Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814

BLP Deletion

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

---

Hello, I am representative of a person who has a biography created by another person but the biography is full of errors and has a lot of copyright issues. Please can you help me to review and delete the following page : https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A6%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%92%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B2 Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slav.popov (talk • contribs) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the article is in Bulgarian, you should look at the Bulgarian Wikipedia at http://bg.wikipedia.org For procedural reasons it is difficult for editors of the English Wikipedia to delete things on another language edition. I trust you speak Bulgarian? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is for dealing with issues in the English Wikipedia, so I'm afraid that we can be of little help to you. Having said that, I see that you have attempted to add deletion request templates to the article, so I have converted these to what seem to be the local equivalent. Hopefully an administrator on the Bulgarian side will pick those up and deal it it appropriately. If you still require further assistance, you might want to try asking for help on this page, which is their equivalent of this fourm. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, editors on the Bulgarian wiki modified the page and then removed the deletion tags on the grounds that the concerns had been addressed. The OP does not appear to have posted again. I think we can close this now. Bovlb (talk) 00:55, 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.

Erachima harassing me on my talk page.

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

---

I've asked Erichima to stay off my talk page numerous times. Even at the ANI, Erachima was told to stop.[1] Erachima has made numerous attacks and cast aspersions and I said I would be ignoring this user, but this user simply will not leave me alone or stay off my talk page. Repeatedly violating my requests to stay off my page.[2] I'm at my wits end. This user will simply not cease and desist their abusive personal attacks and commenting on my talk page.[3][4][5] The user continues to badger me when their presence is unwanted and I was forced to leave a message on the users page about DRN, but since than the user has continued to post notifications that are not necessary or with good reason, like replying to DRN[6] and arguing about my removal after warnings.[7] This user has caused much emotional distress and I ask that Erachima be forced not to post to my talk page again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Chris keeps leaving me messages on my talk page, so I reply to him on his. Simple as that. Chris's labeling of normal communication as "harassment" is a disingenuous attempt at wikilawyering, and Chris's continued attempts to have anyone who disagrees with him banned from communicating with him are intolerable. Editors must be willing to discuss their differences. --erachima talk 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Erachima replied on my talk page about the ANI notice for the unwanted talk page posts being harassment with the message: "I have received your ANI notice and responded. ".[8] This editor is argumentative and disrespectful, I asked for Erachima not to post such worthless messages on my talk page after a series of insulting posts were made. This user has no intention of leaving me alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have agreed not to post on your talk page except in reply to you,[9] and I have kept to that agreement. Meanwhile, you go around telling other editors I'm a sadist in one of the most rankly hypocritical NPA violations I've ever seen.[10] --erachima talk 19:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This editor continues to violate WP:BLAR and edit war the removal of Bleach (anime), twice before. Going so far as to move to my userspace, than redirect the moved page. I nominated the page for AFD in accordance to BLAR and the user continues to post unwanted messages about "forum shopping" on my user page.[11] I don't want this editor to continue WP:WIKIHOUNDing me. I have repeatedly said I feel harassed and asked this editor to stop, but they will not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Current consensus is that the page should be a redirect. I have graciously moved the article under contention to User:ChrisGualtieri/Bleach (anime) so that Chris may continue to edit the article while dispute resolution is ongoing. Chris, however, shows zero interest in engaging in DR beyond forum shopping, even when approached by friendly parties such as User:Knowledgekid87, and at this point I believe he can safely be said to simply be WP:NOTLISTENING. I therefore request the following:

1. Bleach (anime) should be fully protected for the space of one week to force discussion rather than edit warring.
2. One page be officially designated the place for discussing this issue, rather than it being split across WP:DRN, WP:ANI, WT:MOS-AM, WP:AfD, Talk:Bleach (anime), etc.

Thank you. --erachima talk 14:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Your harassment and wikihounding is the purpose of this ANI. And few people care about it. AFD is the venue for contested blanking and redirecting per BLAR. You should not have repeatedly removed the page per BRD. This has been discussed before, but clearly you are WP:NOTLISTENING. I requested some time to work on the Bleach (anime); it has from a mere redirect to a B in only an hour or two of work. You need to Assume Good Faith and follow policies; I feel bullied and harassed by your actions and you need to tone it down because it is making it impossible to work constructively on Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody cares because I'm not harassing you and your claims to the contrary aren't good for anything more than a chuckle. We're in a content dispute. --erachima talk 15:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll also note that Chris is currently in violation of 3RR ([12][13][14][15]). I don't believe blocking him would be constructive to discussion at this point, but it's salient evidence regardless. --erachima talk 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I support Erachima's request to protect Bleach (anime) in its redirected version. A consensus has been reached on the talk page to keep the article as a redirect, if ChrisGualtieri believes he can improve the page, then he can work on a userified version and submit it later to the consensus, but right now ChrisGualtieri seems so convinced he's right that it is OK to violate a consensus decision, and something needs to be done to prevent this from further escalating. By the way, Erachima telling ChrisGualtieri to stop forum-shopping is not "harassment" but an appropriate warning relevant to the situation. Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I broke 3RR. I didn't get ECed and had no warning. With that said, this needs to go before the community and closing and reverting AFD nominations is problematic.[16] A local consensus of deletionists who actively preclude and delete articles with over 45 sources immediately after creation is a problem. This ANI can close as no one cares about Erachima's posting on my talk page. I am not going to restore the Bleach anime until an RFC or some wider consensus is done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course you don't think you did, you believe you are immune to both consensus and policy. It is the duty of every editor to police their own reversion, warnings are unnecessary except for the newest editors. You have 4 times reverted a single page (from a redirect to an article) in the space of a single hour, and it is only by grace that you are not currently blocked. --erachima talk 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris, your AfD nomination was contentious because you reverted a consensus-approved redirect in order to do so. Erachima was right in closing an obviously WP:POINTy action, in my opinion. It may be a problem for you not to get the consensus you want on certain issues, but that's part of the WP experience, and you just have to accept it. You can't just edit war until people get tired and give up, or forum shop an issue everywhere when you can't get people to agree with you, DRN or RfC aren't your personal trump cards to bypass a consensus that doesn't suit your liking. I note these kind of incidents about anime/manga have only multiplied around you lately, if you can't understand it on your own, as Erachima said, there's a point when administrators will be forced to act. That would be a waste, so I strongly advise you to take a step back and think about the way you interact with users.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• ANI IS NOT A PLACE TO CONTINUE BICKERING All of you back off and wait for someone else to comment.--v/r - TP 16:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, having taken a look - Chris, you're inviting these comments on your talk page with your poor behavior. Editing against consensus, taking pot shots in your edit summaries, and templating these editors is going to bring them to your talk page. Your behavior was also brought up in the last ANI thread. I think you're the root of your own problem. You're not being harassed. When you willfully violate consensus, expect it to be addressed.--v/r - TP 16:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Chris, at this point I would leave Bleach as a redirect, userfy the Bleach anime page and improve it while you work out your proposals. I do not think it (the Bleach article) needs protection, what we need is a solid consensus on the root of Chris's proposals when it comes to things like this. At this point I would suggest that this be the primary focus here as this is what is causing alot of the argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Just a question but what should be done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime)? The AfD was not closed right and as a result has no outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• If I did the bookkeeping incorrectly, you're welcome to fix it. --erachima talk 16:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• It has been placed for CSD which I support so will just leave it be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Chris has gone and made a proposal section under: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#MOSAM proposals can an admin follow the discussion or close it when need be? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Please close this thread. This section is only taking up space now. The DRN on the matter is closing as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's closeable at this point. Feel free. --erachima talk 06:15, 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.

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.

---

This is going to need closed soon. Given that there's about a 4:1 consensus in favour of Chelsea Manning as the article title, this should be a pretty uncontroversial close, thankfully. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While Wikipedia doesn't provide any hard and fast rules as to what constitutes consensus in general, but the one place that it does is WP:RFA where consensus is defined as somewhere between 70-80% where !votes towards the lower end of that spectrum may be rejected.

The current !voting stats are this:

Support 126
Oppose   37
Neutral   5
Abstain   5
-----------
Total   173

126/173 = 72.8%

I'll note that the longer the discussion has gone on, the less support the MR gets. Given that this entire discussion has been tainted by off-Wiki-canvassing[17][18][19] and its legitimacy is in doubt,[20] I suggest that it be closed as no consensus.

Instead, after the current ArbCom case is closes, an RfC be opened with neutral wording. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?! First of all, your maths is fallacious: the relevant ratio is supports:opposes. 127/(127+36) = 77.9%, which is about the 80% that 4:1 is. And secondly, the very idea of extending one of the most harmful debates Wikipedia has had for literally no valid reason' in the face of that sort of numbers, only to drag everyone back through it in a week or so, is pretty much trolling. Further, the maths to justify it add in non-votes (abstains - the definition of abstaining is to state that you are not voting; they cannot be counted as part of a vote by definition.) to get a number that's still defined as consensus in policy. Even if you count neutral votes, it's still 75.6% support. Wikipedia should not be acting in ways that serve no purpose other than the creation of additional drama, and the pointless overturning of a clear consensus. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:02, 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.

Possible edit warring and WP:OR issues at Sikhism in the United Kingdom

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’m having a dispute with another editor who claims I am “censoring” an article when in fact I am trying to remove what appears to me to be WP:OR.

On 2 October I first came across what appeared to be a misreading of the source cited: a Faith Matters report which quotes from this: the editor User:StuffandTruth had interpreted it (shall we say) to read: "However the organization [i.e. the Sikh Awareness Society] is known to have radical anti-Muslim Sikh elements according to the Mail on Sunday and Huffington Post; Faith Matters, a charity based on interfaith cohesion, notes that the group have ties with the English Defence League (EDL) and have even set up secret meetings at demonstrations in the past."

I accordingly made this edit. When StuffandTruth reverted this, I then explained quite carefully on the talk page why I believed that the text misrepresented its sources here, then reverted the article here. Within the last 24 hours StuffandTruth has made these reverts to keep the text despite the fact I had carefully pointed out his/her interpretation of the sources they cite is WP:OR:

[21] [22] [23]

Despite my spelling out even more clearly on the Talk page what the problem is, StuffandTruth has simply retorted that I am “censoring information” and that I am indulging in “non-neutrality and original research”.

I’ve tried to explain the situation succinctly here, but please let me know if anything’s unclear. Basically I think it’s an issue of WP:OR and edit warring, and I’m wondering what is my best recourse to solve this situation. Alfietucker (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Writing about the controversial aspects of a Sikh organisation known as the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) should not be a problem on Wikipedia. However the above user (user:Alfietucker) repeatedly wants to delete the controversial aspects of it because he believes that the SAS is a respectable organisation and so the controversial aspects do no deserve inclusion. He has stated: "the SAS has since proved itself an organization not only to be taken seriously but to respect". While he may respect it, he is also attempting to remove reliable sources that discuss the controversial aspect of the organisation. Surely this is not the way Wikipedia works, as noting controversial aspects of organisations is part and parcel of Wikipedia.

1. User is attempting to censor, omit and misrepresent information regarding a report by a reputable charitable organisation, that has been peer reviewed by a scholar, Dr. Matthew Feldman, who has worked for Faith Matters in the past and is an expert on the far right in the UK, that discusses a Mail on Sunday article on the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL).
2. User clearly has a problem with the reliability of Faith Matters, when reliability is not questionable owed to the peer review by the PhD. User is trying to re-interpret information from a separate Daily Mail article (note the website: it's clearly Daily Mail and no other source) and attempts to say Faith Matters is discussing this wrong article when they are discussing an article from the Mail on Sunday as they state and cite (page 29).
3. User attempts to equalize the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail newspapers and tries to portray them as one and same, and assumes everything is published on Mail Online, from their newspapers. This is done without proof, as Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online.
4. User insists Mail on Sunday article is the same as the one published on Mail Online but has no evidence to back this claim, as before Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online. In addition Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate magazine for the Mail on Sunday reference (page 29), another charitable organisation that is dedicated to fighting fascism.
5. Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate, which first reported of the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL) in the first place. The Mail on Sunday is cited by Hope Not Hate.
6. User has also been claiming that the word "consensus" is worthless or meaningless: stating that the words "common consensus" means "hearsay". Consensus is however, a universal/general agreement. Faith Matters author and the peer reviewer/academic state that the SAS involvement is "common consensus". This clearly is not hearsay as the user suggests.
7. Further, user misrepresents Hope Not Hate citation, claiming that Hope Not Hate do not talk about the links between the SAS and EDL, when in fact they do on page 29 of the Faith Matters Report. They use Hope Not Hate as a direct citation. Hope Not Hate's magazines are widely available. Libraries commonly have them too. Organisations clearly buy from them.

Overall we have 4 sources discussing the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and the English Defence League (EDL), but the user does not want to include them.

1. Lane, H.S.; Feldman, Matthew (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League". Faith Matters: 29.
2. Elgot, Jessica (2012-09-24). "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.
3. Hope Not Hate magazine, July-August 2012, p.27. (cited by Faith Matters on page 29 of their report on the EDL)
4. ...and lastly the Mail on Sunday article, the main discussion of which can be found from the third citation listed here. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To reply to StuffandTruth's points and allegations. First: "Writing about the controversial aspects of a Sikh organisation known as the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) should not be a problem on Wikipedia." I've absolutely no problem with this, and that is not the issue: what I think is irresponsible is to sling what appear to be *ill-founded allegations* (as opposed to creditably citated facts) against any organization - most particularly one which has clearly (from the BBC report) done such positive work. To take his following points one by one:

1. User is attempting to censor, omit and misrepresent information regarding a report by a reputable charitable organisation, that has been peer reviewed by a scholar, Dr. Matthew Feldman, who has worked for Faith Matters in the past and is an expert on the far right in the UK, that discusses a Mail on Sunday article on the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL).

• That's all as maybe, but it seems clear to me that StuffandTruth is misrepresenting what those sources actually say. As I've repeatedly pointed out, the MoS article nowhere mentions the SAS, let alone suggest any link between that organization and the EDL. AT

1. User clearly has a problem with the reliability of Faith Matters, when reliability is not questionable owed to the peer review by the PhD. User is trying to re-interpret information from a separate Daily Mail article (note the website: it's clearly Daily Mail and no other source) and attempts to say Faith Matters is discussing this wrong article when they are discussing an article from the Mail on Sunday as they state and cite (page 29).

• I've already explained to StuffandTruth that not only Daily Mail articles end up on the Mail Online website, but also Mail on Sunday articles. AT

1. User attempts to equalize the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail newspapers and tries to portray them as one and same, and assumes everything is published on Mail Online, from their newspapers. This is done without proof, as Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online.

• I didn't say any such thing. They are separate papers, yes, but as I've explained to StuffandTruth they are owned by the same company and - not surprisingly - articles from both papers end on the same website. AT

1. User insists Mail on Sunday article is the same as the one published on Mail Online but has no evidence to back this claim, as before Faith Matters strictly discusses the reporting in the Mail on Sunday and makes no mention of Daily Mail, or Mail Online. In addition Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate magazine for the Mail on Sunday reference (page 29), another charitable organisation that is dedicated to fighting fascism.

• Unless someone can prove that somehow the printed version of the MoS article is different from the article I have given a link to, then the claim that it is not the same is - I submit - unsubstantiated and dodges the issue, which is the citations given by StuffandTruth do not support what he/she thinks it does. AT

1. Faith Matters cites Hope Not Hate, which first reported of the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and English Defence League (EDL) in the first place. The Mail on Sunday is cited by Hope Not Hate.

• OK - so can StuffandTruth or anyone supply a quote from Hope Not Hate which confirms his contention about this link? AT

1. User has also been claiming that the word "consensus" is worthless or meaningless: stating that the words "common consensus" means "hearsay". Consensus is however, a universal/general agreement. Faith Matters author and the peer reviewer/academic state that the SAS involvement is "common consensus". This clearly is not hearsay as the user suggests.

• Constructions such as "everyone agrees", which is the drift of this, is not up to Wikipedia standards: see WP:WEASEL. AT

1. Further, user misrepresents Hope Not Hate citation, claiming that Hope Not Hate do not talk about the links between the SAS and EDL, when in fact they do on page 29 of the Faith Matters Report. They use Hope Not Hate as a direct citation. Hope Not Hate's magazines are widely available. Libraries commonly have them too. Organisations clearly buy from them.

• Can StuffandTruth please quote the relevant passage - I have failed to find it though I've searched twice over. AT

Overall we have 4 sources discussing the links between the Sikh Awareness Society (SAS) and the English Defence League (EDL), but the user does not want to include them.

1. Lane, H.S.; Feldman, Matthew (September 2012). "A Study of the English Defence League". Faith Matters: 29.
2. Elgot, Jessica (2012-09-24). "EDL Target Religious Groups Including Jews And Sikhs For Recruitment, Exploit Anti-Islam Tensions, Says Report". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 7 September 2013.

• This merely reports what the Faith Matters report presents. AT

1. Hope Not Hate magazine, July-August 2012, p.27. (cited by Faith Matters on page 29 of their report on the EDL)

• The citation there does not substantiate the supposed SAS-EDL link. AT

1. ...and lastly the Mail on Sunday article, the main discussion of which can be found from the third citation listed here.

• Again, this simply does not mention the SAS, let alone a connection with the EDL. AT

Alfietucker (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you guys have been very busy: I brought the case here in the first place at the suggestion of StuffandTruth, but now I'm wondering if it would be better dealt with - leaving aside the time issue - by Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion. I've posted on S&T's talk page suggesting this, and unless I hear from someone here, or receive an objection from S&T against taking it to Third Opinion (I've given him/her 12 hours to do so), if S&T agrees to this, then I'll remove this entire post ("Possible edit warring" etc.) and apply there. But until this happens, please assume that I would like this case seen to. Alfietucker (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an awful of diffs on content and reliable sources for uninvolved Editors to sort through. I think you need a dedicated mediator to help you sort this all out. I think your best bet is Dispute Resolution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Though StuffandTruth hasn't been in touch with me about this, I noticed that he's been in touch with User:Darkness Shines here to ask for their input to this dispute. To assume good faith (though I'd already suggested Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion to S&T), I guess S&T is going about this in their own way. Alfietucker (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my talkpage about Third Opinion before going to Darkness Shines. Please see my talkpage. StuffandTruth (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, though I guess you didn't click on the link I offered on your talk page, as there is a specified process for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third Opinion. Never mind - I've since posted a possible wording at your invitation on Talk:Sikhism in the United Kingdom. Alfietucker (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is matter is now resolved to any admins looking at this. Consensus was reached between us. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:05, 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.

Ganged up on by multiple editors, content-building edits blindly reverted, article deleted.

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

---

Can an admin or someone with access to deleted pages please check the history of Breakdancing Cop tweet and assure me that everything's kosher? In short, the article was tagged A7 despite several claims of significance from both BuzzFeed and Rob Delaney. As I tried to add more "reliable" references (since the stub was somewhat heavy on primary sources), I kept getting reverted (due to my missing the "please don't remove this yourself" blurb in the template and also due to my own habit of skimming over boilerplate talk page notices). I understand the template being put back on, but these edits also removed my additional sourcing. Frustrated with both this and the fact that other people's comments were attributed to me (one editor characterizing my talk page post as WP:ILIKEIT or whatever when it was not even close to what I said), I tried talking with editors, only to have the article deleted under A3 instead. I'm sorry, but a nearly 2-kilobyte article is not - at least in my mind - an "article that has no meaningful, substantive content". The quality of writing was poor, mostly due to my having to shoehorn in the material that - I thought - would help keep it from getting A7'd too quickly, and subsequently getting frustrated and, I suppose, semi-consciously distracting myself from further polishing... but the content was meaningful enough to get mention on BuzzFeed, for heck's sake! Clam Digging Johnson (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to read these and review (because I'm not an admin), but I might suggest that you take a look at WP:GNG. Notability is established through coverage in reliable sources; just getting mentioned on a popular website isn't necessarily enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Primary sources can be good for citing certain aspects of a subject, depending on what it is (WP:SELFPUB), but cannot be used to assess notability. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 21:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It definitely was an A7. No credible claim of importance, most of the sources were twitter, and the single reliable source doesn't even mention this meme. Obvious A7.--v/r - TP 22:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Clam Digging Johnson: Had you considered going to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to ask to have the text put into your userspace? That would give you more time to work on the article without it being subject to speedy deletion for lack of notability. CSD A3 and A7 don't apply in userspace; it's only bigger issues like G11 and G12 that would lead to a userspace draft getting speedy deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I have userfied the article as User:Clam Digging Johnson/Breakdancing cop tweet please work on it and return to the main space only if the notability is clearly establised Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also interesting to note: since "clam digging" is a euphemism for having intercourse, and "Johnson" is a euphemism for penis, having a username that's basically "fucking penis" is probably going to lead to people thinking you're not always here in the best interests of the project to begin with ES&L 10:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

That view is supported by their first edit. Ravensfire (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Holy crap - really inappropriate, and should have been a block (I'm not tracking to see if one was given) ES&L 14:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also refer to other editors as "bozos". Not sure Mr Johnson is here to build an encyclopedia. GiantSnowman 14:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear lord... *polishes glasses* Blatantly WP:NOTHERE. (ES&L: No block was given, why though I have no idea). Support block as WP:NOTHERE, would do it myself but am heading out... Also, I've revdel'd that little gem per RD2 as a blatant BLP issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently all admins live in the US and have yet to wake up an smell the coffee. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Find me a job in Sweden or Germany and I'm your man. (Will settle for France, Denmark.) Drmies (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, I have blocked the user. I will delete the subpage as well. Fram (talk) 08:43, 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.

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request - third admin needed

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:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero have volunteered to close and judge Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request sometime late on October 7th. The editors (including 'Bradley' supporters and 'Chelsea' supporters, and including me) who collaborated to set up the move request would prefer if three uninvolved admins closed and judged the discussion (because two might "tie"). If you're willing to be the third admin, please comment here, at the latest thread about closure (an earlier thread about closure was here). -sche (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have commented there offering to serve as #3 if a third is needed. 28bytes (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Great! Please let User:Kim Dent-Brown and User:Guerillero know. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Kim, Guerillero and I are in touch and we will start the closure once 7 full days have elapsed since the move request was initiated (a few hours from now.) 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 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.

Imtitanium (persistent copyright/BLP violations)

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.

---

Imtitanium (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for a week for vandalism, including copyright violations. In light of the scale of his disruption and his talk page posts while blocked I'd like to recommend that the block be extended indefinitely. My reasons are as follows:

• He has already been warned several times in the past for copyright violations and for removing {{copyvio}} templates. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium was completed in September and discovered and repaired 24 cases of infringement. Even after this he continued to post copyright-infringing material (e.g., [24] [25]) and to remove {{copyvio}} templates [26].
• For the latest case of copyright infringement he has posted an unblock request claiming that he "didn't know it was copyright material". However, he must have known it was infringing, since what he had done was reverted an administrator's edit with the summary "this whole thing is a copyright violation (from sources such as http://www.bollywoodlife.com/news-gossip/bigg-boss-5-pooja-bedi-takes-on-pooja-misrra/ and many others)…".
• His non-infringing contributions often introduce deliberate factual errors using falsified references in an attempt to smear public figures. Some recent examples:
  • These edits claim that a reality TV contestant won a bull riding contest. However, his reference says nothing about such a contest; instead it's a yellow press article all about how the contestant is a "slut" who is the alleged subject of a publically circulating sex tape.
  • This edit claims a certain celebrity is a notorious bigot and a homophobe, but none of the three references mentions this.
  • In this edit he accuses various public figures of adultery, of bribing television producers with sexual favours, and of homosexual escapades with other celebrities. He reinserted this information twice, adding falsified references, after other editors removed it as "unsourced and potentially libelous" [27] [28].
• He's had numerous past warnings and blocks for personal attacks, incivility, and harassment. Last year he was warned for attacking User:Dharmadhyaksha. As of today he hasn't changed his attitude.

In summary, I don't think our project is benefitting from his presence. We can no longer assume good faith about his copyright and BLP violations. As long as he continues editing, all of his contributions will need to be checked for copyright infringement and libel, which is a huge time sink. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block if for no other reason than the copyvios: It's been a year since his CCI was opened, with the cost to community resources that followed as the few dedicated people who work in that area laboriously cleaned up after him. He claimed at that time that the copyvios were old and he had just gotten to know about our policies. His subsequent edits suggest that he is intending to return this material to publication. Beyond the incident reported above, see [29].(As an aside, note the BLP issue in that.) He had already edit-warred with several editors to keep that content in Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5) (see [30] for instance), and the problem with it had been explained to him at Talk:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5) months before. His edit summary here suggests he had finally understood the problem. (See [31].) He was further acquainted with our policies here when I left him a hand-written note explaining that there is a process that must be followed when you copy from one article to another. Yet, he has persisted in this practice as well (see [32] and [33] for two instance of copy-paste correction of his edits subsequent to that explanation). I don't believe that we can permit him to continue contributing without some strong indication that he truly understands our policies around copyright and intends to comply with them. Allowing him to undo the copyright cleanup already done and to continue to violate these policies simply creates more work for other people who have better things to do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Indefinite block I agree, I think the blatant and continued policy violations (after blocking and counselling) make it quite clear that Imtitanium is not here to building an encyclopedia. Given the chances they have already had I think an indefinite block (with the standard offer or {{2nd chance}} certainly available) is the best and only way to deal with them at this point. I can't really see one specific area that there is bad editing (and others which there isn't) to make a topic ban effective, or a desire to make useful contributions which are within policy which might make adopting/mentoring effective. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block - long history of copyright abuse. Recently, this shows a poor attitude while the unblock request shows arrogance. User is clearly not mature/competent enough to edit productively. GiantSnowman 11:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Do not unblock until he demonstrates understanding of our copyright policy, is willing to comply with it and starts cleaning up after himself. I have recycled the CCI. MER-C 12:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose right now. Generally, I'm not in favor of levying a heavy block on a user during another block when the Editor can not come and participate in the discussion and defend themselves and address concerns people have with their behavior.

Why the rush? Can't this wait until their week-long block expires? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no rush; this discussion is timely as it arises in part from his activity during his block—namely, his refusal or inability to recognize the disruption which led to the block, and his continuing to engage in behaviour that led to the previous blocks. His block is due to expire in a day or two, after which he can freely participate in this discussion himself; in the meantime he can respond on his own talk page and his comments will be copied here. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The indefinite block changes the parameters of future participation - we assumed at the time the CCI was opened that he would correct the behavior, and he has not - he has instead active begun returning content cleaned up for copyright issues to publication. At this point, I think the onus should rightly be on him to demonstrate that he understands policy and will comply. I routinely indefinitely block people who continue violating copyright policy after a CCI is opened - it's a bit much to ask people to clean up after somebody else and then let the user continue making the same kind of messes (or in this case exactly the same messes) - but the important point there and here is that an indefinite block is not a ban. It can be lifted at any time that they offer good reason to believe that the problem they are creating will stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've extended the block to indefinite. If he was going to resolve the issues or understand copyright, he would have done so the first time he was under a copyright investigation. You get to two, then quite frankly you're done. Wizardman 13:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef An editor needs to gain a clue before their first CCI investigation or block. This is now a year of putting the project at risk, and steadfastly refusing to comply with something so vital ES&L 14:31, 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.

Block evasion

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

---

I have just noticed that in the past few weeks 121.52.146.234 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly reinserted exactly the same falsely referenced, libellous material about celebrities which User:Imtitanium repeatedly tried to post: [34] [35] [36]. As with User:Imtitanium, almost all the account's edits are to Bigg Boss 7 and other Bigg Boss-related articles. All this points to User:Imtitanium editing while logged out to avoid detection, before 2 October in violation of WP:SOCK and after 2 October in violation of WP:EVASION. If others agree with this conclusion then I suppose the IP needs to be blocked as well. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP seems to be consistently used by Imtitanium. I've given a brief block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:05, 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.

Obscene vandalism on Portal:Current events

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

---

Can someone tell where this is coming from? I'm pretty sure I checked all the transcluded pages but can't find it. Thanks. Pakaran 17:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's coming through Portal:Current events/Inclusion but I don't know enough Mediawiki to figure out the names of the individual per-day subpages. Pakaran 17:53, 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.

Bot gone wild

I'm not sure of the procedure here but could someone please block or stop Cyberbot II from continuing its spam-tagging pending further discussion? It's making 20+ controversial main article tags per minute and it seems bot-edit-warring against editors who try to revert it, while the operator is offline. Please see User talk:cyberpower678 for the beginnings of a discussion on this. Best err on the side of not making a huge mess for human editors to clean up, if the bot gets fixed or properly approved it can always resume its rounds. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have shut down that specific task, because multiple editors raised concerns. I have no opinion on whether the bot functioned correctly or not, but since it is not a very urgent task, some more discussion and clarification can't hurt. Fram (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

These spam tags should be removed automatically, as it would take too long to do it manually.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this change happened (ok if spamming site), I found another (inferiour?) link and changed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ARM_Holdings&diff=574425185&oldid=574323253 comp.arch (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well I just woke up, so I am sifting throught everything to determine whether the bot was malfunction or not.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• From what I have been shown, the has been functioning correctly. It's validation engine to the regex list is exactly the same as MediaWiki's. The reason why it's tagging so many at once, is because it's running it's initial round. The bot removes them on it's own once they become whitelisted.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  For example, I just tried to add the link mentioned above right here, and was blocked by the blacklist.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is back to edit warring.[37] Can we please shut it down pending discussion? I'm not sure the question is whether it's functioning as approved, but whether it's operating without consensus. Bot approval is not the same as consensus, and this one seems to be doing a lot of high-speed damage. Plus, AFAIK bots are not allowed to edit war or create policy. Let's organize a wider discussion on what if anything this bot should be doing to tag articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see this high speed damage? I understand that the bot didn't make any incorrect taggings?

The bot is not creating new rules, it's just warning about infractions of current rules. If the blacklist and the whitelist are broken, that is a different problem that needs to be addressed elsewhere.

Mind you, the bot needs a few fixes: don't re-add the tags, and tag at much slower pace. I don't care if it's the initial round, it's still too fast. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes it's back. This bot is blatant spam and should not be allowed to tag article pages. It should place the tag on the talk page. The existence of a possible blacklisted link is not worth ruining the appearance of a page over. Please can this bot be shut down until it is modified.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

If we have that many blacklisted links appearing on pages that the bot that's tagging for them is referred to as "spamming", that's a very troubling problem with the fact that there's so many blacklisted links that have snuck into the project, not a problem with the bot. We should be thankful that the bot is bringing this to blatantly obvious attention, not calling for it to be changed so we can stick our heads in the sand over the problem. (Also {{blacklisted-links}} works the same way as {{update}} or {{copypaste}}. Have fun moving those to the talk page.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that links that were previously thought of as OK are now being thrown up as spam links. This is compounded by the agressive nature of the bot, which doesn't allow the template to be removed for more than about 12 hours, when it takes weeks for a link to be white listed. I have no real problem with the bot, but a huge problem with the way it operates, we all volenteer here, and loosing good links because of a mistake in the blacklist is not a good thing; this is happening. It is for these reasons that I shut down the bot, and would request it not be started again for a week or so, to allow time for the whitelist/blacklist issues to be sorted. Liamdavies (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

No-one has problems with having a maintenance tag on an article for 1 year, why is it an issue to have this template there for a couple of weeks? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is more with the template than the bot... A smaller tag on the link itself and a notification on the talkpage would seem more appropriate than a banner across the top of the page. MChesterMC (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am going to comment here regarding the tagging on the talkpage vs. page itself. Maintenance tags are generally added to the page, and this is a maintenance tag. Although I see that there is no hurry (like with copyvio tags), the problem at hand is worse than not having incoming wikilinks, or having problems with references: I recently ran into a case where I had to whitelist a link, revert a page to a non-vandalised version that mutilated the link in question, de-whitelist, and then ask for whitelisting (I did not want to make the call on whether the link should be whitelisted) - there are cases where a simple rollback (which is ignored by the blacklist) does not work anymore. That is a serious nuisance, and that is what this bot could avoid. I would ask to consider to make the template left by the bot in line with banners that are produced by the other maintenance tags. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninformed amateur, maybe not worth an answer, an opinion: This thing is clearly out of control. I tried to talk to Cyberpower678, and feel I was blown off. First I was told that it’s not his problem, then I was directed to a page that I don’t understand, and the same link keeps getting tagged, despite Liam. Now Cyberpower678 just posted that he’s gone for a while. This simply cannot be right, can it?Sammy D III (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that links are either (1) used inappropriately on an article, or (2) inappropriately in the spam blacklist. Complaining about the bot is just shooting the messenger. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn: (1)No (2)sounds good. Can’t this be turned off, or be made to skip this one link? I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head. Either way, thank you for your reply. Sammy D III (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes; you need to either have the link removed from the blacklist or added to the whitelist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot is running fine and is highlighting a problem not creating it any way and maintenance tags aren't spam. The bot isn't at fault for links being on the blacklist and i think The Bushranger summed it up correctly it highlights a major issue of how these links got added to the project in the first place.Blethering Scot 17:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot. Personally, I'd prefer to see the tags on the talkpage, but opinions will differ on that, and I'm not personally keen on maintenance tags in the "customers'" faces in general. That's a separate discussion that should be had elsewhere.

If the bot is exposing a long term problem, that may be painful. If the bot is too keen on edit warring, or needs throttling, then let's address that somewhere. Maybe we should address it before the bot is active again.

But the main reason for my post is the first thing I said - I think Cyber is being responsive, and if the bot task has exposed a large number of incorrect pre-existing links it's going to be hard for one editor to deal with the huge amount of "bounceback" that is bound to cause. I write code, and I am often in the position Cyber is now. He's trying (very hard) to do the right thing, so let's cut him a little slack, even if in doing so we need to get him to hold off on the bot tagging for a short while so we can discuss. I'm personally grateful he's taken the time he has (and the flack he has) to look at this issue for us. Begoon ^talk 19:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I am clearly missing something here. “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot.”

