and immediately. Efforts to out other users are completely unacceptable whether or not those efforts are heading in the right direction. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. " Where and when did I ever posted any such information? This is a personal inflation of the agreed existing definition, advocated by some who might (or might not) have themselves something to hide, and are anxious for the likes of me be silenced to make an example of. "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence. " (Wikipedia:OUTING) -- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BURO - while you may not have posted any of those specific examples, what you have done breaks the spirit (if not actually the letter) of WP:OUTING. If you're reading that much into the specifics of this policy, you're bordering on (ironically) WP:Wikilawyering. Ansh666 08:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Article on Alfred H. Bartles

Some time ago I submitted to Wikipedia an article on Alfred H. Bartles, American composer. Some editor decided that it had too much "original research" in it and that it needed more references. I presumed that that was the end of that submission and thought it completely canceled and rejected.

I then gave what I had written to the library of the Blair School of Music at Vanderbilt University, where "original research" is welcome. With minor changes, it was then put on the library's website, as I had hoped. It was my intention then to rewrite the article for Wikipedia with references to the Vanderbilt website for facts. Today I get a notice from Wikipedia that my Wikipedia article -- which I thought had been completely rejected and thrown away by Wikipedia -- is in flagrant violation of Vanderbilt's copyright! Well of course! The website IS my rejected Wikipedia article!

I find it extremely difficult to communicate with Wikipedia. For example, there is no clear way to respond to this strange notice. Your instructions for authors are verbose and confusing. I have no idea whether I have found the right way to respond. But I know that I do not like being accused of plaigerism of myself when the problem is the difficulty of communication with Wikipedia.

In any event, would you please completely remove the previously submitted article from any place where it is still lurking in Wikipedia files.

Someday, if I have time and get over my irritation with the self-righteous attitude of Wikipedia, I or someone else may send you an article on this remarkable American composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClopperAlmon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi ClopperAlmon. I'm sorry for the frustration you've been put through. The Alfred H. Bartles page was posted on 10 January 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. Wikipedia uses a variety of namespaces, each having a different purpose. Wikipedia articles are posted in Main/Article namespace. Your post was in Wikipedia:Project namespace in a project called "Articles for creation." In that WikiProject, contributions can become Wikipedia articles, but are not Wikipedia articles themselves (because they are not in Main/Article namespace). The notices you received on your talk page included a username of the person who posted the notice. You can communicate with them by clicking on the "talk" link next to their user name. The previously submitted article has been deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created Alfred Bartles and notified ClopperAlmon on his talk page. I think some of our templates (particularly the standard Twinkle notifications for A7, G11 and G12) are bitey in the extreme and said so previously. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to provide an explanation at User_talk:ClopperAlmon#My_view_of_the_sequence_of_events--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if undeleting the AfC and histmerging it into the new article would be appropriate attribution? Rgrds. --64.85.216.33 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So here's a dumb question... we tend to blindly accept university publishings as reliable sources, but it appears that ClopperAlmon was able to write a paper (which, itself, is totally unreferenced, by the way) and get a .PDF hosted on a .edu domain. We now have the exact same text that was rejected as OR being used to reference an article, which summarizes the original OR (OOR?)... Is this really according to the spirit of WP:V? Is there even the remotest hint that someone at Vanderbilt reviewed this paper? Usually a university applies some kind of peer review process on "papers" published by their students. I agree that a university is the right place to do and publish research (and WP Is not the right place to publish research), but in this case, I think we've gotten twisted around. I suppose I should take this to a different noticeboard, but since all the history is here, it made sense to ask it here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the energy to figure out how to explain this to the well-meaning OP, but the "Vanderbilt pdf" [155] is just personal text at what appears to be a student-faculty-alum webhosting service. [156] It's not a reliable source, and the article can't be based on it. I'd be very happy (for the OP's sake) to learn that I'm mistaken in that evaluation. EEng (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrator threatening me

Admin User:RegentsPark removed properly sourced "Pathan" [157] from Prithviraj Kapoor and now telling me to stop adding this ethnicity in articles.[158] I find this as a threat and a bad behaviour by an admin. This all started when POV-pushers User:PISCOSOUR786 (talk · contribs) (from India) and user:Saladin1987 (Pakistani from Australia) repeatedly removed Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor. [159] I reported them, PISCOSOUR786 got blocked as someone's sock and Saladin1987 got blocked for a month. RegentsPark and User:Fowler&fowler now took over the article and are removing "Pathan" from it. On the talk page I presented more than enough reliable sources (RSs) for the Pathan claim, which includes: 1) Kapoor identified self as Pathan; 2) his father and grandfather were described as Pathans; 2) his son Shammi Kapoor in an exclusive interview tells that his parents and grandparants were Pathans [160]; 3) Madhu Jain (author of a 2009 book on the Kapoors) explains in details that Prithviraj belonged to a "Hindu Pathan family" [161]; 4) and several other RSs which confirm this. [162] The mentioned users strictly refuse to accept Prithviraj as a Pathan no matter what experts say [163], and they wonder how can there be such a thing as a Hindu or a Sikh Pathan (note: Pathan is alternative for Pashtun, both terms redirect to each other). I also provided convincing evidence that there in fact are Pathan Hindus and Pathan Sikhs [164]

They consider themselves “sons of the soil” – Pashtuns to be more specific – and are identified as such. “We are proud to be Pashtuns,” says Sahib Singh. “Pashto is our tongue, our mother tongue – and we are proud of it.”[165]

I think it's appropriate to warn RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler to stop removing Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor's article.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a threat at all. You're going to have to try to work with them because getting rid of them like this isn't appropriate.--v/r - TP 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it as a form of threat, especially coming from an admin. I told him and the others to wait until editors familiar with the issue come and resolve the issue but why is he telling me to revert proper edits?--Fareed30 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A "form of a threat" is not a threat. It's an extreme hypersensitive emotionally-biased interpretation to suit your own purposes. The question is whether it is or is not a threat. The diff contains no mention of action against you. Admins are editors as well, they can make comments such as "You're close to violating XXX policy" without it being a threat. The only time it becomes a threat, or even against policy even if it were a threat, is when they say they will take action against you themselves while they are involved in a dispute. That hasn't happened, move on.--v/r - TP 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The expressions "Hindu Pathan" or "Hindu Pashtun" do not appear in the reliable sources of the last 50 years. See here (what appears are five copies of a sentence, "Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds to revolution; Hindu, Pathan, Moghul, Maratha, Sikh, English, all are masters in turn ...") I have already told you, your sources are unreliable, "Pathan" is not relevant to his notability (there were no Pathan or Pashtun schools of Over-Acting, or Theatrics in Peshawar, Kabul or Kandahar, besides he wasn't from those places anyway; he was reliably only from Lyallpur in the West Punjab. Your claims about "blue eyes" and "sharp features" of Pathans etc (see talk page) are in the realm of lore and speculation. Finally, as I've stated on the talk page, India is a multi-ethnic country with a great deal of diversity. There are people there of all shapes and sizes, colors and looks. The Indian constitution doesn't recognize the imagined phenotypical claims of a few. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are again and again mentioning "Hindu", a term that relates to religion, and I told you again and again that I'm not interested in religion stuff. This issue is over his Pathan background, it is mentioned in every source so it should also be mentioned in his Wikipedia article. This is done everywhere, and him being born in Lyallpur is another issue that has nothing to do with his Pathan background. Hasnat Khan was born in the same area and he is Pathan as you can read in his article. Peshawar is where Prithviraj grew up, his father was a sub-inspector of police in this Pathan cultural center. When Prithviraj went to India, he even made a popular play called The Pathan (or Pathan), which was about his personal experiance living in Peshawar among Muslims. This play was performed about 600 times on stage in Mumbai, India, to the mostly Hindu audience. You cannot hide someone's background just because it may upset you. Btw, there were stage shows and cinema schools in Peshawar.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly Fareed, no one has threatened you. I merely pointed out that repeatedly adding an ethnicity against consensus is tendentious. And, doing that in numerous blps, and possibly in an underhand way, is disruptive. When the ethnicity on an individual is in doubt, it is better to leave it out. Once again, my suggestion is that you demonstrate your good faith by self-reverting yourself. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm making constructive edits, properly sourcing everything and nobody other than you guys are challenging me, and I'm not being silly so please don't use such provocative words. You have to learn to wait until this argument over the Pathan background is exhausted.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called getting consensus. You should try it sometime ES&L 18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I did try it but the above users (RegentsPark and Fowler) decided to flee from the discussion, see the last few comments at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can read, you tried to gain consensus for the addition, but failed. You then continued to insist, even though consensus was against you. You've become increasingly belligerent about it. Please stop - consensus rules on Wikipedia, as per WP:5P ES&L 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• ES&L, you probably didn't understand the situation correctly so let me explain. I added in the early years section of Prithviraj Kapoor's article that he was of Pathan background or at least he presented self as that and cited reliable sources, and then Saladin1987 changed Pathan to Punjabi, which is a different group of people. After he got blocked, RegentsPark and Fowler decided to support Saladin by completely removing "Pathan" from the article, claiming that it is disputed but nobody has ever disputed this. I asked to provide a source which mentions the dispute but they failed and decided to flee the discussion. I told them on Prithviraj's talk page that I'm busy and would take the issue to ANI so others can have a chance to review everything and decide what is best. There was no need for RegentsPark to leave a message on my talk page in which he tells me to remove "Pathan" from Anil Kapoor's article. These actions of RegentsPark are inappropriate, he's suppose to discuss edits on the article's talk page so others may get involved and if that doesn't work then he's suppose to start discussion somewhere else, he's a long time editor and an admin so obviously he knows these basic rules.
• Whenever I read an article about a famous person I get to learn everything about that person, including race or ethnicity, but here they're saying don't menion Pathan. Why shouldn't we mention this when it is mentioned in articles of other famous Bollywood actors, including Shahrukh Khan, Kader Khan, Madhubala, and Feroz Khan?--Fareed30 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I write for a living; please don't ever suggest that I had trouble reading something well enough to understand ES&L 00:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a first? A complaint about an India-related discussion in which I have been a participant but I am not being lambasted? Since I agreed with RP and F&F, the consensus thus far is even stronger than the reporter acknowledges. Fareed, the whole ethnic thing here is nebulous, you've had the issues explained to you time and again and those explanations have come from some contributors who have a pretty vast experience in dealing with the subject matter on Wikipedia. Of course, they could all be wrong ... but it isn't likely and this is not the place to resolve your differences anyway. At most, it is a content dispute and there certainly has been no threat. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush, that is indeed a first, you should treasure it. It's also as far as I know the first time the mild-to-a-fault RegentsPark has been taken to ANI in the guise of a "threatening" administrator. Shows it can happen to anybody. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

You guys work together editing Indian related articles so the consensus is unfair since you guys share the same anti-Pathan POV. It would be different if non-Indian editors get involved.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So go follow the steps outlined at dispute resolution if you want to shift the consensus. Coming here and whining about it isn't going to change anything. Nothing is going to come of this ANI complaint, so you may as well drop it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not whining. I'm busy renovating one of my bathrooms (marble and tiles cutting and grouting, etc.) so I can't concentrate on this right now.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(I might be repeating something already said, but here goes.) Fareed, simply telling you to stop adding material is not a threat. If the admin said "Stop adding this or I will block you", then it would be a threat, and then the question would be whether the "will block you" part was within policies (eg. if you were in an edit war, you can be blocked temporarily for edit-warring regardless of the merits of the content.) And I posit that a truly inappropriate threat would have taken the form of "Stop adding this, or I will hunt you down and do nasty things to you." THAT would be the sort of thing that would warrant an AN/I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I added relevant information in Anil Kapoor's article which many readers like to know. If there was a problem with the edit, someone would have reverted or removed the addition. I'm not into edit-wars, it's silly and just a waste of time. I just want to expose these editors so they can cool off with their anti-Pathan POV.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If everyone else who edits the article says to NOT include what you consider "relevant" (which it isn't), then it doesn't go in - hence the word "consensus". You re-adding it ran the risk of getting yourself blocked. It also does not mean they're "anti-Pathan", and saying such could ALSO get you a block, because now you're accusing someone of racism. Time to rethink your way forward ES&L 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusion very fast. First, I didn't re-add. Second, I was saying they're against the term "Pathan" so they're anti-Pathan. That's the shortest description, what should I call them? Pretend that their editors from different background when they're not? I'm not accusing someone of racism, you can clearly see what they're doing or what they're up to. They edit mostly Indian articles and that's not something they can hide from anyone. It means that they think like Indians. Based on their edits, it is more likely that they are Punjabi Sikhs of Indian origin. It helps to know this whenever there is a consensus or a dispute, especially when ethnicity is the primary focus. I'm an expert in this area (on South Asia), the Punjabis hate Pathans (Afghans) with a great passion. This is due to the wars between these groups since 1738 until around 1818. Pathans destroyed their holy sites, killed many Punjabi Sikhs, including Sikh leaders Baba Deep Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa and others.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Fareed, I notice that you're busy editing here but you haven't reverted your addition of the Pathan ethnicity to various Kapoor clan pages. I'm going to do that for you. --regentspark (comment) 00:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I got most of them. Now please don't re-add it without first going through some sort of WP:DR. --regentspark (comment) 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Anil Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fareed, I an assure you that I for one am not a Punjabi Sikh. I'm not even religious and I'm not even Indian or indeed from anywhere in South Asia. I also certainly do not "think like Indians" and that is one of the reasons why I have been reported here myself so often. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure How to Proceed

Effective today, Nielsen has completed it's purchase of Arbitron. As you all may know, back in 2009, Nielsen filed a DMCA Takedown Notice (via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854), which caused all TV region templates to be removed because they had Nielsen television "DMA" information. Since Arbitron's radio "DMA" information is now owned by Nielsen, this will carry over.

Currently, most radio station pages carry a link to the Arbitron page for the respective station in the external links as part of the {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}} templates. To avoid another DMCA takedown notice, should we remove the Aribtron links from those templates (which would require an admin as they are indef full-protected) or will they be OK as-is? If this isn't the proper location for this discussion, my apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How can a takedown affect something they didn't own at the time of the takedown demand? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but they do have a copyright on the term "DMA" (which stands for "Designated Market Area, by the way) and from what I understand Nielsen was allowing Arbitron to use the term "DMA" in their ratings. That copyright is what caused the DMCA takedown notice back in '09. Arbitron didn't have a problem with us using it, so we didn't have a problem there. We do now since Nielsen has said they don't want us using their copyrights here on Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you DMCA a link to your own public database? Linking to them, isn't the same as hosting the data onwiki. That said, without having OTRS access, or being familiar with the past removal, its hard to say with any certainty. Still, my preference would be to wait and see if they DMCA anything. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would rather they don't DMCA anything. Last time they did, legal didn't fight it (the "DMA" information could have been easily removed) and it took 3 months or more of non-stop work to get the TV region templates created and back up (sans the Nielsen information, of course). I don't want to have to do that with each and every single radio station page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would wait to see if they take any action on the radio database, though have a backup template ready in the sandbox for the AMSD and FMSD templates sans Arbitron info ready to go if we get the C&D. The Arbiton people are still there for now and until we hear from Nielsen we should be able to go forward with it. My thinking though? They'll eventually throw it up behind a paywall to block all access to everyone except paying customers since the only way to get the weekly Nielsen ratings publicly is the USA Today chart on Wednesdays, and they're even more strict about their numbers than Arbitron has. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Render unto English Wikipedia what is English Wikipedia, and render unto WMF what is WMF's Since DMCA take downs go to WMF (as the actual owner of the website) it seems it like something they should provide guidance on. (Message left on liason's talk page) NE Ent 02:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Things change, corporations change. WMF should wait for a takedown before any action is taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's good and all, but what do we do if legal decides not to fight a DMCA notice from Nielsen like last time and we have to rebuilt thousands of radio station pages? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no point worrying about stuff that might or might not happen someday. We will deal with it if and when it happens. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. I just hope that DMCA notice never comes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have interest in content that is the subject of a DMCA notice, and you feel the notice is invalid, it is possible to file a counter-notice (or "put-back" notice) with the hosting party (see OCILLA), which would be WMF in this case. Doing so may open you to additional legal liability, however. I would definitely not take such an action without consulting a lawyer. Possible additional sources of assistance would be organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The WMF also has an assistance program for legal fees for users exposed to liability as a result of being administrators or other functionaries on a project, though I don't know how this would work out if the WMF was claimed to be hosting infringing content—they do have the safe harbor protection, as long as they comply with the DMCA, which includes complying with authentic take-down and put-back notices. Anyway this would only be relevant if a notice was actually filed, of course. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"DMA" is a proprietary (to Nielsen) value assigned to each radio station for the purpose of grouping them for various statistical reports, right? It was the publishing of this DMA value in the TV templates that was the target of the DMCA, right? How is this the same as simply providing a link from a station article to Arbitron's (or anyone else's) website? We are not publishing any information proprietary to Arbitron – the link doesn't even contain any sort of code specific to them (e.g. like those produced with transclusions of {{IMDb}} and {{Find a Grave}}) – they solely use the FCC-assigned callsign as the key. Arbitron has a similar grouping code (ARM) for radio stations, but there is no mention of this in {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}}. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin again