I started with “Comment by uninformed amateur”, in fact I am impaired. But I try. I don’t know how to do diffs, so I am leaving page urls. I first tried this as “why is cable car guyblacklisted?”:[38]. No answer, not a problem, nobody goes to my stuff, anyway. So I tried this: [39]. Helpful? Who but a code person could get this? [40]. Then I came here. Lots more help. And despite this: “I tried to address blacklist, but am in way over my head.” Not one of you in any way tried to help me check this, or did it yourself. At 11:37 and 11:53 he defended the action of his program, then he posted this: [41]. At no time has he offered any real help, turn his program off, or in any way address the problem it was causing. Then he left with “Since I likely won't be able to think straight for a while”. As someone who deals with neurologists regularly, this doesn’t sound credible to me. But I am not a Doctor, I admit this. Now I read this (I’m repeating it, I know): “I think Cyberpower has done a good job of reacting to feedback about this bot”. This sounds crazy to me, and believe me, I know crazy. Personal attack? Feel free to block me, I certainly don’t belong in the ivory tower.Sammy D III (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower has no responsibility for links being on the blacklist he never put them on there so 100% he has no issue to answer in that respect. He is also not resposible for adding or removing a link from said blacklist and cyber has pointed several users in the correct direction of what should be done. Now its time to stop putting the boot in on a perfectly functioning bot which has done exactly the task it is supposed to and a user who has no responsibility for the blacklist whatsoever. What has happened here is that a long list of users are unhappy that the links they want in the articles are on the mediawiki blacklist and these links should never have been put in wiki space in the first place and need removed or proven to be suitable for removal from said list. Blethering Scot 22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Cyberpower has no responsibility whatsoever for what's on or not on the blacklist; asking him why link X is blacklisted is like asking a gas station attendant how a refinery works. And if you are "someone who deals with neurologists regularly" you should know very well that when someone gets frustrated/annoyed it becomes difficult to have rational discussions ("thinking straight") so that commentary is frankly rather disingenuous. Now let's get back to removing these bad links - and if there are some that are, in fact, valid links wrongly on the blacklist, Wikipedia will not get sucked into a black hole and implode if the link has to be commented out until it's whitelisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower indeed has no responsibility for flaws in the blacklist, and Cyberpower correspondingly has no reason to complain if the community shuts this task down for being unwise and a harm on the encyclopedia. In the past few days about 10% of +/- 1200 the articles on my watchlist have received a tag that impugns the integrity of the article and that a casual reader who arrives on this project from google would have no meaningful way of understanding or dealing with. Clearly, degrading articles is not conducive to the apparent purpose of the bot tag, an automated function for trying to deal with spam. The vast majority of the tagged articles on my watchlist are not spam, they are commercial sites of uncertain reliability (and many, clearly appropriate for the purpose cited). When I've removed the tags as inapt, the bot just re-tagged them. I could remove 100 tags per day from my watchlist, the bot would retag them... am I supposed to submit a WP:3R report to see who gets blocked first? The problem with bots is that they do not watch or listen to any consensus process, and there is no consensus for this. The template encourages me to go through a ridiculous guilty-until-proven-innocent process (full of warnings that reports would likely be denied) just to assert that no, the link in the article is either something we can deal with, or is a reliable source and not spam for the purpose provided. This whole thing reeks of betabot if you ask me, and I hope we all learned a lesson there. No, we long-term editors (who may have day jobs, who are working on creating new content, etc) will not line up 24/7 behind a scrubbing machine to limit its damage. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry what? Do you know how bots work? Stick {{nobots}} on the page, and it won't war with you again. Legoktm (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt, the only reason I can see for wanting the tags off the pages posthaste is a worry that it will stop people from clicking on the links in question, and I'll leave the implications of that to the reader. What I will say is that if the links are on the blacklist, they are likely inappropriate. I currently have 7,378 pages watched, and since this process started running all of two have been tagged. If the links are appropriate and you want the bot not to keep squawking, <!--comment them out--> until they are whitelisted, the encyclopedia won't be destroyed by this. And if they're declined for whitelisting, then maybe, just maybe, it's because they really are inappropriate links. The bot is not malfunctioning and it is not damaging the encyclopedia; the damage came from people who, in good faith or otherwise, and knowingly or otherwise, exploited a loophole in the blacklisting process that allowed the links onto the pages. The solution isn't to shut down the bot, stick our heads in the sand and declare 'no bad links here, nope', the solution is to thank the bot and remove the links. The scope of the problem is our fault, not the bot's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a load of nonsense. As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot. Your "maybe" rhetorical comment is unintentionally apt: maybe yes indeed there is a bad link, but in fact, no. And the decision must be in the hands of human editors editing real judgment over articles, not a bot unleashed on the project to make policy by sheer persistence and in the process making a huge mess for us more thoughtful editors to clean up. That was exactly the betabot problem. Should my time here on Wikipedia mean I have to go to war with poorly conceived bots over their auto-tagging? If there's no deadline, then shut down the bot instead of making us human editors invest untold hours cleaning up messes, perhaps we could just stop dumb bots from causing damage. No, I'm not going to nowiki a bunch of links in my article, I'll just undo the harm by removing the inapt tag. I'm hoping we can all decide that good faith editorial discretion trumps hasty script experiments people unleash on the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS? Have you even looked at the time I've committed to writing this script. It's BRFA was open since May. You had a chance to comment all this time, and chose not. This BRFA was advertised and no one gave significant. You have the audacity to call my script a betabot and poorly conceived, after it's been reviewed by other BAGgers? So I basically just conjured this script from my ass. Ok I get. I just months of work for nothing, all because YOU didn't comment while I was actually still developing this bot. Gee since I'm such I'm such a disruptive user, why don't I just leave. You'll be rid of burden.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Back away from the edge Cyberpower! So, fix the code so that it doesn't edit-war ... maybe it should only visit an article a maximum of once a month. The bot's doing something unwanted - the best response is to find out exactly what is unwanted, and fix it ... that's what botops and bot designers do. So yes, everyone's bot is STILL in beta mode because they'll never, ever be perfect ES&L 11:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Like everyone else is writing on here, there is no issue for the tags to remain while the link is blacklisted. It's a maintenance tag just like an orphan, notability, and other tags. When a page is at AfD, do we remove the tag. No. What happens if it gets removed, a bot adds it back. It's no different with this tag. And your concept of what beta is wrong. A betabot is a bot still being tested. This bot is out of it's testing stage, running under scrutiny until the code was complete and bug free. Now it's approved and the code is final, out of its testing stage, hence no longer beta. Oh, and have a look at my talk page. It'll explain my attitude at the moment. Sorry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No. It's always Beta because you always need to be responsive to the community (just ask Bill Gates - all Windows versions are beta :-) ). You cannot compare an AfD tag to a linkrot/blacklisted tag - one is specifically noted by policy to remain (and that's the AfD one). Your bot needs to follow the same WP:BRD processes as any other editor ES&L 12:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Windows sucks. I'd say it's always in it's alpha stage. And since when does Microsoft respond to user demands? Windows 8 tends to go against that. Ok the AfD tag is a bad example, but allows one maintenance tag to stay and another, which is much more severe to simply be shrugged off?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Visiting once a month is not the answer at all maybe less frequently but certainly not that infrequently given these links shouldn't even be on the site at all. The main issue here is several editors being unhappy that a link they want is on the media wiki blacklist and reverting the bot which has done the correct thing. Editors should either be removing these links or applying for it to be taken off the blacklist. As a community we should be trying to remove these links and taking seriously the issue of editors edit warring or insisting that blacklisted pages stay on the site. The bot is an essential part of that and should be thanked for highlighting a very worrying issue, punishing the bot rather than the editors initiating it would be highly inappropriate but a compromise should be made by reducing its frequency potentially once a week but equally editors edit warring with it without valid reason or applying for said link to be removed should equally be warned by the community as we cannot continue allowing blacklisted pages to live on the site.Blethering Scot 21:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Per Blethering Scott, removing the tag and waiting a month for the bot to re-tag is just going to do that, month after month after month. Editors are not going to solve the problem. Get those links whitelisted (and get more admins engaged in the process). Get two individual vandals where the first removes the link, and you are stuck with a broken page where you will HAVE to wait until someone whitelists the link for you. Been there, done that. Get the whitelisting process started, and ask for temp excemtion by the bot. I really wonder how many people who just removed the tag went on to ask for whitelisting or actually considered that the reference could be improved and the old site should actually be removed. Some of these links should really not be used - do realise that the less suitable sites do have more reason to spam and get more incoming traffic than the really good stuff, and guess which end up being blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly my problem Beetstra, the bot tagged a series of pages, people have removed the links before I had a chance to remove the tag, and I can't undo it. The links that were removed are not intended to be on the blacklist, and hence I feel justified in removing the tag. I have subsequently taken the link to whitelist request, but as that process takes an age I turned the bot off so I needn't fight it every 12 hours (or more frequently). I do not intend or request that the bot be turned off in perpetuity, but simply for long enough to get the whitelist requests sorted, whilst not having decent links removed from articles for no good reason. I would hope that others are doing the same thing, and by the looks of the whitelist requests they are, this will only slow down the process even more. The bot has already done at least one pass, so all links are now identified and users can now either request whitelisting, or remove them; there seems very little need to keep it going every 12 hours at this point. Once the first issues are dealt with there should be no problem with the bot doing a pass every day or two, it is only at the moment (initially) that I request it be deactivated, as it has shown obvious problems with the blacklist. Liamdavies (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it indeed shows the problem, the bot is tagging way more than the number of whitelist requests, which until now are just a few more than normal. So most people did not go through the problem of sorting it out, just ignore the bot, revert the tag, or at worst, blindly remove the link.

I agree that it should not edit war, but once a month is absurd. Once a day or every other day would be fine.

And the solution to solve the long waiting time on the whitelist is simple - send or select some competent admins that want to help out there. We do seem to have a system for that.  ;-). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

there is a way, i'm sure, to limit edits to each page, to , say once every-other day. but, as far as it saysin "hey, there are some links here that need taking care of", I see no problem with that. cyberpower has spent ALOT of time (months most likely) slaving away at the script, and getting it through BAG. i'm sure that any serious issues would have been raised during the process. if the whitelist process is slow, that's another issue entirely. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 08:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Late reply to User:Wikidemon: As an editor of 6-7 years standing, if I look at an article and say no, no bad links here, nope, then my judgment deserves something other than an edit war ay a bot - No, it doesn't, because if you look at an article and say "no, no bad links here, nope", when there are links that are on the blacklist in the article, your judgement is in error, regardless of whether you're a "vested editor" or not. If links are in an article that are on the blacklist, inserted via a method that circumvents the blacklist knowingly or not (the method should be obvious but I won't state it outright per WP:BEANS), then the links must be removed until/unless they are whitelisted, full stop, as they shouldn't be in the article in the first place - they should have been flagged as blacklisted and the edit that attempted to add them stopped as happens when blacklisted links are inserted not using that method. WP:BLACKLIST is a Wikipedia guideline - just as WP:GNG is. I'd love to see the arguments against the enforcement of the blacklist that have been made here used against the enforcement of notability; just let me get my popcorn first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, you can't honestly tell me that it is no accident that cable-tram-guy.com is blacklisted, along with all links ending in guy.com. Can you? I feel fully justified in removing the tag and saying no bad links here, it is an obvious mistake. There are surely other cases like this, and until they are whitelisted I feel that it is appropriate to ask for a reprieve from continually having to remove the tags in a race against other editors, whom like you, believe that the blacklist is faultless and any link that shows up MUST be removed. Beetstra, given the gauntlet that RfA has turned into I'm surprised anyone voluntarily subjects themselves to it, and know that I have zero chance of achieving adminship due to my relatively low level of activity. Liamdavies (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies, my remark regarding RfA was a bit tongue-in-cheek - I know that RfA's are decided on other merits, it is not always a nice environment, and people are not probed on their ability/willingness to work on the anti-spam/whitelist/blacklist front.

Bushranger - some of the links are just plainly wrong catches of a, apparently, too wide net. Others were not removed as 'were there, but not added by the spammers' or just forgotten to be removed. I don't expect much bad faith circumventions of the blacklist (I've run in good faith attempts at that .. but well). Also, a lot of the links that are still there are in the grey area - some respectable organisations are relentless in spamming (or their SEOs are), still their info is good reliable info. If the ratio of spam additions over regular additions is really going over the top, sometimes the blacklist is, unfortunately, the only way forward.

Anyway, most of these should be whitelisted (or indeed plainly removed), and some might be even suitable for de-blacklisting (we're discussing such a case on meta at the moment). Those requests should preferably be made by regulars on the pages which are having those links on them (as they would know the validity of the links, and can give the best advice regarding replace-ability or appropriateness). Those requests often go uncontested (though may get some return questions). Problem is, as always, the manpower to actually whitelist the material (and also, to blacklist and clean out the rubbish). And when the whitelisting / de-blacklisting requests are there, the bot can be set to ignore that specific case, the bot will remove the template, and there will be no edit warring, page-defacing and whatever. I also suggest that the bot does not add the template more than once every 1-3 days, but some insistence would be good until the links are whitelisted/de-blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is accepted as a mistake, correct? Then a practical thought. I knew about this at 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC), but didn’t know what to do. If there was a “false positive, report it” link which worked, I would have filled out a short form, it may have been fixed by now. I don’t know the backlog, but we would have been closer. Instead, later I got “don’t modify if you don’t know” something on a page of code. I can’t even find it now, not really a simple process. And I am. Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

There it is in plain sight. Sorry to bother youSammy D III (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That is not easy, either. Should it be difficult for an amateur to ask if something is wrong? I KNEW that link was good, I still don't know how to do a simple report. Not real fast, but I hang out around there.Sammy D III (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• I just noticed this discussion for the first time, after having posted elsewhere about the situation several days ago. I seems that this bot's script has tagged many domains that were once blacklisted a long time ago, possibly inappropriately, but were not previously tagged. My concern about the blacklisting of the newspaper Education Update was resolved through discussion at Meta, but I see that other users who are encountering these templates are frustrated and bewildered. For example, another post at Meta expressed concern about the mass removal of links to reverbnation.com, which is an important music website that is (or was) widely linked in music-related articles. Another user posted at Meta about the template on Gerard Majella, only to discover that jesus-passion.com is not globally blacklisted; in that case, it appears that the bot is tagging all occurrences of "passion.com", which is blacklisted here at EN. It appears that the bot unearthed some sort of problem with the blacklists. That problem needs to be resolved before the bot tags any more articles -- and, as suggested in one of those discussions at meta, the bot should be enlisted to work on undoing the damage that was done to articles where valid reference citations and ELs were mistakenly removed as spam. --Orlady (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  The bot simply tags pages with a maintenance tag. It doesn't remove any links, and the bot automatically removes the tag if it's no longer valid. The bot has already tagged every page that it wanted to tag. Starting up the bot now, is not going to have it tag new pages.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  Given that, I'm in favor of turning it back on. Sticking our heads in the sand isn't accomplishing anything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  If the bot isn't planning to tag any more pages for having links that were blacklisted a long time ago (and have been here for years without bothering anybody), I suppose that it could be turned back on to start removing the templates about links that (like educationupdate.com) have been removed from the blacklist since the recent tagging. However, don't allow it to re-tag articles (like the ones that Sammy D III is concerned about) that it recently tagged until a more comprehensive effort has been made to resolve the large number of inappropriate blacklistings that it uncovered. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

  The fact that it will tag pages that have blacklisted links where the tag has been removed is exactly why it should be turned back on. The blacklist entries need fixed, and turning off the bot isn't getting them fixed any faster. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• From what I'm reading, more people are for the bot while a few express concerns about it's constant retagging. It seems the main concern lies with the fact that the whitelisting process takes so long, that the link may get removed accidentally by a new user as a result of the tag, the longer the bot keeps retagging it. So I have amended the instructions. Since I respond promptly to the bot ignore requests, if you file a request for whitelisting, you may proceed to the exceptions request page, link your whitelist request, as well as the page and link itself, and it will go onto the ignore list. The tag can be removed afterwards. I think that sounds like a fair compromise to the situation.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering. I ran into a case a couple of months back (April) where a page was vandalised by one editor, and another did an independent follow up edit, and the first of the editors removed a blacklisted link. I could not revert, and had to emergency whitelist, revert, de-whitelist and request. I wonder, how many cases have there been that editors who ran into the same situation, and chose to just disable/remove the 'offending' link and save the page .. I, for one, do not recall people coming to the whitelist requesting such emergency whitelistings to facilitate a revert (but I may have missed that). Seen that there are so many pages with (rightfully or wrongfully) blacklisted links, I expect that others must have ran into such situations as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Beetstra, I'm in that situation, I'm waiting for the white list so I can reinsert these two links here and here. These are the two that I've managed to keep track of, I'm sure there are others that I have failed to keep track of just from cable-tram-guy.com, I don't want to have to keep track of all links and then revert the removals after the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Coming to this thread very late in the game but here's my impression:

Editors screaming for an emergency stop: This has been a problem for a long time, the bot is simply drawing attention to articles which do have the bad link in the wikitext. Just because we haven't enforced it in the past doesn't mean we should continue to ignore the problem. You had plenty of time to review the bot task (and assuming good faith) had multiple opportunities to discuss the changes. At this point you need to sit down and figure out how to resolve the tag. Willfully removing a tag without resolving the underlying issue is more disruptive than tagging the article. There might be a case for holding off the bot's re-checks/re-adding of the tag but that can be calmly discussed without using pejorative language like "Bot gone wild". Bot operators have to be experts in balancing the good of the project (that they will accomplish by doing the bot task) with the wishes and consensus of the project. Cyberpower has made several offers for how to make the bot's exclusion better, but I would argue that it would be better to not exclude if the page still has a problem. Hasteur (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hasteur, please see my comments above, if there are actual problems with links that can be dealt with. Just let the whitelists happen first, a few weeks wait won't kill the project, we have survived this long without this bot and there is no deadline.

Cyber, would it be possible to embed a script function into the template, where a user can apply for a whitelist and have the template exempt for a certain time period all in the same action? This would greatly help the lay user in applying for a whitelist and removing/hiding the template temporarily while the request is processed. Liamdavies (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I can but, it will be in the template documentation. I can write a little tool that you fill out information with and it then it submits a request for whitelisting. Then places an exception on to the exception's list. But that may take some time, given the current conditions. I have also noticed that the number of pages requiring tags have dropped by 400. I'm tempted to let the bot run again, given the direction this discussion is taking.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online

I think that would be a good and appreciated addition, if possible and you are willing to give time to it. I for one would prefer you not run the bot again, as it involves me editing 46 45 pages to remove the tags in a race against other editors. Liamdavies (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Two things. Number one, I have amended the wording in the template to include a bold and italicized statement to be careful when handling the blacklisted links. Number 2, if you give me a list of pages and links on those pages, I can temporarily add them to the exceptions list. Provided you also filed a whitelist request. Does that sound okay?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I just gave you the link in my last comment, but as your obviously aren't keeping up here it is again (THIS IS THE LINK TO ALL THE PAGES WITH CABLE-CAR-GUY.COM LINKS). Yes, a whitelist has been filed, two actually, the first was closed as a miss catch, and you commented on the second (THIS IS THE LINK TO THE WHITELIST REQUEST, THE ONE YOU COMMENTED ON). I would suggest that before you start the bot, you take the time to go through the whitelist request page and exempt all the pages that currently have open requests, or simply leave the bot off until this gets sorted out (check meta too). This is getting increasingly frustrating. Liamdavies (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I remind you that my mind is not all there, that I am still recovering from a blow to my head from a roof gutter that decided to fall at the wrong moment. So forgive. I will happily add those to the list for the duration of the whitelist request.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are still a bit groggy and unwell, maybe it is best to wait until your better to resume the bots operation. This will all keep going the more the bot tags, I'm sure there are people who have (wrongly) removed the tag and think that it is dealt with. When they get proven wrong and the tag starts reappearing the complaints will start again. Get well first. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are driving down the right road in the right lane at the right speed and see school kids in the road, you don’t drive through them, saying that your engine is running smooth. You stop and think is there a bus? are they running from a fire? can I go around them? Should I turn around? This is just common sense, but was not done very well here. This was running right at its speed limit (already too fast for humans, different issue) right through the kids. Whoa, give us a chance.

Many talk about the blacklist sites being evil, ok, a real problem. But not always. The links blacklisted were already up, no one has shown that any one had caused any problems. Some must have, but no one had any example to show, just theory.

This link is clearly a mistake. This is a nice place, and it’s only being used as an External link. There are not groups of vandals, editors agenda, or whatever, this is clearly an “oops”. But it could have been lost.

If one looks at the programmers talk page, then the names here, well, in some places that may be considered a conflict of interest. I don’t recall seeing any disclaimers.

When Orlady came with other examples, the first answer was another programmer excuse. The next answer assumed that the programmer’s single post was enough to resolve the situation, when it hadn’t been before. A real matter can become a matter of theory with the drop of a colon, while the real problem becomes background.

The bottom line matters. How much time has been spent on the program does not matter. The amount of memory used does not matter. The theory of damage from black lists does not matter. What matters is that the program is causing real problems right now, and must be stopped. It was turned off by force by someone other than the programmer. The programmer was aware that there were problems, and refused to act. Now he is, probably effectively, but look what it took.

There are more than one person here who owe Liamdavies an apology.Sammy D III (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III You offering first? The problem with your example in the first case is when you're driving, you're also watching for pedestrians in the road. And conversely the pedestrians are supposed to watch for cars coming. The real bottom line is that your posting here provides an extraordinary amount of heat but zero light and ratchets up the drama of the situation further. Hasteur (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be honored to be the first.

Liamdavies, if I have in any way interfered with your efforts to edit a site, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if my posting here has in any way embarrassed you, if you think I am counterproductive to your efforts, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if you feel that I have not represented your problem accurately, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if you feel that my outside POV has been inappropriate, I am very sorry.

Liamdavies, if you feel that in any way it would not be in your best interests to associate with me, please do not, I am sorry if I put you in an awkward position.

Haster, I stand by my example, the programmer was not driving, he was making excuses to the parents of the victims.

I think I will now go to a mirror, and look at someone who stood up for a human who he KNEW was right, over a program which appears to be a problem. Sammy D III (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

??? I'm confused.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sammy D III: Tagging (and even removing) blacklisted links is completely different from a car deliberately running over children. I don't even think it's appropriate to make that analogy. Also, the bot wasn't causing any "real problems" and wasn't turned off "by force." Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jack, I think we have talked before. You are being entirely polite with me, I’ll do my best.

I think that “a car deliberately running over children” is part misunderstanding. I absolutely not think this is “deliberately”, I don’t think anyone here does. I absolutely think this is an unexpected side effect. My meaning is that nothing was done to prevent it, even after it was known.

I believe that Liamdavies’ reverting, apparently struggling to maintain links was "real problems". Maybe not big in your world, but it was happening. And Orlady had other examples. “making 20+ controversial main article tags per minute and it seems bot-edit-warring against editors who try to revert it” was posted above in this thread.

I believe I saw that Liamdavies, a victim, turn off the program, not the programmer, who knew of the problem. There is no physical force here, I apologize for implying that there was, I thought it was a run of mill term.

Someone else posted “And conversely the pedestrians are supposed to watch for cars coming” which I find horrible. School children: “is there a bus? are they running from a fire?” how much do you expect from a first-grader?Sammy D III (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III: "The links blacklisted were already up, no one has shown that any one had caused any problems. Some must have, but no one had any example to show, just theory."/"The theory of damage from black lists does not matter." (my bolding) .. No, it is not just theory, it does matter, it causes damage. I said that I ran into that situation where I had to emergency whitelist, revert and de-whitelist because of a blacklisted link (spam-diff damaging the original, blacklisted link, unrelated follow up edit making it impossible to repair the link that was there (it is blacklisted), temp whitelisting, repair, de-whitelisting, remarking on whitelist (some other edits missing to remove more of the affiliate spamming that broke the bet-at-home-page - I felt uncomfortable to whitelist/de-blacklist myself there, feeling somewhat involved and wanted other independent admins to do the real call). Those situations must have occured more, and I am very, very afraid that most editors (especially non-admins) will just have removed the blacklisted link (maybe not even knowing about the possibility of whitelisting) and revert to that version and ignore the problem (as happens now after the tagging, unfortunately, as Hasteur says). Thát is real damage, not theory. The bot, however, is not causing any damage, its tagging may result in damage (for example a human editor is just removing the link), but that is not the bot, that is the human editor who comes afterwards (who does not do what the bot suggests, but just wants to get rid of the, in itself not causing more damage than a {{cleanup}}, tag).

Your analogy with running into school kids crossing is not correct, the objections against the tagging that I see are not of a kind that they think it breaks Wikipedia (or the schoolkids). This is more like running down the road putting warning signs on places where the schoolbus is stopping so that people know that there may, in the future, be schoolkids crossing there, and having objections for the guy doing it, even while he is within the speed-limit. It is one thing that I don't understand here on Wikipedia - if someone (or a bot) is repairing or tagging 50 pages which are on the watchlist of an observer, it is always the messenger that gets shot - what is it: darn, I had 50 pages with mistakes on my watchlist and now I have to check whether they have been repaired properly, or even, I have 50 pages on my watchlist that are tagged as having a (serious) mistake .. I don't have time to fix those 50, lets shoot the messenger and remove the tags so I forget that there is a (serious) mistake?

Hasteur, I know it is happening now with the tagging, I was asking for more examples from the past before the tagging (like the one from April, above), showing that having a (inadvertently) blacklisted link on a page has resulted in damage regarding not being able to revert and, probably, loss of data. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Dick, I am so sorry for wasting your time, you presented a thoughtful post to what I had turned into a shouting match. I will answer out of politeness. It is hard for me to understand you, I will try.

I don’t mean to belittle the blacklist (even though the idea has historically been misused). I don’t get the reasoning for the urgency, I’m guessing porn somehow. Numbers here are way too large for me to grasp.

The “does not matter” was meant right here, right now, to immediate matters. The list does matter, but not right now to someone who is trying to keep their work intact against a very fast opponent.

The school bus stuff was meant for taking immediate action, instead of debating the theory while the actual stuff continues. The sign is more accurate, but for the effect, I would have had to say injuring kids by pounding the sign through them, nonsense. It was intentionally exaggerated and inflammatory.

The stuff wouldn’t be targeted to you personally, there have been several of you who have taken a reasoned, balanced, thoughtful approach, I thought you were one by at least yesterday.

I believe that many here get a tunnel vision, looking at the big picture but missing the immediate area. Liamdavies is one of you, with a real, immediate problem. I feel he got thrown to the wolves, and that some who dismissed him should apologize. (There are also social issues, which I have tried to skip.)

I don’t really know Liam, I’ve seen him around, and had one really short conversation about this link on his talk page. But I knew that link was good, black and white, absolutely a mistake, and I felt that he wasn’t being listened to. But to be clear, he hasn’t had anything to do with me, and is probably thinking W.T.F?

Thank you for your (wasted) time. Sammy D III (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Sammy D, I don't really need an apology, we're all adults here and I continue to assume good faith. My problem is that although the bot itself isn't causing harm, the templates it is placing is causing harm through the removal of good links. If nothing else the few runs that the bot did showed enormous flaws in the blacklist. I think the net has been far too wide, and there are many many links that should be removed from the blacklist. Given that I first made my (second) request almost a week ago (the first was dismissed as a false positive with no action taken), and the link has still not had any admin attention I am starting to be quite disheartened with the whitelist process and don't think a bot should be operating if the underlying issues aren't being dealt with - which they aren't.

Over at meta they seem to (due to the diligent work of a steward whom I have ample respect for) have the issue under control, the same cannot be said for here. Simply put, we need admins to start clearing the blacklog and trying their hardest to not have a link pending for more than a few days. If there isn't the infrastructure in place to remove links/sites/pages from the blacklist/place them on the whitelist, then the bot is simply going to - by proxy - cause the destruction of many good links in part of a process of clearing out the bad. The links that shouldn't be on pages should be removed, there is no argument here, and if they were the only links the bot was highlighting there would be no issue, but it is the other links that are being lost that is the issue.

We are here to build an encyclopedia, the process has been going for over ten years without this bot, there is no time limit and when the blacklist issues get sorted the bot should resume full-time operation, but with a clearly broken blacklist the bot will simply (though no fault of its own, or of its owner/operator) cause disruption to the project. Liamdavies (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The process for the tagging has been resolved for a good chunk of links. I have added every link you gave me to the ignore list and am currently adding links requesting whitelisting to the list as well. That way, as the request is being processed, for however long it needs to be, the bot will simply ignore that link on the page and not tag. As a matter of fact it will remove it. Have a look. I think the bot can resume it's operation if this kind of process is maintained, and since I'm really active, addition requests to the ignore list should be answered with 24 hours.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III .. I think we are talking, inadvertently, on different wavelenghts, my apologies. The urgency to whitelist links which are in use, for proper reasons, while blacklisted has always been there: sometimes a little-bit-useful site gets blacklisted because of their owners/SEOs pushing just a bit too hard (and whitelisting is there to help that), sometimes a net is put a bit too wide (a site owner of hunrdeds of sites with similar names overlaps in regex with that one site that is not part of his scam), sometimes an owner/SEO of a very, very respectable site is just pushing too hard and the use was not properly researched (no, it is not just porn, in my experience, porn-spam problems are just minor in comparison to other sites, viagra and similar excepted, we do sometimes run into that). Is there now an urgency to tag all of them now: no, maybe not. But since it is now finally done, can we please get over it.

I don't know if the blacklist is really broken .. there may be some mistakes on it or accidental too wide nets .. that is hopefully now also being solved, so that new editors will not run into the blacklist for wrongly/accidentaly blocked links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Beetstra, but nothing is happening. Only today - for the first time in over two weeks - were some of the links at the whitelist request page dealt with. Admins need to go an clear the backlog, it is clearly unacceptable that requests routinely wait months for any action. Without adequate infrastructure in place to deal with the blacklist problems I don't see how even a fraction of the 5000 pages highlighted by the bot can be dealt with. If we, the lay editors, are to have faith in this process it must move quicker, if just a fraction of the effort given to this thread were directed to the whitelist requests the backlog wouldn't be there. Liamdavies (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dirk (I got it right this time).

My question is why was this program not immediately shut down, adjusted, and brought up slowly? Is it crucial to keep this up while the list problems still exist? Why hours, instead of days, or even weeks?

The list is absolutely a big problem, but it isn’t going to go away today, while good links may. Couldn’t the program create its own list, or at least go to the talk page? People have been begging for breathing room.

Thank you for your time.Sammy D III (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sammy D III, Liamdavies .. first my apologies, and I will keep my sarcasm and cynism at bay, and if I don't, it is aimed at the community at large, not at any of you two personally.

This problem has caused loss of good data for the whole time that the blacklisting existed, which is likely something like 10 years now. There have always been good links which have been blocked, there have always been good links (or even not so good links) still there on pages. That is, obvious from the many tags, still the case. Some of those links are bad, some of those links are good, some of the links are just accidentally caught. Is that an urgent problem - yes, I think so, if there are blacklisted links on a page then there will be situations where the link accidentally (or due to spam/vandalism) gets removed, ánd a subsequent edit is made unaware of the problem. Most editors, trying to repair that, will be unaware of blacklists and whitelists, and, at best, just disable/comment out the link, at worst remove the link. That has likely been causing damage to Wikipedia, likely for 10 years now (I do recall other whitelisting requests regarding this problem, but am not sure and they will be impossible to track down - finding cases where no whitelisting was requested will be even less obvious, however, most cases for whitelist request are there after an editor tried to save their (good) link and failed, there must also be cases where editors are trying to save a good link, and leave it because it is blacklisted - the basic issue is the same). Does it have to be solved NOW .. hmm .. no, but I would not let it linger for another year.

List problems are there, mainly accidentally, but most of these links were (well, IMH(somewhat POV)O) rightfully blacklisted as the sites were pushed, spammed or added with a promotional goal, often by large sockfarms whose only interest is to get people to their site. It is mostly not a problem of the list, and even if it is a problem of the list, it will need to be solved and the only way of finding out that something needs a solution is to flag that problem.

The whitelist procedure is slow. <rant>Yes, the community has always been good to slow down the RfA-process, editors don't want to go through that hell, and those editors who do have that urge of self-mutilation are generally not interested in spam (XfD's are much cooler!), and if you are as an editor not interested in XfD but only in spam and self-mutilation, then you will be grilled on both sides during your RfA for not being interested to help with the everlasting backlog of to-be-deleted pages (and plainly fail the RfA, but at least your self-mutilation-goal has been met). And when I ask an editor on RfA on his knowledge and capability to help with the spam blacklist (or the WikiMedia namespace in general where admins could cause havoc as well), I get complaints that the editor is not interested in helping there, the editor is more interested (or at least, should be) in XfD's, that is where the backlog is, and that is what they should be grilled over. I think that it has been years since an editor was made admin who immediately started helping out with the blacklist - the last case I know is someone who got the admin bit solely for keeping the list clean, not making any administrative decisions further. And you say, there is a backlog on the whitelist - there is an even bigger backlog on the blacklist (most of which actively spammed so the non-admins reporting it have a lot of work keeping mainspace clean while waiting), and there is a lot of rubbish being added, spammed, which should be removed and maybe blacklisted while admins are debating whether John Doe is notable enough for his own article on an AfD. Yes, it is absolutely unacceptable that requests routinely have to wait for months. It is also unacceptable that spam stays on Wikipedia for months, years (yeah, every now and then we run into a campaign where spam is being added for a long, long time and no-one notices). I totally agree. But that is not a problem of the tagging, that is not a problem of the bot, it is not a problem of me, it is not a problem of Cyberpower - we have a problem with our own admin corps, there are not enough volunteers there to help out, which results in damage to Wikipedia (more damage than an XfD, or even speedy, that has to wait another day to be deleted).</rant>

Now, we could spread this out - but in the meantime more links are added to the blacklist. And even if it is 10 pages on your watchlist, I don't think that you are the only person watching them, there will be enough other editors watching the page as well who could request the whitelisting for you. Also, I don't see why that tag is such an issue. It is a maintenance tag - just like the cleanup-tags (which are sometimes on pages for 2 1/2 year, or 2 years, and no-one is making an issue out of thát). Why exactly is this tag a problem, even if it stays for a year, and any other maintenance tag is not?

Is this an urgent issue to have the things whitelisted - well, I think there is some urgency, as people are, obviously, deleting blacklisted links (before and after the tagging) because otherwise they cannot save the page, so they (without wanting to!) damage Wikipedia (I had to emergency whitelist, otherwise I could either delete the link altogether, comment it out, or leave the spam). Is it a problem that the page is tagged for 3 months for that, well, I don't think so (and once the whitelisting is requested, Cyberpower's bot can ignore your page and the tag will be removed anyway). Is it a problem that we do this slow so we can spread it out: well, pages are being damaged so I would start the whitelisting process as soon as possible. Is it a problem that the whitelisting has to wait for 3 months, well, yes, but again, that is not a problem of Cyberpower, their bot, me, or the tags. The sooner they get tagged, the sooner one can ask for whitelisting, the sooner the whitelisting is done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't see why that tag is such an issue. It is a maintenance tag - just like the cleanup-tags (which are sometimes on pages for 2 1/2 year, or 2 years, and no-one is making an issue out of thát). Why exactly is this tag a problem, even if it stays for a year, and any other maintenance tag is not? Simple, as I have said over and over, this tag is a problem because good faith users remove the link and it cannot be replace. With all other tags if a good faith user makes a change that should be undone, it can; in this case if a user makes a good faith change that should be undone, it can't. You can, but you are an admin. I can't and must keep track of pages to fix while I wait the unacceptably long time to wait for a whitelist approval. Beetstra, how many whitelists could you have processed in the time it took to write that rant? How many whitelist requests have been processed since this bot started? Why should the lay user have to be put through this? What is the urgency to this bot starting? Admins need to go to the whitelist request page and start processing them, without that the bot should not be operating, we shouldn't be tagging pages with a problem that admins are refusing to fix. Liamdavies (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Liamdavies, that would happen in any case, you would have to wait for whitelisting whether you were told today or next week or in 6 months.

Whitelisting a link is not a matter of adding it to the whitelist. Those are considered thoughts, need some research, discussion. I am sorry to say, but some of those links for which we have whitelist requests are simply complete rubbish to start with. They should simply not be used barring some exceptions. Links are cannot be blindly whitelisted. So as an answer, maybe 1 .. probably none.

So, we have to leave the problem stand, because there is no-one to solve the problem. What was the urgency of having this bot start? It has been discussed for months, doing a couple of trial runs, and I, for one, have been asking over and over to have more admins on the whitelist. Your suggestion is right, first get more admins to solve the problems, then tag the problem .. but that former does not get done without the latter (and even with the latter, it does not get done). So that postpones the problem into infinity, it will never be solved, it becomes a circular argument: without the tag there is not a huge backlog, so no interested admins preparing (and knowledgeable) to help, with the tag there will be informed requests, but no admins to handle them, just listing the links that are a problem does not help because we don't have the knowledgeable users who know whether a link is really necessary, should be deleted or is replaceable. Doing it slow .. it would not make the requests being handled faster (that slowness is a general problem, tagging or not), moreover, it would likely result in recurring cases and actually give more work. It is a loose-loose situation, resulting in just the damage that we are now trying to prevent. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually Beetstra, in my case it is a simple case of adding it to the whitelist, it has been stated three times that it is a miss catch. My whitelist request has been open longer than this AN, in that time over 10,000 words have been added, six admins have been involved (not one, including you, have process a single request), and nothing has been done. I have completely lost faith in any admin's (including your) ability to deal with this. It is completely unacceptable. Do what the community has trusted you to do, process the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, whether tagged or not, you will have to keep an eye on the 'destruction' of the links on those pages, as they, and likely have before tagging, can not be put back if the page gets edited in a 'bad' way (someone removes the ref with the blacklisted link and puts a {{cn}}, the cn-tag gets dated, and even I cannot put the original ref back (without administrative trick of emergency whitelisting)). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel we are beating a dead horse, there is only Dirk left.

Same question over and over, why does this program need to run so urgently?

I have compromised myself, and should go. Long ago. Good luck Liamdavies, and thanks to everyone for their time answering me. Sammy D III (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my impression that this recent bot run was unusual for tagging a large number of links that had been here for a very long time, but went unnoticed. I was aware of the tagging of links to educationupdate.com because the bot tagged a reference citation that I added in June 2010 (5 months before it was blacklisted at Meta) -- and that had never previously been flagged as problematic. (If the links to that domain had been flagged back in November 2010, the blacklisting would have been amended a long time ago.) Apparently the bot screened for -- and tagged -- many other domains that had never previously been screened for on this wiki. The bot should not be blamed for the fact that these had been overlooked for so long. However, the mass-tagging of links like that one that I added in 2010 has created a need to examine a large number of blacklistings that need to be sorted out by humans. If users are removing templates from articles because they judge the links to be OK, that doesn't solve the problem with the blacklist, but having the bot go back and re-add the template the next day doesn't help either -- and is disruptive to the community. Let the dust settle on this "bot gone wild" collection before letting the bot re-tag the same articles all over again. (Is there a concise master list of the domains that the bot tagged in this run? Instead of waiting for individuals to figure out how to file whitelist requests, it would be useful to look over the list to identify blacklistings that need to be reviewed.) --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to turn on the bot and let it make one run. There are now 100s of tags that it wants to remove, and I applied an update that will identify the rule and blacklist is causing the link to be flagged as spam to make it easier to request whitelisting.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've turned it off. This ANI is still open. Liamdavies (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement on my part to wait for this ANI to close. This thread has become a dead horse at this point, and many here have defended the bot with few objecting to it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I want my objection to this action noted. There is a moral obligation (if nothing else) to not operate this bot until (real world) objections are dealt with. Liamdavies (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like it noted that I - unlike the bot - will not edit war this (bad) choice. Cyber, do the right thing and voluntarily turn the bot off. Liamdavies (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

More are in favor of this on, than off. Your pages, are not going to get tagged. I don't understand morality behind this. There is a process of getting rid of the tags quickly set up. The bot is making a run to add more information to the tags and remove hundreds of them that are no longer valid. Your objection has been noted. Please only disable the bot if there is a bug. This discussion has gone on for an entire week and has died off at this point, with several editors commenting and only 3 of them with objections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 October 2013‎

I think one run is okay for now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This is why I said I was compromised:

”I have been wondering how fast someone can learn to program. Could programming skills be learned faster than life experiences? If I am old and stupid, why couldn’t someone be young and smart? Maturity is so subjective, and easily offensive, but couldn’t it affect Wikipedia? It would be almost impossible to address there, but could be an issue, correct?

Now that I have contacted you outside, I have to stay away from you inside. Conspiracy/conflict of interest bothers me more than some. Besides, I only have one question, no matter how many times and ways I ask it."

I don’t know if this can even stay up. I have received no answer. And the programmers talk page is still active on this issue.Sammy D III (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible solution

I haven't had the time to follow all fine points of this discussion, but in the dozens of cases on my watchlist the tag is inapt and inappropriate most of the time so i'll simply remove it. In most cases, I think the link is a good link. In other cases, the link may or may not be questionable but tagging the top of the main article page to call a link into question is a disservice to the reader and should instead be some kind of comment or request on the talk page. That reflects my opinion on the article, and I don't think a bot editing thousands of articles per day establishes consensus otherwise. I trust that the bot will not edit war against me here, as it continues to do.[42] Again, bad memories of betabot, the notion that aggressively uncareful bot coding can create policy over the objections of human editors. If the bot persists, either the bot or I have to stop. I'd appreciate if the bot creator or someone else would call a halt to this, and create a script to simply remove them all. If anyone wants to suggest that articles have blacklisted links on them, they can put a notice on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The article you linked to contains a link on the blacklist, removing the tag is not a solution, whitelisting or removing the link is the only solution. Although I agree the bot should only tag a page once every two days or so, you shouldn't think that by removing the link the problem is solved. One of two possible scenarios arise, one is that the link is actually spam and should therefore be removed, the second is that the link is valuable and should be removed from the blacklist or whitelisted. I suggest you make a choice on what to do, removing the tag without further action is not an option.

My primary problem is that the whitelisting process is pathetically slow, and that to edit war an overly ambitious bot while awaiting action is absurd. Cyber has addressed to an extent this problem by having a temporary exemption list for the bot. But that does not remove the need for a link to be whitelisted, or for admins to go and process the whitelist. Liamdavies (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a solution to remove the tag. In these cases I don't believe the link is spam nor do I believe defacing the top of the article is an appropriate solution to an editing concern. It's up to the bot creator to respect consensus here, not up to me to chase behind the bot on the bot's schedule (one of the Betabot flaws) making dozens of whitelist requests whenever it happens to be active. I suspect it would revert past 3RR if it came to it, it's coded to edit war, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is to be patrolled by edit warring bots. Anyway, I've stumbled on a potential solution, I'll see if it works. Wikidemon (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not. If the link is incorrectly being caught by the blacklist it should be whitelisted, not ignored. If you think the link is good go get a whitelist request and get Cyber to get the bot to ignore the link while the whitelist request is being processed. I agree that the bot shouldn't edit war, and should only ad the tag once every few days. But removing the tag and doing nothing else is not the solution. Liamdavies (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That's your opinion, I have mine, and we may each edit accordingly. I do not wish to participate in the whitelist process dozens of times to deal with inappropriate tagging of article pages by a bot. If I look at an article and think the tag shouldn't be there, there's no policy reason why I'm not allowed to do that, nor any reason I should be forced to work on the bot's schedule just because some users play with to bots and others like me do not. That was exactly Beta's problem, and you can see where that one ended. Bots should not be making disputed edits, period. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

A placeholder for the record here. The original purpose if this AN/I report is stale, and it's likely this will expire with no action. Fine, but don't interpret the lack of actionable administrator response (other than shutting down the bot initially) to reflect policy or consensus on the matter. The more I look into this, the more clear it is that the bot operation is against procedure, policy and consensus. The history of comments, bug fixes, objections, and disputes over this bot make clear this is not wise or according to consensus. Disputed mass edits by bot are at a fundamental level antithetical to Wikipedia. I'll make sure this gets fixed one way or another. To Cyber—"ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS?"—power, you have much to learn here. You can get with the program or fight it, but in the interest of maintaining the encyclopedia I strongly urge you to be less combative and a lot more collaborative about automating mass-edits. I'll try some simple approaches to minimize the damage if the bot keeps running amok. Best figure it out informally than keep digging the hole that got Beta banned. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the BRFA passed, consensus IS that the bot should run, and that remains so, since no clear consensus against it was established here. Also, how is tagging problems with articles antithetical to Wikipedia? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

What consensus? Nobody asked me or any of the other editors on these pages. Local consensus in one place, here an obscure bot approval page, does not make policy across the encyclopedia. It's pretty obvious that the community has not approved the notion that thousands (or more?) of articles containing old links that are later blacklisted, some of them highly rated prominent articles, should retroactively be tagged on top of the article page with an often-inaccurate claim that the article may contain a spam link. If there were consensus for such a thing, then approving the bot to carry it out would be a technicality. However, the burden is on people wanting those tags across the encyclopedia to establish that's something the editors agree to. If not, per BRD, the editors will remove, disable, or otherwise get rid of the links and then we can have a wider discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. The approval was to tag articles -- not edit war with human editors to keep applying the tag. Basic wikiquette is BRD -- if the tag is reverted the bot should be going to the talk page, not retagging. Even during the BRFA, the coder was argumentative; concerns were raised regarding the interaction with the community: [43]. Additionally, it's not working correctly -- tagging http://www.2ndchapterofacts.com/recordings/hymns-instrumental.htm [44] on Hymns Instrumental. This bot needs to stop. NE Ent 01:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Requested BRFA remove approval [45] NE Ent 01:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want the bot stopped. The articles I watch that have been tagged were all tagged correctly in my opinion - copyvio sites in particular. Dougweller (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I just posted the following:::That is the first time that I have seen copyright violations mentioned.Sammy D III (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC). Why was it deleted?Sammy D III (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your post was removed through an edit conflict, surely a mistake. Liamdavies (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right, so sorry for the implication, thank you.Sammy D III (talk) 17:06, 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 [46] 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 [47] [48]. In addition, he posted an personal attack and insult on my talkpage [49], 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)

Harassment

I am being harassed by Spc 21 (talk · contribs). First time was an insulting edit summary, for which GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) warned. Tonight, I edit Tim Howard after (not revert) to correct the timestamp and User warns me for Edit warring on my Talk page. Finally, when I sought the opinion of an experienced editor, I was insulted again User talk:Struway2#Everton_reverts by Spc 21.. "your antagonistic editing style is aggravating multiple editors on this issue. Perhaps you should stop as we would hate to see a valued contributor as yourself blocked." I have done nothing wrong and user is not acting in a WP:CIVIL manor towards me. I would appreciate feedback from the community. JMHamo (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even going to waste my time on this. User leaves invalid edit warring template on my talk page so when I dare to leave the same one on his I get accused of harassment..... That was the first time I have ever left anything on his talk page! The first insulting revert he mentions is done on my talk page to remove another of his unwarranted warnings out of frustration. If anyone is being "harassed" here (and by the way nobody is) it is me! Spc 21 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Worth pointing out Spc 21 has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past, so rather than myself reverting his change to Tim Howard (and other articles) I looked for advice, where I was insulted. JMHamo (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Worth pointing out I haven't broken the 3RR. I changed dates of footballers infoboxes to more accurate ones and get accused of harassment.... On a side note please stop bombarding my talk page with continuous notes, templates and invalid warnings..... some might view such behaviour as harassment..... Spc 21 (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of the reviewing Admin, can you please provide Diffs of these. When I try to enter in to discussion with you per WP:BRD you blank your Talk page and insult. You even did this when I notified you on this ANI For the love of god - go away. JMHamo (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Has my continuous blanking of my talk page not given you any sort of clue that your contributions are not welcome there? Where have you attempted to talk to me anyway? You just leave unwarranted warnings. I have left my opinion on your talk page before you started this ridiculous harassment accusation. In fact I am the only one to have tried to discuss your edits on what is a very minute and uncontroversial issue!

Perhaps you should both just let it go? It seems like the easiest thing to do before it gets out of hand. Ross Hill Talk to me!  23:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I would appreciate a block for this user as I feel very harassed and bullied by his behaviour towards me especially as he has been warned by an Admin about this a few days ago as I have included above, not very WP:CIVIL at all. JMHamo (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It is clear at this point both JMHamo and Spc 21 have been adequately informed about the 3rr rule, so hopefully there is no need for either of them to post on each other's talk page. While Spc 21 has been incivil, editors are generally not blocked as punishment for that. I also note there was reversion back and forth on, for example, Tim Howard but neither editor posted anything to Talk:Tim Howard. Discussion on article talk page is highly preferred to dualing edit summaries. NE Ent 23:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry JMHamo but i kind of understand the angrement from the other editors. You often "abuse" the warnings and it looks like trying to scare people of. I understand if editors feel "attacked". Instead you should also have started discussion at for instance WT:FOOTY or somewhere else about how the timestamps should look. I have not seen all of the discussion and certainly have not ssen that the majority favours the 5-tilde timestamp as you said at one place, so maybe I missed something, but to me you are way to aggressive. You are probably right about the timestamps, but I dont see that you have the consensus for how the timestamps should look. And claiming you get fake warning is incorrect since you currently are edit warring just as the other editors. You dont need to revert to edit war but you are adding the same content over and over again. To me both editors are just edit warring and acting "childish" without any consensus how it should look. QED237 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

@Qed237: Please get your facts straight before you edit. Making an ~~~~~ Infobox datestamp is not edit warring, in fact it's the right thing to do for that template, as it states in the template documentation. JMHamo (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox football biography

@JMHamo: this is the first time from what I have seen that you told anyone about this template documentation. Do you have a link for it? To me you are aggrevating all other users. The warnings feels misplaced sometimes. User:GiantSnowman (an admin) also stated that "I think you were being extremely childish JMHamo but hopefully you have learnt a lesson", about the 5 tildes he says: "Yes, it's preferred, but there's nothing wrong with using the date of the last match, as long as it is clear that is what is happening" and also " I don't understand why he insists on changing it." about JMHamo. However, right or wrong, your actions are not appropriate and as I said you have not said a word about the template doc before. To me you are edit warring. QED237 (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This template doc is not a secret. Here is the link again Infobox football biography

@Qed237: Please check your information before you post, so that you don't look silly. The comment "I think you were being extremely childish JMHamo but hopefully you have learnt a lesson" was posted by a disruptive IP, not GiantSnowman. JMHamo (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@JMHamo: IF I should follow your example maybe I should warn you for harrassment now? I dont like editors telling me "dont look silly". I might have made a mistake but no need for that comment. You are unfortunately an editor that has easy to make other angry and should look at your behaviuor. And also I dont see anywhere in that link the the timestamps "must" be like you want them to be, it is just an example. I get the feeling I ahould probably end this now before being warned bu JMHamo. QED237 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

If you make an accusation about me and don't bother to check, who said what, then yes, you do look silly, but I will put that down to inexperience, so no offence. Also, if you read the doc you will see the date stamp in the club-update, which you get from five ~~~~~ JMHamo (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well the fact that you call me unexperienced I take as an offense. Just because I copy-and-pasted wrong in this "fast" growing discussion" does not mean I am inexperienced. And I know how the five tildes look so please do not lecture me about that! Yes looking at the timestamps in the documentation it is the five tildes (I am not blind) but it is in "example". Nowhere does it say that is must be this timestamp and there is no consensus to use it. QED237 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps making comments like "please get your facts straight" might be one of the reasons for all of this. You talk to experienced editors very disrespectfully.... By the way that isn't insulting it's just my opinion. You changed infoboxes so that it could look like a player has played for a national team and a club at exactly the same time. I changed it so it said player has played for club on match played on x october etc. That is not edit warring but actually improves the articles. This is what I tried to say on your talk page but you are yet to reply to my comment there and would instead prefer to claim I'm harassing you when quite clearly I am not. Spc 21 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Spc 21 that is very true. I feel that User:JMHamo is also very fast in letting people no that "he has been blocked before" but we should remember that he has been blocked for editwarring himself earlier. QED237 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I mean that both of you are less than a year editing, but we are getting away from the point. JMHamo (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm coming up on 2 years but never mind.....You're on 8 years and still call people silly. I'm interested.... you call users silly on these pages which you know many people will see and it's ok. I do it when removing rubbish from my talk page which chances are no one will ever see and it's harassment and bullying? Spc 21 (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually feeling very weird for the first time editing wikipedia. I know I have a red username but I have made 11,000 edits and run the PDC darts section on wiki almost single handed. I have not harassed anyone nor would I ever. I made a stupid comment a week ago for which I was warned. The comment was made to revert an unjustified warning on my talk page. I have not insulted said user since in fact I have praised him on another talk page before all of this advising him to stop with his timestamp reverts as other editors have had the same problems with him that I have. I also stated my opinion on his talk page before all of this. Spc 21 (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked for advice from an experienced user (Struway2) on their Talk page because Tim Howard was just one of the edits of mine that this user reverted - Leighton Baines, Leon Osman and Phil Jagielka being others that were reverted too. It's the uncivil attitude that makes me feel very uncomfortable, I would like to discuss this content dispute, put when you're told that you are a "silly tit", that to me is bullying. It's the abuse that's upsetting me, not the reverts! I did not come to ANI about reverts! JMHamo (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I said silly tit on my own talk page to remove your first unwarranted warning and if I'm totally honest you are my proving that my stupid, throwaway comment wasn't far off the mark..... If you are deeply troubled by someone you are never going to meet calling you a "silly tit" then I am very sorry. I find it hard to believe given your aggressive editing style and frequent use of unwarranted warning templates that you haven't read far worse on here. I was told not to do it again and I haven't done it since. I would be appalled if anyone thinks my editing tonight could be construed as harassment or now bullying as you claim. I have said nothing insulting to you and have used your talk page two times. You have bombarded mine with multiple warnings I don't deserve. Maybe I should request a block for you? Spc 21 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Spc 21 can you please provide Diffs for the times I used "unwarranted warning templates" rather than refer to them. The fact still remains you were warned by an Admin about your attitude towards me, and you didn't listen. I am not going to let anybody bully me online. JMHamo (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry JMHamo, but he did get warned for that about a week ago and after that I have seen no harrassment. However you keep warnings fly everywhere. QED237 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was warned and as I've said countless times above I have not insulted you since. I made a stupid remark when removing an unjustified warning from you. That is all I am guilty of. No I will not be providing any diffs as it takes me forever. I am more used to editing on articles really... As you can see from my contributions on here 97% of my 11,000 edits come on articles like improving darts and snookers pages and updating Everton players and seasons. That's all I do on wikipedia. Spc 21 (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Qed237 and Spc 21 can't be bothered to provide Diffs to back up their allegations, to allow me answer fairly. But this is not about content, content disputes are not why I am here! It is about uncivil behaviour towards me by Spc 21, which I take offence to after he was warned about it previously. JMHamo (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm past caring now. Your allegations are spurious. Since I was warned a week ago for saying you're a silly tit when removing your unwarranted warnings from my talk page I haven't insulted you once (if it is a truly terrible thing to write in the first place). So I don't really understand what you're taking offence to. As I said above - why are you allowed to call people silly and when other people do it to you it's highly offensive and harassment? Get real! As an aside can users be punished for claiming harassment and bullying when there's no grounds for it? I don't edit on here to be dragged onto these noticeboards by people with nothing better to do. Oh and that's not offensive you've been pestering admins and other users the last 14 and a half hours. It's actually a fact. Now leave me alone I have not done anything wrong and am getting increasingly annoyed with all of this rubbish. Spc 21 (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All I am asking for is an experienced Admin to review my initial complaint and decide. I am not interested in what you think about my time online or if you think I have nothing better to do. JMHamo (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No people are free to do what they want it's just an observation. You've been looking at a computer screen for almost 15 hours maybe you're not thinking straight. Besides me saying you're a silly tit a week ago have you found anything I've wrote that even remotely constitutes to harassment yet? And to the reviewing admin what options do I have when someone puts in false claims such as these? May I also point you to what an admin wrote on their talk page some time ago? I thought then that this nonsense would end there.... Spc 21 (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

For the record User Ross Hill is not an Admin JMHamo (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well he should be - the guy talks sense. Can you show me how I have insulted, bullied and harassed you besides saying you're a silly tit almost a week ago. I don't know what you think that even means as I don't find it at all offensive but if it is I am sorry. So me removing a warning from you on my talk page and calling you a silly tit is the worst thing I have done to you.... Do you really think in your wildest dreams that is harassment or bullying? It isn't! Show here all the other times I have insulted you - I know I haven't! Harassment means a continual attack.... You've only known I edit on here a week, I've posted on your talk page twice neither of which said anything bad and I've reverted a few of your edits for reasons I expressed in the edit summary and your talk page before all of this happened. Why didn't you just reply on your talk page before? At the maximum we are both edit warring....nothing else has happened. Spc 21 (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Spc 21 I no longer want to interact with you. I have made my point and have nothing else to add. JMHamo (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You have nothing to use against me! I responded to you here and here. I posted on your talk page two times. I removed your unjustified warnings from my own talk page one with a stupid comment. I have reverted a few of your edits all for the same reason at Leighton Baines and Leon Osman. I believe the edit summaries adequately explain why I did that. That is all the contact we have ever had. I truly fail to see how that equals harassment, bullying or anything else. No other editor who has contributed to this agrees with you. In my opinion you are an editor who must be right and when someone stands up to you you shower them with warnings. Most back down but when someone doesn't you drag them through this. None of my interactions with you deserve to be labelled as harassment at all and I look forward to the speedy closing of this rubbish very soon. Spc 21 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, this is going round in circles and just seems to be you two arguing. JMHamo, what are you actually trying to achieve here? GiantSnowman 11:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say this bickering calls for two orders of trout but there seems like a genuine content conflict that is likely to continue unless it's resolved. Maybe an RfC is in order on the appropriate WikiProject about time stamps? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, JMHamo has also been undoing all of my edits and edit warring with me for over a month, even after he was told there was nothing wrong with my edits to begin with. Now he is bombarding my talk page with spurious warnings for harmless edits and continuing to undo random edits in an effort to try and provoke me into reverting edits and to get me banned. He is causing a constant disruption to me and other users, and several dozen pages have been locked so far because of his edit warring with other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.243.163 (talk) 13:13, 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)

User:Op47 modifying what other users said in a Talk page

I need help at Talk:Mayoralty in Puerto Rico#RFc for list of mayors with, User:Op47, a user that doesn't know how to properly use our Talk system and keeps replying within my comments rather than below/after them. This generates confusion as people might believe that I was the one that made such statements. The user is also for some weird reason using a different reply system (using '@' like you do in Twitter) rather than replying below comments. I don't have the patience to deal with this guy and I'm not an administrator so please someone lend a hand. Per WP:AGF the guy is not doing it on purpose, he is just unfamiliar with our practices (remember WP:BITE). —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, ANI is supposed to be the equivalent of dialing 911, not for when someone cuts in line boarding the trolley or doesn't pick up after their dog. Just invite some other editor you happen to know to join the discussion, or get someone from WP:EA, or something. EEng (talk) 2:49 pm, Today (UTC−4)

The issue is not about the discussion, it is about what the user is doing with people's comments which is an ANI issue as it is concerned with user behavior. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI is, as you say, for behavioral and not content issues, but it's more specific than that: it's for serious matters requiring immediate attention of (typically) administrators. This situation doesn't qualify. I'm not trying to be harsh but ANI is way overloaded with marginal issues without also having to carry the clearly inappropriate. Just get one or two people you know to join you on the Talk page, and if that doesn't resolve it escalate appropriately. EEng (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To echo EEng, Ahnoneemoos, AN/I should be the next to last place you go to resolve an intractable dispute (the last place being ARBCOM). You should try other ways to resolve the dispute before coming here.

I don't think it takes great patience to deal with this, just go to Op47's Talk page and tell them, in a friendly way, that it might be useful if they looked over Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines in order to learn about proper behavior posting on Talk Pages. Or, you can post a note at the top of the Talk Page that advises Editors to post their new comments at the bottom of the page. There are plenty of things you can do that don't require a great deal of effort and will deescalate your apparent annoyance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply but I'm not interested in doing any of those things as I'm not an administrator. Hence why I'm posting at ANI so that an administrator can handle since at the end of the day that's why they agreed to become an admin. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

A user does not have to be an admin to do everyday notifications and cleanup. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 23:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Jessy and his family

• Jessy9009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Y.Adinarayana Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• YerrapuReddy Ravindra Reddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jessy has an extensive family whose members should all have articles at Wikipedia "so that many people who are searchin for occurance of thair family and law records and psycology students to have projects on them". Jessy's edits came to my attention when I deleted A.V.Narsimha Reddy. Then I looked at his other edits and became concerned. After I screwed up by BLPPRODing a dead person, I bowed out partially and enlisted the support of @Titodutta: who is much more knowledgeable about this subject matter than I am anyway.

The second article above is now listed at AfD.

However, Jessy's edits to two other articles are even more problematic. For example, he added a copyrighted image to Samantha Ruth Prabhu, which he had uploaded to Commons claiming that it was his own work (he still claims he's the copyright holder on his talk page). He got into a battle there with another editor, and I tagged the image at Commons for speedy deletion.

His editing at Rayachoti borders on vandalism. He oddly changed the name of the municipality to Jose Avila and added a tremendous amount of unsourced material to the article (he's not big on sourcing).

Finally, as I was writing this, he created a sock puppet (mimicking my user name), User:Bb31323, which created two edits, one to the Rayachoti article adding back in the garbage, and one to the AfD, which was priceless: "yes you may continue with YerrapuReddy Ravindra Reddy no problem in it pl continue . Regards Wiki management USA." Both have been reverted.

I have blocked the puppet indefinitely and blocked Jessy for two weeks, figuring that even if I'm WP:INVOLVED, this was a "straightforward case". That said, if any admin believes either block was unjustified, they can feel free to unblock, change the duration, whatever, without consulting with me first.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes straightforward and clear. --Tito☸Dutta 18:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've deleted the first article as a CSD:G12 - the entire thing was copied from copyrighted web pages and a book available on Google Books. There's a big difference between using a book as a source and copying it verbatim. The subject might actually be notable - but the article is simply a copyvio. (FYI The second article, currently at AfD, does not appear to have any obvious copyvio). Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Zmaher's edits

Zmaher (talk · contribs) is an oddball. Though his talk page shows some old warnings, the bulk of his edits concern Russia–United States relations (history) and appear to be perfectly fine. But when it comes to the world of entertainment, he seems to be hell-bent on adding long, very long descriptions to articles. For instance on Red Dawn (2012 film), he made his fair share of reverts and has subsequently been warned over his attitude. I myself noticed Zmaher's edits on the article of the video game Frontlines: Fuel of War. His description was over 25,000 characters long, overly detailed and unnecessary (see diff). After I cleaned up the article, I saw that he reverted it (see history). I gave him a warning over this, to which has not responded. And that's just it, he does not communicate at all: does not respond to talk page messages (or even deletes them). --Soetermans. T / C 19:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Zmaher's overly-long additions to Red Dawn almost a month ago, but he had not returned to the article since then. I know nothing of his other edits, past what Soetermans has pointed out above. He does not use edit summaries, which is quite annoying, and this seems to be part of his overall lack of communication. It might be good if someone reminded him that WP is a collaborative project and that he needs to explain his edits and engage other editors in constructive communication. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 19:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive bots missing in action

What happened to the archive bots? They don't seem to be running on ANI, AIV, AN3, or RFPP that I can tell. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

During these perilous botless times, Mark has graciously manually archived AN3 and, bravely, ANI (those are the two I know about). A vote of thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#FYI_--_archive_bot_down. NE Ent 10:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Longitude and Lattitude Brief refuses to die

Longitude and Lattitude Brief deleted, more than once. It's now back as Talk:Longitude#Longitude_and_Latitude_Brief, Longitude and Lattitude Summary, User:Sven nestle2 & User:Sven nestle2/sandbox. Can someone with a mop please have a word. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Also several other personal essays, with similar problems and persistent reincarnations. See links on the user talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted and warned. GiantSnowman 11:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I know this is not WP:SPI, but doesn't this look like Sven nestle (talk · contribs) evading his block? Favonian (talk) 13:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Good spot - I have indeffed per WP:DUCK. GiantSnowman 13:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Stars Dance mass vandalism

There is already a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection but this seriously needs to be protected. I am removing vandalism every couple of minutes from an insane amount of IPs. Please help. Anarcham (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done semi'd for three days. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Anarcham (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have another if you don't mind. All morning long vandalism on Éilís Ní Dhuibhne from a bunch of IPs. Anarcham (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for 3 days. DES ^(talk) 15:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Questioning an administrator's attitude

Administrator GiantSnowman recently changed the update source of Template:Arsenal F.C. squad to the Premier League website [50] and added three players, namely Chuba Akpom, Héctor Bellerín, and Nico Yennaris, to the template, supposedly because they all featured in Arsenal's English League Cup game against West Brom (see [51]). This edit [52] does not seem to be very constructive to me.

Based on what I heard from this user, there is a consensus on WT:FOOTY about player inclusion on squad templates (even though some users do not seem to agree with it). Basically, players who have a squad number, have made at least one first-team appearance in ANY competition, and are still with the club should be included. However, I do not understand why this user added the three players above, but did not add Thomas Eisfeld or Kristoffer Olsson who also played in the West Brom game, not to mention the goal Eisfeld scored. I talked to this user, but they not only branded my warm welcome message as "trolling", but also ignored most part of my post on his Talk page because of that (see User_talk:Miunouta#Arsenal squad template). This seems to have violated WP:NOTPERFECT as "administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others".

Back to the edit, before this user's edit, the squad template included a complete list of first-team players and was perfectly consistent with the update source (see [53]). However, after they changed the update source and added the reserve players, the squad template

a. is no longer well sourced because the new source only includes players' OVERALL stats (not the current season) in the Premier League (and Premier League only) but Yennaris has not played in the league this season and Bellerín has never played in the league;

b. does not make any sense because it is not the first-team squad or the current squad (Eisfeld and Olsson seem to be missing).

I contacted them again, and even apologized for my welcome message just to get them talk about the issue I brought up earlier. First of all, they did not apologize back for branding me as "trolling" (an EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE word to me) and ignoring my post. Also, they did not explain why they changed the update source, did not explain if they added the three players because of the appearances they made in the West Brom game, refused to admit about the conflicts within his own edit, and has not fixed the problems he caused even though I kindly advised them to.

Anyone here on Wikipedia can make mistakes, even the administrators. It is completely fine as long as they realize what they did was questionable and do not make the same mistakes again. However, some users always to find excuses to avoid facing the fact that they did something wrong. I wonder if this is the kind of attitude Wikipedia administrators are encouraged to have. Thank you. --Miunouta (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Long story short, this user simply doesn't like the consensus from a discussion here. GiantSnowman 10:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Miunouta, I do not think you were trolling but if you start a post with "Welcome to Wikipedia" on the Talk Page of a user who's been at Wikipedia since 2006, you're not going to get a positive response. You're not expected to know every Editor but you should also not assume others are less experienced than you. Also, I think if you are extremely offended by a user saying you were trolling, well, you might be offended a lot on Wikipedia. People get annoyed and words are spoken. If you want to be a long-time contributor at WP, you're going to need a thicker skin or you'll be filing complaints at AN/I every other week (depending on whether you edit in contentious subjects or, instead, about something less prone to controversy).

I don't agree with Giant removing your subsequent messages on his Talk Page as you tried to discuss this difference of opinion but users are given a lot of latitude to remove content from their TPs (except warnings and block notices). I think if Giant had been willing to talk this out there, this AN/I complaint probably wouldn't have been filed.

As AN/I deals with conduct issues, not content, I think you both need to defer to the consensus that was arrived at, wherever it was discussed (WT:FOOTY?). "Consensus" doesn't mean a decision that everyone agrees with, it means a decision that a majority of people participating in a discussion think is proper practice (given their supporting arguments). Minouta, for good or ill, if you disagree with the consensus, the appropriate response is not to revert edits or complain about those you disagree with but instead work on convincing other Editors, through persuasive argument, that your position is well-founded. This is more challenging because it involves dialogue with the specific Editors you disagree with, but complaining and reverting can easily lead to a temporary block as it is seen as disruptive editing. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I didn't remove any talk page posts - I archived them after two days of no response from Miunouta, assuming the matter was over with - a significant difference. Look see - Diff 1, Diff 2. GiantSnowman 08:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Giant, the diffs I saw didn't show that you had responded to them but I see in your first example that you did provide a response (I can't see one in the second example). Two days of non-activity isn't a lot of time to have before archiving a Talk Page comment (mine go back to August, others have all of 2013 still on their TP) but that is, of course, your decision of when (and if) to archive comments.

Your page might get a lot of duplicate notices if Editors post a comment and return a few days later and can't easily find it. But if this has been your practice, I'm sure you've run into this before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: - I appreciate you trying to help, but you really need to check background more before responding. You say that "[the diffs] didn't show that you had responded" - well, of couse diffs from my talk page won't show that, seeing as I responded at their talk page, see here. 2 days is merely a vague rule-of-thumn for me - sometimes it's longer, sometimes it's shorter - but in my experience if an editor doesn't bother responding after 48 hours then it is likely that the conversation is over. There was also no attempt from Miunouta to re-contact me before coming to ANI, and I note they have not participated further at ANI since their initial complaint. While they have also not made any edits elsewhere, that does not mean they are offline. GiantSnowman 11:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think most people who edit Wikipedia do so on a daily basis but I don't have a citation to back up that opinion. And even though I do edit daily now, I know I don't check back to every place I've left a comment within 48 hours to see if anyone has responded to it.