An incident was reported here 2 days ago about CFredkin, which went to the archives without any action. Well, the editor is again inserting original research and synthesis into articles concerning living persons. Kay Hagan Mark Udall Joe Donnelly Amy Klobuchar Al Franken All of which he was reverted and warned on his Talk page, which he deleted without comment(as he does to almost all attempts to discuss his editing). And then promptly reinserted the edits without comment. He is also inserting claims by one blogger into articles concerning climate change without discussion. I have asked the editor(and another editor) to stop reverting the addition here and follow BRD, which was ignored. The editor was recently blocked for using socks to edit war on other political articles.This editor has been making mass changes to many articles and does not seem to want to follow basic Wiki guidelines. Something needs to be done. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Let me also add the climate change edits(1,2) are either unreferenced or by known paid advocates that were hired to disprove climate change. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Those looking into the matter may wish to add Jon Tester to the above list, though his edits there are not as problematic as the ones above. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been through all of the edits in question but, at least as far as Amy Klobuchar is concerned, the claims of original research and synthesis appear wholly unfounded, and certainly not appropriate for any sort of Admin action. The editor has supplied extremely well-sourced material which, on its face, contrasts with the other material in the article. The reader is left to draw his own conclusion. Are the edits made because of the editor's POV? Of course... as are the baseless criticisms reflective of the critic's POV. John2510 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit should signify the level of maturity we're dealing with. This editor has demonstrated a lack of good faith, and an extremely inappropriate habit of snarkiness, insult, and WP:POINTy, contentious editing. When DD2K pointed out that CFredkin's is canvassing at John2510's talk page ([166] John2510's is the only other user talk page CFredkin seems to have ever edited) CFredkin's only response was to accuse DD2K of whining and bias. This is extremely troubling, and I see no signs of this improving with experience. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin suggested I might want to participate in the discussions, but made no attempt to influence what my position should be. As such, it wasn't canvassing at all, and that sort of invitation to participate is specifically condoned by the canvassing guideline. This strikes me as a common political POV edit war, with one side throwing around a lot of spurious guidelines accusations.John2510 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Grayfell and DD2K raised a series of different objections (lack of context, synthesis, unreliable sources) to my above edit to Amy Klobuchar, which I addressed in every instance. After running out of excuses to block my edit, Grayfell then applied his own revision to my edit which involved adding an inappropriate reference to Al Franken. I believe this demontrates where Grayfell is coming from.CFredkin (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you (eventually) added valid sources after we pointed out the serious problems with your edits, and that is exactly what I wanted you to do. I clarified your addition because your phrasing was inappropriately painting Klobuchar in a bad light without giving enough meaningful context about a complicated situation. Franken is the other senator from Minnesota, and the source you added specifically mentions both of them. If you don't think it warrants mentioning that, fine, that's what WP:BRD is for, but what does that have to do with where I am coming from? Please remember that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I see. So when you make edits, it's WP:BRD, but when I make edits it's "POV pushing nonsense". How ironic for you to lecture me on assuming good faith, after you've just accused me of "a demonstrated lack of good faith".

Let's look at the sequence of events on this edit:

Edit 1 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added vote on Medical Device Tax)

Edit 2 by DD2K: <remove edit without comment>

Edit 3 by CFredkin: (Undid revision 575226755 by DD2K (talk) Restore content removed without explanation)

Edit 4 by Grayfell: (Undid revision 575234833 by CFredkin (talk) Again, please find reliable secondary sources that this is significant.)

Edit 5 by CFredkin: (Undid revision 575248186 by Grayfell (talk) It's notable due to the claim that precedes it.)

Edit 6 by Grayfell: (Undid revision 575309858 by CFredkin (talk) You added a "gotcha" without any context. Many problems with that. Please, try engaging on the talk pages.)

Talk

CFredkin: Currently this article includes the following statement: "In December 2012, Klobuchar advocated to "repeal or reduce" the tax on medical devices included in the Affordable Care Act, as it would be harmful to businesses in her state." This seems like reasonable context for adding her recent vote to remove the amendment repealing the Tax from the government funding bill.[1]CFredkin (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DD2K: Just like almost all of your edits, you cannot use original research to make additions to articles....

CFrekin: Um, how exactly is this post original research?....

Grayfell: It is a matter of original research. You are combining two primary sources into the same paragraph for the purposes of making a point. That is WP:SYNTH, pure and simple. If this really is a significant aspect of her voting history, find a weighty, non-primary source making that connection, otherwise it's just POV pushing nonsense.

Edit 7 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added vote on Medical Device Tax w/ additional source)

Edit 8 by DD2K: (Medical device industry website is not a RS, +no consensus on Talk page)

Edit 9 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added vote on Medical Device Tax with another source)

Edit 10 by Grayfell: (→‎Healthcare reform: Added context from source.)

Edit 11 by CFredkin: (→‎Healthcare reform: Franken is not relevant.)

First, it needs a secondary source for significance. Then, it needs context. Then, it's original research/synthesis. Then, when you can't explain how it needs context or is synthesis, it's back to requiring a secondary source for significance. And at the end of it all, you claim I'm the one acting in bad faith...CFredkin (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What? I'm completely lost. When did I say you needed additional secondary sources? The StarTribune article was fine, and I have even added info from it. Are you talking about this edit to a third article, to which you still haven't added any secondary sources? It was SYNTH because you added a primary sourced point directly connecting two complex issues that were not connected by the sources. You then, after being reverted a couple of times, added a decent source explaining the connection, although you didn't actually explain the connection, leaving it in a very misleading state. I'm not sure why you think it's impossible for your edits to have multiple problems, but it certainly is, and it's also possible to fix those issues. You did, eventually, fix some of those problem with the help of other editors. Adding barbed little jabs to articles that don't have enough context or high-quality sources is a big, big problem. It violates several policies at the same time. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Irenaean theodicy and Augustinian theodicy

An anonymous user has been repeatedly making changes against consensus to the GA Irenaean theodicy and the FA Augustinian theodicy for a while now, trying to make sure that references to the contributions of John Hick are as strong as possible, often using inappropriate or inaccurate wording in the article. He was reverted many times by many users. When that failed, he has claimed both articles are copyright violations for using the terms "Irenaean theodicy" and "Augustinian theodicy" without Hick's permission -- a clearly spurious claim -- and keeps revert warring to insert speedy deletion notices on the pages. I have semi-protected both articles for 2 weeks. I just wanted to make more admins aware of the issue, since I don't see it going away any time soon. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it only 209.3.238.61, or are other addresses also causing problems? Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like 209.3.238.61, 209.3.238.62, and 72.68.5.132 are all different IPs for the same user. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I agree with the semiprotection; note that I didn't see the 72. address and didn't notice that .238.62 was a different number. I was simply questioning whether we should block one IP address instead of semiprotecting; that's why I was asking about the addresses and not the person/people operating them. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is odd, this is the second complaint I've seen about an IP connected to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Not sure what that is about. But their edit summaries, with statements like "User:Bink is presently being evaluated for WP:ANI" shows a great familiarity with daily WP operations. Probably an alternative account of a regular who doesn't want it connected to these edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This person, whoever they are, has been doing pretty good improvement work at the Prometheus article, but has engaged in quite a lot of original research at other articles where I have been trying to limit the damage. (My efforts in that direction have not been, let's say, welcomed by the IP.) This person seems to think their opinion is sufficiently authoritative to establish facts on Wikipedia. I've posted a bunch of NOR notices on the various IP talk pages involved. The first step in helping this person to be a more useful editor is to get them to faithfully follow Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. The second is to stop posting rambling rants and nonsense claims. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like quite a lot of effort, Binksternet. I wonder what it would take to get them just to create an account? What do you say, 209.3.238.61? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges?

This morning my watchlist is full of changes like this, this, this, this, all made by different IPs, each IP having made about 20 such changes in the last 12 hours. I have hundreds of such edits in my watchlist. Before the end of business day I cannot verify whether the provided links are spam or not ("access blocked, proxy avoidance"). Can therefore someone please

1. check if those edits are fine or not,
2. advise what to do?

--Pgallert (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive.is is one of those "save a page" services like WebCite. And a relatively recent one, started only last year. I have also seen IPs mass-adding links to archive.is. I could not tell you whether it's an honest company. I'm not sure why so many IPs from India are doing this now, and why it's being done from IPs at all, and why they are using misleading edit summaries. Something strange is happening, sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a userfied article about the website at User:Lexein/Archive.is, which had been deleted at AFD about a week ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern is, why would they use different IPs? Can somebody confirm that the urls in question contain archived newspaper articles? --Pgallert (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC --Facugaich (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion that is itself heavily tainted with proxy IP edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an old ANI thread on the same subject. It appears as if previous IPs doing this have been blocked, but it also appears as if the operators command so many IPs that blocking them one by one might be futile. I think I'll revert the few edits that break existing syntax and leave the rest alone. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit filters are above my pay grade, but is it possible to create one that prevents the insertion of archive.is links by any non-registered user? Bobby Tables (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There's one in place. I'll have to research how these are getting past it.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Update: Since about 14:30 the same mechanism inserts links to http://web.archive.org, not to archive.is. --Pgallert (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollbacks needed again, Drmies and others with access to such tools. I've manage to block the proxies used in today's attack. Some of them were caught by filters before making any edits, so some of the contribution lists are empty.

• 120.56.235.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.223.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.238.25.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.196.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.84.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.78.233.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.208.1.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.96.212.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.64.190.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.28.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.132.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.205.228.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.125.64.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.65.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.166.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.56.134.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.172.32.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.106.104.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.82.133.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.206.246.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.104.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.198.176.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.52.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.62.179.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.68.185.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.194.115.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.99.118.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.177.246.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.203.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.189.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.84.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.103.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.202.6.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.23.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.6.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.139.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.162.61.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.218.75.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.133.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.194.225.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.168.73.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.54.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.141.70.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.58.143.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.203.53.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.190.144.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.4.200.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.17.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.219.242.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.159.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.170.96.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 118.95.58.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.207.160.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.196.175.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.116.52.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.250.156.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.17.129.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.124.251.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.162.175.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.201.32.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.23.234.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.73.43.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.219.160.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.2.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 114.143.115.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the scale of these attacks, Blacklisting should be done ASAP. Werieth (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That would make editing about 15,000 existing articles nearly impossible, Werieth. That's why I'm trying to get a consensus to remove all the existing links at that RFC. But yes, the scale of these attacks makes it incomprehensible to me precisely why anyone would defend the site. Right now, I've tightened the filter so that it is more difficult to add new links so that the problem doesn't continue to grow.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If its blacklisted you will continue to be able to edit those pages like normal as long as you dont add/remove those links. If its acceptable I can mass remove these. Werieth (talk)

Nope: it blocks you if you edit the paragraph in which the blacklisted links occurs.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a bug in the blacklist. According to the numbers less than 13k pages are affected. If needed I can mass remove them. Werieth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've rolled back all those edits. Might not be a bad idea to check again in case I missed any though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Mark.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

From my watchlist I have found the following related IPs with edits still unreverted:

• 122.161.117.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.57.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 171.48.9.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.166.20.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.142.93.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.64.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 113.21.79.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.92.77.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.98.82.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.187.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The tool I've been using only gets those that are the most recent revision, so if there were subsequent edits after the bot I've been missing them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The annoying fact about this latest charge of proxies is that they didn't only add the disputed archive.is but also established services like archive.org which would be totally ok under normal circumstances. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RotlinkBot has always added other archives when it saw fit. I'm not sure what the reasons are.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe I read somewhere that it's a tool to remove dead links and replaces them with active ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably because of the API used, if you read User:RotlinkBot. I think we're unfortunately dealing with another "star" programmer here, who won't listen to community feedback. If he had a bit of common sense and followed the process, RotlinkBot would have probably been approved in some form... The batch of IPs used today seems to have added only archive.org links though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of the efforts to add archive.is were blocked by filters, Someone, but they were certainly made.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is what I was thinking of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required, Someone not using his real name Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a few more from my watchlist:

• 1.186.149.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.22.190.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.22.194.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.220.238.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.180.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.207.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.216.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.1.101.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.194.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.218.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.219.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.6.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.91.111.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.91.68.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 114.79.189.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.115.184.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.115.78.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.240.15.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.241.230.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.101.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.133.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.51.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.99.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.247.130.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.69.247.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.193.132.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.193.137.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.185.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.116.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.197.48.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.198.14.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.198.149.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.199.227.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.199.241.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.199.57.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.200.214.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.187.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.80.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.90.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.201.93.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.203.56.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.208.208.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.212.35.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.214.193.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.252.2.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.97.74.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.56.216.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.59.248.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 121.245.191.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.162.35.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.162.74.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.151.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.224.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.47.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.164.47.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.151.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.168.26.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.168.35.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.41.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.60.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.170.31.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.170.89.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.172.178.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.174.172.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.175.145.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.175.165.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.219.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.177.18.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.63.53.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.123.64.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.253.205.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.62.125.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.62.209.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.96.106.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.96.32.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.97.116.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.97.215.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.97.9.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.98.25.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.128.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.137.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.55.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 175.101.66.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.215.107.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.215.152.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.215.4.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 180.87.193.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.237.14.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.64.101.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.68.165.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.68.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.74.62.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.82.222.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.83.194.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.106.54.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.121.101.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.251.169.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.251.6.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.5.208.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 49.137.147.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.94.42.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.95.15.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.184.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Pgallert (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• All blocked. This guy is giving me carpal tunnel syndrome.—Kww(talk) 07:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of these machines are clearly compromised or at least part of a spam network. I've randomly googled from a above one of them, and the first hit is http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ip_122.176.219.65. These guys seem to have access to non-public lists of compromised machines. For example, 182.65.174.133 is not listed in any proxy lists by google, though I'm pretty sure it's in some spammer's database because it's listed in several blacklists on whatismyipaddress.com; one of them says "AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services / AS24560 IS AT THIS TIME RANKED POSITION 7 OF THE 20 WORST BOTNET HOSTERS WORLDWIDE." Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Another IP I tried (61.3.184.56) gave "BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone / AS9829 IS AT THIS TIME RANKED POSITION 3 OF THE 20 WORST BOTNET HOSTERS WORLDWIDE." So I think it's pretty clear where these IPs are coming from. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

And now rolled back. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Qalnor

I think this is at best an alternate/sleeper account of someone heavily promoting and defending archive.is in the RfC. His recent edits are all there and there's also [167] etc. Given the ability of these guys to use IPs worldwide, checkuser would be useless. I suggest a WP:DUCK block. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have been defending archive.is on the grounds that I don't view Kww's assertions that they're breaking the law as particularly likely. I haven't defended them on any other grounds, and in my most recent post on the RFC I said pretty clearly that I thought the operator probably had done something unethical. My strong feelings about not banning the use of a useful archival tool do not even come close to passing a duck test. edit: Also, for the record, this: 'Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.' was not done. Qalnor (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• An account with minimal content contributions (yours) suddenly taking a very deep interest a controversial policy debate certainly gives rise to WP:SCRUTINY/WP:ILLEGIT editing of project space concerns. And you have been arguing that the proxy IP editor (not archive.is) has done nothing illegal [168] [169] [170] [171], which is not quite the same thing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, well, we'll see what happens. A superficial investigation of my identity will make it pretty clear that you're wrong, although obviously on the internet there's no such thing as 100% proof of identity. Qalnor (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Even after turning AGF into a suicide pact, those RfC edits of yours are still pretty clear filibustering, and not unlike the similar talking points raised by Special:Contributions/77.111.172.172 for example. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty 'filibustering' doesn't mean what you think it means. But like I said, we'll see what happens. Qalnor (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Abusefilter

I've added an abuse filter to stop the insertions of this link. As far as I'm concerned, we should mass-remove these links given the very dubious means of insertion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. But is this filter case-sensitive? De728631 (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't case-sensitive. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it now blocks archive.org as well, the description should be changed, otherwise you'll get more of this or this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I will change archive.org to monitoring only. It's actually my filter that is blocking that, not Reaper's.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Cary Lee Peterson [New Article Creation]

Dear Administrator(s),

Please refer to the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rvplpr/sandbox#Cary_Lee_Peterson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rvplpr/sandbox

Thanks in advance for your help getting this article into Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvplpr (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As admins do not determine content, you would be better served by reviewing the articles for creation process. I have also left some useful information about creating your first article on your personal talkpage. Good luck! ES&L 10:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 72.207.247.59 BLP violations

I definitely think this individual is NOTHERE to make this encyclopedia a better guide. [172] [173]. Notifying them now. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I know ANI is quicker, but it is my sworn duty to point out to you that you should really report this at AIV, and there should have been a final warning, and blah blah blah. Blocked for 31 hours, thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• And I just saw this one. I'm somewhat surprised that this isn't vandalized more. If there is more of this, on a frequent basis, consider WP:RFPP for semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks. First ever ANI start so I will try to keep AIV in my mind if this comes up again. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No apology necessary; thanks again. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP editor tag-bombing of Erotic target location error

An IP editor has taken to re-tag-bombing the Erotic target location error page.[174][175][176][177][178]

• The IP editor's diff comments include POVs like: "Considering the incredibly dubious, inflammatory, and fictitious nature of this article, I believe this is necessary"[179]).
• The editor has history of tagging the page, to which no other editor has agreed (c.f. [180][181]).
• And the editor falsely claims that sources do not contain info that it is actually easily found (cf., [182][183]).