But, I agree, if I was going to make the statements I did, I should have first checked Miunouta's Talk Page. Lesson learned, Giant. Thanks for being polite about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No problems :) - it's also worth bearing in mind that ANI is only 36 hours... GiantSnowman 15:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Giant, do you mean that incidents posted about on AN/I are expected to be resolved in 36 hours? Because I see some that are open much longer.

I didn't know there was such a rush to wrap things up quickly here. If that's the way things are set up, that's the way it's suppose to be but I don't think quick decisions are usually appropriate ones, especially when you are dealing with group action where momentum can quickly shift direction and there can be a pile-on when an Editor is judged to be "disruptive". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No I mean they are automatically archived if there has been no addition for 36 hours. GiantSnowman 19:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like Miunouta's complaint is partially a content dispute and partially a claim that GiantSnowman violated WP:AGF. I agree with Liz that Miunouta's templating of GiantSnowman was offensive and to me it looks like this is the basis for GiantSnowman's lack of good faith. I don't think any further action is necessary. Discussion is the best way to solve the content dispute. Miunouta should try to be less sensitive and I'm sure GiantSnowman is now aware that Miunouta takes offense at being called a troll. -Thibbs (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Harassment by User: 76.31.97.54

76.166.123.129 and I had a disagreement at the Nick Turse article, where he/she reversed my edits without comment. Then this user stalked two of my previous contributions and reversed them:

• here
• here

Can anything be done about this? (My edits to the Nick Turse article are in good faith. As it stands, the article is largely copied and pasted from Turse’s web site.) Chisme (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've warned for possible violation of 3RR, but I'm not seeing anything else that requires sanctions (yet). —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to reverse the changes here and here that he made. I think it's okay to do so. His changes to my edits weren't made in good faith. Chisme (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I already reverted those edits when I saw he removed a talk page edit and then it became evident what he was doing. Bahooka (talk) 20:11, 8 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)

• I'm surprised that this issue is actually here at ANI. These are things than IMO can and should be resolved within the scope of talk at AfC project, and I doubt that any admin action would be warranted. However, AfC regulars should be cautious about assuming that the project is a closed shop, while any experienced editors should prefereably be familiar with the general ways AfC submissions are handled. The main problems of AfC are trying to find ways of educating the totally inexperienced editors who review submissions, and those who bltantly abuse the systems for their own ends. Proposals for a complete overhaul of the AfC system are coming up that will ensure that all reviewers are exercising equity and to make the process somewhat easier in its implementation. I suggest we call it a day at that and wait for the new proposals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Regarding the AFC issues, I agree with your point. However, the seeming lack of willingness to communicate on behalf of the reviewer (even when questioned directly at his/her talk page) is concerning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have also, on occasion, reverted an AfC rejection. I don't see the big deal. If an editor agrees with another editor's decision and an article comes out of it, what's the harm? Drmies (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong again

Coming off the last ANI about Ryulong's abusive behavior, he seems to have gotten worse and is now attacking me and accusing me of gaming the system by attempting to improve MOSAM. He breaks 3RR and swears continuously while making bad faith accusations.[54] He attacks my improvement as "gaming the system" because he can't revert it after breaching 4RR on a completely unrelated section.[55] He thinks self-reverting after part of his 4RR was reverted makes it okay, it does not.[56] Then he says he "fucked up" and retreats from his gaming the system accusation, but this is meaningless as evidenced by the recent ANI on Ryulong.[57] I'm really getting tired of dealing with Ryulong's hostility coupled with a string of bad faith accusations and mass reverting of hundreds of different editor's contributions. Ryulong must himself agree with the change or he will revert and insult the editors until his preferred version is reinstated. Also, Ryulong had just said three days ago he would "curb" his language to be more approachable after the last ANI.[58] Since then Ryulong has continued to yell in all caps at editors as if he was screaming at them.[59] And even did another improper use of rollback, a major point of the last ANI.[60] Ryulong has a long history of edit warring and ownership issues. Typically, requesting full page protection after you break 3RR shows more spite than restraint and I think Ryulong needs to know his abusive behavior towards other editors will not be tolerated. This has gone on for months and years, Ryulong's behavior has not changed after the ANI so I think Ryulong should be on 1RR for a duration of a month. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a total aside: why would anyone want to spend time and energy on the unverified fancruft found in Kousoku Sentai Turboranger? Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I realized my errors regarding the accusations of WP:GAME and retracted them and apologized. The edit on Talk:Attack on Titan was preceeded by this one. The revert on Kousoku Sentai Turboranger is to a long term disruptive editor who constantly hops IPs and who I've come to this board in the past to request assistance in dealing with. If you look in the history of the article you will see this is a recurring problem going back several years and it is not just limited to just that one article [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. And all of these pages are in dire need of cleaning up as well, but I digress. Just as ChrisGualtieri is tired of dealing with me, I too am at my last ropes with him. After I had reverted Adam Cuerden's modification of WP:MOSAM as it had not been discussed, and as a discussion on the talk page was being made about it, ChrisGualtieri reverted me, and after I had undone that change, again, he began to further modify the project page without discussion, which at the time confounded me. I don't see why requesting protection, particularly when the page is at what would be considered the m:wrong version from my point of view, is disruptive either. I still fully apologize for my statements towards Adam Cuerden this afternoon, and I hope that my attempts to explain my other edits that ChrisGualtieri cherrypicked for this are sufficient.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

To me this is simple, you said you would watch your offensive language and be more approachable and not abuse rollback. I'm not "tired" of dealing with you, because I welcome your positive contributions and maintenance of pages that are generally problematic. This is why I may disagree with your behavior, but found your argument to make sense in both policy, it took me over an hour of researching to prove at DRN that your argument was indeed correct on the Death Note matter. Behavior and content matters are two different things for me. And I also owe some thanks to you for fixing that template at Anime. I'd like it if you could communicate better about these situations and not commit to edit warring to breaking 3RR over the issue. People can be BOLD and add or make good faith changes and many are constantly reverted by you resulting in little to no improvement over years; interestingly you removed a large chunk containing two sources as "UNIMPORTANT TRIVIA" (yes, in all caps) on the MMPR page.[74] While one part about "breaking boards" is useless trivia, we have two sources that dealt with opposition to Saban's reuniting, including a source noting the death of Trang. The removal is just one of many that negatively impacts Wikipedia and I believe abiding by a 1RR would help foster communication and growth with editors who think differently than you do. As said at the last ANI, your intentions are good, but the execution could certainly be better and this could go a long way to resolving the issues. It is also hard for people to work on the page given your dominance and reverting of almost every edit on these topics. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

You used the word "tired" though in your post here. Perhaps "unimportant trivia" was the wrong phrase, because are Huffpo and TMZ really the best sources for possibly controversial BLP statements? But I really do not think 1RR is necessary. I mostly deal with IP ediors who rarely if ever touch a talk page so it will only prevent me from cleaning up after the handful of uncommunicative long term problem editors I've had to deal with over the past 7 years of editing this niche set of pages ranging from an editor who would blank articles with lengthy screeds against the producer or completely whitewashing pages of the existence of his works; an editor who would remove every single reference, hidden comment, and piped link; an editor who changes Japanese TV show casts to have Bollywood actors; an editor who would unnecessarily append color names to items; an editor who for some reason would remove fictional characters' nicknames when they're used in the work of fiction; an editor who replaced pages wholesale with his fanfiction; an editor who made up whole seasons of Philippine TV shows; and of course the one who I posted like 15 diffs for above. I honestly cannot be expected to communicate with editors like these (even though only one is still active) under a one-revert restriction, but how am I supposed to deal with editors who do not adhere to BRD when I expect them to and request them to? That's what happened with Despatche and his edits to Pokémon Platinum, Pokémon Stadium, and Pokémon Stadium 2, and I can think of many other instances where I've reverted someone and gone to their user talk page or someone else's user talk page only for them to engage in discussion and then revert back to their preferred version or cease communicating with me on one page and begin a discussion on another as if the previous one never existed. How is 1RR going to help? I'd rather be allowed more time to adjust my behavior instead of it being expected of me to happen overnight, which is exactly why I was upset with how the RFC and RFAr happened to me several years ago. I was given no chance to attempt to change my behavior for the better before having the RFAR thrown at me. I would like to voluntarily be given more than 48 hours to adjust my behavior in this case rather than having a "community" backed editing restriction over my head.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ryulong wouldn't be the first positive contributor to benefit from a 1R limit. If incivility and tit-for-tat editing follow a series of back and forth reverts (no matter who's right and who's wrong), then 1R nips that in the bud. I haven't looked at what you said to Adam, though I'll take your word that your apology was sincere--but when in the same breath you use the word "cherrypick" to describe Chris's selection of edits I do wonder if you ran out of contrition already: "cherrypick" is a loaded term and serves only rhetorical purposes; of course there's picking since Chris can hardly point at all your edits to make his case. That's by-the-by, but it should show you (Ryulong) that it is important to get away from an adversarial mindset, if that's what's guiding your word choice. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, give him a chance, a little longer before you 1rr him. He is a good contributor in an area you couldn't pay me to touch, and, unlike most trouble makers here at ANI, using the term trouble in its lightest sense, he is admitting he is wrong and needs to change. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC))

• I don't think you're reading my comments correctly. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing is that repeated attempts have been made and they resulted in numerous editors showing evidence of hostility and bad faith and abuse of rollback. Perhaps it hasn't been a long enough period of time, but all caps yelling at an editor for correcting a typo in a talk page header mere days after recognizing the problem is not promising. If one says they will modify their behavior and one doesn't and continues right after the last ANI, business as usual, what weight do the words carry? Given the RFC and the ArbCom matter and the dozens of issues raised throughout the months from my meeting of Ryulong; perhaps Ryulong isn't capable of changing his behavior. Anyways - resolving our long standing content issue may help ease his tension and a week or two should be given to show Ryulong is capable of modifying his behavior. I'd like to see such restraint employed going forward and not being "gradual", while and no one is perfect, I think Ryulong acknowledges the issue. Next time, I'll request 1RR, but unless someone is opposed to closing this ANI - I think it has served its purpose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

A Pox on both (or all) your houses ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and another editor who has been previously sanctioned (with respect to the other 2) have constantly been bickering back and forth across multiple venues (DRN,AN*,VP*). At this time I consider the net good you may have as been completely overshadowed by the eruptions of drama-bickering that require well trained (and thick skinned) volunteers to take their time way from productive ventures to extricate the combatants. I seem to recall that the riot act has been read in relation to these editors before, so I assumed that they would have behaved themselves. I guess I was wrong. I am deliberately being obtuse regarding the third editor because I don't want to inject any further drama into the issue by giving notice to them and opening the door for them to comment here. If others disagree, please feel free to notify the user in question Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Say what you will, I don't think any "riot act" has been read to me. I work 20+ hours a week in researching anime and manga topics; I am studying Japanese and can read and correct errors in translation, including one that Ryulong had edit warred to revert to an incorrect translation. All my GANs have passed and I have many more active, I expected our differences to be resolved when I showed that these pages do not need to be deleted and improvement is easy if only done properly. Since the matter, I've had to protest a deletion campaign advocated by 3 A&M editors and others which think LOCALCONSENSUS is acceptable. MOSAM is not official and has ruined dozens of pages; enforcing its LOCALCONSENSUS which was a major part of my issue with those two editors. Those willing to do the work on Wikipedia should be allowed that chance; to save an article from deletion or to have an article that meets N/GNG to not be reverted out as "no consensus to split". Sorry, if I am of different mindset; I know far more about anime and manga than what is on Wikipedia and as a scholar, I have a genuine appreciation of the art form and get a bit defensive when accused of being malicious, committing to some conspiracy and or worse. Especially when Ryulong's comments are taken word for word and thrown at me when I am sensitive about the situation. I've begged these two editors to work together; and while I have issues with the behavior and repeated personal attacks; I can still say I respect Ryulong for much of the work he does. You don't praise your "enemy" and spend over an hour to prove his argument and defend his changes at DRN or on talk pages and thank them for fixing things or telling you how to operate a weird template. I like Ryulong; but not some of his behavior; and that is why the mediation should go forward and the differences solved. I wish we could just bury the axe and work together; and any suggestion otherwise would be injecting more bad faith into the situation. Because Ryulong would not ask my input if he truly hated me, we bump heads, but I think we understand that we both want Wikipedia to be better than it is now. Sorry, Hasteur, I disagree with your assessment, but I understand how this problem appears from the outside. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you can puff up your credentials all day, but I think both you and Ryulong are at fault here. LOCALCONSENSUS is indeed acceptable when it makes sense in context. You can say all you want about how "it is consensus" or "no, it isn't", and other trivial remarks, but at the end of the day such consensus issues are best solved individually for each article, instead of trying to create a blanket template as you have been doing at WT:MOS-AM . That aside, you guys need to resolve any longstanding disputes between you and leave it at that. Wikipedia's volunteers should not have to waste their time separating you two once again when that time could be better spent elsewhere. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 01:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like dispute resolution would be a good move if all parties agree to it. It's clear how much you all have invested in the subject. But, sometimes, someone completely outside the topical area can look at a situation with fresh eyes and be able to offer some editing practices that would both acknowledge everyone's contributions and help you mediate when differences of opinion emerge. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of dispute resolution, everyone commenting here should take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 and at Wikipedia:AN#Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban. We can't start mediation between ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong and Lucia Black until this discussion is over, and the mediation might touch on some of the issues being raised. However, mediation won't deal with conduct issues, so if people think that there are any conduct issues that need dealing with, then those should be dealt with first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think Ryulong just needs to WP:STAYCALM and realize that he doesn't WP:OWN articles. He thinks he is always right, and will revert blindly to anything that opposes his opinion, even if it starts a WP:WAR. Then he gets very heated in discussions, trying to bend the will of others to his view. It really isn't worth it. WP:NOW doesn't apply do everything. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri has very clearly made WP:POINTy edits in his splitting of an article after I offered an opposition to his proposal when it was already under contention in the discussion. He very clearly stated he would go through with it anyway, and demanded that I not edit the page. I reverted it, expecting a discussion to begin per WP:BRD as he so desperately wants me to do and attempted to start one but he reverted me and is continuing to build up the page despite the opposition to his proposals. What am I supposed to do now? Sit back and let him act against consensus because I'm the only one who noticed?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualteri has also been warned about ownership and WP:NOEDIT Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

He is also now on the defensive, claiming that because I made these four subsequent edits to the article [75] [76] [77] [78] that I've somehow WP:GAMEd him into possibly breaking WP:3RR with his next edit.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just seen this. Whatever, I am locked out of improving a page that I had an "in use" template on and I can't edit it lest I break 3RR. Konveyor Belt is a misguided editor who advocates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS it seems and makes dramatic rhetoric, but I can't edit the article and the courtesy template said I was in the middle of working on a page I had just created. Not even NPP is to act in such a way by reverting a brand new page out of existance without discussion, especially when I said doing so would be edit warring. I've never seen such a disregard for the process that an editor will say "meeting N/GNG does not allow you to create an article because I oppose it!" This says a lot about how far Ryulong will go to get his way - he won't even work together when begged. The articles are being deliberately kept subpar and poor because of such actions and no one cares enough about the premise or the esoteric subject matter. The result has been terrible coverage and a self defeating policy by a handful of editors who are so reactionary that they'll cut their noses off to spite their face. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You are not locked out. I have not been reverting the page to what would be my preferred version (a redirect) and in fact have been collaborating with you to make it look presentable, even if I do not believe the page should be retained. You are just drama mongering. I cannot tell how you are interpretting WP:3RR but if two people edit the page at the same time and there are no reverts performed that's not a 3RR vio.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Even though my opinions may be a minority, there's no reason to bully and push me about to make it look like you are the only sensible one. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that the editors that have been involved with Chris so far include: Lucia Black, Ryulong, Konveyor Belt, and Folken de Fanel [79] all from wikiproject anima and manga. Now I don't know if there is a connection or not but I do see it as problematic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah, there's a simple reason for that: Chris keeps screwing up anime and manga articles and then reacting extraordinarily inappropriately when others disagree with his edits. Go read his userpage if you want a laugh, he describes it like some sort of glorious otaku crusade. --erachima talk 03:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the same could be said of many of the combinations of the people you just listed... Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

True but being all from one project creates a problem, I tried in the past to intervene in the problems but did not have much success. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But some of the Wikiproject's editors are the problem because they believe in a local consensus that allows for edit warring to remove pages with invalid rationales. You cannot preclude the creation of an article that meets N/GNG as Ryulong did.[80] During discussion, Erachima also did this citing CFORK incorrectly.[81] Two major violations per WP:BLAR, considering the page was brand new, in use and Ryulong's good faith improvements put me to 3RR. These editors simply cannot do this, but do so repeatedly, thinking that several of them saying "don't make this page" is valid or with "MOSAM" to supercede N/GNG. It is not. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And just to clarify, it is not the entire Wikiproject, but a very active minority that has taken to preventing me from improving the most important and notable subjects. Much of this likely falls under WP:HARASSMENT because they are trying to get me to stop editing and make insults about my academic interest in the subject. This is unacceptable behavior that should be condemned on sight. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I just replied on Chris's talkpage suggesting him to take his proposals for the wikiproject anime/manga to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga in an RFC. If disruptive editing continues there then it can be brought back here, but it sounds like we need an official consensus on the matter and not editors just saying we have one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

An RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga sounds like a good idea. As annoyed as these Editors are with each other, I'm sure there are plenty of more casual Editors who might want to comment on proposals for cooperative editing who would never come over to AN/I to comment. This is such a popular subject on WP, there must be dozens of active Editors...try to come to a consensus on WikiProject since it seems like attempts to prod y'all to DR haven't succeeded. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That may be as good a place as any, though Chris's willingness to engage A&M may be less than ideal given his, uh, iffy opinion of the project's legitimacy. --erachima talk 21:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I request the closure of this thread. It has gone off topic, no admin action is necessary. Also, this needs to be closed for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous vandal

On article UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying is non stop vandalized by IP address 92.237.230.122 for putting nations such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan & Vatican City. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan are members of AFC but not UEFA. Vatican City is not member of UEFA any FIFA. --188.47.101.66 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, typically you ought to report this at WP:AIV, but an admin won't do anything until they see that the matter is clearly indicated as vandalism or disruption, and I see only one single warning on that talk page, and it's not yours. If you report it here you need to notify the editor. But more importantly, their last edit to that article is from 22 September, so I see no reason to do anything at all right now. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Denisarona

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.

---

Awards stars to anyone doing her work for the user on user page, and employs police like tactics with other users to subdue any dissident, the meritocratic system infringes the "free" in encyclopedia. We do not have stars like sheriffs for doing Denisaronas sort of justice we are there to educate what your opinion is to people remember SOPA?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Subranadan88888 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The reporting account has a very limited editing history, and created a userpage with "Black list: Denisarona. For the treachery of editing and policing." It is most likely the same user as 79.65.75.155. I can't see any action being taken against anybody other than the reporter. James^x12345 19:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

OP blocked per WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NOTHERE. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, a new user named Suuran88 has recently appeared and committed minor vandalism on Denisarona's userpage. The user has also vandalized a couple of articles, which is how he or she came to my attention. DoorsAjar (talk) 07:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And that has been blocked for quacking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 9 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.

Obvious sock, needs obvious Block

46.20.98.50 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of MyVoiceIsHeard who is just coming off a block for the exact same edits. Can an admin please step in and block them again? Werieth (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked for 60 hours, and MVIH's block extended for an equal period of time. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Werieth (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• 91.232.101.32 (talk · contribs) QUACK again. Werieth (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just semi'd most of this guy's targets. Let me know if any more need to be done. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Johnmaroun (talk · contribs) is another, can an admin step in and mass revert/delete please? Werieth (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

New user needs some guidance

We have a bit of a problem with new user Purple 16 Worlds creating articles that seem to be nonsense. I am asking for help here as I have to go and dont have time to keep up with all the articles being created nor the time to engage the editor in a proper fashion. -- Moxy (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• He's already been warned several times about creating pages on his homemade comics. People have been plenty polite with him and he hasn't stopped. I've given a level 4 warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Which he has now blanked, along with everything else on his user and talk pages; it frankly looks like a flounce. Also I'm not quite sure what to make of this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, first of all it's not nonsense. It's "original" fiction. Second, they're clearly not here to further anything that we're supposed to be furthering. That they have chosen not to respond to any of the messages means, in my opinion, that they simply don't understand what Wikipedia is and what's going on here. Unless I hear good arguments to the contrary, I am considering indeffing this editor per WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The user's parent(s) responded here. Definitely NOTHERE. Woodroar (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • This is definitely someone who should be blocked indefinitely, as they are clearly only here to promote their homemade comics and have zero interest in furthering the encyclopedia.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Purple 16 Worlds has asked a question at the Teahouse which I have answered. — (っ◔◡◔)っ^{Ross Hill} 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• After looking at the links, blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. This clinched it; it's either allowing others to use his account or pretending that they are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Implied legal threat + Trouble at "The Washington Post"; BLP violations

CBernsteinJournalismFoundation (contibs) has made edits to Washington Post related pages. In those edits, they have made reference to federal law violations (specifically 1 and 2). Given how serious WP takes legal threats, I thought it best to report it here. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

first a new editor WWin2013 on Oct 8 started adding long poorly-sourced allegations of illegal behavior against Jeff Bezos recent purchase of the Washington Post. It's based on OR using self-published letters from a losing bidder. Those edits were reverted and now we have a new account that is reposting the same BLP attacks AND suggesting legal action against Wikipedia. The latest edit summary by USER:CBernsteinJournalismFoundation says: "removing factual government reports and/or erasing, attempting to erase, or trying to conceal Whistleblower identifying information such as TCR1379105599018 may violate Federal statue" see this log of his edits Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:EW, WP:NLT - and from the WP:DUCK, WP:SOCK with an apparently WP:MADEUP 'journalism foundation' that from its name adds WP:U (WP:ROLE) to the WP:BINGO. WP:NOTHERE and, therefore, WP:BLOCKED (both of them). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! EEng (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the shortcuts on that page are my favorite thing on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Ansh666 19:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

accounts exclusively (ab)used for self-promotion and likely sock-puppeting

Since its creation on July 1st, the account Anny Kusuma (talk · contribs) has been used exclusively to edit its own userpage and to plaster it with portrait images, most of which have been photoshopped to show all the same person and many of which are also copyviolating derivatives. Yesterday, likely the same person has created the obvious sock-puppet account Anny Kusuma kj (talk · contribs), which displays the same behaviour; see userpage User:Anny Kusuma kj. I recommend to indef-block both accounts, as they are evidently not here to do encyclopedic work. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Some minutes ago a third account was created Anny kusuma justmin (talk · contribs). --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed all three accounts. Túrelio, you may also want to file a mass deletion request for the obviously useless personal photos at Commons, e.g. File:Anny Kusuma Germany.2.jpg. De728631 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, will do. --Túrelio (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring and ownership issues by User:Takaisi

I've come here to seek help in dealing with continuing problems of edit-warring and a total reluctance (inability?) to communicate by Takaisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The problems do seem to stem from an ability to communicate in English, but as efforts by myself and other editors to urge the user to join in discussions have all been ignored, we seem to be faced with a WP:COMPETENCE problem that is impeding work to improve articles.

Going into the specifics of just one recent case, about a month ago, one of many stub articles created by User:Takaisi, Nara Medical University College of Nursing, was considered to have insufficient notability and sourcing to justify its existence as a self-standing article, and so a merge discussion was started (here) to discuss moving the small amount of content into the Nara Medical University parent article. Three editors, including myself, all agreed that a merge was the best course of action, although the article creator himself unfortunately did not participate, despite being invited to join in (diff). After exactly one month, as no one had contested the proposal, the editor that had proposed the merge went ahead and merged the stub article leaving a redirect. Fine, so far. But then yesterday, User:Takaisi came along and restored the article, replacing the redirect without any comment (diff). I reverted this, and left an explanatory note (not a boilerplate template warning) on his talk page (diff), as it was clearly going against the consensus that had previously been reached, but the editor again reverted, again with no edit summary or comment (diff). So my question is: what are other editors supposed to do next? If I were to revert this again, it would just be edit-warring, but it doesn't seem right that someone can just charge in and overturn the result of a full discussion without any comment or explanation. As mentioned above, the editor has so far been unwilling or unable to communicate, so that doesn't appear to be a valid option, so where should I take this next? Should it be taken to the Edit Warring notice board, even though the editor has not actually broken the 3RR rule? --DAJF (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Duck sock

• 122.163.247.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Has signed their recent comments "PrakharVeedang",

• Prakharveedang (talk · contribs)

Part of the meat/sock puppets blocked under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shivamevolution/Archive. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

- That was on behalf of PrakharVeedang . He is is US and can't excess wiki at present . I'm his brother . Why would i write a note using my IP if i have an account . If i was prakharveedang , i would have loged into my account and left a message no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.247.88 (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

So you're a WP:MEATPUPPET rather than a sock - still blockable, which I have done. GiantSnowman 14:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Request interaction 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.

---

Nearly a year ago, I had a content dispute with User:Ihardlythinkso over which Unicode characters to use in chess notation. Things got ugly rather quickly, and I have been avoiding interaction with him ever since. See
User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 27#Interaction Ban? and
User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 8#Macon.

I did reply to someone else on a different topic many months later without noticing that Ihardlythinkso was involved. Dumb mistake. As soon as I realized it I went silent.

I was hoping that he would move on, but it appears that this is not the case. See this comment:[82] I can dig up more examples if needed.

BTW, I have no idea what he is talking about. Here is my one and only post to User talk:Tony1:[83]

To avoid any future problems, I would like to request an interaction ban.

There shouldn't be any problems with compliance; Ihardlythinkso primarily edits in the area of chess, and I usually edit engineering articles, with little or no overlap. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Talk, my mistake. [84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak-a-Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak-a-mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whac_a_Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak_a_Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whac_a_mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whak_a_mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wac-A-Mole&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wak-A-Mole&action=history

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Are you claiming that Guy Macon creating a bunch of redirects for alternate spellings of Whac a mole is "derogatory", "uncivil" and "violent" towards you? If so, I endorse his desire to be quit of you and support a mutual topic ban. Reyk _YO! 01:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I said his reference to "mole" and "whack" in reference to me in the context he made it, was offensive, uncivil, derogatory, and even connotes violence (i.e. "whack"). It was totally inappropriate and he should simply apologize (and I suggest too, his favorite insult tool, all those redirects and use of that article for insults, should be stopped). p.s. I am not the one who opened this ANI, he did. Please quit shoving meaning in my mouth that I didn't say, and trying to make me responsible for same. I'm a serious editor and I do not deserve insults from either him or you. I opened up no dialogue with Macon, my remarks were to user Tony1. I userfied the reference because I thought that is what is desired on the Pedia, as opposed to mentioning someone without their knowing. As usual, Macon opens this ANI, as he has done in the past for retaliatory and intimidation value, and wastes the community's time & attention. The best thing as long as he has opened this unnecessary ANI, if for him to simply make a quick apology and learn something from this. He credibility walks toward zero as soon as one would follow any of the dialogues he has smattered here. Good day. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "Whack a mole" is used colloquially to refer to a problem that is dealt with in one place but pops up again in another. I do not think Guy Macon is calling you a mole, or advocates actually whacking you on the head, as you seem to think. I don't see where either he or I have insulted you. As far as I can see, Guy Macon has left you alone for months but you continue to complain about him in unrelated discussions. Why don't you respect his request to leave him out of it? Reyk _YO! 03:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, you mentioned what Guy Macon said more than a year ago in today's discussion on the chess project talk. You brought up Guy Macon's name, not vice versa. He seems to have been voluntarily avoiding you, but you are not avoiding him. I see the case for a two-way interaction ban. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I was supposed to forget that insult? It was unaddressed when he made it; I was struggling with the content issue and wanted no behavioral side-issues as distractions. He was stalking my edits then and his involvement w/ Tony1 was obviously to obstruct my efforts with Tony1, and to smear me. His kind of under-the-radar slights s/b inexcusable on the Pedia. The memory came up by virtue of the same chess issue back then, of which he had no part of except to harass me. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it wasn't my intent to involve Macon, the remark was to Tony1 (who'd partnered w/ Macon in that unsavory content obstruction effort). How about asking me to apologize to Macon? (Something positive.) My only stipulation is that he apolgize first for the "Whack-a-Mole" reference, and promise in addition to discontinue using it to refer to users or their editing work. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The alleged "unsavory content obstruction effort" may be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 129#Chess notation, where I opened up a conversation regarding whether MOS should specify what Unicode characters to use for chess notation and where Tony1 had some insightful input.

Whac-A-Mole is a popular arcade redemption game invented in 1976. Like many others on Wikipedia, I use "Let's not play Whac-A-Mole" as a verbal shortcut for "Let us not have the exact same conversation on many different talk pages, but rather let us see if we can get consensus at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, document it, and refer to MOS whenever it comes up on another page." It has nothing to do with "Whac"ing anyone or calling anyone a "Mole", and even if it did, someone who responds to a required ANI notice with "Fuck Off"[85] is in a poor position to complain about supposedly being called a "mole".

I will go farther and say that I am fairly confident that Ihardlythinkso is not made of exactly 6.02214179(30)×10²³ atoms, is not a massive stone structure between places separated by water, not a sauce used in Mexican cuisine, and is definitely not a Soviet Beriev Be-8 amphibian aircraft. I hope that this clears up any confusion on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note Interaction bans are normally discussed at WP:AN, not here, so I've left a note at WP:AN asking people to come here to participate in this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 11#Improving the instructions at the top of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I think Ihardlythinkso needs to take a step back and drop the issue. What guy said was a harmless expression that I can only imagine a non-native english speaker taking offense to. Now that the expression has been explained to you, I think you are carrying this grudge too far; especially with that reversion of Guy's notice. You both make good contributions but I think it isn't Guy who is the problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.9.72.12 (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ok ... can we let User:Ihardlythinkso munch on some rather poor-tasting crow, and walk away with dignity. IMHO, I'd actually prefer them to close this thread as an acknowledgement that they understood they may have wholly misread, and are moving on without additional comments from the crowd, or from them ... please let them choose the positive way out ES&L 14:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur, completely. There is nothing about Guy, moles or whacking here that has anything to be done here, all that's needed is some ketchup for that crow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, it might be helpful to note that "eating crow" means "having been proved wrong after taking a strong position" and has nothing to do with munching on birds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I find that snide and patronizing. And if you want to be sure about correct understanding and definition of a word, I'd suggest to you to look up "proved" instead of "crow" since you don't seem to have a grasp of "proof" versus perspective. (The fact is in the link I provided contaiing the "mole" ref, Macon had also in that same post attempted to smear & mad-mouth me to Tony1 by his repetitive quotation of an admin who had blocked me in the past. (Macon had earlier plastered in numerous places that he could, the same material in attempt to defame me. That kind of attempted character assasination s/n be tolerated on the Wiki, but apparently it is. Now you see also below, he does a similar thing.) Plus the fact Macon was never involved at all with that or any other chess notation issue, and only followed my edits to Tony1's User as a part of stalking and intentional obstruction and desire to irritate. My perspective re the "mole whacking" came out of the context of those additional facts, which neither you nor the other commentators here have taken into account. So your perspectives are a little shallower, aren't they, and obviously different from mine. So there is no "proof" here, and the "crow" comments are equally inappropriate from my view. (And BTW, did you or any other commentor do any research regarding how Macon has used the mole-whacking reference vis-a-vis other users besides me in the past? No!?) Macon opened this ANI, not me; I have made a simple suggestion here that he apologize and stop using the "mole" reference where it could be considered offensive. I did not open this thread to ask for approval of that idea, it was only a suggestion while I was here. If you like to reject that idea, that is fine. I think it is obvious to anyone based on Macon's re-attempts here to smear me, that he needs some guidance on proper use of the WP and to be reeled in, and especially ANI. But that has never occurred, which seems to have just emboldened him, when he has more appropriately warranted warnings and sanctions. But that isn't the topic here, and again I'm not here opening an ANI with any proposal. (In fact it is true I'll never open a thread here under any circumstance, ever.) I also don't like being here responding to comments from the gallery, and I'm reconsidering whether I will even come here again to defend myself against any spurious future ANI. [It is too-often mud-slinging here, nothing the WP should be proud of.]) Thx for listening. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(Cleans coffee off of keyboard...) :)

It looks like he has stopped responding. I am inclined to close this and come back only if the problem continues. Given his history, I want to totally disengage. He has had recent nasty fights with Bbb[86], Basalisk[87], Bwilkins[88], Ched[89], Cullen[90], Drmies[91], Kudpung[92], Rschen7754[93] and Yunshui[94]. (He does, however, love Malleus. He thinks Malleus should be in charge and WP:CIVIL deleted.[95] Of course he does.) On the other hand, I really don't want to come back later. Given his opinions of ANI and admins in general...