Because the page falls under the ArbCom sexology sanctions and cites one of my own RW works, I thought it better to ask for a read from other eyes.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a warning under the Sexology DS to the IP for disruption. If he keeps up the disruption we can block. I've semi-protected the article as well since IPs have been a problem in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect; thank you.— James Cantor (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to assume much of the bombing is just the run of the mill objections. I've seen reports and other documents on this under a different attributed name including the well known aspects of the Furry fandom. I think a bit of tidying up is in order. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ig User Poperah

Page deleted as vandalism. De728631 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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 don't know if you are able to put a speedy on a AFC submission but this one is clearly not a serious submission so the post here. Whispering 04:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Step 1: Quick-fail criteria, Rgrds. --64.85.215.108 (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Tagged CSD G3. Any admin wanna finish it off? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to know some admin can archive this discussion now. Whispering 16:55, 3 October 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.

Bots editing logged out from 10.4.0.71

The IP should probably be {{anonblock}}ed. See Special:Contributions/10.4.0.71. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be Cyberbot I. The security issue mentioned by WMF and their action disrupted it. It's fixed now, so no worries.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations by user J is for Jesus

• J is for Jesus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:J is for Jesus needs a discussion on copyright. The user has been uploading non-free images and admits it. The user then goes to articles and replaces valid images with the copyright infringements. No FUR is provided and there would be no rationale for their use based on the current understanding of FUR. I have reverted three articles and nominated the images for deletion but there may be more and the discussion should still take place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that this wouldn't have been brought up here if the user wasn't a self-proclaimed Christian. Can we please drop the Christian Bashing? If he were a moslem it wouldn't have been mentioned that he was breaking a minor rule. Chloe Grace Moretz Official (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Chloe, uh, Walter is a self-identified Christian, and has contributed extensively to Christian music articles. Neither is violation of copyright a "minor rule". I would respectfully and kindly suggest your read a few (e.g. Wikipedia:Copyrights and WP:AGF) of our rules before continuing this discussion. Thanks, and happy editing! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's anti-Christian to point out copyright violations. It is, however, a BLP violation to make edits like this one--and this rubbish about "lifestyle choice" is just anti-gay code. Choice, my foot. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to Jesus yet because Chloe Grace Moretz Official and their anti-gay and probably antisemitic edits got in the way. In addition, there user name is most likely a violation, given Chloë Grace Moretz. I've given them a warning for referring to Roscelese as a liberal dirtbag, which was probably not intended as a compliment. I wonder if this is spillover from MRM or something like that; it's certainly a single-purpose account of someone who is not here to improve our project. But I'll let another liberal dirtbag admin do the honors, if honors need to be done. Now, for Jesus. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'm about to sign off--Walter, where did Jesus "admit it"? I agree with you, BTW, but I'd like to see what Jesus has said or has to say on the topic. If they understand and promise to walk the narrow path to glory, then our problem is solved. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Not sure what Drmies is talking about, but Yes, Chloe Grace Moretz Official, I too am a Christian and I am interested in three projects: Christian music, Soccer (association football) and software testing. I'm not attacking the editor I've reported here. I simply don't have time to mentor the editor, and as an editor who is involved in the reverts and nominations think that it would better if a neutral editor would discuss the matter with the editor. No block is required, simply a discussion. This is where the copyright violations page suggests to report issues like this. No Christian-bashing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand now what Drmies was asking. The three images I found that the editor uploaded all indicate that the images are not free: File:Big Daddy Weave 2013.jpg, File:Audio Adrenaline 2013.jpg, and File:Chris Tomlin 2013.jpg. There were other images that the editor uploaded that may or may not be copyright violations. I'll let someone from the copyright cabal investigate that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

? You said "The user has been uploading non-free images and admits it". Where did they admit it? So far I have not seen any actual communication coming from this user. That's all. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if the last comment is that you understand, or something else. On the first image above, the category for upload posts "Uploading a piece of non-free cover art using File Upload Wizard" and then a FUR is supplied. Editor knows that it's not a free image but needs to be informed when and where FUR applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I just checked the user's talk page and it appears that there were a few other recent copyvios brought-up by User:Blurred Lines, User:Theo's Little Bot and User:Diannaa. Would someone not involved in the deletion processes please open a dialogue with the editor? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done: Diff of User talk:J is for Jesus -- Diannaa (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. Shall we leave this open so the editor has a chance to comment here (based on the notice left on the editor's talk page) or shall we close it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

If we leave it open, the bot will archive it in 36 hours or so if no further comments are made in this section. The user has yet to make a talk page / user talk page edit, so I doubt they will comment here. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Titleblacklist not getting much admin attention

I think more admin eyes are needed at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist#Okina. I have a few page moves that have been waiting for over 2+1⁄2 months. Chris the speller ^yack 03:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comment there. Without WP:RM discussions, none of those titles should have been moved in the first place as they seem to violate our WP:MOS ES&L 11:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Second apparent legal threat from User:Yatrides

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:Yatrides has made an apparent second legal threat, on my talk page, in this edit.

"I'm not litigious (see ArtPrice> Authentic Yatrides), but the manipulations on the events determined by my professional life, which represent my biography, must stop on Wikipedia USA including Wikipedia France where an US moderator has deleted my biography which become wrong / false." (bold added)

He previously made a legal threat which was reported and discussed on AN/I, here, so he is aware of our policy on the matter. Yworo (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Reference to WP:DOLT was made in that previous thread. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Though it doesn't change the status of any potential legal threat, it's important to bear in mind that while this editor claims to be either the article subject or someone acting on his behalf, we have no way of knowing (that I can see) that it isn't instead someone attempting to embarrass the subject via this bizarre behavior. See [184]. EEng (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a problem editor claiming to be a notable person. Has this been verified by OTRS? If not, he should be blocked simply for possible impersonation. Yworo (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I see Orangemike blocked him. Thanks, OM! Yworo (talk) 14:51, 4 October 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 threats by User:Chuy33

per WP:DOLT, a dispute over some content in Raul Julia-Levy (which reads like a vanity bio at this point, but that's another problem). The user posted this (If infact you continue to post these things action will be taken) to my talk page, over the dispute between the subject's claims that he is the biological son of Raul Julia, which has been contested by Julia's wife and was perfectly well sourced to a NYT article. Additional material was removed regarding a "scandal" that was poorly sourced, brought to our attention via an OTRS ticket and separately at WP:BLP/N as well in response to this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that 76.172.80.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also posted legal threats at Discospinster's talk page (link above). Not sure if we notify IPs of ANI threads though. I assume they're the same person. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

IP user 96.244.127.180

user 96.244.127.180 made a number of minor changes to articles yesterday and today, mostly numbers, that need to be reverted ASAP. I don't know if I'll have time to fix these things tonight. Can he be blocked? -- Randy2063 (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've rolled them all back and warned the user. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines

My action of removing 1970 Bhiwandi Riots (an article created by the user) was reverted by User:Darkness Shines[185] (reason "See fuck off"). I have started a discussion on Template_talk:Violence_against_Muslims about link. The 1970 riots is minor compared to Bihar 1946, Gujarat, Bombay riots, but since the user has not responded to the argument and said " do not remove valid links again". I have also created a discussion on Talk:Anti-Muslim_violence_in_India#WP:UNDUE_and_incompleteness:_2002_Gujarat_violence (from where I reached the template actually) about completeness and UNDUE of a section, the response I get there is "Court of law? You are a sock and I claim my five pounds" [186]. This behaviour is complete disregard for Wikipedia:Etiquette.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "See fuck off" is...what's the civil word for "stupid"? an untelligent comment. Drmies (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the repeated use of un-WP:CIVIL language. Closing a discussion by the user citing "WP:WHATAPILEOFBOLLOCKS" [187] I will request an admin to guide the user for using respectable and civil language. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

DS is well-known for uncivil language. But, unless directed at someone, it's not blockable. An WP:RFC/U might do something about it, but possibly not. This is outside the realm of the old WQA now, as it's a pattern of behaviour ES&L 15:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ESL is correct, and DS has been blocked for it before; it's entirely possible that this might happen again if an admin deems that there's too many fuck-offs (this admin deems that not). As for the BOLLOCKS--well, I just read over that discussion, and BOLLOCKS was directed at words, not a people. In addition, the discussion gives DS ample reason to refer to the original complaint there as totally BOLLOCKY. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I am NOT asking for a block. But foul language is not WP:CIVIL. It becomes offensive and insulting, spoils the mode of the discussion and fuels disputes. This was my first time interacting with this user as far as I remember. I just wanted someone to explain to him/her the policy so it is not repeated again. But it seems that uncivil language is now an accepted part of Wikipedia culture. RIP civility. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I left them a note, as a reminder. You will just have to accept that DS is given a certain amount of leeway (not an infinite amount!) since they are dealing with tons and tons of socks and trolls. That's not always an excuse, but handling that is a timesink, and I for one appreciate some of the work they're doing. At the same time, I understand your concerns as well, and so I'm in a somewhat difficult spot, which I'm trying to navigate without blocking them and without giving you feeling that I don't care, because I do. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Indo-Pak disputes

• Not commenting on anything directly related to the post, there are enough problems in the Pakistan/India related articles on Wikipedia. Would it be useful to create a dispute noticeboard solely for those topics? Ryan Vesey 05:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, i don't like that idea of a separate dedicated noticeboard. My complaint about the conflict resolution in this field has been that it gets those same repeated admins every time, who mostly are involved as editors also; maybe not specifically in that article, but definitely in that topic. Also, i feel that there is a image in the minds of many admins that Indo-Pak-Bangla article pool is full of conflicts and is better left aside. Separate noticeboard will not help in these two problems.
Sorry Redtiger to not comment on the actual raised issue, but i had to answer Ryan here itself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In a lot of these long-running nationalist conflict areas, subjecting the areas to discretionary sanctions, while not of course entirely solving the long-running feuds that underlie it, at least has helped to curb some of the worst behavior and remove the most problematic and inflammatory editors from the topic. Most of the time these get applied after the whole thing blows up and lands in front of ArbCom, but the community can apply the same type of sanctions. If this really is a long-term nationalist trouble spot, maybe it's time to think about having that conversation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We already have two sets of discretionary sanctions in the area: Community applied -- Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups and Arbcom decree -- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan reinforced per this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Constant vandal

AlphaValkyriesWolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been pretty constantly vandalising List of most viewed YouTube videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a while, after a report to WP:AIV (where there as a backlog). Could an admin please block the account. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared out the backlog. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Stanleyfosterkane

Stanleyfosterkane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a very loudly quacking obvious sockpuppet of the blocked Stanleyfosterreed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would someone please do the necessary? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe if you ran for admin already, Mr/s. Hopeful, you wouldn't have to bother important people like me and interrupt their naps. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It's Mr and I wanted to get back to my nap! Thanks for taking care of it.--ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, I did you one better: I semi-protected the article for a month and will have no problem with longer protection--I'm thinking that a previous series of IP edits may have come from the same source. Thanks, and nap on, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Excellent thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Single user with dynamically changing IP continuing to violate 3RR

This is about the article Hapa. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

In reference to page [188]

User 74.101.71.177 has continued to violate the 3RR. I and several others have attempted to reach the user via their talk pages as well as the article's talk pages: [189] and [190]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [191]
2. [192]
3. [193]
4. [194]
5. [195]
6. [196]

User appears to have a continually changing IP address, which they state here: "My IP address changes because my ISP dynamically distributes IPs." [197]

User has been notified: [198]

Any advice is welcome as I would like the article to be accurate. Thank you. TAG speakers 04:24:10 (UTC)

Get the article semi-protected. That will force them to use the talk page. Have you notified each of the IP talk pages of the 3RR violation? Note that you too have violated 3RR. I would also suspect sockpuppetry with two new editors (User:Polyglottz and User:Quixote1122) supporting your edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I edited the page twice so am unsure how you see a 3RR violation. I will request semi-protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TAG speakers (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

My bad. Stricken. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for one week and closed out the reports at ANI and RFPP. I'm not altogether happy with the protection, though. The article is being edited by IPs (one or more individuals - lately just one), by new named accounts (who agree with TAG speakers), and by TAG speakers. In other words, by semi-protecting the article, given the recent history, the only person who will be able to edit the article is TAG speakers. Although there has been discussion about the issue on the talk page in the past, there has not been any recent discussion. Worse, the only users discussing it were the IPs. TAG speakers has not contributed at all. I strongly urge TAG speakers and other named accounts to participate in a discussion of the dispute and, if unresolved, use other dispute resolution mechanisms.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've watch-listed the article and will keep the TAG speakers from just taking over. GregJackP Boomer! 14:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Hasteur, AFC, and "I didn't hear that"

User:Hasteur has thrice reverted the undoing of his closure at two AFCs, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections. After being told that his closes were not based on Wikipedia guidelines (see edit summaries here and here), s/he has replied with a very WP:OWNy response: "Are you a contributor to AfC? I think not. Please do not mess with AfC project space pages". When invited to discuss, her/his reply was exactly the same, with a bit of ABF included: "You're not a project member of AfC, you're not familiar with the levels necessary for AfC. DO NOT remove the reviews or I will take you to AN3 for edit warring. The submissions are in AfC space and under the auspices of AfC. They're not the property of DYK." (note that a related article is currently at DYK, though I was checking the closes under the IP writer's request). Hasteur then reverted my reply; obviously discussion is pointless. Do we really want editors like this interacting with newbies? No wonder there is a retention problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a further note: Hasteur has since avoided reverts by providing an alternately worded refusal which is likewise not based in policy or guideline. There is no "ratio" of references to content; if a published list has all the winners in an extant list, we can use that list, as shown in several Featured Lists like List of works by Amir Hamzah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And what's different with your cherry picked example? There's a WP:LEAD which gives a synopsis of what makes the list up and some idea of how it's connected to it's parent article. Please let me know if you would like me to poke more holes in your argument. Hasteur (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your rationale was "insufficient content/reference ratio". I was addressing that. You are moving the goalposts, and implying that you had made such an argument regarding the article in question that you actually didn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• One last note: the IP editor who asked me to check this out also complained that edit summaries such as "An IP knows better than a Editor... NO" are overly rude. In the context of AFC, I tend to agree, as a lot of good editors get their start as IPs (or choose to edit continuously as IPs). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Get the Facts straight: For both pages the sequence was: Declined once, Undid by IP address, Undid by me, Re-undid by you, Re-re-declined by me, Re-re-re-undid by you missing the point AGAIN. So what did I do. I re-reviewed it citing exactly what problems there were were (No lead on the winners page explaining the connection, grossly under sourced for the amount of content on the "Selection members" page). Each Project is given general controll over articles in it's perview. I was exercising the rights granted to AfC. I dropped a notice on the DYK nomination page because the IP editor cited the DYK nomination as justification for overriding the AfC evaluation. No wonder we're loosing volunteers from the project when we have disruptive editors like you trying to protect editors who are patently not newbies and deserve to have a candid review of their submission. Would you rather the AfC submission process go around for 6 months while we string along the user with non-critical language only to finally decline the submission because of something that was patently obvious during the first review of the submission? Hasteur (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Last time I looked, submissions at WP:AFC (a place where unregistered users and other newbies are encouraged to create articles) were supposed to be judged against Wikipedia's generally applicable article guidelines and could be reviewed by any autoconfirmed user. There are no special qualifications for AFC submissions to be accepted and no rites of initiation or secret handshakes required to enter a secret fraternity of users who can review AFC submissions. Since User:Crisco 1492 is an administrator who has created many articles and has contributed to FAs and GAs, it appears to me that he is amply qualified to review AFCs. Maybe the late hour has clouded my judgment, and maybe the childish squabbling in the US Congress has reduced my patience for other squabbling, but Hasteur's insinuations that Crisco can't possibly understand how to review an AFC submission look to me like nonsense. --Orlady (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I may be somewhat out of touch, but I seem to recall certain wiki projects being given carte blanche with respect to pages in their purview (WP:USROADS and WP:NRHP). As such I would have assumed that the same yielding of acceptance would have been extended to the page in AfC space and wouldn't have editors outside of the project interfering with the operations of the project. I would have assumed that when a less experienced editor would go to an admin, that the admin would take all aspects of the situation in and review the applicable policies before taking a hostile action. I would have assumed that an admin would be more scrupulous in following WP:BRD and would have reached out to the AfC project. But I guess all these assumptions are what I get for trying to assume the best in people and having to apply clue-bat to others repeatedly. Crisco 1492 is invited to reach out via appropriate DR mechanisms (such as WP:DRN, opening a discussion at WT:AFC, or talking to annother editor involved with AfC), but running to ANI without trying other less agressive and disruptive forms of DR only serves to make me further question my involvment and commitment with Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's completely out-of-touch, and has never been formal. Unfortunately, some projects have taken that idea as a mantra, which goes against the goals of Wikipedia as a whole. Please don't try to use a failed idea of ownership-by-project as a defense - you're brighter than that Hasteur ES&L 12:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is no policy supporting a complete blacklist of non-project members editing any article or Wikipedia page, and if someone were to try and make one they would rightfully be scorned. If AFC does truly believe, as both a first line of defense and introduction to the community rolled into one, that it is to be outside of the purview of editors who are not members (I note that membership does not require any proof of qualification), then an RFC should be conducted.

"Try the proper mechanisms". I did try: your talk page. I posted, if I'm not mistaken, after your first revert of my edit. You unceremoniously booted me from said talk page. If your seventh trip to ANI shines a bad light on you, it is your own fault. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a question: if you were trying to discuss content, why would you go to their page directly? Content discussions should always take place on the article talkpage so that all interested parties may partake in the discussion. I typically remove content discussions from my talkpage too ES&L 12:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Crisco's initial post on Hasteur's talk page was not about content. It was about communication: diff. Moreover, none of the subsequent discussion on that talk page was about content: Hasteur diff, Crisco diff. --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) In fairness, since this is an AFC draft, the content is on the talk page and it can be confusing as to where discussions about it should go. However, with that being said, an administrator like Crisco should know how to use the opposing space of the draft as a talk page and I'm fairly certain that Hasteur knows this., yet Wikipedia:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections still show as redlinks for me. I say trout you both! Now, what I'm really curious about is why these non-article draft submissions have anything to do with DYK, I've seen it mentioned a few times in various pages and am baffled because I wouldn't call any AfC submission "stable" enough for any kind of DYK line... Also, if there is a mainspace article that there is a DYK for, and it has been spun out into AfC, then I wouldn't consider that article stable enough for DYK either as it has important information in an unstable location. Finally, why was an article spun out into AfC, as this doesn't seem like normal protocol to me. Technical 13 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Technical13: If you're curious, you could do some research into what actually happened, instead of guessing.

Another article initially created at AFC by the same IP user is at DYK as a nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival. The two articles in question here (which are actually at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival selections and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/List of Rhode Island International Horror Film Festival award winners) are prominent red links in the nominated article. As you can read from the DYK nomination page, the nomination has been on hold for a month waiting for resolution of the situation with the two articles at AFC. Crisco 1492 was trying to resolve that situation. Hasteur says Crisco doesn't have any right to get involved with the AFC review process. You will find some discussion history at both the AFC pages and the DYK nomination page. --Orlady (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Essentially the same as Orlady has already replied. As for "using the other space", please show me where that is in the documentation, exactly. You're saying what you think should be instinctive, yet I don't see such an alternative presented at the AFC documentation. There being no way to discuss nominations was exactly why DYK's nomination templates were moved to Template (from Template talk), so "post on the other page" obviously isn't as instinctive or intuitive as you claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC) - Edit23:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Now that I've had ample time to cogitate on this in the light of day, it's time to recommend some solutions. Both parties to this dispute are good and productive contributors to Wikipedia, who shouldn't be warring.

As I see it, User:Crisco 1492 wants to help an IP user get a couple of pages moved into article space so they will no longer be redlinks. He became concerned that the pages were rejected at AFC for reasons that didn't provide useful advice to the contributor, and he reverted the rejections. Meanwhile, User:Hasteur is concerned with maintaining the proper operation of the process that has been established at WP:AFC, and got upset because Crisco's edits violated the protocols there. Specifically, the standard protocol at AFC is for "rejected" pages to be "resubmitted" for review by the submitter (and placed at the end of the review queue) after being revised, but Crisco's reverts short-circuited that standard protocol, messing up the queue. Crisco's error in not following protocol deserved a response in the form of friendly communication about the AFC protocol, the response it received ("You're not a project member of AfC, you're not familiar with the levels necessary for AfC. DO NOT remove the reviews or I will take you to AN3 for edit warring.") was entirely unwarranted.

Hasteur is hereby WP:TROUTed (with a particularly large, wet trout) for failing to assume good faith, failing to communicate effectively with the IP user regarding the concerns about the articles, failing to communicate effectively with Crisco about the protocols at AFC, for asserting ownership of the AFC process that is supposed to serve Wikipedia as a whole (not just the active volunteers), and for overall incivility. Crisco is hereby advised to study up on the AFC process so he doesn't mess up its queue again by reverting AFC rejections.

Next step is for the parties to figure out how to help this IP user improve the pages so they will be acceptable in main space (or fix the issues yourself) and get them moved to main space. With cleanup, the pages would be credible candidates for article space (they would not qualify for speedy deletion), but if Hasteur thinks the pages should be deleted, take them to AFD after the move to main space. --Orlady (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Orlady I accept the trouting, however turn the scenario around. If a member of an outside project had gone into DYK and started undoing declines (or petitions for more information) would the players involved have reacted the same way? I sincerely doubt that it would, however I would hope that the IP address and Crisco now have a greater appreciation for the work that AfC volunteers do. I would also point out that it's not just one rogue editor who is on a vendetta, as Zach Vega has endorsed the decline reason (as indicated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/October 2013 Backlog Elimination Drive/Hasteur) Hasteur (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, an argument over an AFC decline. Anyways, the reason I supported Hasteur's decline was because nearly all of the sources were primary, and that doesn't go well here in AFC. Hasteur was rather ostracizing after his edits were reverted, and didn't act in a very civil manner. We could've resolved this easily if he had actually attempted to converse with his (current) adversaries, for lack of a better term. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "nearly all of the sources were primary," - Again, that is not what Hasteur was saying in his closes (love how everyone is putting words in his/her mouth... the diffs are right there, people, and "primary sources" was not mentioned in the refusing rationale). I didn't disagree with his rejection, but his rationale. You're not going to help make new editors by giving them rejections not based in policy or guidelines. A simple close like "Rejected: the article depends too heavily on primary sources, and thus its notability cannot be adequately established. Please add more reliable, independent sources."

@Orlady: I will read up more on their processes, but again please note I did not disagree with it being rejected, just the (non-policy or guideline) rationale given. "The source/content ratio is too low" is most certainly not policy based. A close such as the one I've written above would have been much more helpful and avoided the "drama", as it is clearly both based in policy and guidelines and points to the appropriate ones.

I also feel heavily that AFC closers have to be prepared to discuss, just like an admin who closes an AFD. If another editor (registered or not) contests the closure or the closing rationale, the AFC closer should be ready to discuss, defend, and if necessary amend their rationale. It's common courtesy, and it's a lot more of an effective way to get new contributors to stick than just "close, revert, revert, ignore". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Useddenim

Perhaps this should have gone on the dispute resolution page, since User:Useddenim and I have disagreed about page content, but I feel that Useddenim has had a disruptive editing pattern, ignoring the voices of other users (primarily me), and has made edits without garnering consensus, and ignoring requests to participate in the related discussions. On 13 August 2013 Useddenim asked me to review a template he had written, I asked why, and with no explanation after two days, I nominated it for deletion. He responded with a tit-for-tat nomination of the template that has been widely used for years, and said we were having a disagreement, I replied that the solution to an edit war is discussion not forking. I asked him again about the use of the template on 9 September 2013 and 12 September 2013, Useddenim has yet to respond. Since Useddenim has indicated on Template talk:ETS LRT route that he would like changes to that template, a discussion was started on how that would work, when Useddenim left the discussion after I left a proposal (WP:SILENCE), I went to commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests to look for other users willing to help out. There Useddenim called my proposal half-assed, so I asked him to rejoin the discussion, twice, he has yet to. Up to two months ago the Edmonton LRT had one template, that worked just fine. The addition of more templates has been called unnecessary multiple times[199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211], yet on 9 September 2013‎ Useddenim created a fourth. Its deletion discussion closed on 22 September 2013‎ as no consensus, so I edited it twice [212][213] hoping to clean it up, and correct it, and each time providing my rational in the edit summary, Useddenim subsequently revised/reverted it. I also brought up my concerns on Useddenim's talk page, and the template page, and asked him to respond to my concerns twice[214][215]. When he failed to respond to my concerns with the template, I made the changes, which was reverted without an explanation on why his version is right, but stated I was ignoring WP:BEBOLD. I don't see how a user can hide behind WP:BEBOLD, which doesn't allow a user to assert his version without discussion. On 30 September 2013 I reminded Useddenim again of the open discussions, he has yet to comment in any. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I will not judge anyone's behaviour (as I only occasionally happened to interfere with this story), and can only say that most of Useddenim's proposals and solutions go in line with a more or less established consensus across Wikipedias & Commons (again, no point on his actions). Commonly raised questions were: including an RDT in addition to a list of stations (as I wrote, they are complimentary), having two templates instead of one (over time I myself came to a conclusion that this may be beneficial, if templates present different aspects of the system; so the accusation of forking does not hold here) and including proposed stations into RDT (Useddenim seems to have provided sources[216], but I won't judge their reliability). I would say that both sides should (on their on will) take a break from editing anything related to Edmonton LRT. In the end, this edit warring will have little effect on whether these stations would be built or not and how soon; so let's embrace m:eventualism... YLSS (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be an established consensus across Wikipedia, and the multiple template system works for large transit systems, but Edmonton's 18 stations neatly fits in one diagram. The issue I have with Useddenim is his unwillingness to participate in discussions, to explain why he thinks he is right. I know a user can't be forced to answer a question, but I don't think that a user should make controversial edits without participating in discussion, and Useddenim has demonstrated that on Template:Metro Line. I've come here because I am tired of getting reverted, asking questions that don't get answered, and asking for Useddenim to join conversations. 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this probably should have been taken to WP:DRN, but 117Avenue escalated this dispute and has strewn it into so many corners that I can’t keep track of it any more:

Template talk:ETS LRT route (15 August) Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit (28 August) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 1#Template:Capital Line (1 September) Template talk:ETS LRT future (9 September) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#Template:Metro Line (10 September) User talk:Useddenim (10 September) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#User:117Avenue (12 September) User talk:117Avenue (13 September) Commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests (20 September) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 23#Template:Capital Line (23 September) Template talk:Metro Line (25 September) User talk:YLSS (3 October) Template talk:Capital Line (oh yeah, it’s been deleted…) and who knows where else.

It’s damn near impossible to have a discussion with someone when most of their responses are “No”, “I don’t like it”, or “We don’t approve”. And let’s be clear that User:117Avenue usually makes the first revert. Furthermore—although not posted in the best location—117Avenue was clearly aware of my overall intent for these templates and page edits. Useddenim (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You're saying I keep linking to discussions, and asking you to reply, because you "can't keep track"? I don't believe that, because I've linked to discussions multiple times without you responding. Why are you suggesting the first revert is wrong? WP:BEBOLD doesn't allow you to make controversial edits without the risk of another user reverting or asking for an explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Template:Kurdish separatism in Iran

A recent community consensus to remerge template Template:Campaignbox Kurdish–Iranian conflict into template:Campaignbox Kurdish separatism in Iran was violated and reverted by user:HistorNE - see revert (he also used another IP account [217] when implementing edits on the second template).

Previously, HistorNE was the one doing the disputed split of the original template in early September and the only one opposing the remerger, though consensus was reached. He had previously also proposed to rename the Kurdish separatism in Iran article, and when opposed decided to split a "competing" article with a desired name. HistorNE has a general tendency not to apply the community consensus, use harsh language, dispose of reliable sources and engage in edit warring, specifically on Iranian and Kurdish related topics - like this,this and this incidents. The editing culture of this user is very problematic - he clearly acts in a disruptive matter and against the community and i don't have an intention to edit-war with him.GreyShark (dibra) 17:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I exluded all events irrelevant to separatism and that's all. No consensus can change fact that you don't have any reliable source which describe 80% events as "separatism". Regarding editing culture of this Israeli user, just to mention few from this talkpage: misusing sources, violating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, insisting on WP:POV directly opposed to WP:RS, prefering unreliable sources and unfinished working papers instead of academic books written by most eminent scholars, forcing version full of inner "citation needed" and header POV template, reverting everything like he WP:OWN article and acting WP:ICANTHEARYOU toward all relevant criticism, etc. --HistorNE (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It should be noted that during proposed merging user Otr500 adviced merging under some neutral name like "Kurdish conflict(s) in Iran" or "Kurdish–Iranian conflict", but still Greyshark09 deseperately wants to keep all conflicts under "separatism" title. --HistorNE (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is simple - you refuse to follow community consensus and edit war at all related articles and templates (apparently nothing changed since this explanation by an administrator). Currently i don't edit those pages, so WP:OWN applies to you.GreyShark (dibra) 14:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Another topic

• This editor also removed a category from an article, where that category was justified by a sourced part of the article's text, see this edit. This edit might be POV related. At best, removal of a sourced category is careless editing, and the editor should be warned. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

For an encyclopaedia article on a historical topic the source is junk. Popular history written by a non-academic, non-specialist, non-historian, not published in an academic press. The claims you want to introduce to the article (that the suppression of the Bar Kokhba revolt was an example of genocide that resulted in "an almost complete depopulation of Judea and an attempt to erase Judeans from history") are fairly exceptional and would require good quality sources. Added to that, the claims seem to be at odds with what has been written by academic experts published under academic imprint (see e.g. Davies, Finkelstein, Katz et al 2006 pp23). Dlv999 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is that HistorNE shows a pattern of edit-warring, which he continues even after this thread was opened and after I warned him not to remove sourced information [218] [219]. In addition, he posted an personal attack and insult on my talkpage [220], which comment I find bordering on anti-semitic in fact, convincing me of a lack of good faith from this editor. Not to mention, Dlv999, that calling the source "junk" is an exaggeration. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Siouxmac41

Siouxmac41 (talk · contribs) is promoting an off-wiki discussion related to bias at Wikipedia by posting at multiple user talkpages. I am not sure if it needs any admin action so reporting it here for community input. -- SMS ^Talk 16:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting them all as trolling. I've seen this link and more or less the same text surrounding it previously - Siouxmac41 must be a sock. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's possible he is a meatpuppet doing things on someone else's recommendation, and it's remotely possible he's just a "bird of a feather" who found his flock without the help of a puppetmaster. Either way, quack! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Visitor moves

Vmjaishankar seems to have cut and paste the contents of the Visitor (disambiguation) page into Visitor and then created Visitor (ecclesiastical) for the content that was previously at Visitor. This screws up the entire edit history and if there is a way to fix this I don't know what it is. Anarcham (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the cut-and-paste page move and temporarily protected Visitor. I'm not done with what needs to be done. --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this discussion (something you should do the next time you post on this board). I believe this was a good-faith error. It appears to me that the cut-and-paste move resulted from the user's confusion and frustration over an unhelpful and misleading hatnote on Visitor. (The hatnote read "For the Catholic equivalent, see Canonical visitation and Visitor (disambiguation).") Based on the user's edit history, the user was reading articles about the topics of visas and health insurance for visitors to the United States, and was bothered to see incorrect indications that only ecclesiastical uses of "visitor" were covered in Wikipedia. I've restored the old article structure and I edited the hatnote and the disambiguation page to make them more helpful to users. The pages are still protected for a few minutes longer. I hope the matter has been resolved. --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notify Vmjaishankar because I didn't think this was really about him or her but instead about fixing the edit. I agree that this was a good faith error and I don't want the editor sanctioned in any way. I didn't have the knowledge or ability to fix the problem created with the various creations and pastes. Anarcham (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vmjaishankar says my fault with regards to cut and paste (not done on purpose, but to fix genuinely). My opinion is that the topic Visitor should be generic (as my previous revision shows) and broad based seriously. Can some seniors with the authority help move current Visitor (disambiguation) to Visitor (older revised edition)? Also current Visitor can be moved to existing Visitor (UK Universities) instead of wrongly created Visitor (ecclesiastical)? Please help correct this! Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Vmjaishankar: I am disappointed to see that you have continued to rearrange and repurpose pages. Unilateral page moves, such as the ones you have done, can be very disruptive. Please do not repurpose any of these pages or make any more page moves until a [{WP:RM|requested move]] discussion has found [{WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] for the change. See WP:Article titles for more information on how titles are determined. If you continue as you have done, you can expect that your account will be blocked to prevent continuing disruption. --Orlady (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Robertpattinsons (Persistent spam/promotion, referred here by AIV)

Referred to AN/I by AIV. Full AIV thread can be seen at [[221]]. I believe this should be AIV, but it was declined and I was referred here.

User:Robertpattinsons appears to be a spam/promotion only account. All contributions appear to follow a promotion pattern with three distinct periods of activity. The first period of activity, the user spent time adding Playstation store links to the External Links section of video game articles, all of which were reverted. In the second period of activity, the user spent time adding a personal blog that the user authored as a reliable source to video game articles. These were reverted by myself following a discussion at WP:VG/S. In the third period of activity, the user became involved in promoting health product sites, on various articles as well as the user's own page. The user's page contains many barn stars that do not appear legit, but I don't know if any policy or essay covers that.