"Everyone knows I think ANI reputatino stinks and I will never go there, ever, for any reason, for good reason, and that I am not alone in this view"[96]

"The fact is that hypocisy and politically-minded Admins fill the Wiki"[97]

"You are heavily invested in the normal political Admin-network-Oh-I-gotta-keep-my-tools-and-backup-my-fellow-Admins-at-all-costs"[98]

"Thanks for putting your nose in uninvited, to stir up drama, to spit on me, to hussle to backup your Admin buddies, or whatever the H you think you're doing. Because we all know you Admins don't hang in groups, with your "for-life" billy clubs, and think WP is just so you can roam and keep the puling masses silent."[99]

"Are you two proud? Because both your stances have been very bad IMO, for the reputation of the integrity of the Admin corps, especially those editors who are already convinced there is Admin corruption pervasive here."[100]

"I'm not a believer in the system ... I have experienced and witnessed too much corruption here, to possibly be a believer, like when I first signed up and read the vanilla documentation, erroneously thinking this was a pretty cool place. It is filled with abuse, hostility, hypocrisy. And "flexibility" is just a cover for those Admins who hold grudges. The WP needs strutural change. The top content editors should be put in charge."[101]

"No one cares, because it isn't them publicly falsely accused on the board. It isn't them with their username in the ANI thread title accusing them falsely of misdeed. It isn't them feeling this. So they don't care. So when there is apathy, there is also inaction. No call to act. So the thread stays open, because it takes work to close it. And humans are generally "lazy" - it is the prime motivator in our world."[102]

...I don't want to get invoked in that fight either. So is closing better, or is an interaction ban better? I just want whatever will leave me out of the drama. I know myself, and I know that I can easily get sucked in. (Which is another phrase not to be taken literally.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The fact you are permitted without obstruction to turn your ANI thread into an attack page intended to discredit and defame, just supports my view what a cesspool ANI is. (And why I'd never open an ANI thread under any circumstance whatever.) That aside, I do have to thank you for giving free "advertisement" to the idea, that the top WP content editors should be "put in charge" of the Pedia maintenance, future growth, direction (strategy), and policy. I feel that if the top 10-15 content contributors, elected by the community, would be put in charge, it would be a wonderful way forward for the Pedia to get out of its current doldrums and dysfunctions. (Why? Look at WP:CIV for e.g. and the confusion/inconsistency/complaints about it. Let the top 10-15 content contributors solve that, whatever their solution may end up to be. And so on.) The top 10-15 writers here know what the problems are, and their huge stake in the WP of time and heart, would disallow them from making any decisions which would be detrimental to the Pedia. (The group of 10-15 would essentially be a beehive of high intelligence, and with their shared commitment and combined vast experience, there's no way that anything but a positive way forward could ensue. Sure there would be disagreements, but they would not resort to egotistic battles, because they are too intelligent for that. They would eventually work out all problems, for positive solutions and ways forward.) The fact the idea implies a radical structural change to how the WP currently is, isn't a slam against me. The fact the WP has sported an abusive & hostile editing environment (an e.g. is perhaps what you've done w/ your thread here), is a culture long in place before I signed up, and a continued source of confusion and disagreement, over both poor precept what "civil" means and so on, and a radical restructure like this idea would do the job to take care of it and associated dysfunctions. (I don't know what would come out of such a group of 10-15, and surely everyone wouldn't be happy with the path they may cut forward, but there's no way that group would harm the Pedia, and in fact there's no way the result wouldn't be an intelligent best way forward for both readers & editors. By definition they already know what's best for articles and the encyclopedia, and they remain an amazing resource that goes untapped!) Put 'em in charge and watch the WP reach its true potential greatness. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to think about writing up an essay with your idea that the top WP content editors should be put in charge. Serious Suggestion. Getting back to the point, you attacked me while I was doing my level best to have nothing to do with you. Are you now willing to voluntarily agree to leave me alone so I can go back to ignoring you? The alternative is to ask an administrator to force you to do so. Please make your answer clear; "Yes" and "No" are good choices. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't an attack. But I know you have done your level best to be non-interfacing with me, and I appreciate that. I can at least promise to do the same, so there you go. (What you've tried to do in this ANI was inexcusable though, and UNDUE. Please be careful using WAC-A-MOLE where it could be insulting to a user. [Remember the WP:UNEDUCABLE and other WP:IDHT redirects you created? Those were inherently insulting and were removed.]) Try and be nicer. I will try & be nice to you, too. Promise. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:38, 10 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.

Editor needs to be stopped (quickly if possible)

User:Nasnema needs to be be blocked or sanctioned or have huggle turned off or something quickly. I started viewing diffs because this bad revert was pointed out. The first two I looked at [103] and [104] were very clearly not vandalism. Nasnema is clearly misusing huggle. Ryan Vesey 02:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here's some more inappropriate reverts [105], this one could be fixed, but it's certainly not vandalism, two bad reverts here, same issue here, this is just within the past 14 or so reverts. Ryan Vesey 02:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I suppose we shouldn't forget this little gem where he breaks into NPA land. Ryan Vesey 02:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To add my 2cents to this: I posted this message (which I thought was polite) on User:Nasnema‎'s talk page concerning this revert made by the user with HUGGLE. I got this response. I don't need to look up what "FO" means. While I did leave a snarky reply, it is clear that Nasnema is using HUGGLE waaay too quickly and not owning up to mistakes. Mistakes made while using HUGGLE (like TWINKLE) can cost the person their access to that program.

Further HUGGLE misuse can be found here (with warning issued), here (warning issued), here. Those are three during the span of a minute (22:12 UTC), all mentioned by Ryan above.

After I left a message on User:Drmies talk page (as I am to do in situations like this), Nasnema responded with "Well you are a lier" and when he corrected the misspelling he added "spelling for this worthless troll" as an edit summary. I was working with an admin on IRC (not Drmies, who appeared offline and was, he was at the store) when Nasnema reverted several edits from the WXLK page, including a reference to the FCC, a US Government organization (highly reliable). They were reverted as "WP:OR", though Nasnema's revert added OR back to the page.

While still trying to work out the situation with an admin on IRC, Nasnema replied with this post on his talk page called me a "fucking idiot" and stating he doesn't "care if someone removes [his] huggle privilages". He further stated that he was "only here preventing idiots like [me] from updating Wiki without proof". Seconds after that post, I received this one on my talk page, which again had the "FO" abbreviation (in case you are wondering, it means "fuck off").

User:Huon warned Nasnema about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, only to also be told to "FO".

It is clear the user is not interested in editing Wikipedia constructively or communicating with editors and admin in a way that is within the rules and policies of Wikipedia. At no time were either myself or Huon rude with Nasnema and nothing we said should have caused a response like what has been received. Since there is a clear, repeated and blantant violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I am asking that Nasnema be blocked until they can calm down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• In regards to your request, I don't think Nasnema necessarily needs to be blocked; although, that's certainly an option. I believe I've established it well that there are issues with nasnema's use of the tools (particularly in relation to IP editors) and I just ask that an administrator takes whatever action they think will best stop it from happening again. I oftentimes think it silly to block an editor for incivility performed before the issue is brought to ANI, because there isn't time to figure out if the ANI discussion itself will solve that issue. The frequency of their reverts has also slowed, so I don't think a block is necessary to stop the reverts in the short term as I did when I posted this. Ryan Vesey 02:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course the admins can do what they like, I was just saying what I would like to see done. I believe a block may be necessary for the personal attacks though. You are right, though, that the reverts (and all edits) have stopped as of 22:12 UTC. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Hello, I have not posted here before so I hope I'm not making a mistake and it's for admins only? The first revert Ryan Vesey mentions was to my edit. I don't know what the procedure is but I had just left a note on the Huggle page here saying I was worried about the way they are using it/talking to people, before seeing that you had posted here. Thanks. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Anyone can post here, so no worries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks Neutralhomer. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 10:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look at Nasnema's recent editing history, I have to ask whether Nasnema should be editing Wikipedia at all. This revert [106] for instance is entirely unjustified - it took me only a few seconds to verify that the edit was correct, and that the person named was indeed a Nobel laureate, and I can see no logic in the revert whatsoever. Behaviour like this can achieve nothing beyond driving good contributors away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• [ec with Andy] Sorry, I was in Publix while all this excitement was going on. I don't think "fuck off" is (immediately) blockable (sorry Homer--I don't), but Ryan Vesey and I probably agree on this one. Funny, Homer didn't start this; he just stuck his neck out for an IP editor. Nasnema strikes me as one of the patrollers who like to shoot from the hip. This is funny, given the user's user boxen, but it's edit summary is of course unacceptable.

  I've pulled rollback; that seems to me to be the least I should do. I'll let another admin decide if there's anything else. And to pre-empt the usual "well fuck you no wonder no one cares about Wikipedia since you're chasing away the good editors who blah blah"--well, the behavior pointed at in this thread (and there's more on the user's talk page) is sufficient evidence of very bitey behavior and uncaring rollbacking, and that's bad for business. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• At this moment, I don't think (Andy) that we should show this user the door. But this blind reverting obviously needs to stop, as does the (rather silly) namecalling. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd say this is an open admission that Nasnema will continue to insult editors when "challenged". That attitude is not acceptable to me, especially when Nasnema is likely to deal with new and inexperienced editors (or those Nasnema thinks so). Huon (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Drmies: No worries on "'fuck off' [not being] (immediately) blockable", 'tis cool. At least he has eyes on him now, so that will keep him from doing this again.

@Huon: What is interesting about this post is I haven't "only been around 2 minutes", but more like 7 years (geez, has it been that long?). That shows how little Nasnema was paying attention when reverting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've quickly perused this user's archive. This is purely speculation, but something strikes me as odd. This recent behavior seems completely out of character. There responsiveness. I would be inclined to throw out WP:GOTHACKED, or that this user was editing under some sort of influence, not drugs or alcohol necessary. Just a quick food for thought.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • [ec with Cyberpower] You had that feeling too? They've written four very decent articles as well. I didn't think it so much out of character as greatly amplified from normal, if that makes sense. Huon, the editor has 14000 edits and a clean log; any troubles to appear to be recent; but perhaps deeper digging will reveal more. I'm not going to dig any deeper; I'm satisfied with having pulled rollback and I think this thread supplies a Final Warning of sorts. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • @Cyberpower:, it doesn't seem that out of character at all, if you look at their talk page there are messages dating back two years showing bad reverts and accusations of vandalism. Also you can see them being rude to someone calling them out on bad reverts - "you're a twisted individual", "you've got a screw loose", "I think you're unbalanced". Then later there is "f-ing leave it alone" which matches the "FO" comments later. Demon Cat >:3 (meow!) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• I'll also add that this user has a clean block log, and has possessed rollback since 2011, which reinforces my suspicions that something about this user account is out of the ordinary. I feel this should be investigated more thoroughly. Perhaps a CU look to see if the account is under control from a different user?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not thinking he was hacked at all, this is old but see this discussion and this edit (interestingly, Drmies took part there too). It's the same person. Ryan Vesey 03:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nice sleuthing, Ryan. You know, Ukexpat caught on to one pattern of mine the other day (wanting to nap); I suppose here is another: no action taken. So much for totally abusive adminship! Drmies (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• At the same time all this was going on, an anon editor (User:72.86.14.105‎) was editing articles for radio stations in the Roanoke, Virginia area. Nasnema reverted a couple of my edit for a station (WXLK) in the Roanoke area. One that I had just edited on. The anon user was having an issue (which I think I cleared up) about a certain station (WLNI), blah blah, long story short, it is the same station Nasnema removed from the WXLK page. If the anon was running the Nasnema account, that could be the connection. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've just blocked for one day based on the personal attacks. I made the block before I saw Drmies most recent edits, didn't mean to override his judgment. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries. Drmies only pawn in game of life. :) Drmies (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • A pawn, eh? I figured you for more of a rook than a pawn. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider extending the block to something much lengthier if he continues to make personal attacks and bad reverts. Shii (tock) 15:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

One day, maybe I'll understand why Admins treat copyright violations more seriously than cases when Editors tell each other to "Fuck off!" A copyright violation can be addressed and changed but you can't take back hostile words that are spoken. It creates an unfriendly environment and can be the beginning of grudges between Editors.
I'm no prude off-line but I know, with certainty, that there are decent Editors who will just leave Wikipedia if someone here told them, out of the blue, to "Fuck off!" They don't view it as salty language, they view it as toxic and unwelcoming.
And, if you don't care about alienating more sensitive or religious Editors, please realize that profanity really undermines Wikipedia's aims to be objective and professional (in the sense of professional standards, not written by professionals). It's a sign of immaturity and I'm sure that's not the image WP is trying to project. </soapbox> Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. But, saying "fuck off" to someone is not a personal attack, and although it creates a toxic environment, it's not immediately blockable. Saying "you're a fucking asshole" is, and is therefore block-worthy ES&L 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the panda say "fuck off and look it up"? To Liz: there are more insidious and serious violations of acceptable behavior than "fuck off" that don't involve a single bad word. Sure, a positive working environment is important, but absence of profanity does not equate to good working environment. I don't know if I'm the admin you're pointing at, but I'll cop to that, at least to some extent. I'm not going to block someone for getting angry once, or even twice. I will block someone for willful disruption, for instance, as a pattern of behavior. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz - A serious enough copyright violation could mean Wikipedia gets shut down = no one edits. Rude behavior = some people don't edit. There are legal issues that require us to treat copyright violations very very seriously and there is little wiggle room. Language, on the other hand, has many different cultural meanings with the 'turn of prases' and 'similies' and 'colloquial expressions' as well as just plain ol' differences in meaning. There are also many linguistic technicalities. As described above, calling someone a name and telling someone to do something, while both using the word "fuck" and both being toxic, are not equal nor treated the same. In short, copyright is a matter of law and language is a matter of culture. That's why one gets treated more seriously than the other.--v/r - TP 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WP is not going to get shut down for a copyright violation -- first of all there's legal harbor provided by DMCA and secondly there's the politics of it -- what company would want the crappy publicity from taking those crazy-write-an-encyclopedia-for-free-Wikipedians to court? Plus, once you get into fair use, the real answer is no one knows until the lawsuit and appeals are over. The real answer is copyright is irrelevant to civility, and the civility problem is, for years, Wikipedia has had some vague notion that we should be civil but no consensus on what that means in practice. The pillar says Editors should treat each other with respect and civility -- which "fuck off" clearly isn't, but if we ban "fuck off", what about "screw off", "go away" ... etc. So, unfortunately the periodic "fuck off" must be tolerated, not because it's appropriate (or necessary or helpful) but the alternative would a a draconian politically correct speech code that folks would game and argue about and be worse than the "fuck off." NE Ent 23:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As TParis pointed out: it's because copyright violations attract lawyers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate all of your patience and taking the time to address my concerns and explaining why copyright is so much more serious than profanity. I guess I just assumed, as far as images/files go, that there are a lot of unintentional copyright violations because I see warnings about them on almost every User Talk Page I visit (especially new editors). So, I imagine, at any moment in time (past, present and future) there will be some images where the copyright terms weren't set properly (or at all).

So, copyright infringements seem like a frequent and common problem while coarse, aggressive language is actually quite uncommon among registered Editors (in my experience on Wikipedia) and seems limited to a small group of users. I don't see a difference between "Fuck off" and "You're a fucking asshole", they seem equally hostile to me. But those are the kinds of distinction that Admins are called to make, that's why you make the big bucks </irony>.

Sorry for the tangent. I believe you were discussing User:Nasnema before I interrupted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Something has happened and I am not sure what. Is someone able to verify the IP the edits I am supposed to have made came from? I have changed my password now. Nasnema  Chat  10:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• If there is indeed a problem (ie: hacking) Nasnema's account needs to be temporarily blocked (to prevent further edits by the hacker) and a checkuser run on the account to confirm. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • CU shows that a hacker would have needed physical access to the computer Nasnema uses - every edit I can see was made from the same IP address, and there is nothing to indicate that any other device was used. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you DoRD; you've proven your unredundancy yet again. Nasnema, welcome back from your holiday. There are lessons here to be learned. I suggest you read over this discussion and look at the various edits that are commented on. I don't think we necessarily need to hear more explanations. If it is really true that this was someone else who did this, then we should see exemplary behavior from you in the next few thousand edits. Remember, more than one editor suggested a lengthy block for the user who made edits like that or, perhaps more accurately, for the account from which such edits were made. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Help dealing with a new editor from another encyclopedia project with different rules

There is an incident brewing at Patriotic Nigras that needs external help. The article is about a troll/griefer group that engage in shock-related antics like inserting millions of penises into popular online games and similar stunts. The article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion and after the last AfD I went out of my way to clean it up and find appropriate RSes that actually covered the material. The article sat quietly for months until it was discovered by the principal author of the Patriotic Nigras article at Encyclopedia Dramatica. He is now trying to convert the Wikipedia article into the Encyclopedia Dramatica version which includes references to homosexuals as "faggots," furry fans as "furfags" and Muslims as "derkaderps." The editor is working in tandem with a sock- or meatpuppet IP account they are extremely hard to communicate with - usually only using the edit summary to comment along with a reversion back to their unencyclopedic version. I've dealt with problems like this before, but I'm finding this one to be quite difficult to handle.

My first thought was to ask WP:TPP for page protection but the request was denied and it was recommended that I try WP:3RR. At 3RR the page was protected and I was cautioned against edit warring. I've tried removing the offensive content as well as tagging it for cleanup but all of my efforts are reverted. I really don't want to get blocked over this issue and I'm not really interested in getting the Encyclopedia Dramatica editors blocked either, but it's difficult to sit on my hands and allow articles to remain as they are when they refer to Muslims as "derkaderps" and network broadcasters as "media Jews." If these editors have an interest in (and unique insights into) the topic then perhaps they can provide good reliable sources but they need to understand that Wikipedia is not the kind of place where we use racism and homophobia for humorous reasons. At this point these editors view me as the enemy so I need a third party to help talk to them. I've tried starting discussions with them on both user talk pages ([107] and [108]) and the article talk page ([109]) and they are either blanked ([110], [111], [112]) or simply ignored. I warned them that if this kept up I'd try AN/I so here I am now. Again I'm not interested in driving them away. I just want them to understand how Wikipedia works. At this point I think they're just seriously misguided. I don't think they mean harm to the article. If you can't help, please advise me how to proceed. -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I've made boomerangs available by accidentally violating 3RR a week or so ago (this was what I was warned for at WP:3RR). Please be gentle. -Thibbs (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If these comments are in fact being repeatedly inserted into the article it's IMHO vandalism and should be treated as such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You should very much be interested in driving them away, as nobody from Encyclopedia Dramatica is merely "misguided". These people ("EDiots" and "/b/-tards") are malicious, often sociopathic trolls of the sort that we really don't need on the encyclopedia. While I know that it's Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, that doesn't apply to people from troll organizations.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems like an overbroad generalization. The reason I started this thread was to get extra attention paid to the events that are unfolding here (hopefully as insurance against sanctions against me) and to get a neutral third party to talk to this editor. I don't think this is textbook vandalism. The information that was added may well be true. The bigotry-and-internet-slang-filled language is clearly inappropriate as are the juvenile attempts at humor. That much is obvious, but this is an editor with fewer than 50 edits under his belt. He is behaving very poorly, but there are signs that he may be willing to abide by the rules. I hadn't noticed this when I posted here first, but he had once redacted several of the most offensive terms in response to my criticism. It wouldn't hurt for a few neutral third parties to contact him and try to set him straight. There is always time to block him if he ignores this as well. -Thibbs (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that nothing was getting accomplished here so I cross-posted to the Teahouse. I'm hoping they will make more of an effort than this board has. If nobody is willing to try to talk to this new editor, then I guess I'll continue restoring the page to the encyclopedic version under the theory that it's vandalism. Does this make sense? Should I still be cautious about 3RR? How should I proceed if problems erupt again? -Thibbs (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment on Turkish people

The article Turkish people has had major problems for awhile now. It is currently under the status of GA and a reassessment page has opened up. Please see the reassessment page here. There's no one in the reassessment page that believes it should remain a GA. The article is too unstable, has too many copyvio violations of photographs and text, a POV tag has been there for weeks, undue weight issues, and claims are not in line with sources. Hence, involved and Uninvolved editors have all expressed their opinion that the content of the article is not in line with GA criteria in the reassessment page. Recently, I removed its GA status along with other subsequent removals in the talk page. Cavann (talk · contribs) has reverted me twice already. There's no rule that says "involved" editors may not delist GA status articles, hence, after reading the regulations over and over again, I proceeded with the action. There needs to be oversight on this. If not, I will have to continue to procedure for the betterment of Wikipedia. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What "Uninvolved editors"? Wizardman expressed concern about remnants of possible plagiarism by a previous editor,[113] which was fixed [114] [115]. The only other uninvolved editor who commented, User:Hchc2009, said he supported a reassessment, not a unilateral revocation.

The GA reassessment was filed during an edit war and some of it consists of personal attacks against me. I do not think it is appropriate an editor such as yourself, who was also heavily involved in the edit war, can revoke the GA status unilaterally. In fact, Proudbolsahye was told that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate"(see here). It should also be noted that some of the issues are now in dispute resolution (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Turkish_people)

Also, what are the "too many copyvio violations of photographs and text"? It does make your unilateral actions more suspect when you come up with outright inaccuracies. Cavann (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is with the original review(er) ...the topic has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#User:QatarStarsLeague -- Moxy (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note: "There needs to be oversight on this. If not, I will have to continue to procedure for the betterment of Wikipedia" - actually, you don't; things won't fall to pieces if you step back. And if people are reverting you then declaring an intent to continue regardless could be taken as somewhat WP:POINTy... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, let us not confuse this as though it's just another dispute. This is about fulfilling criteria, it isn't a content dispute. Clearly, the user who reviewed the GA has not reviewed it properly and his history of reviewing GA articles is concerning (see here). The article shouldn't have been in the GAR since the article shouldn't have been a GA in the first place. I feel, along with others, that the GA status needs to be removed ASAP for the mentioned reasons. There's no debate here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If the aritcle "shouldn't have been a GA in the first place", that is exactly what a GAR is for. Repeatedly attempting to strip the GA status yourself instead of waiting for the GAR to conclude, and declaring that you will continue to do so, is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. There is no rush, unless it's an absolute emergency, to delist the article - instead allow the process to play out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, as you can see from the link aforementioned by me, the user who reviewed the article under GA criteria did not conduct a review properly (link again). Therefore, the issue is more than just lack of criteria fulfillment, the review in itself is problematic. In fact, the user who reviewed it is now about to be topic-banned. Due to this, the article has now become a haven for edit-warring and POV issues. It has been under article protection twice in the past two weeks. There's reverts happening as we speak. In fact, it could go under article protection again if requested. So yes, this IS an emergency. Proudbolsahye (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not it is not an emergency. The article appears not to have been reviewed properly, but the nominator accepted the review as valid. The nominator has a "history" of such reviews, but also has numerous barnstars and messages of thanks on his talkpages by nominators who "appear to like" such light-weight reviews. A community WP:GAR was opened on this article on 22 September and it is still in progress (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Turkish people/1). A edit war and this incident seems to have be caused by a well-intended bypass of the review / assessment process by an editor unilaterally removing the {{star}} from the article, on I think on 8 October. The article was never "delisted", despite what is being claimed above. There is a process for delisting and that is WP:GAR. Editor Proudbolsahye could have delisted the article by means of a personal GAR, but did not do so; and, as I stated above, there is already a community GAR in progress. Furthermore, I suggested that the reviewer be topic banned yesterday and one other editor has expressed supported, but it is premature to suggest that a topic ban is imminent (I can't impose an topic ban). The proper course is to allow the community GAR to continue: that may well result in a "delisting", but it if the article is not too non-complaint it could result in a "hold" result and if the problems are fixed promptly the article might keep its GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pyrotec (talk · contribs), thank you for your clarifications. By all means, what I did was not a unilateral act when I acted in accordance to the comments at the GAR. The problem also needs to be clarified. The nominator along with other users have not made a single effort to resolve the issues presented at GAR. The nominator in fact insists on retaining the status quo. In some cases, s/he is in denial that problems in the article exist. For example, s/he claims that there are no copyright photographs when clearly, Gazi Yasargil, a file removed from commons for copyright violations, has been removed (and still is removed) because of that reason. I am then accused of "outright inaccuracies" when mentioning the copyright status of the photographs. This article is getting nowhere fast. I highly suggest outside mediation to resolve the status of GA once and for all. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"By all means, what I did was not a unilateral act when I acted in accordance to the comments at the GAR." - if the GAR was still open, then "short-circuiting" it by going ahead and "delisting" the article is disruptive whether the action is correct or not. If the GAR has closed, WP:SNOW or otherwise, with a result of delist, then delisting is appropriate. If it has not, then it is not, no matter how many editors have urged relisting or how strong their arguments for it are. Allow the discussion to play out instead of being a tiger loose in the zoo. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is more problematic because Proudbolsahye almost exclusively edits/adds "Turkey-negative" content such Armenian Genocide related articles, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey, etc Wiki checker link. Everybody has their own interests; that is fine obviously. However, it is a matter of concern when POV-pushing and being disruptive becomes a pattern. Articles that are almost exclusively edited by Proudbolsahye, such as Racism and discrimination in Turkey, exemplify this lack of NPOV approach. Almost half of the article is about Armenians, whereas discrimination in Turkey today includes sexism, heterosexism, etc. And there are giant quotes in the lead about the opinions of a person in 1800s (an obvious UNDUE issue).

I should also note that there may be two relevant ARBCOM rulings, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia (Balkans), since these are broad rulings and Turkey is in either region. Kevin ^(talk) 00:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)(Cavann, just changed my signature).

If you want to criticize my work on Wikipedia, please feel free to ping me on my talk page or at the talk pages of corresponding articles. As for the GAR, I appealed to this board for a reason. I was hoping that the GAR can also be resolved through the broader participation of admins and other experienced users. It seems to have worked so we'll have to await further action. As for the article, copyrighted material seems to be all over the place. Just recently, another photograph was deleted from the article due to a copyright violation (see here). But this is an issue that must be present at the GAR. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresenting issues is a part of what I consider to be your disruptive pattern. And your response above is just another example of this. That image you linked had a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence in Commons,[116] which turned out to be false. But that hardly means "copyrighted material seems to be all over the place." Kevin ^(talk) 01:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if it is actually under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" license, you need to find the website that allows you to use the picture under that specific license. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. I didn't put that pic into Commons or into the article. I simply did not remove it cause it had CC license, which turned out false. My problem is with your misrepresentations ("copyrighted material seems to be all over the place"), disruptive pattern (eg: unilaterally removing GA status), edit-warring in this article or other articles, even when your own article, Confiscated Armenian properties in Turkey -which passed GAR-, was found to contain "extensive close paraphrasing", as pointed by another editor here [117] (and that text was written by you). Kevin ^(talk) 04:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're saying that the article didn't have any copyright violations when in fact it did, which is only part of the bigger issue. In addition to this, the issues presented in the GAR have not been addressed. Instead, edit-warring has occurred where serious attempts have been made by you to retain the status quo. As a result, the article went into temporary protection twice and a POV tag has been placed. And apart from this, pointing out issues that other articles have, whether they were done by me or other users, will not resolve the issue we have at hand here. Let's not forget that there needs to be serious work done in Turkish people. I hope we can work on this together. The removal of copyrighted material is a good step. Reaching consensus at the talk page should be our main goal. I hope we can sort this out and move forward. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Passive-Aggressive Harassment from User:Jeremy112233

User being reported

Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Jeremy112233 has not only been adding unreferenced tags to every single article I've created (which are stubs that typically consist entirely of plot summaries and films are their own sources), but has now resorted to placing speedy deletion tags for notability on articles for very clearly notable subjects like the Kon Ichikawa film Princess from the Moon. The fact that he referred to the Xbox Live Arcade video game 0-D Beat Drop as a "film" in his tag merely reinforces that he is not even looking at the articles and is doing this maliciously. Why? Because he had previously been blocked for violating 3RR on another article that I created and what he's doing right now is quite obviously a "revenge" move. This kind of behavior is malicious harassment that really shouldn't be tolerated here.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply following protocols. I have spent months patrolling articles and those that are not referenced can be very much improved with the improvement tag stating that the article has not references and that more could improve the article--as I did with the user's prior article that I added references to. But I don't have time to reference all of them. I acquiesce that those that have external links that exhibit media coverage aren't good candidates for deletion as anyone can go on and add the references in those external links to the page. But those with no external links to references or references whatsoever don't show any reason they should be on Wikipedia. Of course, if those speedies are declined after my search into references for each page, then I definitely missed something. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that I was not notified of this on my talk page; but for the notifications that show when my username is mentioned somewhere. Also, no discussion was had with me beforehand regarding my posting of these improvement tags. If the articles need no improvement, I'm happy to hear the reason why the other user believes so. The other user was also blocked in the same incident they are speaking of. I'm not sure why we're here, I'm completely open to speaking to them directly about how to improve their articles or to allow others to do so. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tags are for articles that are blatantly non-notable, like someone's personal YouTube account or random fanfiction. Adding a speedy deletion tag for notability to something obviously notable like an Xbox Live Arcade game is extremely reckless and makes it very clear that you are targeting me. You have demonstrated in the past that you do not understand Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppeting after attempting to have me "investigated" for "sockpuppeting" with IP addresses and are now demonstrating that you do not understand Wikipedia's policy on speedy deletion. You are not "following protocols" as I have checked your contributions and you have only done this to articles which I have created. The thought of someone actually digging through my history to get "revenge" on my by placing speedy deletion tags on clearly notable subjects is more than a little creepy and certainly against the spirit of the site.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion articles with no references and, well, no external links showing references do not show notability. Please feel free to add references to any article if they're there, as that would obviously show notability as you believe exists on said articles. I have asked for speedy deletion on dozens of articles you did not create and have placed improvement tags on dozens more. I have simply noticed that you do not cite any references for your articles generally. Any article which does would never be tagged. Any any article that cites articles would obviously not need said improvement. Please don't take this personally! It's merely about the lack of sources in the articles you're talking about.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You know what, I'll compromise here :) I'll replace the speedies with deletion nominations so that there is more oversight to the process if you believe all are notable. No use in throwing out good work! Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Every article that I created cites other articles and includes external links. For example, the article for that "film" 0-D Beat Drop includes links to Xbox.com, MobyGames, and Metacritic along with mentioning that it was developed by Aksys Games and Arc System Works and released on Xbox Live Arcade. Absolutely nobody who knew what they were doing (and didn't have a vendetta against me) would have added a speedy deletion tag to an article like that. The fact that you nominated it - and several other blatantly notable articles that I created - for speedy deletion proves that you either do not understand the criteria for speedy deletion or are simply doing this to "get back" at me; possibly both.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Links to other Wikipedia articles are not references; those are wikilinks. (And, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind if I ask a question ... why are you saying that references are the same thing as wikilinks to other pages? References to third-party articles is not the same thing as un-orphaning your page to other Wikipedia pages, but maybe I misunderstood you? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I know that wikilinks are not references, but Jeremy here seems to think that they are, so I was merely reassuring him that the articles he so carelessly tagged with speedy deletion requests do, in fact, have wikilinks *and* other relevant links that aren't to Wikipedia articles.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Simply repeat behaviour by the OP. IIRC, they had recently created a horrible, unreferenced stub instead of a userspace draft. I think I either CSD'd or PROD'd it, or tagged it for what it was: unreferenced ... they seemed to be of the bizarre belief that because it existed, or because invisible (i.e. non-existent at the time) references said it was notable, that I - a random person - would know it was notable. I was then accused of being passive-aggressive, and ridiculous bullshit. Pay no mind to the man behind the curtain - they do little but cry wolf, and take offense at their shadow ES&L 00:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Without having looked too deeply into this, and without bringing motivation into the equation, both of those are pretty terrible speedy delete candidates. One is a Toshiro Mifune movie currently part of the Criterion Collection, while the other is a video game that has apparently has a healthy amount of coverage based on its Metacritic page. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, feature films and commercial video games aren't generally speedy deletion candidates. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, neither are speedied--both are AFDed. Regardless, I've heard nothing about the other non-referenced tags I posted, which were the real source of complaint. All seem settled, until somebody complies with protocols and adds actual references. I only AFDed those with no hint whatsoever of sources on the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• A Gun for Jennifer made no explicit claim to importance, but Ilsa, the Wicked Warden did: I don't think that this version should have been nominated for speedy deletion. Jeremy, "unreferenced" is not a valid argument. The movie has a notable director and a notable actor in it, apparently. The fourth paragraph of Wikipedia:Speedy deletion urges you to "consider whether it could be improved" (a variety of WP:BEFORE), and I cannot see that you did that: a quick Google Books search (hope you can read this) shows that this is obviously notable. (For all these movies, I hope MichaelQSchmidt comes by quickly.) In other words, you are (or were, in that case at least), much too quick on the draw. That's not harassment, but it is bothersome and it does not improve the project. You should exercise much more caution. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A very valid point. Thank you Drmies for the explanation for that article. Luckily now the article is not speedied, I simply wish to have the debate about non-referenced articles being assumed to be notable without evidence being provided to the average reader. I tend to think of them rather than the more intricate reviewer's perspective. Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

But that's not protocol you're following. I was looking to see if you kept a CSD log (apparently that's an easy thing to do) so you yourself could see your success rate (there may well be a tool for that also). Besides, no one is saying that unreferenced articles are assumed to be on a notable topic, but we are saying that it's entirely possible that an unreferenced article is on a notable topic. Lack of references is often a giveaway, but before you click the button you should see the content of the article, maybe do a little snooping, and then decide on the basis of that content if CSD is appropriate. Often it is not. I've seen articles with nothing but an infobox, and the infobox made a claim to importance, and for A7 (which is what I assume you were shooting for here, a credible claim of importance is all that is required. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just bear in mind in the future that "unreferenced" is not a speedy deletion criterion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Confusing, but you got it :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, not confusing: from the A7 section, which says it in bold: The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, GNG only means sources could be found, not that they're used, I get it :) I assume the unreferenced improvement tags for unreferenced pages is still valid though, even though references could exist? Just want to clarify... Jeremy112233 (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. But, finding references and improving the article is better. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool, so yes on the improvement tags being valid, and yes on the continuing to improve articles when I have time to do it instead of tag. I still disagree with unreferenced articles being valid additions in late 2013 when almost every actor or director is clamouring to get whatever they can onto this site to improve their next audition, but I don't mind others vehemently disagreeing with that. After all, I vehemently disagree other kinds of articles need to be here where others believe they clearly don't--go judges! Sorry, got a bit off track there... Jeremy112233 (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It took practically no time to add references to On the Ice and Consuming Spirits. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy, if it's both unreferenced (imdb doesn't count as a ref) AND fails to have a credible claim of notability, go ahead and tag it - I know I do. ES&L 09:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

ES&L, what do you see as a "a credible claim of notability"? That seems like a subjective judgment and one on which well-intentioned Editors might completely disagree. And,

"The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." WP:NRVE

The guidelines for notability are very fuzzy and I'm sure you could pull out quotes that would contradict the one I just posted. There is plenty of room for debate but, unless it is clearly just junk, it should go to AfD, not CSD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's subjective judgement. "Movie X was the highest-grossing film in Indonesia for the year 2003", even without a source, is at least a potential credible claim of notability. "Movie X is best-known for the number of high school students in Middle-of-nowhere, Idaho who have seen it at least twice" is most definitely not a credible claim of notability - even with a source. Your quote from WP:N is a red-herring - I was quite clear that if it's both unreferenced and with no clear/reasonable assertion of notability, it can and should be CSD'd. There' no editor who should ever press SAVE on a stub without at least 1 incredibly strong source, or 2 medium strength ones. There's a reason why CSD is a 2 step process, typically - the person who sees it as CSD'able, and the admin who reviews it and agrees. ES&L 16:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been considerable debate on A7, but pretty much everyone agrees tha tit is a LOWER bar than notability. That is, there are articles which would be deleted at AfD as non-notable, but which no sensible admin would speedy-delete under A7. A standard I have used is "Any claim or statement which might reasonably be true (even if a bit implausible) and which, if found to be true and if supported by reliable sources, would persuade some significant fraction of commentators at a typical AfD not to delete the article is a claim of significance." DES ^(talk) 21:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A question. Right now the nominator for this ANI is engaged in an edit war on my talk page, trying to force several things on there and reverting my deletions of their efforts. I just want to verify that the 3RR rule doesn't apply to those posting on my talk page, and, what the best thing to do would be--as I really have no interest in escalating this situation if at all possible. It's tough to "discuss it on the talk page" when the talk page is my talk page :) Just a query.Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Two administrators have left comments on his talk page about that conduct. So I'd say that yes, WP:BLANKING is a listed exception in WP:3RRNO (#2, edits in your own user space). I'd also say you can safely walk away from that aspect of the situation and leave it to us admins. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, as I said, I have no interest in escalating this and very much appreciate the feedback received above about how to make AFD or CSD tagging decisions in the future. I do take it to heart!Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Despite the possibility of a polite WP:TROUT, and though a simple withdraw would have sufficed, User:Jeremy112233 did grant improvements over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Gun for Jennifer and courteously changed his opinion to keep. While granting that the series of recent nominations may have showed a lack of WP:BEFORE and a possible misunderstanding (or an unknowing) of WP:NRVE, in the AFD lacking anyone else opining a delete and per the equivalence of a withdraw, I closed the AFD as a SNOW keep. I urge Jeremy112233 to study WP:IMPERFECT, WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE and be just a little slower on the trigger. Not every new article is trash and, if found through a diligent WP:BEFORE, an article's lacking use of available sources does not make an arguably notable topic somehow and automatically in non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User 65.24.105.132

Please see Special:Contributions/65.24.105.132, this user has asked 3 different questions (changed and then changed again without stating he/she is changing it) in the last hour on the Humanities Ref Desk, undone 2 hattings for the question and then started using language of Personal Attack and INCIVILITY. I am requesting a block for a period of time to minimize disruption/edit warring and question-answer Gaslighting at the ref desk. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seriously? Where's the personal attack? Or, why answer a serious (if wordy) question about prostitution with "Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood"? That's misguided, and opening up an ANI thread is...well... Drmies (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• And they're not bragging they found the answer--they announced it as good news. I reverted your blanking of the section: "what have societies done in the past to help combat this issue" was a valid question, and they went to other sources to find the answers. Pity we couldn't help them. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Drmies, I refer you to gaslighting, then more edit abuse/gaslighting. It is acceptable to change the actual question (not add further details but actually change the OP substantially after getting an answer) then boast how "useless" this place is (that would be the personal attack since Wikipedia isn't here w/o us & in this instance myself & another editor attempting to answer a moving question) while you already had the answer?
  • Oh, please don't take me out of context, I provided 2 links to the "useless"(?) wikipedia right after that to support my reply, you already realize that Ref Desks exist to assist the Encyclopedia so a WP:CIVIL discussion on those 2 wikipedia articles is the opposite of misguided. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • (Edit Conflict after Drmies addition) Who said "bragging"? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • [118] [this was struck at 10:18 Oct. 9 UTC, reply below was left 5 hours 57 mins after Marketdiamond striking & 10 hours 50 mins after contribution. Note that MarketDiamond did not ghost an edit nor radically change an edit after a user replied directly to that edit & then did not leave comments that might require deletion/hatting]. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • You said "boast" and "brag". And am I the only one who finds this answer completely inappropriate? This is before the question was tweaked--but that doesn't affect the answer. Q: "is there anything that people can do to help these girls get better jobs"? A: "Don't get divorced, but if you do always value fatherhood." Say what? Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Yet accept an extremely detailed & ranting question about saving prostitutes (as I accepted it) followed by OP's "useless", "WTF", "You Understand?", "Dude" (thoughts this ANI also initially produced, yet somehow I didn't bring down the conversation with them) all that UNCIVIL & edit tricking is somehow more appropriate than a reply of saving marriages in a concise & Wikilinked manner? I left my views on your activities on this ANI at your talk page & yet "a valid question, and they went to other sources to find the answers. Pity we couldn't help them." ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Unresolved
      see above. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

      The edits you linked are definitely not examples of gaslighting. They could perhaps be gaslighting under very special circumstances that would include unusual, extreme sensitivity by the victim (you?) as well as relevant knowledge on the side of the perpetrator. But you have presented nothing that would suggest such circumstances and they seem extremely unlikely. ANI is the least likely place to help you.