This report is primarily meant to deal with the persistent pattern of promotion/spam, however as a secondary note the user may also have at least one sock, LissaCoffey, who's only contribution include usage of a similar userpage (Deleted by an admin as COPYVIO) and posting a barn star to the primary's talk page. At various points, the user claims LissaCoffey as their wife, but also claims to be the CNN iReporter by the same name [[222]]. An earlier userpage revision claimed to be a different iReporter. [[223]] -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the barnstars and userboxes on Robertpattinsons's user page seem to have been copied from the user page of Alphathon. Deor (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, I suspected it was copied from somewhere but couldn't find the source user when I first looked into reporting. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say all the userpage shenanigans are to give the impression that he is a legitimate Wikipedian. That he is not. Take a look in the bottom right corner of reviews.contently.com -- it shows what this is really about. Might be worth a checkuser to see how many more of these fake Wikipedians there are. MER-C 11:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1906 page

Resolved

I do not know if DerbyCountyinNZ is an editor or not, but said user informed me that I needed to go to this page to resolve our difference, so here I am. I added an entry to the Deaths section of the 1906 page. Buck Ewing died on Oct. 6th, 1906. He was a Major League Baseball Hall of Famer. I felt that this made him significant enough to qualify for such an entry on the page. Derby contends that he should only be on the "1906 in the United States" page because he is not internationally significant. I countered that the U.S. is part of the international community and that there are thousands of Americans on the death pages throughout the years including many MLB Hall of Famers. Derby continues to undo my entry of Ewing and, quite frankly, I'm genuinely confused as to why he/she has a problem with THIS entry when so many other Americans and HOFers are listed in the death sections of the international pages. All I am asking is that this entry be allowed and that Derby quit undoing it. It is not an offensive or controversial entry that I can see.Twinsdude (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DerbyCountyinNZ is just as much an editor as you (as us all) are. --MuZemike 05:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note, as explained at DerbyCountyinNZ's talk page, they were not directing you here to resolve the problems but instead simply suggesting they will ask for a block if you continued. Regardless of what was likely to happen, this is not the place to resolve your differences. You both need to stop editing and discuss on the article talk page. If unable to come to WP:Consensus, try a method of WP:Dispute resolution none of which are ANI. Per WP:BRD, it is generally accepted that until you can achieve consensus, the information you want to add (or remove) from a stable version should stay out, which doesn't of course mean people can refuse to discuss with you (but I haven't seen any evidence for that). You also should remember to assume good faith and be WP:CIVIL and avoid anything which could be construed as a WP:Personal attacks, and therefore not claim the disagreement has anything to do with nationality or bias against nationalities without evidence. You might also want to consider the fact that another article has something is rarely a good argument for or against inclusion particularly without considering possible differences or establishing widespread consensus for such automatic inclusion (which is very rare). Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hot sexy drama...

(bait and switch) Please go to the talk page of Fluorine and open the peer review. I will fill out what I want from the review but I need the page itself created. Por favor...71.127.137.171 (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Useddenim

Perhaps this should have gone on the dispute resolution page, since User:Useddenim and I have disagreed about page content, but I feel that Useddenim has had a disruptive editing pattern, ignoring the voices of other users (primarily me), and has made edits without garnering consensus, and ignoring requests to participate in the related discussions. On 13 August 2013 Useddenim asked me to review a template he had written, I asked why, and with no explanation after two days, I nominated it for deletion. He responded with a tit-for-tat nomination of the template that has been widely used for years, and said we were having a disagreement, I replied that the solution to an edit war is discussion not forking. I asked him again about the use of the template on 9 September 2013 and 12 September 2013, Useddenim has yet to respond. Since Useddenim has indicated on Template talk:ETS LRT route that he would like changes to that template, a discussion was started on how that would work, when Useddenim left the discussion after I left a proposal (WP:SILENCE), I went to commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests to look for other users willing to help out. There Useddenim called my proposal half-assed, so I asked him to rejoin the discussion, twice, he has yet to. Up to two months ago the Edmonton LRT had one template, that worked just fine. The addition of more templates has been called unnecessary multiple times[224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236], yet on 9 September 2013‎ Useddenim created a fourth. Its deletion discussion closed on 22 September 2013‎ as no consensus, so I edited it twice [237][238] hoping to clean it up, and correct it, and each time providing my rational in the edit summary, Useddenim subsequently revised/reverted it. I also brought up my concerns on Useddenim's talk page, and the template page, and asked him to respond to my concerns twice[239][240]. When he failed to respond to my concerns with the template, I made the changes, which was reverted without an explanation on why his version is right, but stated I was ignoring WP:BEBOLD. I don't see how a user can hide behind WP:BEBOLD, which doesn't allow a user to assert his version without discussion. On 30 September 2013 I reminded Useddenim again of the open discussions, he has yet to comment in any. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I will not judge anyone's behaviour (as I only occasionally happened to interfere with this story), and can only say that most of Useddenim's proposals and solutions go in line with a more or less established consensus across Wikipedias & Commons (again, no point on his actions). Commonly raised questions were: including an RDT in addition to a list of stations (as I wrote, they are complimentary), having two templates instead of one (over time I myself came to a conclusion that this may be beneficial, if templates present different aspects of the system; so the accusation of forking does not hold here) and including proposed stations into RDT (Useddenim seems to have provided sources[241], but I won't judge their reliability). I would say that both sides should (on their on will) take a break from editing anything related to Edmonton LRT. In the end, this edit warring will have little effect on whether these stations would be built or not and how soon; so let's embrace m:eventualism... YLSS (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There may be an established consensus across Wikipedia, and the multiple template system works for large transit systems, but Edmonton's 18 stations neatly fits in one diagram. The issue I have with Useddenim is his unwillingness to participate in discussions, to explain why he thinks he is right. I know a user can't be forced to answer a question, but I don't think that a user should make controversial edits without participating in discussion, and Useddenim has demonstrated that on Template:Metro Line. I've come here because I am tired of getting reverted, asking questions that don't get answered, and asking for Useddenim to join conversations. 117Avenue (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this probably should have been taken to WP:DRN, but 117Avenue escalated this dispute and has strewn it into so many corners that I can’t keep track of it any more:

Template talk:ETS LRT route (15 August) Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit (28 August) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 1#Template:Capital Line (1 September) Template talk:ETS LRT future (9 September) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 10#Template:Metro Line (10 September) User talk:Useddenim (10 September) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive811#User:117Avenue (12 September) User talk:117Avenue (13 September) Commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests (20 September) WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 September 23#Template:Capital Line (23 September) Template talk:Metro Line (25 September) User talk:YLSS (3 October) Template talk:Capital Line (oh yeah, it’s been deleted…) and who knows where else.

It’s damn near impossible to have a discussion with someone when most of their responses are “No”, “I don’t like it”, or “We don’t approve”. And let’s be clear that User:117Avenue usually makes the first revert. Furthermore—although not posted in the best location—117Avenue was clearly aware of my overall intent for these templates and page edits. Useddenim (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You're saying I keep linking to discussions, and asking you to reply, because you "can't keep track"? I don't believe that, because I've linked to discussions multiple times without you responding. Why are you suggesting the first revert is wrong? WP:BEBOLD doesn't allow you to make controversial edits without the risk of another user reverting or asking for an explanation. 117Avenue (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Siouxmac41

Siouxmac41 (talk · contribs) is promoting an off-wiki discussion related to bias at Wikipedia by posting at multiple user talkpages. I am not sure if it needs any admin action so reporting it here for community input. -- SMS ^Talk 16:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reverting them all as trolling. I've seen this link and more or less the same text surrounding it previously - Siouxmac41 must be a sock. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's possible he is a meatpuppet doing things on someone else's recommendation, and it's remotely possible he's just a "bird of a feather" who found his flock without the help of a puppetmaster. Either way, quack! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Visitor moves

Vmjaishankar seems to have cut and paste the contents of the Visitor (disambiguation) page into Visitor and then created Visitor (ecclesiastical) for the content that was previously at Visitor. This screws up the entire edit history and if there is a way to fix this I don't know what it is. Anarcham (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the cut-and-paste page move and temporarily protected Visitor. I'm not done with what needs to be done. --Orlady (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this discussion (something you should do the next time you post on this board). I believe this was a good-faith error. It appears to me that the cut-and-paste move resulted from the user's confusion and frustration over an unhelpful and misleading hatnote on Visitor. (The hatnote read "For the Catholic equivalent, see Canonical visitation and Visitor (disambiguation).") Based on the user's edit history, the user was reading articles about the topics of visas and health insurance for visitors to the United States, and was bothered to see incorrect indications that only ecclesiastical uses of "visitor" were covered in Wikipedia. I've restored the old article structure and I edited the hatnote and the disambiguation page to make them more helpful to users. The pages are still protected for a few minutes longer. I hope the matter has been resolved. --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notify Vmjaishankar because I didn't think this was really about him or her but instead about fixing the edit. I agree that this was a good faith error and I don't want the editor sanctioned in any way. I didn't have the knowledge or ability to fix the problem created with the various creations and pastes. Anarcham (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Vmjaishankar says my fault with regards to cut and paste (not done on purpose, but to fix genuinely). My opinion is that the topic Visitor should be generic (as my previous revision shows) and broad based seriously. Can some seniors with the authority help move current Visitor (disambiguation) to Visitor (older revised edition)? Also current Visitor can be moved to existing Visitor (UK Universities) instead of wrongly created Visitor (ecclesiastical)? Please help correct this! Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:Vmjaishankar: I am disappointed to see that you have continued to rearrange and repurpose pages. Unilateral page moves, such as the ones you have done, can be very disruptive. Please do not repurpose any of these pages or make any more page moves until a [{WP:RM|requested move]] discussion has found [{WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] for the change. See WP:Article titles for more information on how titles are determined. If you continue as you have done, you can expect that your account will be blocked to prevent continuing disruption. --Orlady (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hot sexy drama...

(bait and switch) Please go to the talk page of Fluorine and open the peer review. I will fill out what I want from the review but I need the page itself created. Por favor...71.127.137.171 (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious and disruptive editing by user:Czixhc at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - part two.

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

---

See here [242] for part one - the extensive previous discussion on this matter. In brief, User:Czixhc has spent the best part of three months on Wikipedia doing very little beyond arguing that an image s/he created [243] based on one by architect and cartographer Jonathan Hagos [244] should be used to illustrate "skin color for modern populations" despite the fact that the creator of the original is neither qualified to compile such a map, nor claims to have done so. Having supposedly agreed at the previous ANI discussion to drop the matter (on September the 22nd), Czixhc then added his/her map image to the World map article (on Sept 27th), without any edit summary - and without giving the slightest indication that the map had been the subject of extensive debate, and was not considered a reliable source. [245] Needless to say, this attempt to smuggle the image back into Wikipedia did not go unnoticed - at which point, Czixhc again raised the matter on WP:RSN, under the thouroughly-misleading topic header Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is the University College London reliable?. Yet again, it has been explained by multiple contributors that the map is not a reliable source for what Czixhc claims it to be, but yet again, Czixhc refuses to accept this, with the same repetitive and circular arguments that have wasted so much time for so many people already. Accordingly, I think that there is no alternative than to call for an indefinite topic ban for Czixhc on any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. Enough is Enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Andythegrump again have brought an issue on which i'm involved, and again is unnecessary, actually more unnecessary than what it was the last time. As anybody can see here: [246] I already accepted the consensus of the comunity, which is that for now the sources aren't enough to make the file reliable, thing that i told to him here [247]. Right now i am discussing with another user the policies regarding reliable sources, because i don't want to be involved on a discussion like this one again, i have no intent to prove the file as reliable for now, that's something that i've left very clear I would sugest to close this discussion right now as a false alarm and to really check the behavoir of andythegrump, i mean, something who acts like him really is of not use on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note the weasel-wording: "for now" - it is self-evident that Czixhc will find yet another excuse for yet more tendentious time-wasting, given the slightest opportunity. A topic ban is essential, if we aren't to have to go through this nonsense yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I say as of now because the source must not have enough sources today, but what if 6 months on the future the creator of the work on which my file is included is featured on National geographic or something like that huh? Nothing can be permanent. That's exactly why i am discussing the policies with the opposition right now, i'm more tired of discussing this than you or anybody else. Really the one who needs to be put in check is you, for wasting administrators time on issues where they ren't needed, issues that aren't existent at all. Czixhc (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The above illustrates perfectly why a topic ban is essential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you should give a look to what topic ban means on wikipedia. i'm not being disruptive, i'm not even trying to push my view on the discussion anymore. the one who needs a topic ban is you, one that prevents you from posting on ANI, you are too inmature to do so, I can only imagine how many times you have reported users here without any valid reason or with the resolution not being what you asked for. Czixhc (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User:AndyTheGrump is a respected member of the Wikipedia community, even if he is known to be a grump. Czixhc's allegation that he is "too immature" to post to WP:ANI rises to the status of a personal attack and raises competency issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support either a topic-ban, or, better yet, a community ban on this wiki-lawyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't knew that "inmature" constituted a personal attack on wikipedia, mind you this same user has attacked me way more times and with real insults on past discussions. A topic ban really is not necessary, I already accepted the consensus of the comunity (like two hours ago), I'm very tired of discussing this. Czixhc (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I want to make clear some things here. I accepted the consensus of the comunity around 6 hours ago, this one being that the new sources presented weren't (again) enough to make the file reliable because varios users say so. If i upset some users with this discussion or the previous one, they must know that it wasn't my intention and that wikipedia's guidelines are very important for me (maybe the reason of this incident was that i care too much for them, who knows?). I need a rest from all this "noticeboard storms" and i really don't feel like coming back to any of these any time soon. I will make some edits to articles that might need it from time to time. I can't say that i didn't learned from this, now i know that what the comunity says has more weight than any source (something that i didn't expected to be honest). At this point i care more about finishing this tiring and pointless discussions than if the resolution favors me or not. I also hope to continue being helpful to wikipedia in the future. Since i already stated all that had to be stated on this i'd like to have this rather pointless case closed and move on. Czixhc (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban but preferably a community ban. This editor has responded in an insulting manner to other editors with whom he has had contact, and has tendentiously argued for the inclusion of an image long after it has been explained to him why it is inappropriate. TFD (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've never insulted anyone, the further i've been to do so have been to call an user attitude inmature, for bringing a non-existant issue on this board. As i told above i have no interest on arguing on that file for a long time. Czixhc (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"I've never insulted anyone"? Demonstrably false, as was pointed out in the previous ANI discussion, where I linked this comment by Czixhc: "How come that after i fully explained wich was the contribution and flaws of every editor here and why most of them aren't experts you just pretend that nothing happened and keep repeating the same lies?" [248] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Czixhc's most recent comment where he states- "How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously" which I assume was directed at AndyTheGrump. Insulting and a personal attack.Camelbinky (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would Support the proposed topic ban, but not a community ban, as a way to stop these endless arguments. From time to time, most of us find some point on which we disagree with the rest of the community - push that point for too long and you end up flogging a dead horse. It doesn't help either side. I really think Czixhc should have a chance to contribute to the rest of the encyclopædia, and a topic ban could help accomplish this. if possible I would prefer a slightly narrower scope for the topic ban, ie. get rid of the "broadly construed" as I think the current issue is quite specific. bobrayner (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Czixhc continued to ignore explanations (such as being told a number of times that an academic's description of his interests on his personal page on a university site is not an endorsement of expertise in those fields), continued to argue after saying he accepted consensus and has not left me reassured that he won't be back on this or something similar sooner than he thinks. His statement "I've never insulted anyone, the further i've been to do so have been to call an user attitude inmature," doesn't square with him telling Andy earlier this morning "How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously". Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have a feeling that a topic ban may just be the first stop on a path to community ban as this editor has real difficulty with WP:HEAR, but we can hope for improvement. Topic ban is appropriate and measured. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Czixhc has made it clear from his numerous discussions that he is trying to weasel his words and arguments and threads to try to get the consensus he wants and he wont stop bringing up the topic until he gets the result he would like.Camelbinky (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some things are being ignored here. I called Andythegrump "clueless" because he brought an issue at ANI, his opening post, clearly states that I "refuse again to accept the consesus of the comunity" However, in this diff is clearly seen that I accepted the consensus of the comunity [249] and this happened two hours before Andy openned the case on this place, I notice that various users here think that i haven't accepted the consensus yet, when i clearly did it (not sure why this happens, they probably just read the post here). Not sure about what other people think, but in my opinion an editor that opens a case arguing that i refuse to accept a consensus when that person (me) actually accepted the consensus two hours before is something that makes the "clueless" adjetive very appropiate. If somebody wants to take part of a discussion on a noticeboard (any) the person must have a clue of what is going on, and that person on question have insulted me more times and with real insults before, just give a look to the archived ANI case or to his block log [250], there are blocks due personal attacks there. I also find that andy have "brought" evidence of previous personal attacks (even though he is the least likely person to complain about that), and his evidence is that i said that another editor said "lies" However, he takes it out of context, and if i recall correctly i said that the editor in question was lying because he keep repeating the same things over an over despite that i have explained everything to him before (similar at how that same editor said that the file on discussion was violating copyright yesterday, ignoring that the file has been proved twice to not violate any copyright). Finally i don't get the idea of calling a topic ban on an issue that i've said repeatedly to not have interest on discussing anymore. Czixhc (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, Czixhc is making false assertions. Two minutes before I started this thread, Czixhc was still arguing about the validity of the disputed map at WP:RSN: [251] Sure, Czixhc had said that he/she wasn't going to carry on arguing - and then did so anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the assertion that Czixhc makes regarding a diff which is supposed to illustrate "accept[ing] the consensus" is revealing too - what it actually says is " it's seetled for now (I say for now because the reputiation of Hagos or his work might change in the future, when more sources that favor him get published as one of much examples, and when that happens i'll try again)". [252] A clear statement that Czixhc had no intention whatsoever of dropping the matter, and was looking for an excuse to go through the whole business again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was clearly discussing the comunity's definition of "seminary", not if the file is reliable or not, I've said multiple times that i want to know wich are the definitions of the comunity about these topics, because i don't want to enter on a discussion like this again. And watch out, you accusing me of making false assertions is a personal attack according to your own criteria. On the another topic i already told you above that nothing can be permanent, what if the map or Hagos are featured on national geographic? or on an academic text by the University of Cambridge? If that happens then the document in question would be undeniabily reliable. Czixhc (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Providing verifiable evidence that you've made false assertions is not a personal attack. And yet again, after asserting that you have dropped the map issue, you start arguing about it once more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good, on that case i haven't attacked anybody either. And what part of "i was discussing the comunity's definitions of the policies" is not clear for you? Czixhc (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You weren't 'discussing definitions' in your last post - you were telling us that you intended to raise Hagos again at the first opportunity, while utterly ignoring everything that you have been told. I think that it will be clear to everyone that until you are obliged to do so, you will use any excuse to drag this ridiculous issue up again, regardless of any claim to have dropped the matter. Anyway, I've provided more than enough evidence, and it seems that my call for a topic ban has substantial support. Hopefully we can lay this matter to rest, and get on with doing something more useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• So you are saying that you know better than myself what I do? That's ridiculous and you are grasping at nothing at this point. And i don't get what's the point of a ban on a topic that i have no interest on discussing anymore, I'm really tired of all this bias, next time that i have a source i will contact an uninvolved administrator personally and ask his opinion, hopefully that way i will avoid having contact with you ever again. Czixhc (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please close this, either denying or enacting a ban, etc? Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Are you aware that this issue was already seetled and that if not for you commenting this would have been archived already? You commented when less than an hour was left. Just let it get archived. Czixhc (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Settled? 6 supports for a topic ban, no opposes. The ban hasn't been imposed yet and there's been a 7th support. Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm looking at a topic ban and then a community ban if the subject's been pushing it. He clearly has nothing to contribute and when somebody calls him on his behavior, he rants all to hell. --Eaglestorm (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Excuse me but I've never "ranted to hell" anything. What are you talking about? On first place if you follow the discussion from the beginning the reason for which this case was opened was because another editor thought that i was doing something that i wasn't even doing. This entire case is pointless. Czixhc (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh...if you didn't do anything why being so defensive? You'll have to do better than IDHT comebacks at me to save your skin, kid. and BTW, I read the entire thread so you can't use that argument on me. Nice one. Take a Wikibreak for a few weeks, eh?--Eaglestorm (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The forum shopping on WP:RSN is wasting volunteer time. Although several experienced users have explained why his self-produced world map of skin colour is not usable, Czixhc's response has been largely WP:IDHT combined with borderline personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This is a clear-cut case of WP:IDHT and an editor unable or unwilling to understand wikipedia's sourcing policies, despite voluminous discussion and ample feedback from multiple editors at WP:RSN. Czixhc's agreement to drop the issue "for now" isn't credible IMO given that the user made similar commitments (with similar loopholes) the last time the issue was at ANI, and then resumed tendentious editing and debates soon after that thread was archived. Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block - Czixhc's gone well beyond wasting community time, and is simply being WP:POINTy, making personal attacks left, right, and centre, and simply is incapable of understanding/listening to anything said by an experienced user. The huge majority of their edits revolve around this subject - in fact, I'm struggling to find any major improvement they've made to Wikipedia in that time on other subjects. A few minor ones, but nothing that comes close to outweighing the sheer mess this user has caused, and is continuing to cause. I do support an indefinite topic ban as well, just to be clear, but I think the indef block is the better solution. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Can somebody close this? The user who opened the case wasn't paying attention to the RSN discussion at all

• The thing here is that this entire discussion is a mistake, Andythegrump opened this case because he wasn't paying attention to the discussion, he though that i was trying to push the document in question as reliable, when in reality i already have accepted it as unreliable two hours before he oppened this case [253]. This case is pointless: He is requesting a ban on something that i wasn't doing. I notice that there are users that support it, but they do it probably because they read the opening paragraph and believe that the discussion has been like what he wrote, and i don't blame them, even my mother would believe that i am the worst person ever if she reads what Andythegrump wrote. Don't know if was because he just don't pays attention to the discussion or if it was plain bad faith,but what he wrote isn't what happened and that has been extensively proved through this discussion. This is why this case must be closed now: Is as if "X" user request a block on "Y" user for serious vandalism, but "Y" wasn't doing any of these things at all. Czixhc (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is unreasonable to claim that people only read AtG's statement and did not look at the past edits and context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Eaglestorm says that i keep pushing the file when i don't, and Mathsci says that i still in IDHT ground when i already accepted the consensus of the comunity various days ago. Czixhc (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TRPoD. I certainly have read all the threads in this discussion at the various forums. Every editor that has weighed in believes this editor needs a break at the very least. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The problem that i have with all this is that I, by myself, have already agreed to take a break of all this around two hours before Andythegrump opened this case without even checking what was going on in the RSN discussion and other users that have show support seem to not be aware of that, i'll cite Camelbinky for example: Czixhc has made it clear from his numerous discussions that he is trying to weasel his words and arguments and threads to try to get the consensus he wants and he wont stop bringing up the topic until he gets the result he would like... - I mean, this is not true and i've said many times that i accepted the consensus of the comunity of the file not being reliable. Czixhc (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• A simple question. If you have already decided to permanently drop the topic, what harm will a topic ban do you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is negative because is undeserved, you opened a case acusing me of doing something that i wasn't doing. What would be the point of a ban on a topic that i have no interst on discussing? If anything you should be baned from opening cases on ANI because you created this thing here lacking knowledge of the actual situation on the RSN or you just plain premeditely wrote false statements in bad faith. Czixhc (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have provided ample evidence regarding your behaviour. Even after stating that you had dropped the subject, you continued to argue about it in this very thread when you wrote "i already told you above that nothing can be permanent, what if the map or Hagos are featured on national geographic? or on an academic text by the University of Cambridge? If that happens then the document in question would be undeniabily reliable". AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is going on circles now, I already told you that if i ever have a doubt about "x" source i rather contact an administrator and ask him personally, hopefully that way i wont have contact with you again. Czixhc (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• So even after all this time, you still don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works - admins don't determine the reliability of sources. Anyway: will you give us a guarantee that 'x' will not include anything to do with your image and/or Hagos? Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk)

• Again going on circles, you understand that at this point you are being the one legitimely making disruptive editing? Czixhc (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a discussion as to your behaviour. I am discussing your behaviour. That is not disruption. And I assume your refusal to give a straight answer to a simple question will be taken into account here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• And your behavoir is being disruptive here, more than mine, and you are asking the same thing for the third time. If there ever the file or the author of it in question appears on an academic or a highly recognized publication i'm in all my due right of try it again, as long as that don't happens i wont discuss this thing again, what is so consfusing? Czixhc (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Czixhc has now made it entirely clear that his/her assertions that he/she had dropped the subject are entirely worthless. On that basis, I repeat my request: that Czixhc be indefinitely topic banned concerning any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. I note that there has already been substantive support for this, and little evidence of any contrary opinions from uninvolved contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've completely dropped the issue with the existing sources, I also have no interest on jumping to one of these discussions again, what i am doing in no way is outside of wikipedia's guidelines or policies about adhering to academic sources, the support that other users have shown have been mostly because they've read your opening paragraph, the one you opened while you were misinformed about the situation at RSN, or you just lied premeditely. The reason for which you opened this case wasn't even real at all. If anything the one who must be banned must be you from openig cases here. All this time you've been acusing me of something that i haven't done, your request is unaplicable. Czixhc (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, given 10 supports for a topic ban/community ban/block with no opposes, we really need this closed one way or another. Dougweller (talk) 05:33, 7 October 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.

Reporting User:Dogmaticeclectic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 am filling this report because I have run completely out of choices. Wikipedia is full of nice people but people visiting this board often are probably familiar with User:Dogmaticeclectic. We have previously tried discussion, discussion and discussion, various methods of dispute resolution, WP:EW and blocks; yet, in the latest dispute in Talk:Windows Movie Maker, he has called me a liar (explicitly) and threatened me. Normally, I'd use WP:DR but that is only good for editors who want things fixed, right?

I am not even sure what is the lie.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)... okay, let's see how administrators choose to handle this - with or without hypocrisy? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note for administrators: this user has willfully misrepresented another user's comments in order to provide support for this user's own position in a content dispute - is that not a blockable offense? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional note for administrators: I previously reported this user in this dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline). In that report, you can see that this user had reverted to this user's preferred version of the article five times before this dispute flared up again recently. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. There has been a case before; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221 § User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline). Meanwhile, it is interesting that in the diff above, he has invoked WP:BRD to justify a revert. Does BRD really apply in these cases? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I invoked WP:BRD not for my own edit directly, but in the sense that you did not follow it when you repeatedly (as the edit warring case clearly shows) removed material that had previously been in the article without obtaining consensus. I've now clarified this at the talk page of the article in question as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Dogmaticeclectic's statement (new as of October 6)

I would first like to apologize for any policies and/or guidelines that I may have violated in the past, particularly edit warring, which is what all of my blocks prior to this incident were for. I also admit that the extent of my anger may be unjustified at times, and therefore apologize for this as well.

That said, I am very concerned with the Wikipedia community's apparent willingness to impose such far-reaching bans, given that the statements that I was reported for violate no policy that I am aware of. Calling someone a liar may be a civility issue, but I provided evidence along with that statement - it wasn't a simple case of name-calling; threatening to report someone to administrators is definitely not a policy violation as far as I know.

In short, while I do admit I may have made some mistakes in the past, the community seems to be acting on impulse rather than good judgement. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Further statement

Given the level of support for the proposed topic ban, I am now almost completely convinced that the Wikipedia community is extremely vindictive and has little concept of second chances. Since I have been blocked before, any report against me seems to be automatically treated as valid without proper analysis and with flimsy justification upon inquiry for reasoning.

Therefore, my options are quite limited. If I continue to contribute in any significant manner, the following is basically guaranteed: certain users who want me gone from the encyclopedia because I dare to challenge their ownership of articles will continue to report me over and over again, the community will continue to support them because of my block log compared to theirs, and my block log will grow longer and longer until I am indefinitely blocked. The only alternative is to cease making significant contributions, but this is basically identical to a self-imposed indefinite block.

I am not quite sure which option I will choose at this point, but either one is virtually guaranteed to mark the end of any significant editing of Wikipedia by me. This saddens me, but this seems to be what the Wikipedia community has decided. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: Topic ban

It seems clear to me, given Dogmaticeclectic's lack of WP:AGF, accusations and block log that they have trouble editing articles about Microsoft products. I wasn't aware such a topic was this controversial, but apparently Dogmaticeclectic believes that it is. So I propose a 6-month topic ban from articles about Microsoft products and their talk pages.--v/r - TP 14:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yet another administrator supports WP:OWNERSHIP for certain users. How impartial.

Seriously, how do these people become administrators? Is the Wikipedia community willfully blind? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, Dogmaticeclectic, insulting Admins, as a group, is not going to help your case at all. And your arguments are not somehow more convincing when they are bold. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support(ec) Though I generally am known for opposing "draconian solutions", in the case at hand the editor seems not to quite comprehend why specific processes are used -- and that edits from months previous do not count as reverts (Albeit we do have a precedent from ArbCom that four reverts in five months is "edit war"!) I would limit the ban to any edits regarding Windows products, and not ban from the new tablets etc. lest the topic ban be too broadly construed. Appending: the reply above seems quite unhelpful here. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Four of the five reverts were made in the span of two weeks - what do you say to that? (Or perhaps: do you not quite comprehend that?) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Attention: I am about to open a separate case against both of you, as well as anyone else who decides to join you in supporting this, for the simple reason that WP:NPA states: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support their proposal below combined with the stuff shown in the original complaint and the block log is enough to convince me this editor has a problem. As noted by Collect, the reply seems to just reenforce the point as does the further reply. I'm not sure just banning them from Microsoft articles is a sufficient, but an indef block is a bit much and undesirable if they can prove to be a productive editor without such problematic editing so I'm hoping it will be. It seems the problem is at least partially personal yet interaction bans can be problematic so probably not desirable particularly without CL asking for one. Howecer I would take a dim view if they start to show up in other areas (if any) where Codename Lisa is active if they weren't active there before (if they are already active, I hope they realise they're on thin ice). Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Questions: do none of you realize that this report is essentially for my involvement the discussion of the content dispute in question? Are you seriously proposing a topic ban that would basically be for discussion in an attempt to resolve a dispute? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between discussion to resolve a dispute and attacking another editor. Your later comments there were clearly beligirent and largely unhelpful for resolving the actual dispute. (For example, the bit where you accused CL of being a liar was dependent on how you interpret what was said. And was also just a dumb accusations since you were referring to an old discussion which someone may not remember and may not bother to check before commenting. Yet the old discussion itself was at the end of the previous section i.e. right above above, so was a dumb thing to 'lie' about anyway.) You've backed that up by showing similar behaviour here. The fact that you don't understand all this is further proof of why your editing is problematic and some action appears necessary. Considering that your biggest problem area appears to be Microsoft related ones, it seems to be a fair call as I mentioned in my support. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban at minimum. DE's behavior in the topic area has been clearly problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting - the material for opening a case against you per WP:INVOLVED is quite welcome indeed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if I were an involved admin here (which I don't think I am), one does not need to be uninvolved to support sanctions in an ANI discussion. You are free to try to open an Arbcom case against me though, if you feel I've abused my tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should wait in case that other administrator (you know who I mean, don't you?) comments here, though... oh, what fun that would be! Although I'm not quite sure whether that would fall under WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK, and which one of you is which... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, WP:ALLSOCKS applies ES&L 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I'm surprised Dogmatic isn't blocked already for the outright personal attacks. Then there's the user's WP:BATTLE mentality evident in this thread. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You're back on my case? And here I thought I wouldn't get the chance to report you too... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider me reported. Now, back to your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• The users initial reply on this thread ("You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)") was pretty a clear sign that there will be troubles ahead unless something is done. And the remaining posts just confirm that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support anything from a indefinite topic ban to a full-on indefinite block. Is Codename Lisa perfect? No, she isn't; she's made mistakes. Dogmaticelectic's standard response is to abuse anyone who opposes them. Willful vandalism has occasionally, but rarely occurred; usually it's just edit-warring to keep their version in play, regardless of consensus. Anyone who opposes them must be a sock or meatpuppet in their mind. Anyone who opposes them gets abused; even in this very thread, their first comment starts as "You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)" which is even worse than it originally was (prior to the snarky addition)... There's one reason why Microsoft articles can be so depressing to be involved in, and that reason goes under the pseudonym of Dogmaticelectic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I prefer an indefinite topic ban, which would put the burden on Dogmatic to come back in six months and ask that it be lifted. I also think there's sufficient support for a lengthy to an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • An indefinite ban and/or block wouldn't provide me with any significant incentive to wait six months. (By the way, I suppose it doesn't really matter now, but you were the unnamed administrator who I essentially predicted may join this discussion.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm glad we solved that little mystery. Per WP:SO, it is normal to reconsider an indefinite ban or block after six months. The obvious incentive is to edit here again or to edit in that topic area again.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps my biggest pet peeve in Wikipedia discussions is users linking to essays as if they were policy. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I can understand that, but some essays are cited so frequently that they are accepted in practice as more than just essays. The standard offer essay is one of those.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support 6 months allows Dogmaticeclectic sometime to edit in other areas, and try and improve their behaviour. If after the 6 months Dogmaticeclectic returns to editing articles about Microsoft products and the editing continues to be disruptive I would have no issue supporting an indefinite topic ban or an indefinite block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment including question: if this topic ban is imposed, can it apply only to articles? Applying the ban to article talk pages as well seems not only excessive but counterproductive, since it would prevent me from even attempting reasonable discussion to form consensus for the entire duration of the ban. (I understand that the community has judged the ban as it was originally written, but I don't think too many users who provided an opinion have considered the point I just made.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Topic bans include talk pages which is always a good thing. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Citation needed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic" from WP:TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Was it really necessary to put that in green? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have ever watched ANI, or reviewed the template documentation for {{tq}}, you'll see it's being used normally and correctly - it's typically used when direct-quoting a policy in this manner ES&L 11:51, 8 October 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.

Proposed: Block for User:Codename Lisa

pointy discussion collapsed

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 has seemingly asserted superiority on several occasions on account of not being blocked as I have. A block seems to be the only fair way to deal with this and bring this user down a few notches to force discussion instead of reverts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I don't think that's a helpful suggestion. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC) As an alternative to a probably (I haven't looked in to the details) undeserved blocked to dis/prove that you both have equally problematic editing patterns, how about you prove your behaviour is problematic as shown by stuff other than your block log so most people won't even bother looking in to your complaints? That way perhaps finally you may learn that whatever problems others may have, it doesn't excuse poor behaviour on your part which may be shown by more than just your block log. And at least people don't have to look far for evidence of your problematic editing. To prove your poor behaviour, how about you do something silly like come to ANI and propose a block for such silly reasons guaranteeing a boomerang? Oh wait .... Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Comprehending this poorly-written paragraph is a bit difficult, but I can definitely say that I wasn't the one who came to WP:ANI. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC) You will note I never said you came here first. However you clearly did come to ANI otherwise I couldn't be responding to your response to my response to your comment (well unless someone copied them here without your permission). Nil Einne (talk) Oppose: This is a ridiculous and tendentious proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Ludicrous proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Speedy close/oppose - Obvious pointy proposal is obvious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 1 October 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.