      Lots of people tweak their comments after they made them, for perfectly harmless reasons. I sometimes do this myself, and a former Arbcom member was famous for making people irate by doing it all the time. It's just a bad habit. Hans Adler 06:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

      PS: The user behind the IP has a history of tweaking even other people's comments, even when they clearly didn't want it. That was a serious problem. Now in the first edit you linked they tweaked a question after you answered it, in such a way that your answer was less on-topic. That's still rude and a problem, but does happen occasionally. The usual way of dealing with it is to edit your response. Just add "[Question was edited after this response was given.]" or something similar, and maybe complain on the user's talk page. (Although the latter will probably not be very helpful in this case, based on the user's past performance.) Hans Adler 06:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Appreciation on your "PS" contribution Hans Adler, I think that solves it. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have BOLDly removed the entire section from the reference desk, has absiolutely nothing to do with anything Wikipedia related. We do not have the authority/ability to answer those types of questions. GiantSnowman 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the IP ahs a history of asking these kind of broad questions. If you want answers to life, the universe, and everything, simply go to the pub like everybody else. GiantSnowman 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It was no worse than the "discussion" under "Who transforms gold scraps into gold bars, if at all?" or the hypothesizing under "French-Speaking Black/Sub-Saharan African Countries Being More Pro-Homosexuality Than Their (African) Neighbors" or the off-topic bantering under "Shakespeare in French literature". Drmies (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the question "what have societies done in the past to help combat [prostitution]" is perfectly suited and answerable on the reference desk (just as any librarian would not hesitate to address it), by citing ample sources on the topic. Yes, the preamble to the question was a distraction and the less than ideal conduct by the IP and some responders contributed to poisoning the well - so I don't object to removing the question now - but the question itself was well within the refdesk's ability. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Abecedare, ample sources were not cited in the responses the user received. And I disagree with your statement that:

"...the question itself was well within the refdesk's ability."

The question was valid for the Reference Desks but I believe, right now, that it went beyond the ability of the well-intentioned Editors manning the Reference Desk's to answer. Like Drmies suggests, the discussions at the Desks are often more "shoot from the hip" than answers a librarian would provide. Check out Why do Jewish people look white? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Which question are you speaking of Liz? The only question to have responses from "well intentioned editors" offered 2 wikilinks that concerned the original question of " is there anything that people can do to help."

Despite assurances by multiple editors that there can't be any 'IP/OP didn't ask that' misunderstandings, the misunderstandings continue. An ANI might be a good place for an editor to share that concern before it gets out of hand with 'ghost diffs' & IP/OP forgetting Refdesk Guidelines. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue (CrossFit) needs review

The entire CrossFit article has been removed and flagged as a copyright violation. The whole article has been down for 11 days at this point without any review. Could an administrator please take a look? The evidence supporting the allegation doesn't seem to hold up, and would only point to one paragraph. No evidence has been provided about the rest of the article. Warpwoof (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold on while I take a look. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked a lot of different pieces of text, as well as reading through the two pages (article, source page) manually, and I can't find any copied text. Have I overlooked something? Should it have been tagged as a copyvio of another page? Some other issue? I'll let AfadsBad, the tagger, know about this; since it's already languished so long, a little more won't hurt, especially if the tagging turns out to be a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Then they've changed the source article (articles as I recall). There is no trick to finding copy vios you know, and five sentences, ten-twenty words, in quotes. Google search = copy vio. And, yes, you corporate sock puppets, I distinguished between your copying your own press releases and materials and the re-release of this corporate crap. As successful as CrossFit is right now, just pay someone to write a decent article instead of throwing up your press releases for free advertising onto Wikipedia. If CrossFit has print materials, this crap will still be a copy vio, though. The article needs gutted, and CrossFit needs to find a member who can write a Wikipedia articlle.

But, I thank you for posting here, and I would like this to just stay open to not be archived soon to get as many eyes on the problem as possible. These articles where you have corporations creating sock puppets to throw up press releases onto Wikipedia need many eyes on them to convince the corporations that the millions of useful Wikipedia articles came about because of so many competent editors and admistrator assistants. Sock it to us! --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

• I think what's getting confused is backwards copying from wikipedia for "press releases" or the "re-release of this corporate crap." If it was copied, where is the original source, and did it exist prior to the Wikipedia article? AfadsBad does not seem amenable to a discussion on the issue... AfadsBad edited my ANI title from "Copyright issue needs review" to "Copyright issue needs review CrossFit sock army." Warpwoof (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, yes, I did; a bunch of single purpose accounts all in an uproar about an obvious copyright violation? The entire article is written as one really bad press release. Go ahead and change it to meat puppets if it is more than one of you. And stop posting CrossFit press releases to Wikipedia. They sound just like what they are: advertising for CrossFit. You think no one at Wikipedia has ever read a press release? Read WP:COI and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, especially the last part about objective and neutral style. You are not the first company in all the years of Wikipedia that has tried this. I have only been editing for a short time, and this idea from companies that they will sneak in an article and advertise and promote their company on Wikipedia and no one will ever suspect them is just weird. It's all over Wikipedia, companies coming here with their sock puppet army and creating a press release on Wikipedia full of dozens of links back to their website. Hire someone! I rewrote the article, you can pay me! --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

• And I have changed the title back to OP's original title. AfadsBad, you don't get to change headings except for clarification purposes, and "sock army" smacks of bad faith. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not engaging AfadsBad on this issue. I would just like some experienced administrators to review it. One person has effectively deleted an article without discussion for nearly 2 weeks. Warpwoof (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is how Wikipedia handles copyright violations. If you want an article on Wikipedia, stop using your promotional materials to create what sounds like a badly written corporate press release. No administrators can override copyrighted material. You can also, as an alternative, release the material to the public domain. By the way, putting it on Wikipedia does give it a copyright that allows others to use it, and, if this is CrossFit's intention, that can be done also. I do want lots of experience administrators to watch the article and the army of SPAs adding cruft to it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

I concur with Nyttend. I'm an experienced copyright clerk as well as an admin myself, and found no copyright violations, other than one paragraph, which I removed. User:AfadsBad put the copyvio back in in their haste to re-tag the article as a copyvio and hide it from view. In my opinion, AfadsBad has reached the stage of disrupting the project to make a point, and I suggest they find another article to worry about. —Darkwind (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Way to ignore the rewrite, ignore the copied phrases throughout the article, lie that I restored anything, accuse me bad faithily of "hiding the article from view," and then, on your talk page, point out that since you and Nyttend are admins, that means I'm wrong! No, this is copied from CrossFit press releases; the same ones they use in their magazines and their youtube videos. I rewrote it. You ignored the rewrite. And, no, guess what, just because you are an admin, doesn't mean your opinion on content to support a plea from a COI/SPA doesn't count more than another editor's. "TWO DIFFERENT ADMINS have told you the article is clean of copyvio, and you still restored the tag." All caps screaming in the original, bold added. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Have you considered that your friend's plagerism detector is probably hitting on Wikipedia itself or one of its billions of mirrors? I've run random sentences through Google searches and checked numerous results, there is no copyright violation here. These sites have, if anything, violated Wikipedia's content license by using our material without attribution. This can be proven by using Wikipedia's reversion history search. Your concern was noted, it's been investigated, found to not be substantial, corrected, and dismissed. We acknowledge your concern is good, but your behavior has been disruptive. I'm giving you one chance here, do not revert on that article again or you'll be blocked for disruptive editing.--v/r - TP 20:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you looked at the talk page, I explained that I got dates hits from before the phrases were inserted into the article. I have _not_ been revert warring; I reverted once and requested a talk page discussion, so, what exactly are you talking about, not revert again? Or is this just lame-ass defense of other admins, Darkwind who YELLED at me that TWO ADMINS trumps in a content dispute? Do not revert again? Do not be a Wikipedian because AN ADMIN has already yelled at me? WTF? --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

As I said, your intentions are good, but your behavior is not. You've been entirely combative with editors here and have thrown around a lot of bad faith. You reverted an editor (sysop or not isn't important) who has experience with CCI and determined no violation. As you've not offered to clear it yourself, he's done the legwork and you reverted him. You're being thanked for being cognizant of copyright violations, but you're also being asked to step away from this particular one.--v/r - TP 21:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Fancruft in addition. There are also a lot of BLPs of "CrossFit athletes" sourced only to crossfit.com and blogs. BLPs should not be used to promote a company, either, and these may require prodding after removing all non-reliable sources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Vandalism on school article

Be aware of this vandalism that seems to be ongoing. Unfortunately, I haven't so far managed to find out exactly which article this vandalism is being done to, but keep an eye open for yellow grapes... Blue Elf (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not just one article, see [119]. I've posted to her website asking advice on stopping vandalism from schools and suggesting these webpages are likely to get schools blocked. Dougweller (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone with a database dump (or direct DB access) want to search for "mascot*=*grape*" (in your favorite regexp language)? DMacks (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOUND, Imported conflict.

After a disagreement on the dutch wiki, User:Jeff5102 did me the honour of closely scrutenizing many contributions I've made on en.wiki. This is not a problem, as far as i'm concerned, were it not that a) he's importing a conflict and translating that into hounding and b) he's deleting valuable material from some pages (such as Drachenfels (Siebengebirge), translated from de.wiki and marked as such), re-adding nonsense i've deleted in others (Distinction of blue and green in various languages) and taking care to delete even tiny contributions such as this (me)-(Jeff5102) (IJ (digraph)). I have no desire to engage in edit wars, but he's quite prominent on my watchlist, so i'll ask the community to look into it. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not hounding. I'm just checking Kleuske's edits. When they are badly referenced (see WP:PROVEIT), I just say so or I delete them when they have few added value to the article AND I improved the references when present (which were deleted by Kleuske again). That is not hounding. That is improving Wikipedia. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: for the same reason I am checking the edits made by SamLowenstein (talk • contribs at the moment.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It is customary required to notify that user. I've done so for you. Kleuske (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As to the 'improved reference' above: The source states that the "color" mentioned is "nondescript, usually ugly" instead of "Turquoise" as claimed. Removed again for that reason. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong on that one. It says: "nondescript color, usually ugly; also blue-green, so turqoise and petrol-green." Thus, your reason for making that removal was invalid. By the way, I am unaware of a rule that translated articles are not committed to the WP:RS-rule (as you implied here by removing that banner). If so, then I made a mistake, but I believe it is doubtful if such a rule exists. Even more, WP:RFT didn't mention anything about that. So again, I sincerely believe that I did the right thing by placing a REFIMPROVE-banner. Regards,11:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The reliable sources are to be found on the german wiki. My source for the translation is the german wiki, as mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Other wikipedia versions are not reliable sources. You'd need to link to the actual source ES&L 12:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll see to it. Kleuske (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Jeff5102, please ignore this user and their contributions. Somebody else who has no history of conflict with the user will check their contributions and take any appropriate actions. Do you agree, or will I need to scrutinize this more closely and possibly formalize a ban? Jehochman ^Talk 12:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a question: Jehochan, will you do it, or appoint someone to check the edits properly? Like I said, there are serious WP:RS-issues out there.Jeff5102 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There are many editors of Wikipedia. If this one makes bad edits, somebody besides you will surely notice and report it. If you become extremely concerned about an edit, feel free to report it on the appropriate noticeboard with a neutral summary and diffs, and let somebody else decide what to do. Don't follow this editor around and create the appearance of harassment. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Additionally canvassing this issue. [120]. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

D*mn! Just when I thought we were getting close to solve the conflict, Kleuske tries to stirr it up again. My message to Richardw was a limited posting (only one), it was written in a neutral tone, while Richard is (as far as I know) nonpartisan and my message to him happened in the open. I know Richard from a separated edit dispute on the Dutch Wiki, but you weren't involved in that one, Kleuske. Thus, my request from me to Richard "to look here" (what was all I asked him) was appropriate. Please remember WP:FAITH, will you? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeff5102, you don't need to respond to every post. This just creates a battle. Let it. Move on. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeff asked me to look and I have done so. I am not, and will not be, involved in this dispute. Richard 09:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Does this require action?

are the edit summaries by

• 116.14.148.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of the level that require admin action?

note that the user is dynamic and also running the same line of comments via

• 116.14.146.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and

• 219.75.50.93 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (where they were blocked.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Revdeled and blocked both IPs. User:Antandrus observation #37 applies. Toddst1 (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

and now they are back as 121.6.183.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I just checked this diff, and I'm confused: all the IP did was to change "JOnes" to "Jones", the only offensive thing was the edit summary, and Toddst1 removed the summary but not the text. I can see the change, but only because I'm an admin. Why does the software require admin tools to see the diff? Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the text of the edit was removed GiantSnowman 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I intended and I don't think that's what I did:

(del/undel) 12:06, 9 October 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed visibility of a revision on page User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom: edit summary hidden (RD2: Violations of the biographies of living persons policy) (diff | more...)}} 

Could an outside party take a look at the Talk:Alex Jones and see if it would be appropriate to speedy archive off the talk page (or maybe even just delete) as very unrelated to improving the article and merely creating a more toxic environment.

• Talk:Alex_Jones#Red_Pen_of_Doom.2C_why_do_you_say_that_Bob_Cesca_is_not_a_political_writer
• Talk:Alex_Jones#Request_of_neutral_mod_to_investigate_whether_Red_Pen_of_Doom_is_biased.

and this section too appears to have run its course and is no longer actually about what sources and content should be used for the article.

• Talk:Alex_Jones#descriptions_of_Alex_Jones

Thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This diff is hidden to non-admins because the old revision has its text hidden. (Also, that revdel was incomplete, since this permalink shows the revdel'd contents. I explained the problem with revdel a while back to another admin. The problem is that it hides permalinks and not diffs, which often leads to unexpected behavior, as happened here. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris: Protecting individual privacy

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

---

Resolved

 – Januaryth18th blocked indefinitely

I'm writing in relation to concerns about my privacy, particularly as the advocacy group presently WP:owning this article has a track record on Wiki for transgressing normal social boundaries around privacy. When I first started editing I didn't know this history and had been a bit cavalier about my privacy. I consider reporting this incident the best way to 'nip this in the bud'. At the very least now that it's reported, the identity involved - which I neither confirm nor deny to be my own - shouldn't get bad mouthed across the advocacy groups website, as that would obviously link them to this report. The incident is as follows:

1. Editor Januarythe18th stated that danh108 is a self-disclosed sevadhari (servant) of the religion

2. Knowing I have never made such a disclosure on Wikipedia I caution Januarythe18th about this: "January, you state I'm a self disclosed sevadhari. I have never made such a disclosure on Wiki. If you are relying on a LinkedIn profile as the source of your claim I would remind you of WP:Privacy, in particular: Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment."

3. In response to this Januarythe18th then states publicly how to search and find this linkedIn profile that he has been using to source comments on Wikipedia, in what reads like retribution for me mentioning the name of the advocacy groups ringleader (which was legitimate because it was in the context of that individual as a respondent in a domain name dispute, and fixing a mis-statement of the reference):

"As someone who has persistently attempting to speculate and identify me, published real names on both talk pages and the mainspace, and forced responsibility for others actions upon me, for which you have no evidence, you have no grounds to complain if information you have made public about yourself is referred to. (my emphasis) i.e. "because of what you did in the past, I'm allowed to break the rules" (my quote marks).

Then January Guides how others can find this identity: "For the record, I Googled "Brahma Kumari Sevadhari" to gain some references and your name comes up on the first page several times. You made it public domain."

This completely exposes this identity as only one profile comes up, with all personal information. Januarythe18th is experienced with IT and Wikipedia, and is fully aware of this.

In my view this is a surreptitious outing in retribution for a legitimate reference to the respondent in a domain name dispute who happens to be Januarythe18th's leader. I note the earlier admin finding that Januarythe18th is a follower/fan of the advocacy group.

There is also a raft of ongoing behavioural concerns [121][122]with this editor.

Thank you for your help. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff for the Google comment?--v/r - TP 18:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff, thank you Danh108 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That diff has since been oversighted, along with a pile of other things. I don't think we can make a sensible decision when we can't see the evidence. However, oversighters can still see it, and we really should trust their judgement, so I've asked User:Daniel Case to come here and give his opinion. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have viewed it and I would agree with danh108's characterization of it as indirect outing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I also saw the diff earlier today, and it was at least a threat of outing, it provided a specific Google search which, the poster claimed, yielded the name of an editor. Assuming the claim was correct, it was a form of outing IMO. I didn't have time to follow up properly earlier although i would have posted had I known oversight was in process, DES ^(talk) 01:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been working this case more of the evening and getting OS's opinion on the outing. I think given Januarythe18th's purposefully indirect outing and their combative behavior which Danh108 describes above but which only scratches the surface of Jan18th behavior, a block is warranted here.--v/r - TP 02:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on what's been said here, including the oversighter's opinion from just looking at it (not dismissing your memory, DES, but simple human forgetfulness makes me want someone who's looked at something eight minutes ago even when someone else has looked at it eight hours ago), I've indefinitely blocked Januarythe18th. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. TParis, you are spot on about this incident only scratching the surface, but now fully resolved. Best wishes Danh108 (talk) 06:28, 10 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:HolfordBot 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.

---

This bot has just notified me that I putted a spam external link on an article. When I saw the message, I said to myself that there is got to be some kind of mistake, I did not add a external link to anything, not even a spam one. I think something is wrong with this bot, and really needs to be fixed, because I felt offended when someone send me something like this when I didn't even do anything like that before, and never will. The worst part is that the bot didn't even tell me where I putted the "spam external link". --Blurred Lines 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked as an unauthorized/possibly fake bot. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You beat me to it. They A7ed an AfD I'd just commented on. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, the account doesn't have the bot flag set. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Before you deleted the user page, it claimed to be a bot of User:Ryulong, User:Saolco claimed to be an alternate account, so probably the same vandal.Martin451 16:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me an excuse--I'm going to go and block Ryulong indefinitely, bwuhaha. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 10 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.

Robertpattinsons (Persistent spam/promotion, referred here by AIV)

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.

---

Referred to AN/I by AIV. Full AIV thread can be seen at [[123]]. 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 [[124]]. An earlier userpage revision claimed to be a different iReporter. [[125]] -- 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)

What's the next step? What needs done? -- ferret (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pulled back from archive... -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You were advised to have a checkuser become involved ... unfortunately, that means WP:SPI ES&L 16:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've requested it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robertpattinsons. -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the checkuser results, the pattern of spamming and the completely made-up user page of RP I've indef blocked both User:Robertpattinsons and User:LissaCoffey. See more explanation at the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 9 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:174.89.44.235

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

---

The user 174.89.44.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly adding unreferenced information on people's nationality (essentially, "X's parents were Jewish"), despite warnings. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

They've stopped now. I'll monitor the IP to ensure they don't start up again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

They did indeed resume so I have blocked the IP for a short bit.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 9 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 from User:The Real David Cage

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 the edit summary here. Nymf (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Already blocked. GiantSnowman 18:38, 9 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.

"UK" in articles about British subjects

I don't want to involve other editors just yet because I'm not sure they are doing anything wrong, but is it now policy to remove the term "UK" from all British place names? For example, do we have to say "Dover, Kent, England" with "Dover, Kent, England, UK" being forbidden? I'm not sure where I could find the discussion that led to that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with the editors involved? That's generally the best first step to take. If you have done so and are still not satisfied, you should probably name the other editors, because I believe there are some outstanding topic bans on making edits such as that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't discussed it with him yet but I think I will. The editor in question is a single-purpose editor, doing nothing but systematically removing "UK" from place names in England. He specifically ignores Scottish and Welsh place names, leaving the "UK" in place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Nation-states should pretty much always be mentioned in intros or wherever a locality is mentioned. The UK is different, since "England", "Scotland", "Wales", and "Northern Ireland" are just as recognizable in English (and at least in the case of England, unfortunately interchangeable) as is "United Kingdom", so I'd suggest that we remove "UK" from your sample sentence. However, someone who removes it after "England" but not after "Scotland" might well be here for purposes other than improving the encyclopedia; you should still talk with that person, but don't be surprised if you find that he's causing problems. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page so we'll see what happens. He makes no other edits but to remove "UK" from everywhere, and only from English place names. These country names are recognisable to us, but there are certainly a lot of people in the world who don't know that England, Scotland etc are part of the UK. But I'm mostly concerned with the sheer number and extremely narrow scope of his edits. This kind of behaviour on Irish-related articles gets you a block toute-suite, so I'm not really sure why this should be any different. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This was also raised at BLPN at the same time, why is Bretonbanquet (talk · contribs) FORUMSHOPPING? GiantSnowman 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I had to look that up, I had no idea it was discouraged. I simply wanted as many opinions as possible, and my question(s) are neutrally worded. I'm sure you are assuming good faith on my part, GiantSnowman (talk · contribs). You'll also note that I am not purveying any particular line, so "shopping around for the answers I want" hardly applies. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm just surprised that a veteran editor, such as yourself, was unaware of such an important policy. GiantSnowman 20:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you learn something new every day. I'm not someone who fraternises these boards very often, in fact it was my first time on BLPN. I'd appreciate your general opinion on single-purpose accounts with the editing style as I outlined above. I have discovered that there's no guideline on the actual content of the edits, so that bothers me less, and you've given me your take on the "UK" thing elsewhere. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Any SPA who doesn't explain what they are doing raises eyebrows, of course it does. Have you tried engaging with this editor? GiantSnowman 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have, and he is perfectly civil. He didn't respond with much detail on why he was doing it though, so I have asked for more clarity. He doesn't have to answer that question, I guess, but I wouldn't mind knowing. I probably should have asked him before coming here, but I didn't really know if what he was doing was the result of a new directive or something and I didn't want to appear too accusatory. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out elsehwere, WP is not a postal envelope, and moving from most specific in a slavish formula up to least specific is very often unnecessary and cluttered. You could add "European Union", too, but that would irritate readers and crowd the infobox even more. I struggle to know why "Dover, UK" isn't quite enough. English counties are of minor information-value in modern times. Tony (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate discussions

Discussion has been started on two pages: this and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#UK in BLP articles. I suggest merging them and moving to somewhere more suitable, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or Template:Infobox person. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with that, I didn't expect both to end up as full discussions, and I didn't know you weren't supposed to use two boards at once. Apologies for that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert war at Pakistani literature

Resolved

User:Ajmal alig has repeatedly added a large block of unreferenced, unencyclopedic content to Pakistani literature. These edits have been reverted 3 times now, and notes have been left on the user's talk page, including a note alerting the user to a possibility of a block, all without response or apparent effect.Dialectric (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

while we are discussing this editor, is their user page acceptable? The parts of it that are ineligible intelligible appear to be overt promotion of one of their relatives.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to have been no further edits by this user since the most recent "final" warning, if there are any similar edits I would favor imposing at least a 24 block, perhaps longer. The contents of the user page User:Ajmal alig seem very similar, in parts identical to the long promotional wall of text this user added to Pakistani literature. This appears to promote certain individuals as great scholars and authors, if I am reading it correctly. I think it is at best marginal in a user page, but perhaps one issue at a a time? DES ^(talk) 14:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Indef blocked as a promotion only account. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:213.37.84.214

• 213.37.84.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:SPA, promo only editor, EXT spammer, suspected COI editor, repeatedly blocked for edit warring

has now been joined by

• 31.109.31.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a second (suspected sock - same language "you guys" "supporting", "COBBLER" (not "Cobbler"), claim of being "PXE user", style, and AGF/civility, timing and coming straight in with first edit supporting 1st IP) WP:SPA WP:ILLEGIT "Creating an illusion of support" [126]

• Preboot Execution Environment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (previous edit warring before multiple blocks)
• Talk:Preboot Execution Environment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disruptive editing continuing with WP:AGF / civility, accusations, and refusing to listen against the (limited) consensus on that page

Disruptive editor only interested in advocacy of one product, and removal of rival products. Widefox; talk 13:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:31.109.31.229 has made exactly one edit of any substance (the only other edit by this IP added two blank lines to the same talk page). This edit did support User:213.37.84.214 but perhaps it is a bit early to designate this as a sock? User:31.109.31.229 has no previous blocks, as your comment above seems to imply. DES ^(talk) 14:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No implication meant. 213.37.84.214 had three blocks. 31.109.31.229 had no blocks (1st IP is Spain, 2nd IP is UK, but both are US English - where developer is based). Widefox; talk 15:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Please note the report against Widefox abusive behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Widefox_Abusive_editor_with_banning_power.

2) Widefox can analyze all the IPs he wants; that does not change the facts:

a) Widefox is performing a personal crusade against a valuable editor that knows the topic that he doesn't.

b) Widefox is sponsoring unknown and unrelated projects while using his ban power for keeping other valuable projects out.

213.37.84.214 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPTive. IP editor behaviour to all other editors is uncivil. Widefox; talk 20:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your distraction maneuver. You sponsoring projects and abusing of your banning power for doing so is the real WP:DISRUPTive behavior here. That's the real thing. I wonder how no one have asked you why you are editing a PXE page if you do not know absolutely anything about it. How's that no one sees that here? 213.37.84.214 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Widefox Abusive editor with banning power.

• Preboot Execution Environment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (The editor systematically adds references to projects not related to the topic refusing to provide any supporting reason while not WP:LISTENing to technical facts. The editor systematically adds projects that are virtually unknown refusing to provide any independent source supporting his editing. The editor has systematically erased my editing when affecting his interests accusing me of all sort of things.)

• Talk:Preboot Execution Environment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) disruptive editing, accusations, and refusing to listen again. The editor does not handle the topic (PXE) while making adventurous technical decisions. Disruptive editor only interested in advocacy of his supported products, and removal of rival competing project (SERVA). Editor has erased list of links with independent reviews, tutorials, and articles provided to support the inclusion of a project (SERVA) apparently competing with his supported products. Systematic abuse of power, if I edit I'm banned while he's erasing absolutely all my editing, research, etc.

213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen of the article, this ip editor has been consistently adding external link to SERVA, a program he is trying to push. KonveyorBelt 22:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

yes trying to "push" as you say presenting a list of 36 independent links supporting the "pushed" project. List that has just been ERASED from the talk page by the reported abusive editor. No one can "push" something that is well known, respected, and independently supported. The one that "pushes" non related projects and unknown projects is the reported editor. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note the discussion about this IP above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#User:213.37.84.214. QED237 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see IP disruption going back a month or so; semi-protected for a month. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

semi is good now the SPA editor is using two IPs. I'd asked a couple weeks ago. Widefox; talk 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies sees "IP disruption"; Is posting my knowledge in WP IP disruption?

What about this report; would you Drmies be able to say it is a false report? 213.37.84.214 (talk) 08:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this ANI report by 213.37.84.214 is not-policy or fact based - which ref or EXT did I add? None AFAIK. Just a copycat ANI report. More disruption from this SPA EXT spammer, presumably COI editor. For the record, I don't think I've added any EXT or refs to the articles (without checking the article I don't think any EXT or refs are my edits) my involvement has been to return the article to WP:EXT guideline, and remove COI bot warned SPAM EXT/refs on other articles per other editors (eg User:Matthiaspaul) wishes and consensus on the articles. WP:LISTEN and WP:boomerang apply for this bad faith ANI report by an EXT spammer. Distraction from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#User:213.37.84.214. Widefox; talk 09:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This ANI report is 100% fact based; -

you have systematically added references to COBBLER project

you have systematically added references to ERPXE project

you have systematically added references to EL TORITO project

you have systematically erased references to SERVA project

you have erased from the talk page 36 links with independent information supporting SERVA project

You have refused to provide ANY supporting material defending your stubbornly included projects.

You are at this very moment insulting me calling me a SPAMMER when you dare to erase the outcome of my personal research on the proposed project SERVA. You are the one that presumably has a COI here when defending completely unrelated projects (EL TORITO) or projects that are definitely not relevant (COBBLER/ERPXE).

At this point it seems you do not even remember what you have done, probably you should see the history page. Returning the article to a previous state with lack of consensus makes you a disruptive editor, makes you display your COIs, at the end it makes you publish what you do not handle/know. You are not WP:LISTENing when you disregarding the presented material keep adding i.e. a CD/DVD related project as "see also" in a network boot topic like PXE. Sorry but you do not know what you do or you have a hidden agenda here. Stop putting on me "your" actions; I'm not a SPAMMER, I have not WP:COI, and I WP:LISTEN very well.

Finally there's not distraction here; you are BANNING me, INSULTING me, ERASING me just because I have added a well supported project that you do not like; that's what you did to me while ABUSING of your power here. 213.37.84.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Come back when:

1. you've taken the chip off your shoulder
2. you stop suggesting that ANYTHING on blogspot or wordpress are EVER usable as references
3. you have actually read and understood both WP:RS and WP:EL
4. have passed any questionable sources you're trying to use through the reliable source noticeboard

Wikipedia isn't rocket science - your supposed ref's were found lacking, and many of them actually meet the definition of WP:SPAM - rather than understand that, you're attacking which is merely escalating the situation. ES&L 11:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your arrogance offends me.

The provided references talk about the quality of the proposed project no matter where they are hosted and even include recent articles on paper magazines (C't). There's not a single included reference that can be considered SPAM, they were just written by people that have used the mentioned project, they come from all around the globe, I cannot see how you dare to call them SPAM. On the other hand Widefox has not provided A SINGLE reference supporting his sponsored projects. 213.37.84.214 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your presumption that I'm at all "arrogant" offends me :-)

In case you missed it, however, I suggested that you simply back down for a bit until:

1. you've taken the chip off your shoulder
2. you stop suggesting that ANYTHING on blogspot or wordpress are EVER usable as references
3. you have actually read and understood both WP:RS and WP:EL
4. have passed any questionable sources you're trying to use through the reliable source noticeboard

If, at that point, you still have questions about the policies and guidelines, feel free to ask someone directly - but these accusations and WP:BATTLE mentality, plus your wholsale avoidance of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia are even more offensive. People will soon start to throw WP:CIR and WP:NOTHERE into the mix ... and you won't want that ES&L 16:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Simple case of WP:BOOMERANG. I'm not convinced IP editor is WP:LISTENing yet. Widefox; talk 20:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@ES&L how can I ever take you seriously when you dare to object my references when at the same time you have not said a single word about these other references:

http://seclist.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/erpxe-v-1-01/

http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=11494&p=126549%E2%80%8E

these are the references (only 2) that Widefox have added in the talk page supporting the inclusion of his "sponsored" project ERPXE.