Proposed: Behavior ban

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 proposing an alternative to topic ban. Mainly a topic ban is punitive and if we ban one topic, he just continues doing what he is doing in other topics. (I come here from this instance of his talk page; I suggest you guys check there too.) Our real problem with him is his behavior, including narcissistic edit warring, rudeness, lying and most importantly failure to understand when a person is extending him an olive branch and responding with "you didn't explain why you are doing this". (Again, his talk page!) With the objective of guiding him towards learning communication and teamwork skills, widely construed, I am proposing:

1. 6 month revocation of the right to revert (0RR, widely contrued) be it manually or via revert button, be it to revert vandalism, to contest a bold edit or to enact the outcome of a consensus in good accuracy
2. Six month revocation of the right to use uw- templates

Hopefully, this will leave him no choice but to talk to people and convince them; just as participants in WP:FA must do. And hopefully, this will make him see that commenting on the contribution only, politeness, teamwork, honesty, dispute resolution, negotiation, compromise and checking the sources carefully does magic. Fleet Command (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: There are numerous aspects of Dogmaticeclectic's behavior that are chronically and protractedly problematic. I support this as well. Toddst1 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This just keeps getting better and better! I must admit I didn't expect to see you here, but welcome (to this evidence-gathering section for a future report on all of the users who have tried to make my experience at Wikipedia miserable). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• comment given the free form comments in this discussion, I don't see that there is any chance that a ban from using uw-templates will increase the actual communication. (At least the with the use of templates there will not be WP:NPA and WP:CIV attacks.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• support I agree with TDPoD that I'm not sure how much a ban on uw will help although Dogmaticeclectic does seem to be very free with them so perhaps it will. Either way limiting Dogmaticeclectic further in some way can't be a bad thing. Frankly their continuing behaviour here doesn't give me much hope (seriously if all you can see is the hole, it's really time to stop digging), this could be put down to a bad day except having looked more closely at their talk page and interactions with editors elsewhere (e.g. Mark Arsten, Lisa) it seems it's not. So I'm no longer opposed to an indef block and I'm unsure that anything weill help or whether they will just continue to insult etc others. But we can only try. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC) On further consideration and seeing DE's somewhat improved behaviour here, I've decided I agree with others 0RR may be pushing it. But I will still support 0RR and the uw limitation despite the uncertainty over whether it will help. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Note for closing administrator: a WP:0RR restriction is essentially equivalent to a block, because editing Wikipedia without at least partially reverting others' edits, at least inadvertently, is virtually impossible. In other words, not only is there no real incentive to abide by such a restriction, abiding by it is basically impossible anyways. Furthermore, disallowing me from using user warning templates would severely inhibit my ability to fight vandalism. I would therefore ask that the closing administrator not impose the behaviour ban. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - although I understand that, as they imposed the block, Toddst1 had every right to remove it again, I'm highly concerned and disappointed that this occurred, given the clear and strong consensus the block had. And a 0RR restriction is not equivalent to a block either. As for user warning templates, that will have a very minor impact on any vandalism fighting (and your definition of vandalism has been clearly well out of consensus anyway) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • One other user in support does not fall under any definition of "strong consensus" that I'm aware of. In any case, although I'm obviously not supporting it, the topic ban would definitely be more constructive. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I count three separate users saying "Good block" (Liz, 28bytes, Stalwart111) in addition to myself. And that's not including the two who supported a full CBAN. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• This comment of mine was specifically in regards to the proposed behaviour ban. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Scratch that... I got confused as to what you were referring to since you basically posted in the wrong section. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• It was in response to you appearing here again, and the fact that this thread is all over the place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Although Dogmatic's equating this ban to a virtual block isn't quite right, it's enough right that I would prefer a proposal for a block to this proposal. It just seems more transparent as to what we would be doing.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I would support 1RR on all pages (perhaps indefinitely) in addition to the topic ban to try and encourage discussion (forcing Dogmaticeclectic to engage with WP:BRD is a good thing). However I don't see how 0RR will fix the problem. I also reflect TRPoD's comment that banning from uw- probably won't help to the extent that Dogmaticeclectic can still make their own copy and paste warning which can be just as bad as what we've seen on this page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Way too much sanction. Prefer topic ban proposed above. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:20, 7 October 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.

Dogmaticeclectic blocked

This is has gotten out of hand. I've blocked Dogmatic for 1 week for the highly confrontational, disruptive and tendentious editing that is patently evident on this page. Feel free to modify this block if consensus is other remedies would be more effective. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Reported to ANI for their behaviour, and their behaviour on ANI leads to a block. When will he understand that it's not the members of Wikipedia who are making his life here miserable, it's his treatment of others and bizarre interpretations of the rules that are making his life miserable here ES&L 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Toddst1's reasoning is spot on. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess DE got out early for time served, Toddst1? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

DE sez he wants to discuss things calmly here. I assume that is regarding the sanction being discussed. Let's see what comes of it. He can be reblocked (per notes and block log) immediately if problems persist. A reblock for violating terms of unblock would almost certainly be for significantly longer. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• The block was spot on and the unblock was even better. Well done Toddst1 that's exactly how it should work! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

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

---

After re-reading this thread, I'm not convinced that my 1 week block or the proposed sanctions are enough to stop these problems. The sentence that jumps out at me really represents the root of the problem:

"I am about to open a separate case against both of you, as well as anyone else who decides to join you in supporting this"

This was in response to a reasonably well thought out proposal about how to deal with Dog's problematic behavior. What that tells me is that this user doesn't have the skills to engage in any type of a constructive disagreement. I don't think we have a place here for those who can't disagree without threatening to report, gathering evidence or otherwise bully those they disagree with. This is not new so I propose a community ban from editing Wikipedia for Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose extending it or changing it to an indef, but let's wait awhile before jumping to a ban. Will a week off give Dogmaticeclectic a chance to cool off and reconsider their approach to Wikipedia? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the realization that people are seriously considering a ban will be sufficient to encourage them to rethink things. I think it's worth a try. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• My experience with this user is they never cool off. The temperature variation is from hot to very hot. They are also extraordinarily stubborn.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I want to agree with 28bytes though I think Bbb23 is correcter. (I have the same experience with this editor.) But I think we should see what happens a week from now, per WP:ROPE. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I wasn't supporting a community ban. I was just reacting to 28bytes's comments and predicting what I think will happen. If I had to vote at this point, I would be opposed to a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I've seen quite enough above. Indef per WP:NOTHERE. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 28b NE Ent 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 28bytes. Dogmaticeclectic is capable of discussing, as I have done so with him on some articles a while back, and isn't at the point where I think he needs to be banned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I would not be against an indef until such a point as we actually see some assurances that this battlebullshit won't happen in the future, and any unblock being based on immediate re-indef should the behaviours recur, I'm not 100% to the community ban point ... yet. ES&L 00:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Seems reasonable, considering everything I've seen. 173.58.106.118 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jasper Deng and ESL. Dogmatic is not a "lost cause" yet, which is what we would be saying with a community ban. I sometimes find myself agreeing with their position on issues (I'm not referring to this particular one), whilst banging my head on the wall wishing they would cut out the battleground stuff and hostility towards anyone who fails to agree with them. I think it's appropriate to use some more of our precious ROPE here to see if they can conform to community norms enough to be productive. Maybe this block will be the impetus for that. The low cost of reblocks is often cited here, and one would surely be forthcoming very quickly if the kind of battleground display above were repeated. There would then, in that eventuality, be little doubt that a CBAN was appropriate. Begoon ^talk 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Good block but oppose ban - DE and I were recently part of a DRV discussion that from the start seemed way more heated than it needed to be. It ended up going the way he had proposed which I think helped to prevent further hostility but (as suggested above) he started angry and got angrier. I couldn't see any on-WP stuff that might have justified his getting that angry and I genuinely hope there isn't something off-WP causing him problems. I'd hope he could come back from a block refreshed, calm and ready to contribute to collegial discussion. If not, he'll likely find himself blocked again. But a ban seems slightly premature. Stalwart111 03:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Block okay but no ban - I think we should look at Dogmatic's conduct after a week off...I imagine that he'll either cool off or he'll get worse. But there is no way to tell before the block is lifted and I believe in second chances. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Good block, no ban yet - CBAN is too soon. I support an indefinite block all the way... but a CBAN, no. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:55, 5 October 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.

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.

Ownership issue on Federal assault weapons ban page?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think there may be an ownership problem on the Federal assault weapons ban page involving one or more of the following editors: Anastrophe, GregJackP, North8000 and possibly Sue Rangell. In that time, the following incidents have occurred:

1. 9 AUG 2013: Despite my being a newbie WP editor and our never having worked together before, Anastrophe reverted an edit I'd made, accompanied by a terse warning on my talk page about "scrubbing" the article. He also said there'd been previous discussion and consensus on the "scrubbed" word.

My newbie mistake: I'd removed three instances of the word - a word highly debated among concerned parties - from one section of the article. It still appeared in a subsequent, less complex section. (I'd also made a half-dozen edits for WP:MOS and WP:BETTER, guided by my experience as a trained news writer.) As for discussion, the only thing recent I found on the subject was the first two sections of Archive2.

2. 10 AUG 2013: I started an RfC about use of the word in the section in question. Despite knowing that I was a newbie WP editor, he continued to criticize me without citing sources or WP policies or guidelines. He also made it WP:PERSONAL by making "you" statements to me over 30 times, by questioning my ethics, by saying I was making a mockery of the process, by accusing me of vandalizing his user page and of ignoring his remarks.

3. 14 AUG 2013: After only four days of the threaded discussion under the RfC - about a contentious topic, and without my knowing that the default RfC length is 30 days - GregJackP used the terms IDHY and DROPTHESTICK (about 15 paragraphs down - it was a lengthy discussion).

4. 24 AUG 2013: Anastrophe deleted my addition of a simple, sourced statement to the lead. Although the lead already contained the statement, "There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded," Anastrophe said the addition of "Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of AWB 1994, but all were rejected by reviewing courts" was WP:UNDUE. He moved the statement to the end of an unrelated topic, and suggested that it could be returned if a Legal challenges section was developed. A section was developed, but not allowed to be put in the article. GregJackP wrote: "Third, in the section just below, the current consensus is to not add this section to the article. If you feel you must, go ahead, but either myself or ... Sue or another editor will revert it based on talkpage consensus." The "consensus" was based on a three-person vote.

5. 5 SEP 2013: A discussion about renaming the article was closed by Sue Rangell - in mid-discussion. Keeping the article title in caps is supported by nothing more substantial than that's how it's been for years (although it was not in caps, and properly, for years before it was changed to caps). Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

6. 30 SEP 2013: Most recently, after active editors agreed to use the BRD cycle and after a number of WP:MOS and BETTER edits (many that an English teacher or good newsroom editor might have made), and a few sourced WP:BALANCE edits that helped to make the article NPOV, North8000 said the article was a "mess" and suggested that it before reverted to a version from five days earlier. Four hours later, GregJackP rolled it back to week-old version, with the "consensus" of Anastrophe, North8000, and Sue Rangell. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is a microcosm not only of the hyper-vocal pro-gun lobby and its advocates, but also of the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia. If anyone can suggest the best place to report that, I would be happy to know.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented my participation in the events of 30sep2013. Please remove the claim that I was in favor of the decision, which in fact I argued against. I see a pattern by this single-purpose advocacy account of claiming 'new editor mistake' when POV edits are made, yet showing a deep and well-versed understanding of even the most obscure wikipedia policies, completely out of character for a new editor. This appears to be a microcosm not only of the hyper-vocal pro gun-control lobby and its advocates, but also of the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia. I'd like to know the best place to report this as well. Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you. At 02:35 30 SEP 2013 (UTC) you wrote, "...I don't think there is a burning need to revert back to an earlier date," but at 18:29 (same date) you wrote: "I have no strong objection to a rollback...." It looked to me like you'd changed your mind and agreed to revert. I disagree with your assumption that mine is a single-purpose account. My only claim of new WP editor mistakes is on items #1 and #2, and since #3 happened when I'd been an active editor for less than one week, I think I could rightly be called a newbie then, too. After almost eight weeks now I'd rate myself an intermediate WP editor. And that is entirely from what I had to learn - on my own, with little help - responding to various comments made to or about me, often using uncited sources and WP jargon. (I have shared that I am a trained writer and editor outside WP, but WP has its own rules and jargon that is very complex, IMO.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The only "ownership issues" I see are on your end, Lightbreather. Just because you don't agree with what the 4-5 other editors have done at that article doesn't mean you should get your way. ROG5728 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Lightbreather has about 750 lifetime edits, and about 98% of those were about 730 edits on this ONE article (and its talk page and sandbox work for this article) in the last 7 weeks. My assessment is avalanches of gnome edits with some heavy POV editing mixed into them. I would LOVE an outside look at the article and the situation there, including the SPA aspect. We just put the article back 5 days (had about 100 edits in mainspace in 5 days) and now are saying the everybody should slow down and also go to talk with controversial edits, and definitely not bury them in avalanches of edits. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Could someone share with me please how to go about looking at the details of other editors' edit history? I assume, from context, that "gnome edits" are harmless or maybe even good edits? I was going to as ask what "SPA" is, but after replying to Anastrophe's comment above I think I've figured that out, but just to be sure, single-purpose advocacy, right? If so, I disagree. (Please refer to my reply to A.) As for the 100-edits-in-5-days comment, the link to the whole discussion is in #6 above. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

re edit history - when you are on a user's page, over on the left you'll see an entry in the toolbox for 'User contributions'. There you'll find that user's complete edit history. As far as I know, that history is cast in stone, and cannot be changed either by the user or anyone else - but I can't say with absolute certainty, perhaps admin is able to elide. Anastrophe (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This SPA account should be considered for a topic ban. It is extremely disruptive, consistantly burying controversial/POV edits in avalanches of gnome edits, making it nearly impossible to fix. It is *NOT* a newbie account, as is apparent by it's extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, more extensive than my own, and I have 7 years experience, and advanced privileges. I was unaware of the existence of this article, until the this SPA canvassed me for support, as I was a supporter of the ban, and I am sure that whomever manages the account assumed that I would support them as well. I am certain that this SPA is a political advocacy vehicle of some kind, it's origin, timing, and efforts are very suspicious, and I hope that a neutral party will look into this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Sue here, and I saw this boomerang coming from a mile away. I closed an RfC in relation to this article at the beginning of last month, which has been my only involvement with this topic. I have observed the kind of discourse there happening since my close. Lightbreather frequently points to WP:BRD in defense on their edits (e.g. [254], [255]), but when reverted, they claim that editors are not assuming good faith ([256], [257]) or disagree with the notion that it is hard to deal with their substantial edits that change both uncontroversial and controversial things about article content, some of which was the subject of prior discussion and consensus ([258], [259]). It is not terribly surprising, given this editing behavior, that there has been a proposal to roll the article back a couple of days. I see some evidence that Lightbreather is getting better at interacting with other editors and using the talk page appropriately, but there is too much disruptive activity still, and I do not see their contributions, on the whole, to be very constructive. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If "SPA" means single-purpose account, then I absolutely disagree. As for the newbie thing, see my response to Anastrophe above.

I have been a Wikipedia user for many years. At some point, I set up an account to add links to some Beatles album pages. I also contributed a little to a local politician's page. The first time I edited a firearms related page was Oct. 2012 when I removed the word "cosmetic" from the article in question. At that time, I must've added it to my watchlist (a feature I'd never noticed before). I didn't edit on WP again until August of this year (2013) when I received three MediaWiki emails. The first two, on Aug. 8, said, "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been deleted," and "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been restored." The third, on Aug. 9, said, "The Wikipedia page Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been changed." Since I am interested in gun politics, I followed the link to see what was happening. When I saw that "cosmetic" was back in the article, I removed it again. From there, you can read #1 above for further info. I was a newbie WP editor then, and boy, did I pay the price.! Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is no-one going to even look into the issue I raised? Even the possibility that there could be WP:OOA going on? (I can give more examples, if necessary.) It wasn't easy for me to come here. Is bringing up an issue here only likely to draw attention to one's own history? Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of the editors who weighed in above have looked into the issue you raised, and so has yours truly. No one thinks you are correct. So I think that should be the end of your complaint. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North, Sue, and any others who are calling for an outside, neutral review of the article. I brought up the last one I could find, but was told that a six year old peer review "is as useful as tits on a boar." Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Lightbreather

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.

---

Should this account (and the claim to be a newbie account making newbie mistakes stretches credibility by rational Anglophone humans) be topic-banned?