The fact that you haven't said a single word on these references prove you are 100% biased supporting your probably good friend Widefox

@ES&L and @Widefox At this point I just cannot keep answering to trolls any more. You Widefox probably will need to call some more "friends" for giving you a hand here; ES&L didn't do a very good job 213.37.84.214 (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In case you missed the point, User:Widefox should not be adding any links to Wordpress either - I figured that was rather obvious. It's entertaining to see that simply because someone (me) asks you to clearly read and follow policies, I'm suddenly "friends" with someone else. No - I'm simply giving you (and others) good advice that may actually help prevent you from being blocked on this project. I'm not even sure that I have even encountered Widefox, but you're welcome to search this history of their talkpage, and this one and my usual, admin account and prove me wrong if it will give you some form of satisfaction. Otherwise, by saying "your friend just came to help" was merely your admission that you've lost an argument - and that was never my goal ES&L 10:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruption

This disruption is going on here, and Talk:Preboot Execution Environment where the IP editor is constantly advocating for the EXT to be inserted. Can we either get a semi on the talk page (it is filling with advocacy) or a block for disruption. Only a block stopped the disruptive editing last three times. I'm not convinced IP editor is WP:LISTENing yet. Widefox; talk 08:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Repeating your "mantras" will never prove you right on this. Do not forget you are being reported for Abuse of Power here; 213.37.84.214 (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Great time to bring this up. What "power" has he supposedly abused? He's not an admin - he has no "power". Don't forget that when you report anyone to ANI, your own behaviour is always going to be investigated and used where required as well ES&L 10:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:30 SW

30 SW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I randomly came across Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and noticed formatting issues in a section, attempted to fix them, and then found more throughout the article. They seem to have been introduced by this user (note that I've since reverted the article to a state prior to his involvement). Many of his contribs seem alright at a glance (although I'm honestly not sure, which is why I'm bringing this here) -- but then there are edits like this and this, which plaster some well-established and previously stable articles with red links, mess with formatting, and introduce odd uses of HTML comments, among other things. This user seems to be making a ton of sweeping changes across Wikipedia's US military articles, including their categories, moving pages, creating new ones, redirecting, etc, and has been doing so for some time.

I did leave a message for this user initially to try and get an explanation but I'm not confident I can handle this adequately myself, so I wanted to call attention to it in case someone more up on these matters thinks it's worth looking into (I tend to stick to scripting and templates and other such MediaWiki tech these days myself, rather than actual article and/or behavioral drama). If nobody thinks this is anything to worry about then feel free to disregard this. equazcion� 14:56, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

• Just a little additional note, the user doesn't appear to be big on talking. In a cursory search I can't find a single discussion comment from him (correction: there are however these CFD comments). His only edit to his own talk page appears to have been this, made by an IP that I'll assume was him logged out, where he removed several sections including a couple of communications from other editors about his edits. equazcion� 15:40, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Reversion war and editing practices

Resolved

 – Edit-warrior blocked

• Ben0kto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm stepping in to formally request further administrative intervention here. Long story short:

User:Ben0kto has been making some relatively controversial edits for a few months now, but it didn't start getting more controversial until recently. He's been engaging in a reversion war with User:STATicVerseatide over the article Acid Rap, which was initially a redirect to the artist Esham since it was a genre that he supposedly created. A completely separate artist created a mixtape by the same name. There was a slight edit war over the space but eventually the album was deemed notable by several reliable sources. From what I can see, acid rap has not received enough coverage to really merit an article outside of Esham's. I can find some sources, but ultimately almost all of them talk about the genre as a secondary feature in articles that are mostly about Esham as a performer. (Examples are [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], the last of which could is a blog source.) It exists, but I'm not sure of its individual notability.

Now the problem here is partially whether or not acid rap deserves an article separate of Esham, but it's predominantly that Ben0kto has been asked several times to stop creating reversion wars. He's been warned by several editors on several different articles. He's been informed of notability guidelines several times and has received several lectures on reliable sources. His current move has been to move the mixtape to Acid Rap (mixtape) and then create the genre article in the now empty Acid Rap entry. I've speedied two pages and at this point I feel that I'm now officially as of this moment too involved to really further delete any entries. I've warned Ben0kto that this editing, even if it's done in good intent, can be seen as disruptive since he's not really discussing anything on the talk pages before making big controversial moves or edits and that disruptive editing can lead to further blocks or even an outright ban. I don't see where he actually has paid attention to anything that anyone has told him and at this point I need other people to come in and give further feedback and direction on the matter. He's already been reported and blocked for revert warring, but at this point I'm just concerned that this is less about him trying to edit Wikipedia in a beneficial manner and more about him trying to get his way. I hate to sound WP:BITE-y, but this is just how it comes across. He's been asked to stop and go about things in the proper manner and he's ignored everyone in order to get articles he wants on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• On a side note, I'm going to propose that the genre article for Acid Rap be merged into the artist's page. I'm not against it existing in any format, I just greatly dislike that a semi-new editor has been trying to create an article in a certain way despite requests by other editors that he discuss this on the article's page before making any controversial edits. If it's ultimately decided that the mixtape gets the basic "acid rap" page without anything in parentheses, then that's fine. If we decide that the genre should have the basic "mix tape" title even if it's redirected, that's fine too. I just think that this has gone beyond good faith editing and at this time it's more about making a point than trying to benefit Wikipedia. On his talk page Ben0kto has stated that he wasn't fully warned of everything, but I don't know how much more explicit we can be in this instance. I feel that at this point he should have at least been aware that his edits were controversial and tried to talk to others about the edits before making big moves, especially since he says he's an inexperienced editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC):*On a side note, I'm going to propose that the genre article for Acid Rap be merged into the artist's page. I'm not against it existing in any format, I just greatly dislike that a semi-new editor has been trying to create an article in a certain way despite requests by other editors that he discuss this on the article's page before making any controversial edits. If it's ultimately decided that the mixtape gets the basic "acid rap" page without anything in parentheses, then that's fine. If we decide that the genre should have the basic "mix tape" title even if it's redirected, that's fine too. I just think that this has gone beyond good faith editing and at this time it's more about making a point than trying to benefit Wikipedia. On his talk page Ben0kto has stated that he wasn't fully warned of everything, but I don't know how much more explicit we can be in this instance. I feel that at this point he should have at least been aware that his edits were controversial and tried to talk to others about the edits before making big moves, especially since he says he's an inexperienced editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have been asked to use the talk pages and also when blocked, told to use WP:BRD guidelines. That is the proper manner to go about when making large edits. I did not "ignore" the warnings but simply wasn't aware because I did not come across all of the other users' comments as I was focusing mainly on making my own edits within the article. Please try to follow some of these guidelines yourself, instead of just reverting. Thanks for understanding Ben0kto (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Behind the Paint is one notable third party text reference that explains that Esham and the style he created had an influence on wicked shit genres like horrorcore, most notably groups like Insane Clown Posse. More sources will be added. Ben0kto (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue to discuss content. It's a page for discussing editor behavior. DrKiernan 16:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• It is little about editor behavior, as Ben0kto is claiming that nobody has properly explained anything to him and that any and all of his edits are as a result of this. I'm concerned, as this is a common thing that many new and inexperienced editors claim. I don't see where he really shows that he's paying attention to anything when editors are doing the equivalent of mailbombing his talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• OK, now it's about editor behavior. User:Ben0kto is now accusing me of having a bias against underground music and editing in bad faith. He's also accusing me of bullying him and getting others to gang up on him. His behavior is getting more and more belligerent and I honestly don't know exactly how helpful he'll be at all in the future if he keeps acting like this. Can someone please step in? I know Yunshui has tried and even he's said that this has become a behavioral issue at this point rather than a simple case of a newbie editor. Ben0kto has had enough people intervening to where he should have a better working knowledge of Wikipedia than many editors that have been around for a while, so I don't think it's a case of "I don't know" or "nobody's told me". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User: Smsarmad

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked as part of Arbcom enforcement action.--v/r - TP 23:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This user is teverting atticles regarding Pakistan to preserve his countries interest. He is an working on the orders of the Secret Agency of Pakistan. This user needs an immediate block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhruv2357 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 October 2013‎

If anyone's behavior is questionable, its yours. What's the intent behind this? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC) (Also; have you notified the user of this discussion?)

And this... I don't want to accuse anyone because what I infer might be incorrect but what exactly does that mean? 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Notified Smsarmad. --regentspark (comment) 17:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute where the OP is inserting a WP:SYNTH statement into the article on Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence that the ISI was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks based on a Reuters article where an American citizen involved in the attacks claims that ISI officials provided assistance. The OP then procedes to call Smsarmad an agent of ISI for reverting this, followed by threats to sock to disrupt. Take that as you will. 205.166.218.67 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit] appears to be a threat of physical violence. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 10 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.

COMPETENCE issues from 76.202.182.102

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 person editing from 76.202.182.102 is going through multiple articles adding egregious overlinking and massive lists of barely relevant see-alsos---see e.g. [132], and the ones undone at [133]. There is also some edit-warring going on here (compare this diff to the previous diff, in which I undid the exact same series of edits; this diff restores all of them), although admittedly I have not given him/her a edit-warring warning.

The prose of the edits is kind of incomprehensible, and I am not really able to discuss things with the user because so far when I have attempted to make editorial suggestions to the user (User talk:76.202.182.102#Internal links and User talk:76.202.182.102#Some more friendly suggestions), s/he has ignored my feedback and has responded with tl;dr rants that to be perfectly honest I can't make any sense of. Based on other comments, the user seems to also have some political POV issues, although I can't understand enough of what little I've read to know what's going on. And his/her mainspace edits are full of weird offhand comments (e.g. "a great chef owning a restaurant business can make more money than any inept doctors", in an article about education).

Basically I think I am requesting that the user be blocked because s/he seems to lack the competence to edit appropriately or to engage in discussion with users. It looks like a pretty obvious case in here, but I am too involved to take admin action. I didn't take it to ANEW because I haven't issued an edit-warring warning and to be honest I don't know if it's even necessary to go through those motions for an editor who is obviously incapable of editing constructively (even if s/he is well-meaning). rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 11 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.

Removal of old talk page entries, leaving orphaned replies

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

---

At Talk:Dick Dale, I am having some trouble keeping the old discussions together as one person using a series of accounts is repeatedly removing his comments. I have quoted WP:REDACT to him in explanation of my restoration of the old comments, but he has determined that the wording of that guideline allows this sort of removal. The editor was working as IP 24.121.103.74 (and probably 24.119.19.162) but I asked for the talk page to be semi-protected to stop him. He is now editing as User:ReadTheGuidelines.

He is apparently upset that a couple of editors including myself have decided that Dick Dale was born in Boston, even though the Dale biographies are split between saying he was born in Beirut or Boston. For me, the deciding factor was one high quality source saying explicitly that Dale told interviewers for several decades that he had been born in Beirut, but in the 1990s he began to say he was born in South Boston, and he supplied supporting details.

Does REDACT allow this kind of removal of one's own talk page entries, even to the point of orphaning the replies? Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Binksternet is incorrect in some of his statements here. I have had one IP address used here and that is 24.121.103.74. I read the talk page guidelines before and after becoming involved in the Lebanon/Boston dispute. There are many more biographies that state Lebanon as Dale's place of birth than those that state Boston. The article on Dick Dale is now satisfactory as it mentions that other biographies state Lebanon as the place of birth.

The guidelines do not state that I am locked in to keeping all my talk page comments on any given talk page. If that is the case, it needs to be clearly stated up front. User:Binksternet wants to interpret the guidelines to mean that I am locked into leaving my talk page comments on the talk page forever or until he or someone with more edits wants to remove or edit them. This is abuse as far as I'm concerned and not appreciated. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of abuse, this may be a problem with the talk page guidelines more than the editors. At the same time I think that an experienced editor like User:Binksternet can fully realize this and know that there is nothing that specifically states that a user can't delete their own talk page posts on any given talk page. All you have to do is read the information. It would not be fair to reinterpret the information here either. The information is already stated on the talk page guidelines page. For these guidelines to be reinterpreted yet again here would also be an incorrect use of Wikipedia.

If there is a decision to not allow users from deleting their own talk page comments on other talk pages then it still would not apply to users that read the guidelines previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 20:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

ReadTheGuidelines, it appears from your statement above that you're now OK with how the article handles Dale's birthplace information. Would you be OK with, instead of having your comments removed from the article Talk page, having them hidden from view in a collapsible box? It does make it more difficult for other editors to check out the history of a dispute if the comments are removed altogether. Your comments would be hidden, unless an editor needed to read them for historical purposes. Would that be OK? Zad68 21:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I would rather have my comments removed and if their is an updated guideline that states that talk page comments are permanent and can't be removed then I will abide by that from here on out. As for my previous comments on the talk page however, I would like them to be removed.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Another solution is to archive the talk page, putting its contents into Talk:Dick Dale/Archive 1. This would place the discussions one step away from visibility. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For the comments I have already made I would still like to maintain my right to have them removed. If someone wants to go back and read through the revisions they can still do that right? This is a very important issue and involves the rules that are given to users when they enter a talk page. I think that if User:Binksternet or other editors want to join together and have the guidelines changed in the future then they can go that route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:REDACT, which is based on my experience editing here for a while, is that civil, on-topic comments that are part of a discussion thread relevant to content actively being discussed and worked on really should not be removed. Even if you can find loopholes or weasel words in WP:REDACT to justify removing your own comments, doing so will be seen as disruptive. You might be surprised to find out that you actually have no right to require that edits you make be removed. You release the edits you make on Wikipedia under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, see the little note at the bottom of any page you edit, it says 'By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.' Once you hit Save, what happens to it gets determined by community consensus. My point is that you can't require your edits stay removed.

How about Bink's suggestion of archiving the discussion? Anybody visiting the article Talk page wouldn't see them, they'd be pushed down into the Archive. Zad68 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The community consensus determination for talk page posts has already been spelled out in the talk page guidelines. This issue falls under the talk page guidelines unless there is some sort of extreme abuse with comments. That is not the case here, so the "Save Page" button terms would automatically refer to the "community consensus" that has been determined by Wikipedia for talk page comments. Furthermore, I am not finding loopholes or weasel words in any way whatsoever. If my own talk page posts can't be removed by myself it needs to be a clear and concise statement concerning this. This statement neither appears in the guidelines in any form whatsoever or in the "Save Button" terms. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

By removing my comments, it is still not a permanent removal. People can simply look through the revisions to find those comments. I would still like to maintain my right to have my comments removed. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• In my reading of WP:REDACT, and based on my experience editing article Talk pages, I don't see this as a case where WP:REDACT can be used to justify removal of the comments. I would find the removal of relevant Talk page comments that have received replies, and are part of an active content discussion, to be disruptive. If it continues I'd support editing sanctions. That's my view, we'll see if others agree. Zad68 21:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, based on your experience, but we can't just go making up our own rules and guidelines based on our own experience. The guidelines exist and need to be taken seriously.

And as far as "releasing the edits to Wikipedia", that is correct. Wikipedia has my edits forever or as long as they wish. But this does not refer to the visible part of the talk page. Even if my comments are removed from the visible part of the talk page, Wikipedia will always forever have my comments, so this is not an applicable phrase regarding the removal of my own comments from any given talk page. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it does. Your comments were permanently licensed when you hit save. You have no "right" to demand that they be removed, although the community may decide to do so as a courtesy. More importantly, though, what was/were your previous account name(s) before you created this one? You're clearly not a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have such a problem with people going back through the edits to see my original comments? They can see where I mentioned I removed my comment. I shouldn't even have to do this under the talk page guidelines. And I even signed it as well. I shouldn't have to do this either. Anyone with an ip address is allowed to place comments on a talk page as long as they are not abusive and they are allowed the right to remove them as Wikipedia will keep the edits stored away forever. Why do you have a problem with this? --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ther are part of a permanent record of discussion. They can be hatted, they can be archived, you can strike them through, but there's no justification for deletion when other editors see them as valuable to keep. And, again, you do not have a "right" to delete your comments. Period. End of that discussion. Any removal would be as a courtesy, and you have not exactly been asking courteously, have you.

Again, what was your previous account name(s)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I am a newbie to Wikipedia, but not to the laws regarding internet contracts, terms and obligations. I have read through all the pertinent information here on Wikipedia and I am abiding by it and asking for fair treatment. So far I am meeting with resistance over factual terms that are spelled out clearly. Why?--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been treated fairly, since you are being treated exactly the same as everyone else. What you're asking for is to be given preferential treatment, but you've made no cogent argument as to why you should be granted that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so are you saying here that you and possibly other editors have been preventing others from removing their own talk page edits on other talk pages for some time now? Because that is a serious issue. So you can take the comments down if they are abusive because that adheres to the talk page guidelines. But if someone wishes to take their own comments down even when they are not abusive, you prevent them from doing that, is that what you are saying?--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

All right, this is starting to move into classic trolling behavior. Note the hint of WP:NLT without actually stepping across the line, the refusal to give a clear argument for removal being necessaru, just the bogus repetition of a "right" to do so. I hear laughter in the background. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question of IPs, they are mostly from somebody in Arizona. Historically, the IPs that have taken part in discussion about Dale's place of birth are the following:

• 24.121.103.74 – Sedona, Arizona (October–November 2012, and October 2013)
• 198.7.58.96 – Manassas, Virginia, proxy IP (October 2013)
• 198.7.58.81 – Manassas, Virginia, proxy IP (September–October 2013)
• 24.119.19.162 – Cottonwood, Arizona (April 2013)
• 24.121.161.249 – Sedona, Arizona (September 2012)
• 24.156.82.243 – Sedona, Arizona (April 2012)
• 216.19.7.158 – Prescott Valley, Arizona (March 2009)

These addresses are suspiciously close together geographically, except for the proxy IPs which could be rerouting from anywhere. This evidence points to at least one anonymous editor living in Arizona who is persistent in his assertion that Dale was born in Beirut. None of these IPs argued for Boston.

I'm not saying that ReadTheGuidelines should be blocked or anything, I'm just saying he should own up to his past efforts. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? The underlying controversy appears to have been resolved in a way reasonably satisfactory to all. I find WP:REDACT (which is a guideline) less than clear. It seems to be making suggestions (not hard and fast rules) on when and how best to edit one's own comments. Reading the current state of the talk page [134], I do not find the responses to the deleted comments, which are now clearly marked as being self deleted, to be all that difficult to interpret. Anyone reading the talk page will gather that one editor who took a position in favor of one birthplace chose to remove his views. And, of course, the history is still there. This is not a licensing question, but whether we should extend a courtesy to an editor who made good-faith comments and now wishes to retract them. There is no real harm to the project in allowing him to remove his remarks. I suggest everyone move on and leave the talk page as is per above diff, archiving it if people wish.--agr (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I have used only my own IP address to post anything on Wikipedia. I have one computer. My first post would have been around the end of last year. One person in particular I do know that posted a comment, I can't say whether it is listed on your list or not, but just because there is a close proximity doesn't mean I agree with their comment.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:ArnoldReinhold thats all I was asking for. Much appreciated. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

agr, I started out looking at this thinking "Who cares? Let 'm remove the stupid comments" as well until I dug into it. The comments do have replies, the article content is contentious, and allowing the comments to remain removed makes it harder for future editors to figure out what sources were brought and what arguments were made in the past that led to the current consensus for the content. This is a collaborative editing environment, and editors should not make it harder for each other to work on articles by blanking relevant parts of past discussions, even if it's their own comments. The licensing point is that editors don't have control over what happens to edits once they're made, meaning the "They need to be removed because they're mine and I say so" argument holds no weight. Zad68 22:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you guys do what you want, I will continue to strive for fairness and to not let editors "play God" on Wikipedia. The rules are the rules and if you want to try to override them with your opinion, you can try all you want, but in the end its the terms, rules and obligations that will be the ultimate deciding factor in this. Thank you.--ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. What ultimately decides such questions is usually community consensus - and we can and do block people from editing for insisting that they have 'a right' to engage in behaviour that others see as tendentious and disruptive. The only 'rights' you have regarding Wikipedia are the right to fork and the right to leave. Everything else is dependant on being a useful contributor, rather than a drain on everyone's time and patience. You appear to be going down that road already, and I suggest that you either reconsider, or find another forum to assert your 'rights', real or imagined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There are rights and there is courtesy. One of our goal is to encourage new editors. This editor apparently made constructive arguments he now wishes to retract. He may have good reasons. Future editors will still be able to figure it out. (If only editors really did go back and carefully review the details of past consensus formation.) It's all in the history if anyone really needs to see it. WP:REDACT explicitly allows editors to remove uncivil comments. Should editors make a point to include some incivility to retain the right to retract? Let it go. --agr (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My only real reason for deleting my comments was because, from the time of my first post, I read the talk page guidelines, and then I decided to post on the talk page. At that time I knew from everything I read on Wikipedia, the guidelines, terms, etc., that I would not be locked in to leaving my comments on the talk page. I know it is that way on some online forums and such. Furthermore, my original intention was to try to get the article as factual as possible and then remove my comments. I had no idea that I would be met with this kind of opposition, it seems absolutely and incredibly ridiculous. I would have never placed any comments on the talk page to begin with had I originally known that the guidelines were not intended to be taken seriously. This has been an eye opening experience to say the least. The talk page is not a free talking forum at all as described in the guidelines, it is controlled by editors that think they can do whatever they want and you are locked into every little comment and word you put on that talk page unless a "God" editor doesn't like it, then they can remove it at their desire. Incredible, totally incredible. --ReadTheGuidelines (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a 'free talking forum'. As the talk page guidelines make entirely clear, they are there for one purpose only - to discuss improvements to articles. As such, it is often necessary to look at past discussions - which is why deleting posts without good reason may be seen as disruptive. That is how Wikipedia works, and if you wish to contribute, you will have to do it our way. Or not at all. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Andy's point and the page The Bushranger linked to are clearly relevant. In some cases, when I might, for instance, start a thread saying, "Hey, how come the article (X) doesn't mention he was born in (Y)," then read the article, see that it does, and remove my own comment from the talk page before anyone else said, "Um, it does, didn't you see that?" or something similar where a comment or thread was started before a response, maybe, in some cases, I could see letting the person save face and remove the comment. But, once it gets a response, and becomes in effect a clear part of the history of the discussion, unless the comment itself contains wildly inappropriate aspersions on others or similar problematic content, it is a part of the history and there is no real reason to complicate reviewing the early discussions for someone else by removing potentially half of the conversation. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 11 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.

Removing Comments from others talk pages

It shows a "resolved" box for this issue under the discussion titled "Removal of old talk page entries, leaving orphaned replies.

This is not resolved at all. I have editors that agree with my stance and there are 2 editors that disagree, and one other editor who left inconsiderate and mindless remarks on the subject. Actually all editors made incorrect and inconsiderate remarks, calling my comments stupid and dismissing the importance of this situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadTheGuidelines (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Despite Ent's closure of this discussion ReadTheGuidelines just reverted to delete his comments again, the 7th time he's tried to remove them in 3 days, so I don't think he's gotten the message. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Another revert, and a report filed at WP:EWN. User also posted this comment on his talk page: "You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments." Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 11 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.

TweetiePie1947/Garrejones44444777

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.

---

Garrejones44444777] has been editing Person to Bunny to state that this animated short was "originally cancelled," but usually does not provide any references for this claim, and regularly changes or removes the one reference giving an actual release date. (In some edits the user used minutes-old forum posts as sources; presumably these were posted by the same user.)

Based on similar editing patterns, I believe that is a sockpuppet of User:TweetiePie1947, who has created several socks to make identical edits

Numerous attempts have been made to contact the user, with no result. Could someone look into this user's edits? Trivialist (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. I think there's an SPI somewhere, isn't there? Perhaps you can add this and ask for a CU to have a look? Drmies (talk) 04:24, 11 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:Winston S Smith

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.

---

Winston S Smith (talk · contribs) is a racist troll. I'd block him myself, but I've become involved in the situation. Can an uninvolved administrator please review Mr. Smith's contributions and take appropriate action? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some have called me racist but I just call it an alternative perspective. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to represent a neutral point of view and not one particular ideology? Is it acceptable to ban users for ideological reasons? As for being a troll, I have always tried my best to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to do so in the future. Winston S Smith (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what you call your perspective. Your behavior is disruptive. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If I may chime in, I agree with Malik. This user has done nothing recently but complain about perceived slights and promote racism rhetoric on talk pages. They also insist Jews are a "dominant majority" and repeat typical antisemitic claims. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Some specific examples would be good. I found this at a cursory glance, but I'm not sure if that's worthy of a block. equazcion� 04:31, 11 Oct 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I did think this stuff worthy of an indefinite block, if only to "enforce Zionist ideological control over Wikipedia". Thanks Malik. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 11 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.

198.189.184.243 violating topic ban

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

User has been banned from fringe science, yet continues posting on the same topic that lead to the sanction. Probably these (among many) count as well: [135][136][137]. User replies to the same thread the user started, with the same style of voluminous posts that dump URLs and quotes. vzaak (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the user is vandalizing. vzaak (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin not being helpful

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

---

Hello. Hopefully this is the correct forum to raise this concern.

Background

I raised this edit war issue at 3RR. During this issue I was requested to respond to the incident I'd logged. I posted on the admin's talkpage to notify them of this and got an unfriendly reply "Last chance, Lugnuts". The outcome of the 3RR was that I was told I was in breach of 3RR and not to edit the article in question for 7 days. I agreed to this, but had a follow-up question with the admin in question about the 7 days element.

From this thread on their talkpage, I asked in a civil manner if the admin could update the article in question with some sourced info, as I can not, believing this to be a reasonable request. This was met with a no (which I'm fine with), but I wanted further clarification of the 7 day element, which resulted in the unhelpful response of I have nothing more to say about this except that if you violate the agreement, I'll block you. I've continued to ask the admin to link me to the policy about imposing a random timespan on being able to edit an article, but I've been ignored.

WP:ADMINACCT states "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct" and there's a bullet point below this about failure to communicate.

All I'm asking is more info on the length of a random timespan that's imposed on an article following 3RR. Can anyone help? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sensible move by Bbb23. Your edit request to Bbb23 looks like trying to sucker them into being involved in the article so that they can't take any further admin action against you. If they'd aquiesced to your edit request, there would be no way for them to enforce the 7 day time frame on you. AFAIK, there is no policy stating that an admin can drop a time window to prevent an editor editing, except by mutual agreement. Voluntary topic bans are an example. It was a "something for something" exchange. You don't edit for 7 days, you don't get blocked. I'd say that was pretty clear. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I'm not trying to "sucker" anyone into doing anything. I thought it was a reasonable request to clear with the admin in question. I'm simply asking someone to explain the 7-day threshold on this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely unreasonable request to the admin. They were involved in an administrative capacity, and were being wise enough to stay out of it editorially. Requesting that anyone edit-by-proxy is further inappropriate - that's what the talkpage of the article is for (i.e. gaining WP:CONSENSUS for the edit). Bbb23 has acted very much above board ES&L 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. I accept the "no edit via proxy" part, but I was asking about the 7-day part. A simple reply back instead of ignoring the question fails WP:ADMINACCT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

On what planet? Bbb23 is never required to act at any time, as per the same policy you're trying to rake him over the coals with. By stating a position one way or another, you were going to FORCE him into becoming WP:INVOLVED .. how do you not see that? You were out of line, not once but twice ... besides, NOBODY needs to ever reply to you, especially within your personally-invoked timeframes ES&L 11:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, you've missed the point. A simple response from Bbb23 is all that I asked. Nothing more. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So you opened a thread here to get him in trouble when he didn't answer that simple question to your satisfaction? Doc talk 11:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

He didn't answer it fullstop. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem to edit a ton of articles at a quick rate. What's 7 days away from this one going to hurt? It's not a big deal. Doc talk 12:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No big deal - the same as getting a succinct reply to my question from said admin, instead of it being ingnored. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that this is an ill-advised thread to open, and the claim of admin impropriety under ADMINACT a bit preposterous, I do want to point something out that may be... unpopular. I don't want to impose a punative block, but I need to see some insight into your conduct that persuades me that you understand the policy and you won't be disruptive again. The "I don't want to impose a punative block, but" part is odd. It seems like a mixing of the notion of "punitive" and "preventative". Doc talk 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

He's saying that it would be punitive if Lugnuts understood what he did wrong, but otherwise not. — Lfdder (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Lugnuts was involved in an edit war. A kindly admin decided not to block them, just to tell them to stay away from the article for 7 days. Then Lugnuts appears here to complain about the kindly admin and to stir un an unnecessary fuss. My advice: Lugnuts, stop digging yourself into a hole. Just walk away and do try not to join edit wars. They are pointless. Jehochman ^Talk 12:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Highlighting a failure of WP:ADMINACCT is not complaining, I'm was mearly asking for more information about the 7-days, but was ignored. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You weren't ignored. You simply didn't get the answer you want. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) i am not sure where you come from, but in most of the world that I am aware of "seven days" means "7 days" and there is not much more clarification that could possibly be given. Exactly what clarification were you looking for? 168 hours? 10080 minutes? 604800 seconds? (Although I would suggest that rushing back in at 604801 seconds to make your edit would be unwise.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

I know what 7 days means, I was asking for a link to the guidance/policy for this for future reference. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

How about WP:AGF? Bbb23 could have blocked you for 7 days but instead he offered you a way out in which all you had to do was avoid the article for 7 days. Rather than being backed by any policy, I'd say Bbb23 was acting with WP:COMMONSENSE. Blackmane (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Which is great, and was all I was asking for. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There isn't any policy/guideline about an agreements between editors. You agreed to not edit the article for 7 days and Bbb23 agreed not to block you for violating the three revert rule. What else do you want? GB fan 13:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Lugnuts, from the tone of this thread it almost sounds as though you'd prefer a policy-dictated 7-day block instead of a more-lenient-but-non-formalized 7-day "don't edit this article" warning. Bringing the issue here only seems likely to WP:BOOMERANG on you. I tend to be a stickler for "Can you please cite policy for this?", but in this particular case I'd settle for being happy I wasn't blocked rather than taking the admin to court as it were. My recommendation, were I in your shoes, would be to apologize for bringing it up here and lie low for awhile and try to learn from your experience. I apologize if my comments aren't as supportive as you might like. DonIago (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I can see where this is heading. I thought it was a reasonable request per WP:ADMINACCT. I apologise for bringing this matter to your attention. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:19, 11 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:Ohconfucius editing Ireland related artices against consensus

See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#WP:IRE-IRL_and_piped_links where they are changing pipe links to the name of the linked article rather than the text that appears. Pipe links are used for a purpose, bots shouldn't change the text without thought whatever about removing a link. That they then go on arguing that WP:IMOS is wrong is I think over the top. If they want to change that they should set up a section and debate it but until then they should accept it. I do not believe they are fit to run a bot with an attitude like that. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears a large number of articles has [[Irish language|Irish]] become Irish with no link at all and [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] become Republic of Ireland. It isn't just changing the text that appears but removing the link as well.--Antiqueight ^confer 11:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problem with edits of '[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]' to 'Ireland', per WP:OVERLINK; however I do have an issue with '[[Irish language|Irish]]' to just 'Irish'. An explanation is needed; but knowing this user and AGFing it's probably just a script that needs tweaking. GiantSnowman 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and @Dmcq:, I have notified Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) about this discussion as you should have done per the clear & explicit instructions. GiantSnowman 11:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed '[[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]]' to 'Ireland' would be correct in the articles- but not to 'Republic of Ireland' as has been the case in these edits.--Antiqueight ^confer 11:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of this "problem" is because the article on the state is located at "Republic of Ireland", and most lazy readers then assume that this is the official name of the state. Exactly the problem as predicted. I see this all the time. I'd say that this particular area is *not* a good place for a bot, and all bots should be banned from WP:IRE-IRL changes. Simples. --HighKing (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tweaked the script to do as GS recommended. If nobody at WP:IRELAND or here thinks unpiping an Easter egg to the displayed text is a problem, that's good enough for me. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a particularly poor choice of work for a bot (or other assisted editing) to do. The choice to use "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland" (WP:IRL-IRE) is context-sensitive (per bot policy) and contentious. De-linking is fine (indeed there was a recent discussion and consensus to do so) but changing the text is not an appropriate activity for a bot process.