• Support as per Sue Rangell. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• involved complicated !vote Certainly lightbringer has been a source of disruption, but I am on the edge as to if this goes so far as to require a topic ban. They do show some signs of wanting to improve, but they have a lot to learn. Perhaps mentorship as an alternative, but certainly if things continue as they have been I would have to reluctantly supportGaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined above by Sue Rangell. ROG5728 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Mentorship would be preferred, as LB did some very good work when she had some direction and positive comments. It was only when a disruptive editor showed up that it went downhill again. If mentorship were to be declined or unsuccessful, then I would very reluctantly support a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Temporary topic ban IMHO this is a very wiki-saavy SPA who I think is feigning lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. They are expertly conducting warfare linking policies and guidelines and accusing editors of violating those. At quick glance it appears that sbout 730 of the about 750 lifetime edits by this account were on this one article (including talk and sandbox development for the article) in a less than a 2 month period, and the second half of the gnome edits have had a large amount of POV work blended into them. (a barrage of about 60 edits in the article space alone of that article Sept 26-29) and the large amount of gnome edits appear to be a means to that POV end. If they want to be a Wikipedia editor, then can spend a few months on the other 99.999% of articles to develop that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As noted below, I feel that a short (3 month) page ban would be a a middle-of-the-road solution. That leaves them the other 99.99998% of Wikipedia articles to work at. I think that the most important thing is that some relief from their relentless and overwhelming hammering of the article is needed. If that causes them to move the same assault elsewhere, that could be dealt with at that time. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• STRONG Support given this SPA's history and ongoing behavior. Scores of AGF attempts have not been useful. Even an Article ban would be useful as this SPA, for all intents and purposes, only edits the one page.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I only claimed to be a newbie in #1 and #2 above - because I was a newbie then. Also, I've only ever brought up newbie-ness in response to accusations from the first 3 or 4 weeks of my active participation on the page (which began Aug. 9). Also, if "SPA" means single-purpose account, I absolutely refute that. I have been actively involved for almost eight weeks and consider myself an intermediate-level WP editor now because I've spent so much time defending myself and my edits - which have ALL been made in good faith. Votes like this are one of my biggest complaints with the system. If you read the policies, votes aren't supposed to be The Final Word - participants are supposed to present civil discussion and sources - but my experience on this article has been, if you're bold, you're told to discuss first, and if you discuss first, you're dismissed quickly and told you're being disruptive if you ask for civil discussion and sources. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. And there better not be an "anti-gun" undercurrent agenda to this. Doc talk 01:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there are no idealogical lines here. Several of us supported the gun ban, and would likely be siding with the SPA account, were it not for the terrible behavior. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I intentionally left it vague on the agenda: either LB or anyone else. Clean block log - do we need to jump to a topic ban? I would have expected better precedence for the ban. Doc talk 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's it - LB and Sue are actually on the same side, politically speaking, IIRC. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, forget gun politics. LB has a clean block log. Disruptive editing necessitating a topic ban should have earned at least one block. A topic ban is so much easier to agree with when there's proof of prior disruption. Jus' sayin' Doc talk 02:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose banning every editor who shows up on ANI -- who's going to be left to edit the encyclopedia after we ban everyone? NE Ent 01:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! You! Writing content! S**t Ent, you knew it was going to happen one day. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • With, for example, a quarter million {{unreferenced}} tags currently present, the scope of the job is beyond my personal capacity; best to keep every editor we possibly can. NE Ent 09:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Reducio ad absurdum much? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - For obvious reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we normally go from no blocks for disruption to a full topic ban to prevent disruption? If this is a sock account, that's another ball of wax. How does one get to a topic ban with no concrete history of disruption to earn it? First block for disruption. If it continues, escalate the blocks. Going straight for a topic ban is overkill. Doc talk 04:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that a topic ban or page ban is milder than a block. They still leave the person free to edit the other 99.999% / 99.99998% of Wikipedia articles. And it leaves less of a "record" when it's over. Maybe a short (3 month?) page ban would be a middle-of-the-road solution? I think that the most important thing is that some relief from their relentless and overwhelming hammering of the article is needed. If that causes them to move the same assault elsewhere, that could be dealt with at that time. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that a topic ban was considered worse than a block, especially in cases like this one. A block deprives a user of the entirety of Wikipedia, while a topic ban only deprives a user of a small section, in this case that amounts to basically a single article. Given a choice, I would personally prefer a topic ban over a block, but thats me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• STRONG Support - This user has been nothing but disruptive and unwilling to work with anyone constructively on this article. Perhaps she could be useful in other areas on Wikipedia, but she is too emotional or too biased to work with anything firearms related.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic banning without evidence of needing one is potentially unfair. Prior blocks for disruption/edit-warring/POV-pushing/etc. only strengthen the case for a topic ban. Since there hasn't been even a short block on this account, it's hard for me to agree that a topic ban is the next logical step. Others disagree, which is just fine with me. Doc talk 01:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I originally suggested a topic ban rather than a block because it seemed the lesser of the two punitives to me, because the problematic editor is not vandalizing random pages, but rather one specific article. However, if it is customary to do a temporary block rather than a ban, then I would support that. It just seems a bit overkill considering that the problem is limited to a single article out of the whole of Wikipedia. I just want to see the page stabilized. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As she only edits that one page, a page ban and a block are effectively the same. although a page/topic ban may give her the opportunity to spread her wings out into a wider set of pages. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I don't like the fact that some editors want to ban me, but of those who do, suggesting that another is unable to edit from an NPOV is an acceptable reason (though I disagree that I am). But "she is too emotional... to work with anything firearms related" is sexist, not civil. Lightbreather (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. After reading the talk page archives, this is richly deserved. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose This 'topic ban' procedure has proven to be a useful tool for coalitions of users with long-term 'ownership' of articles to tactically freeze out opposing points of view. The encyclopedia suffers when this is allowed to happen. NPOV policy trumps here, as minority views should not be excluded by such a gambit. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course you would say that, SaltyBoatr, because you yourself are currently under a 6 month topic ban on the aforementioned article (for good reason). ROG5728 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Premature, Taking everything into account over the past couple of months, including recent (since the big rollback) apparent willingness to run past peers any edits that have the slightest scintilla of being controversial, rather than salting said edits in amongst a hundred (otherwise excellent) technical edits, making the BRD cycle cosmetic, rather than functional (couldn't resist). Would pay folding money to find out how editor saltyboatr would try to spin my vote. Anastrophe (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of mentorship. I've given this some thought over the last couple of days and reevaluated my opinion based on how others have looked at the situation, I have also noticed that Lightbreather is actively seeking a mentorship with StarryGrandma (talk · contribs) on different topics, which I find reassuring, but I would encourage Lightbreather to continue to be mindful of how they edit Federal Assault Weapons Ban and interact with others on the talk page moving forward. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per I, JethroBT's argument. Plus, boomeranging so many Editors who come to AN/I with questions has a chilling effect. I don't think it is warranted in this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What "Chilling Effect" would that be? To stop SPAs and (and various other forms of hattery) from attempting to claim that hard working editors have "ownership issues" and waste everyone's time? Mentoring has already been suggested and offered.

This is NOT A NEWBIE ACCOUNT, this is a years-old Wikipedia Saavy SPA, that has done everything within it's power to disrupt the process and push heavy POV, and has promised never to stop it's efforts. If there was ever a call for a temporary topic ban (or even a page ban) THIS IS IT. Mentoring will do nothing here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Sue Rangell: I have a mentor. Also, PLEASE STOP with the WP:PA - repeatedly shouting "this is not a newbie account" and calling it an SPA account. Even though I have explained myself repeatedly and asked you to stop, I shall do both again now.

First, my only claim of WP newbie-ness was on items #1 and #2 in the "Ownership issue on Federal assault weapons ban page" discussion from four days ago (Oct. 1, 2013). After eight weeks now I'd rate myself an intermediate WP editor. (If anyone believes that it's impossible to gain extensive knowledge of Wikipedia in less than eight weeks, I am here as living proof that it is possible if you cross the editors on the Federal assault weapons ban page.)

I have been a Wikipedia user for many years, but I didn't register until March 2007, to add links to some Beatles album pages. I also contributed to a politician's page in 2010. The first time I edited a firearms related page was Oct. 2012 when I removed the word "cosmetic" from the article in question. I didn't edit on WP again until August of this year (2013) when I received MediaWiki emails saying 1. that the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act page had been moved, and that the Federal assault weapons ban page had been 2. deleted, 3. restored, and 4. changed. Since I am interested in gun politics, I followed the link to see what was happening. When I saw that "cosmetic" was back in the article, I removed it again. From there, you can read #1 in the "Ownership issue" discussion referenced earlier.

One has only to look at my early contribution history and the Federal assault weapons ban history page around Aug. 8 to see this is true. Please post a link to where I promised "never to stop" my efforts, because if I have said that, you're taking it out of context.

I asked you on Oct. 2 on the Federal assault weapons ban talk page to please stop - so PLEASE STOP. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Lightbreather, your "if you cross the editors on the Federal assault weapons ban page" in this post (and the things that it falsely implies ....that they are monolithic, that what started it is problem is "crossing" them rather than your over-the-top behavior) shows that you are still sparring and that the situation is problematic. I think that a 3 month rest from just this one article would be a mild "middle of the road" resolution. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 7 October 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.

Community WP:Discretionary sanctions

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.

---

Should the article be put under community Discretionary sanctions?

• Support - Article is becoming a battleground. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support Oppose I have no idea why there is a sudden interest in this article from a few editors; while I feel like discretionary sanctions could be helpful, I'm not entirely confident that they are necessary if the concerns are just with Lightbreather and another recent editor. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the only current issue there seems to be with one editor and that is being discussed above. ROG5728 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, there has been nothing that has not been able to be handled through the normal processes. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The only problem is that two editors were barraging this article (Lightbreather and SaltyBoatr). SaltyBoatr was continuously nasty and continuously hurling accusations. Lightbreather has not been very nasty, but has been relentless/dominating of the article and problematic. (see above) Everybody else seems reasonable, ready to discuss any matter, proceed carefully and wanting of an objective, informative article. A look at the discussion on the talk page bears this out. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Defer, but I think I know why it became an article of interest recently. If you look at its history, you will see that it was part of another article and then moved to this article on Aug. 8 - which is when I got involved, because I received a MediaWiki email. (Please see my comment about this above.) Also, I think I've only made a "nasty" (rather, hasty) comment once - and I apologized. Also, because the topic is closed, so I can't comment on it there re banning SaltyBoatr: GregJackP said, "Every editor that has commented is in support of the topic ban." I commented, and I didn't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I think the source of the trouble is being taken care of, but I would be in favor in the future should more disruptive elements suddenly pop in out of nowhere in the future. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

*Support This matter needs attention from uninvolved editors or administrators. Notice that a coalition of editors, some with a multi-year pattern of 'ownership' in this topic area, are attempting to exert control over an article by cleansing it of editors with opposing viewpoints. On the principle that this encyclopedia is best served by following a NPOV policy, it is to the detriment of the encyclopedia to allow coalitions to railroad the minority viewpoint. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well of course you would say that, SaltyBoatr, because you yourself are currently under a 6 month topic ban on the aforementioned article (for good reason). ROG5728 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 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.

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:Tom Reedy and abuse of non-free media

Tom Reedy (talk · contribs) has re-inserted 5 non-free files in violation of WP:NFCC Specifically #1,3 the files are being used in a manor which is replaceable and does not meet the requirements set forth by policy. I placed a warning on the talk page, requested that if they disagreed that WP:NFCR is the correct venue to review the removals, but until the review is closed the files needed to say out. I have been reverted several times and only gotten a WP:ILIKEIT and a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response. Can an admin please step in and block the users who have been repeatedly violating WP:NFCC? Werieth (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Tom Reedy has been blamelessly and usefully improving Wikipedia's Shakespeare articles since 2007, and the only block in his log so far is self-requested. I wouldn't block him as lightly as that. Checking out the history of Titus Andronicus and its talkpage, it looks like Tom is not alone in disagreeing with you about the image. The disagreement is discussed in some detail here on WP:AN3, including by an admin (TParis), who decided against blocking any of the people involved. (You were in my opinion fairly lucky to escape a 3RR block yourself.) I don't understand why you have taken the matter to ANI as well. Also, you seem to have forgotten to notify Tom Reedy of doing so. Please see the in-your-face-banner at the top of this page and at the top of the edit window. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC).

Werieth, you understand that #1 and #3 are judgement calls, right? There can be no such thing as a simple violation of a rule that is a judgement call, and therefore there can be no peremptory demand for blocks because of them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, please give diffs for all of that stuff; show us the discussion and warnings please; specifically, "placed a warning on the talk page, "I have been reverted several times".

Throw me a frickin' bone here. Help:Diff. Thanks. 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Here ya go! [260]. You know me: always trying to help others! Tom Reedy (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

When the violations are as blatantly clear as this one, Tom, it doesn't need anything much more polite or verbose than that. While Werieth may suffer from a certain lack of gentleness, his message was both clear and accurate.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether it was a "violation" is, I believe, the issue that was being contested; it is not so "blatantly clear" that it is indisputable. I have had images deleted for which I had e-mails from the subjects making it "blatantly clear" they were OK with them becoming free images, which were not deemed sufficient by a commons admin, whereas other images have been kept for no good reason other than that they were free. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Commons has its own set of problems, Tom. One of our major ones here is people using non-free content to decorate articles, and arguing for retention based on reasoning that essentially comes down to "let's not follow NFCC because I like having these images in the article". There's no way that a reader could fail to understand some important aspect of Titus Andronicus as a result of not having viewed those images.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well this might not be the place to bring it up (and I know it won't affect this particular case), but some of the NFCC rules are just idiotic. Book covers, for example: they're useful in articles, but using them is usually against the rules and they get taken out, even if they're low-res images. I've never heard of a publisher objecting to them (and if you think about it, why would they?), and they're plastered all over the internet by reviewers and others, some who use a courtesy by-line and others who use them without any acknowledgment whatsoever, but for some reason Wikipedia can't use them. Publicity photos are the same way. One could make the argument that the subject or creator doesn't want them to be used for satirical or denigrating purposes (like as drawing a mustache on the Mona Lisa), but not hosting them on Commons doesn't stop anybody from doing so with them being freely available elsewhere on the Internet. A lot of wasted time and energy could be diverted to better purposes if there was a common-sense policy in place. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

@Werieth: We are here to build an encyclopedia, and blocking excellent content builders is not a good first step. If you are not able to handle the matter, I suggest posting at WP:HELPDESK or WP:NFCR to ask for someone to explain copyright issues to the other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't support the edit warring Werieth did (they are subjective cases of NFCC, and not exempt from 3RR in terms of removal), but I will point out we are here to build a free content encyclopedia, which is not the same as just an encyclopedia. Non-free use must be minimized and some of those files are not appropriate for inclusion, but that issue should have been discussed more at WP:NFCR, not edit-warred over. --MASEM (t) 05:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kingfrogger666 and disruption

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

---

Regarding: Kingfrogger666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been attempting to revamp an article - Clare Devine. I acted boldy by blanking the article and started to add actual sourced information. A fan of the show decided to halt my efforts by reverting without an explanation. I just removed out a mass of poorly sourced information and around three paragraphs of inaccurately sourced content that also needed copy editing. The article had been tagged in the past and the issues were never addressed. Kingfrogger666 is no stranger to me on Wikipedia as they have often disrupted many articles in the same area. My concerns went unaddressed for some time with the user blanking their talk page - removing friendlies and warnings. I have observed them as recent as today - add in fake sources. Adding information and sneaking in a source dressed up to fool the casual reviewer. Check the source and the information is no where to be seen in the source. They keep adding original research to articles, usually trivial things - but all the same disrupt and mislead readers. Their user page has a list of fictional characters, but some characters in the list are made up by Kingfrogger666. The fantasy even extends to their own user page.

They have also attempted to engage in an edit war on Clare Devine. I said that I would seek a block and they logged out and continued reverting with their IP address. As you may notice, contribs remain in the same area of interest, article connected to soap operas. I really think they cannot be trusted to hold an account. I find it disheartening that I must take the time to explain another's bad behavior rather than spend the time doing what I like most - editing and improving an actual article.

An example of a dressed up source would be: [261] Another editor read the source, reverted when they noticed it did not support the claim

User does not leave edit summaries so there is no need to pull up instances - just see edit history.

See the edit history of Clare Devine for evidence of edit warring - they hit 4.

They remained inactive for a while - now they are back with the same old behavior and I just need to report it because it really is not fair anymore. Too much to tolerate. There is no telling this editor - you either get blanked or retaliation with your edits being reverted.Rain the 1 02:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discuss it on Talk:Clare_Devine for a start. If that fails, then there's options. Not sure why you think you need an admin right now though? 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. [262] 88.104.25.210 (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Clare Devine

82.8.226.194 (talk · contribs)

Continues to add unref'd info [263] [264] [265] despite warnings User talk:82.8.226.194 88.104.25.210 (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's very likely Kingfrogger666 (talk · contribs) 88.104.25.210 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Anon here is the problem, not the registered editor. Anon has been blanking material rather than tagging it. Anon has been escalating rather than discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Really unhelpful. Kingfrogger666 is the problem. I was all set to completely source the article. But I was stopped in doing so by Kingfrogger666. I question why established members who follow rules are effectively enabling this disruptive individual. A full scale edit war has been caused by previously uninvolved editors. I was loathe to start an edit war, I came here for help - now no one can edit the article because a rather large edit war has resulted in the article being locked.

Walter Gorlitz you are voicing support for a unresponsive editor, who causes edit wars, does not use edit summaries, blatantly blocks progression, adds fake sources, adds original research. Where is the understanding. It would take fifteen minutes of an admin or editor's time. The second anon (yes, a new IP became involved) was restoring sourced material atleast. Kingfrogger666 kept resotring 22000 bytes of unsourced data. Disgusting.

As for the suggestion we discuss it via the article talk page. The whole point is that Kingfrogger666 does not respond! No one is looking into it and I am banging my head against the brick wall.Rain the 1 11:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• ...and for those counting at home, there are 2 WP:AN/3RR reports open on this very case ES&L 11:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm closing this report due to the full protection. But if the dispute resumes in two days it looks to me that blocks may be necessary. So please explain your positions on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 19 October 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.