I would also point out that this matter is covered by an ArbCom motion. If Ohconfucius continued to ignore the IMOS and make these edits my plan of action was to seek an enforcement against his script. --Tóraí (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's only a poor choice of work for "a bot [sic]" because the link is an Easter egg, that you can't unpipe it to the displayed text without it being reductive or misleading. Of course, I'd be leaving it for the Arbcom enforcers to decide whether this is covered by the remedies. Anything else is pure speculation. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Slightly more big-picture, I don't see much to boast about in the linking practices in Ireland-related articles, particularly of the several options for country-names. We would do our readers a favour by not piping without great care to avoid misleading—basically, if there's something (historically relevant in terminology) to convey, do so explicitly rather than expecting readers to obediently click on easter-egg links. This is on top of the site-wide guideline not to link commonly known country-names/geographical features unless there's a special reason to do so. I see no special reasons, but instead a resorting to an unexplained "consensus" by a wikiproject, probably by just a very few people some time ago—but how would we know? (And I'm not sure it matters anyway in the larger circumstances.) Ohconfucius does not flip a switch and go to bed while his script mows down thousands of articles; far from it, he is a careful and thoughtful gnoming editor who has a considerable track-record of sensitivity to reasonable queries. Best. Tony (talk) 08:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

CSD concerns

I have highly expiations about the CSD tagging. I have received many complaints about it, an it's driving me insane. The administrator Nyttend, blocked me yesterday because I was "abusing CSD tags", when really that I was adding F3 "improper license" on various photos that I have seen that day, which the admin had a problem with. I never thought that it would be a "big" problem that could end up me being blocked. Everyday, I see a non free photo with the wrong copyright license, and I always elected it F3. Nyttend have a highly big problem because of it, and honestly, I just have no idea why. I'm just doing my job, not "abusing templates", as what Nyttend was trying to imply. --Blurred Lines 14:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What admin action are you seeking here? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

When someone comes here claiming that he was incorrectly blocked, I guess he wants other admins to take a look and see who was right (if any). Certainly when speedy deletions are involved, only admins can truly value the edits (since other people can only see the rejected speedies, not the accepted ones). Whether any further admin action is sought (or needed) is secondary to that first admin action. Fram (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nyttend didn't "try to imply" you were abusing the templates, they said it explicitly. There's lengthy conversation on your talk page (now removed) on the topic, by two admins and another editor with expertise on the matter, and if you cannot accept their explanations it's just another case of "I didn't hear that". Sorry, but them's the shakes. The next step is to reread their comments and take it to heart. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • But looking at that conversation, at first glance the only example given of problematic tagging is one by Crisco1492, which is indeed problematic, but which predates the warning Nyttend gave. To block a user after a warning, there have to be significant continued problems after the warning was given, and these seem to be missing. There were some minor discussions, and the editor has a learning curve, but I would like some examples (preferably by Nyttend, the blocking admin) of what warranted the block on the 10th. If the editor is to learn, it is best to present examples. Fram (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• This (top post) is on 6 October, and #File speedies is on 9 October. Masem warned the editor here, and nytend warned here (the section was later removed, apparently without a lesson being learned). I think this is a case of detrimental behaviour not changing after multiple warnings. I only started watching the user's talk page after seeing issues with an FFD regarding File:Colonel Harland Sanders in character.jpg (which was also a failed CSD) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• CSD should only be used if there is no obvious hope for correction of an image, there are the less-speedy NFC-related ones, like the db-series, that are better suited for cases where there are mistakes that do need to be corrected in reasonably short order. For example, as noted by Crisco, I warned Blurred after he tagged for CSD an image I uploaded where I used a "game cover" rationale instead of a "logo" rationale. That's an easy fix, not a case that CSD should be dealing with. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors (uploaders) should be responsible to the images they upload. Honestly, I shouldn't have to fix anything, that's the uploader's position to fix it, not me. Also, using an invalid fair use tag on a photo is considered marked for a CSD, so warning me for that makes no sense once so ever. --Blurred Lines 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

And taggers should be held responsible for their tags--didn't you hear that? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is there is a difference between a fixable problem (which for nonfree, there's a body of db- templates that give warning and 7 days to correct), and a non-fixable problem for which CSD makes sense. A wrong license tag is a wrong license tag, yes, but as long as takes one quick edit to correct, CSD is not the right way to tag that. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The db- template you have just mentioned, the "General criteria", well I don't see anything under General criteria on Twinkle about a warning on improper licenses, and given 7 days to correct the license. I would of tried that, but I didn't see it, so I choose the CSD one instead. --Blurred Lines 17:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there might be a problem with your use of Twinkle then. Just because the copyright info is incomplete or incorrect doesn't warrant a speedy delete. It is standard practice to give warnings and let the Editor fix the problem. Why the rush to delete over a fixable problem? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Blurred Lines, I'm sure you mean well, but you'll need to get a better understanding of the criteria needed to delete a file.

cFor example, you tagged File:Wikierror10012013.jpg for speedy deletion as a copyright when it was clearly a self-made image. I accepted the request in good faith and it was reverted by an admin as being an appropriate image and not a copyright infringement. Hold off on tagging images for a bit and learn a bit more about them first.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If a non-admin user can do stuff such as correcting templates, improving rationales, and the like, then admins are freed up to do the things that only admins are authorised to do, such as delete files. As you may have noticed, we are extremely short of admins who are actively doing administrative work right now – take note of the recent posts at WP:AN about extensive backlogs at AFD, PUF, FFD, NFCR, SPI, etc. etc. Tagging images for deletion that actually only need a bit of clean-up is counter-productive, as admins are taken away from tasks that only admins are allowed to do. Any work cleaning up images that non-admins can take on themselves would be helpful. But Blurred Lines, I don't think you have the knowledge of Wikipedia policies and copyright law to be working on images right now. Since you are receiving many complaints about the way you are doing the work, it's time for you to stop what you are doing – it would be better for you to find another way to contribute for the time being. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

How exactly do I not have the knowledge to work on images? If I didn't have knowledge to work on images, I would have never worked with it in the first place. Now the way I hear it from you is kind of offensive, that you think that I don't have the knowledge of doing what I do just because I don't know "Wikipedia policies and copyright laws". --Blurred Lines 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't know Wikipedia policies and copyright laws, you don't have the knowledge to work on images on Wikipedia. Also, your signature takes up an astounding amount of code. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Argubly, Blurred does show he understands most of the NFC - bad licenses are a reason to remove an image, for example. But there is a difference between tagging a bad image and one that can be obviously fixed once the issue is pointed out. (This would be equivalent to removing an image for a #10c violation because the name of the article that the image is used on is misspelled in the rationale.) This is potentially harmful per WP:BITE. And no, this is not asking Blurred to do the work, just to .. tag with a less aggressive warning, in a way. --MASEM (t) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Blurred Lines, sorry if my remarks hurt your feelings. Most of your work has been okay. I am just suggesting if you are getting many complaints about your image tagging, so many that it's driving you insane, that perhaps it's time to try to understand the suggestions being given to you as to how to improve what you are doing and learn to do it better in the future. For example, if Twinkle is not offering the appropriate template for the image you are dealing with, don't use Twinkle – tag it manually. And I do stand by my previous remark that working with images does require a thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy and copyright law. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It is ok, and I really do agree and respect your judgement 100%. In the meantime, could you tell me where can I get the file templates so I can post some manually? --Blurred Lines 20:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The most common ones are at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. What I've done is created a bookmark folder where I've collected some of the ones I use most often. I also have some pre-made stuff at User:Diannaa/My Templates. I will post some more stuff on your talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Blurred Lines 21:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

After reading this thread, I'd say that Masem's comment at 15:14 does a perfect job of describing the difference between immediate deletion and the "slow" deletion that we use for most images. I blocked Blurred Lines because he was treating all of the pages in question as if they were the "emergency" types that we delete instantly, even though the criteria were expressly inapplicable, e.g. tagging nonfree images under F3, which specifically excludes images that "comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content". Note that I blocked Blurred Lines because (1) I'd given a stern warning, (2) Blurred Lines removed the warning, so he obviously saw it; (3) Blurred Lines continued tagging images under inapplicable criteria, and (4) I therefore concluded that he was unwilling to stop mistagging images unless he was forced to stop. Nothing against you, Blurred Lines; I'll be happy to work with you in other fields, and in this one if we can get the process straightened out. Final note Apologies for no response until now; I was on the road today for more than 300 miles (480 km). Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Superzohar

This user, acting in good faith, dumps in Russia-related articles large pieces of unsourced Google-translated text from Russian Wikipedia. On previous occasions, I already tried to explain him that the information should be sourced, and that the Google Translate is not the optimum way to improve Wikipedia. Yesterday, after they added this piece, I left a message at their talk page, to which they did not react. Today, they continued this activity, adding for example, this piece. I am working a lot on Russia-related articles, and it is really a pain to see how articles on which I spent many hours of work get contaminated by badly translated unsourced material, which I have no time to rework. May be someone can explain the policies to this user better than I was able to. Thank you in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Only today I've realized just how much of this stuff was dumped into the articles... which I don't understand, because I've seen this user contribute solid good material on many previous occasions (including translations of reasonable quality). My gut feeling is that all of these machine translations, in their current state, can simply be removed—I don't expect anybody would rush to volunteer to clean up this "Geogology" (sic) section, for example. If someone has an inclination to translate material from the Russian Wikipedia, it is only a click away and is easier to understand and work with than the gibberish linked to above. And, of course, nothing should be translated for which no source is given/can be accessed or for which a verification isn't done using some other means.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2013; 16:46 (UTC)

Indeed, the guy is clearly acting in good faith and believes he improves Wikipedia. I am concerned with the fact that he stopped reacting to my messages some time ago, which probably means this was not the last time we have seen such pieces added.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I normally revert such additions on sight with an explanation in the edit summary, but I was rather busy in the past few days to catch them... A third opinion would be welcome here, by the way. Anyone?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2013; 18:32 (UTC)

Hi everybody. I didn't know my edits would attract so much attention, from a negative aspect. It's true that some of my edits are bad because of the google translate, and have no place Wikipedia. But I think I mostly contribute normal edits. Maybe from my rush to add much materials (especially on Russia related issues, that sometimes are really rare I made much emphasis more on quantity than quality). I will do my best to work more on my edits, and if I use google translate, I will review more the results before I write them in Wikipedia. Superzohar Talk 21:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If you could maintain the quality of your edits at this or slightly higher level, I don't think anyone would have any problems. Please also consider sourcing the information you are adding. Not everything from other Wikipedias is worth translating; sometimes a short summary of two or three sentences provides a better starting point for expansion (even when it's unsourced).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2013; 01:46 (UTC)

Kevin Kelly (politician)

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

---

IP range keeps adding BLP vios; please consider a rangeblock or page protection. See the history of the page. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that these IPs also remove warnings from their talk pages. Ginsuloft (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 11 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 account possibly compromised

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.

---

So I go to check my watchlist and discover 2 protection log entries and 4 move log entries. When I investigated further by clicking on the move log entry I discovered that two of the entries were pointed to a nonexistent target from a full-move-protected page (Jimmy Carter). --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an accident. See his edit summary. Also, you forgot to notify him, which I've now done. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)Nah, just a mistake. Looks like he was looking to see what the page move form looked like in order to answer a question at the teahouse, and accidentally actually moved the page. pinging User:Fuhghettaboutit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c; Floquenbeam has hit the nail on the head) Hey Bigpoliticsfan. If I ever saw the edit I just made from another admin, I too would assume the account might be compromised. Sigh. Anyway, you definitely did the right thing in coming here. Fortunately (or unfortunately), it was just a bit of temporary idiocy on my part (which I reverted before I was informed of this thread). What happened was that I was answering a question at the Teahouse about whether on a requested move you need to separately ask for moves of talk subpages, like GA nominations. I was informing the user that admins see a note allowing them to move up to 100 pages automatically if an article has talk subpages, but wanted to copy and paste the exact text, so I went to an article I knew would likely have archives. Jimmy Carter, so I would see the field to copy the message. Then "Jimmy" reminded me that I wanted to look up something about Jimmy Buffet and started to type that (obviously with a misspelling) and seeing my cursor was in the move field, went to a different tab, but I must have hit return before I switched or somehow grazed the move page button. Anyway, I didn't even realize I had moved the page until after I looked at the Jimmy Buffet article, and answered the Teahouse question..--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:24, 11 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.

---

In the context of a violation of ArbCom restrictions[138] on the Infoboxes case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted), @Montanabw: issues the following post:

You two (Nikki and Smeat) are a couple of pretentious, small-minded little jackasses. In both cases we are talking about a 5x expansion from a stub. And your threats are just the most snot-nosed, tendentious, obnoxious, prissy tattle-tale example of bullying I have ever seen. Get a freaking life! Montanabw(talk) 22:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [139]

This follows on another October ANI report, only recently archived, to which Montanabw's reaction was:

• an iffy section head rename,[140] and
• the notion that the ANI concluded in her favor.

It doesn't seem that (yet, still) Montanabw is understanding community norms, or the significance of or the need for restrictions in the infobox wars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Sandy has tried to engage either Montanabw or Gerda Arendt in discussion on either talk page (per the rules). From Sandy's contribs, it appears that she immediately brought this to ANI. I believe this isn't the proper place for this discussion and it should be moved to one or both talk pages.

As for Montanabw, I understand your obviously frustration, but that is a blatant personal attack, not cool.

As for Gerda, restrictions on infoboxes? Come on, they're infoboxes. So I put this before the community, if Gerda needs an infobox placed on any of the numerous pages she edits, I will volunteer myself to add it. There are instances (like DYKs and article updates) where the addition of an infobox is necessary and uncontroversial. I would add the infobox, Gerda wouldn't get in trouble and any issues/problems would fall onto me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Homer, I'll give you two out of three--not the latter one. The infobox stuff is, apparently, important enough to lead to ArbCom restrictions and your kind offer won't do Gerda any favors. The restriction is clear, like it or not. (I don't like any of this, but Gerda, please stick to it: you didn't create Quattro etc ex nihilo.) I also agree that this is not yet a matter requiring admin intervention, and hopefully it never will. And Montana, you know I respect you greatly--you write FAs that have fewer adjectives than that outburst. I hope this thread can/will be closed shortly: this is four of our best content editors, all of whom I respect greatly, engaged in something not so productive. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sandy is right, it's a pretty bad insult and really personal. At the very least, Montanabw should retract it. And I do honestly mean at the least.--v/r - TP 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, that ends my thought of closing this discussion. Frankly, I would have trouble taking that kind of comment seriously if it were directed at me, and I can be thin-skinned. I would instead find myself mesmerized by, as Drmies notes, the long list of adjectives. It's more like something a precocious child would say after being contradicted. I don't know how Smeat felt about it, but it didn't seem like Nikki was particularly bothered. As for the infobox stuff, this is not WP:AE, so throwing that in only muddies the already roiling waters. Good night all.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • It doesn't bother me, if that makes any difference, although I do believe that personal attacks should be avoided/discouraged, on principle.Smeat75 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
        • I expect that ArbCom will shoot this down, but User:Anthonyhcole has taken the issue of my adding infoboxes for Gerda to ArbCom for clarification. I didn't ask him to, but it is worth a shot. I expect them to agree with Drmies that it just can't happen, but I live by the "it couldn't hurt to ask" philosophy, so we will see where that leads. Though if ArbCom says "no, not happening", I will reluctantly go with it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
          • I find it hard to read The ArbCom Pages, but it seems to me that this would be a kind of editing by proxy. WP:PROXYING would apply, I suppose. Sorry Homer--but your good faith is noted. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
            • I have also been told it would fall under WP:MEATPUPPET as well. As I posted over at ArbCom, "I completely expect that this request will be shot down", but I like to think there might be a chance. I'm a glass half full kinda guy (at least I try to be). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• I definitely agree with Drmies. It's very unfortunate that some of our best content contributors are unable to get along, and I strongly suggest that Montana retract her comment and apologize. But really, the last thing we need is more people playing "civility police" here. I think we've all been around that block enough times to know it's a bad idea. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Waking up to this, I don't believe it. The first question: Is there really "a violation of ArbCom restrictions", the premise of this thread? I doubt it. It needs clarification. I spoke there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why do we need to worry about this here? When something is posted openly at an Arbcom page, can't it be resolved by the admins who pay attention to Arbcom matters? Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 12 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.

Hauntingwhisper

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'm asking for an uninvolved administrator to have a look at the edits of user:Hauntingwhisper. Sources says that, since 2011, the wrestling promotion World Wrestling Entertainment changed his name to WWE. here and here you can see the name changeand and WWE Corporative website says WWE, not World Wrestling Entertainment. In WWE Talk Page, other user of the wikiprojeect Pro wrestling agree with the name change. However, user:Hauntingwhisper changed the name to World Wrestling Entertainment in Eva Marie. I talked to him, I give him sources, but he doesn't listen. [141], [142] and [143]. I tried to talk with him, but he doesn't listen, so it is vandalism. Please, help me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. GregJackP Boomer! 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, what can I do? Sources are right, but he doesn't listen and I don't want to have a war. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:DR covers the procedures to follow. RfC is where I would start. GregJackP Boomer! 14:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

HHH Pedigree

I'm not vandalizing Eva Marie's page!! I stated before that WWE is STILL World Wrestling Entertainment, cause it was said by Vince McMahon himself on numerous occasions. I'm not saying that it is not called the WWE, but they do go by both names. Everytime I would make an edit, he would automatically revert it like he is stalking the page for anyone and everyone's edits so he can have it his way. He made the threats to get me blocked, instead of trying to find common ground. I put both names on the page (ex. World Wrestling Entertainment / WWE) because both names mean the same thing, World Wrestling Entertainment. If anything, he hardly lets anyone edit cause it's like you have to answer to him with your edits, like he owns the page. I've been editing for a while now, and I wouldn't vandal a page. If anything, I'm not saying block him either, I'm saying that were both right on the whole WWE dilemma, but agree differently. Hauntingwhisper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you're vandalizing, but you're a) going against WP:CONSENSUS, and b) also going against current WP:RS. Either way, this is not the place for content disputes. That said, the FORMAL name for the company is WWE. We all know it stands for "World Wrestling Entertainment" (formerly "World Wrestling Federation"), but the formal branding of the company is quite clear, and this is discussed on the WWE main article. You should not be changing it, anywhere, ever ES&L 16:20, 12 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.

Brahma Kumaris: new account - vandalism?

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

---

Hi there, A brand new account has just started reverting all the content [144][145] back to how the page was just before the User:Januarythe18th was indefinitely blocked. Might be easier to see from page history. The attack has happened twice in 15 minutes. Requesting this user is also blocked. I hope I'm reporting in the right place. Regards Danh108 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is kind of hard not to see how the remarkable similarity of user names between the new editor and the previously banned editor might not be a very serious indicator that this is the same person, isn't it? John Carter (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's most likely the same person, though it's not quite correct to call their edits "vandalism". It's just a very big revert. The appropriate place to report this is WP:SPI, but that probably won't be necessary...I expect they'll be blocked shortly by someone else. (If they continue to revert I'll do it.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting that January is saying on his user talk page that this isn't him, and it is perhaps possible that someone might be using this name as a red herring to get the blame attached to someone else, maybe, but that doesn't strike me as a particularly bright thing for this alleged other person to do. But SPI would probably be the best place to address this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Carter (talk • contribs)

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.

I read the user page (of January) as referring to the outing incident. Which comments do you take as referring to this incident with June24th? It's a pretty big coincidence for a new user to start up, choose that name, within 3 days of the block, and revert content to precisely where it was prior to the block.... Danh108 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

5.65.29.109 replacing images of living people for one of hitler

[146]Along with other vandalism, please block as there is a backlog at AIV Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Thank you, DS. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC).

Brahma Kumaris - repeated outing

user:Januarythe18th has inserted a link on his talk page repeating the outing here. This link goes straight to the search that contains the personal profile that the account was blocked for outing in the first place. Given we've just had our first sock, and the previous blocked user from this advocacy group had quite a list of socks, is there something pre-emptive that can be done? e.g. can the IP's that user operated their account from be blocked? Also, can the OS deal with the repeat outing? Thank you. Regards Danh108 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't post on a high visibility noticeboard about outing. Send an email direct to oversight, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Eeekk....sorry Danh108 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese's [seemingly misguided] proposed deletion of a page

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

---

This post concerns user: Roscelese & this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_hardaway. The user has put forth a claim that the page should be deleted. From my perspective, it seems as though this person has offered contradictory reasons for proposing deletion. He/she has stated that the subject has a number of Google hits from multiple sources -- yet claims there aren't sufficient sources substantiating the article (There are 7 separate sources ranging from a premier lifestyle magazine to a respected university). It seems as though more than enough sources have been provided to show authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesteel9 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Any editor is entitled to propose deletion: this noticeboard is not an appropriate place to dispute proposed deletions or to complain about someone who's tagged a page in good faith for deletion. You've removed the PROD tag, so it rests there unless someone wants to start a deletion discussion. Acroterion (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This thread can be closed. To the OP: opening an AfD is like starting a lawsuit. Anybody can sue anyone for anything, but frivolous lawsuits will be tossed rapidly and those filing them will very quickly find trouble for wasting the community's time. Worry about the deletion debate in the appropriate place. No cause for action here. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Another Comment - Trout for Roscelese for running a PROD on this barely more than one hour after creation. There's at least 1 source counting to GNG in the footnotes. Give content creators a little time. Carrite (talk) 22:19, 12 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.

Obvious sockpuppet

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

---

Can someone please block the latest sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Elkevbo is harassing me, cursing me out, reverting my edits and accusing me.--Megscaves123 (talk) 01:24, 13 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 is biased against Turkish / Azerbaijan related pages due to history.

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

---

Resolved

This used is biased agains Turks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Yerevanci

Keeps deleting or nominating for deletion my file for I know. this file is genuinely mine Turk Bilge Tonyukuk Monument.jpg

Here is the original source. http://orhunyazitlari.appspot.com/media/tonyukuk2.jpg

In general, Armenian users are naturally biased against Turks Turkey, Azerbaijan due to history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismet11 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Classic case of WP:BOOMERANG. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In addition to the obvious problems with bigoted personal attacks and failing to WP:AGF that you've exhibited in this very discussion that Proudbolsahye has hinted at, your actual statement makes no sense. How can the image be 'genuinely mine' yet have an original source that's a webpage? The original source will be your camera or since this image is edited, a combination of that and your computer. BTW Yerevanci is not and doesn't appear to have ever been an admin so it's literally impossible for them to have deleted your images, they could have nominated them for discussion or speedy deletion but that's a distinct thing (in particularly it implies someone else agreed with their reasoning). Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've formally warned this editor under WP:ARBAA2 for the focus on ethnicity. Any further accusations of this nature or focus on the perceived ethnicity of other editors should be reported for arbitration enforcement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur, and I've indefinitely blocked them under normal administrator authority per WP:NOTHERE. People who spam many pages with statements like "Armenians are natural bias for Turks, Turkey, Azerbaijan, they must be banned modifying Turkey / Azerbaijan related pages" are unlikely to have much to contribute to a neutral reference work. This block can be lifted if the user can explain that they understand why that is so. This is without expressing an opinion about the image copyright issue; that can be addressed via WP:OTRS if need be.  Sandstein  14:19, 13 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.

Repeated deletion of blocked user's block appeal

This seems not right. Editor Dr.K., who had a user blocked in the first place, is repeatedly deleting this blocked user's block appeal. Rol 459302 (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be because the supposed "Unblock requests" are full of WP:OUTING and WP:NOTTHEM - as such, they are not valid unblock requests, and have now simply led to no chance of that person EVER being unblocked. Seeing as blocks apply to the person, not to the account, they've really screwed up badly. ES&L 08:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Might want to revdel those edits, and some of the edit summaries. Also might want to check for a WP:BOOMERANG on the OP, who registered and immediately came here... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Musarabbyahmad

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 needs to be reblocked [147]. Thank you in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

+ [148]--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 13 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.

Edit Summary violation and wrong editor Copperchloride blocked

(youtube videos cannot be provided as citations and photos of terrorists are not to be uploaded) this edit was rightly reverted by Copperchroide as Vandalism . Can such edit summary be removed as ths violates WP:BLP and WP:terrorist in the Seeman (director)|Seeman]] article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seeman_%28director%29&diff=576182396&oldid=576181823

Further a image removed without a proper edit summary stating it was copyright and was reverted and a user was blocked for it. Cut paste from the editor page. 1. I had only reverted his edits twice. And I have clearly explained why both stand justified. How does my case constitute edit warring for which I have been blocked?

2. The copyrighted image was on both Commons(and on another article Naam Tamilar Katchi for over a year or more since the last revision today), NOWHERE HAD I RE-INSERTED IT AFTER SOMEBODY LIKE User:SpacemanSpiff REMOVED IT AFTER DULY EXPLAINING EVERYTHING. Arlok simply blanked just about everything he pleased. It would be pretty much obvious to you. So the real reason of my block stands unclear.122.166.246.46 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

...you do realise that even if you have been wrongly blocked, evading it will only hurt, right? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Youtube videos cannot be provided as citations..." I could be wrong, but I think this is incorrect. I don't think there is an all out ban on YouTube citations.--Rockfang (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos may not be used as citations — in most situations. Lots of YouTube videos are copyright violations, and very few YouTube videos fit our definition of "reliable source", so most YouTube videos may not be used as citations except in statements about themselves; even then it's normally a bad idea, since the opinion of some random video uploader normally isn't relevant to the subject of the article. However, when a video consists of documentation from a reliable source, and when the video was uploaded by the copyright holder or by someone authorized by the copyright holder, we may use it as a citation. Nyttend (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE for a clearer statement of this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Umm, guys... Can we set aside the technicalities for a second and maybe actually deal with the edit summary where a user calls someone a terrorist? Clearly needs immediate RevDel and "only warning" for user. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for using vandalism in edit summary .Clearly using Terrorist in eidt summary is vandalism

Blocking admin states n the copyvio, I see that you were unaware of the copyright problem at the time, and so it is not a legitimate reason for a block. Just to clarify I am not the Editor Copperchloride.I am from Bangalore .I used edit only in Tamil Wikipedia and only read English Wikipedia. பெங்களூர் நாகேஷ் — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand and 122.166.246.46 are right. Calling someone in the Edit Summary as Terrorist might have provoked him/her to call the whole edit as Vandalism. For me Great Emperor Ashoka is one of the Worst Terrorists with his Conquest of Kalinga where he was walking through the grounds of Kalinga after his conquest, rejoicing in his victory, he was moved by the number of bodies strewn there and the wails of the kith and kin of the dead. But I wonder how many others will agree with me calling him as a Terrorist. So it is better to avoid these branding and provoke others emotions on the first place. I too don't see any legitimate reason for the block.Shivaass (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to ask the blocking admin. Oh, wait, that's me. I admit that I was wrong on the copyright violation, and have stated so on CuCl's talk page. I'll also publicly apologize here, since I do now realize that CuCl would not have known at the time of his/her revert that he was reinserting a copyvio, since that was discovered afterward.

Nonetheless, the other reasons for the block stand. Please understand that this is not even close to the first time CuCl has encountered this problem: that is, CuCl has regularly labelled editors that he is reverting as vandals, despite having been told a number of times that vandal has a very strict definition here and that using the term in appropriately is a personal attack. And for those that haven't looked clearly at it, please note that POV-pushing is explicitly listed as not vandalism. In this case, CuCl's revert may have been appropriate, but the regular NPAs have to stop. I don't know how to get the user to realize that they are unacceptable without this action. I'm hoping that CuCl will actually try to understand the relevant policy and change her/his tone. There are also borderline EW concerns here, but the NPA is the one that really prompted the block rather than just a warning from me. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: I have no clue whether or not you made a good block, as I haven't looked into it. All I see is that there's an edit that calls a living person a terrorist, and you are now the fourth admin to comment here without doing a fucking thing about it. This borders on dereliction of duty. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Nuked the edit summary in question, let me know if you see anything else that needs to be deleted from the history. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, you are correct PinkAmpersand that I should have paid more attention to that underlying concern rather than only the block. Thanks Mark Arsten for taking care of it. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if I lost my temper for a moment there. For the record, I thank SpacemanSpiff for the explanation below, but still think the RevDel was necessary, as if all of us could misunderstand it, so could others. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Just before any further misinterpretations, the edit summary with "terrorist" refers to the now deleted image of Velupillai Prabhakaran which was in the article, not of Seeman. The issue here is the Arlok identified some problems with the article (on my talk page) which were clear BLP violations. Copperchloride was clearly edit warring and reinserting some dubious statements which were BLP violations back in the article. The edit summary of Arlok wasn't any good, and neither was his hyperbolic statement on my talk page, but that was not vandalism and any editor in good standing should understand that a statement such as

He is a also a massive sympathizer of the Sri Lankan Tamil Cause and is a noteworthy acquaintance of Velupillai Prabhakaran the leader of the founder and the leader of the Tamil Tigers Movement in Sri Lanka, being one of the very few persons from India to have convened with him directly.

when sourced to this is nothing but a BLP vio per their statement that members post links to discuss and more importantly the source doesn't even state that he's connected to Prabhakaran. This is a case of a clear cut BLP vio that the original editor, a newbie, was removing but unable to explain himself. As far as CopperChloride, calling removal of BLP vios as vandalism is clearly not helpful. This is not the case of a wrong editor being blocked, you now have the blocked editor who was reinserting BLP vios now socking at ANI; it's just that we have a great tolerance for wikilawyers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't understand whom SpacemanSpiff accuses as shocking. But 122.166.246.46 is not Copperchloride, he is someone else. Better we should go for a CU. And if there was a BLP issue, that should have been told in advance.Shivaass (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW: Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony. This is what was lacking.Shivaass (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not Cooperchloride .Please every IP editing is ANI is not socking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to say ‘’’SpacemanSpiff’’’ statement totally inaccurate

The Image deleted had Seeman’s picture’s along with that of VP and the term ‘’’Terrorist’’’ clearly implies Seeman as well. A clear BLP violation and Arlok5 has been warned for his edit in the Siddharth Mallya article and he was clearly POV pushing. WP:AGF is double edged Arlok5 did not provide a valid Edit summary and also used ‘’’Terrorist’’’ in edit summary As per WP:Revert A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. Copperchroide failed to assume good faith and used the term vandal. This cannot be called edit warring as one needs to told clearly why he /she is being reverted as per WP:revert. The article was already in a bad shape with BLP issues even before these 2 started to edit the page.Arlok5 did not remove He is a also a massive sympathizer of the Sri Lankan Tamil Cause comment above even in his last edit. to say he was removing BLP violations and CC was stopping it is totally false. As Qwyrxian notes he was POV pushing. Further that comment can be cited with reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.246.46 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, let me clarify against User:SpacemanSpiff's assumptions, that I have neither initiated this discussion nor been aware of it until I was informed today morning. As for the block, I have done a heck lot of talking already on my talk page, but since it ran out after two days, I have moved on and resumed editing. As for the real dispute of course which I have extensively clarified my point in my talk page, User Arlok was obviously not just removing the portion which would have constituted the BLP violation(I doubt whether he'd probably even be aware of what it is as SpacemanSpiff tries to defend him), he eventually removed just about everything I had inserted. His only justification is that the content(and he refers to the person as well) being 'against the Union of India' apart from the absurd edit summaries he had given before. Please go through this as well. Additionally, his edits include 1 and 2 which clearly, imo constitutes vandalism since he had inserted pure nonsense into the wiki for the same reasons he had blanked mine. And that was when I reverted to a previous revision and my edit summary being: "Undo vandalism. POV Pushing.". The next time I checked into Wiki, I had a block in place. Although I have been involved in one or two earlier cases of edit warring in which User:Qwyrxian(in which case, the other editor too had conveniently coined Vandalism being the reason for reverting) had mediated, this incident was no intention to edit war or to insert violating content in.--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 13:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent contributions by User:Claritas

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.

---

If you're unfamiliar with Claritas' history, this discussion will probably tell you everything you need to know. Please note that having been denied an account rename in that discussion, Claritas is now using a misleading signature. On reviewing the Claritas account's recent contributions, I'm concerned that contrary to everything said during their second chance negotiations and all the promises made to Arbcom during the discussion I already linked, the account is still only here to remove material on fictional characters. But in fairness, some time has elapsed and there are, strictly speaking, no formal editing restrictions on the account. What do we think?—S Marshall T/C 23:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That diff is from the end of last year; I've read and reread your statement, but I'm not clear how it's relevant. Yes, he's filing AFDs lately, but we don't block people purely because they broke promises that they've made in the past — we block people when they violate conditions for unblocks, but unless I've overlooked something, the no-XFDs thing wasn't an unblock condition. Meanwhile, what's wrong with the signature that he's used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Soth? "Simone (Claritas)" isn't deceptive, and we've long permitted signatures that don't match the username; for example, User:Bkonrad signs everything as "older ≠ wiser", but there's nothing wrong with it, and I've never heard anyone complain at him about it. There's no User:Simone (Claritas), and as User:Simone's made exactly 53 edits in the last six years, pretty much nobody's going to know that such a user even exists, let alone think that Claritas is Simone. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• As some of you know I take a hard line on sock masters and I would not have unbanned this one. I agree with S Marshall that the edge is being played by this user in the area of name change and AfD participation. At best this is in remarkably poor taste, given the past ban, and at worst is actionable due to the editor's seeming continued fixation on removing material in an area already abused. And while it is true that the volume is not massive, S Marshall's concerns are well-founded. Jusdafax 00:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

(In reply to Nyttend) You're right that strictly speaking, the no-XFD thing wasn't an unblock condition. However, I think that this diff is relevant. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the community relied on Claritas' promise to stay away from AfD when deciding to grant the unblock. As far as the misleading signature is concerned, I agree with you about the Lord Soth AfD, but my concern is about this one: isn't this an attempted end-run around the consensus not to allow an account rename?—S Marshall T/C 00:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you've participated in this discussion, you have almost no chance of knowing that there's a User:Simone, so I don't think it's confusing or otherwise inappropriate. But then, you allege that he's broken a promise that was part of an unblock discussion. Could you provide a diff or other link? I would be likely to change my mind if given such a link. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops, never mind; I missed the "this diff" link. I'd still like to see a link to the discussion, but this is suddenly substantially more serious and substantially more likely to result in a reblock. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I linked the relevant discussion in my first post. That's all there was; it was archived after that. I have not asked for a re-block and I think a re-block would be disproportionate in the circumstances. I'm looking for a consensus about whether Claritas should be participating in fictional character AfDs without writing any content, and for a consensus that Claritas should use a signature that clearly identifies the account, and for Claritas to be formally advised of these consensuses going forward.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 10 October 2013

I'm confused. Looks to me as if NewYorkBrad's referring to a community unblock discussion; did I misread something? Do we have community unblock discussions at the clarification and amendments page? Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting a topic ban from fictional character AfDs and an editing restriction to use a signature containing their name. I guess the question becomes: what evidence of recent problems is there? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Is there anything wrong with the XfD nominations themselves? That is, if it was anyone else nominating these articles for deletion with the same rationales, would there be a problem? No. Since Claritas is not under any editing restrictions, and is not acting disruptively in any way, this is a frivolous complaint best summed up as WP:IDONTLIKECLARITAS. Reyk _YO! 00:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  If I understand rightly, the thing is that the nominations are somewhat disruptive and that Claritas essentially agreed to a self-ban from XFDs. Put those two together, and Claritas might be blockable for a combination of disruption and violating an unblock condition. More evidence is needed before I solidly say anything. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  It's not my position that Claritas should be blocked. The unban discussion is not very illuminating but here it is.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for the link — I simply didn't know where to find it; I wasn't trying to force you to prove something. I misunderstood and thought you meant that the XFDs thing was part of the unblock discussion, rather than being simply something that he said. I now agree that a block wouldn't help now. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was part of the unban discussion and I agree with Newyorkbrad that it clearly influenced the participants in that discussion. I think that Claritas is under a de facto topic ban from AfDs concerning fictional characters. But it's not the kind of crystal clear case that should lead to an immediate block because Claritas has never been notified of any editing restrictions.—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I dunno. You can't just say to someone "You said X, and a year later you changed your mind. You haven't caused any trouble for anyone in that year, and X isn't actually an editing restriction, but I wish it was and so I will behave as though it is. Oh, and I don't like your sig." Reyk _YO! 01:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Reyk, what's true is that you like and support Claritas. You've said as much before. I don't; I'll freely admit to disliking accounts that behave like that. And I think that when people have been denied renames, it's because users need to be view their edits in the light of their history and reputation.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. But we both know you'd never have brought this here if Claritas was inclusionist-leaning, so I think that works both ways. You'll find my "support", as you call it, is not unqualified; I did not support all of Claritas's unblock requests and I have criticised much of their past behaviour. Go back and check if you don't believe me. The facts remain: Claritas has not disrupted anything for almost a year after being unblocked. There is no requirement that signatures match user names, so long as they link back to the user page- which this one does. There are no editing restrictions, so as far as I am concerned Claritas has all the same editing rights as everyone else, which includes participating in AfDs and, yes, even changing your mind about things. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Wait, what? I don't think that's fair. I don't have a record of seeking sanctions against anyone, deletionist or not. I have very few edits to this page or to any other of the drama boards.—S Marshall T/C 01:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
          • You're essentially accusing me of excusing Claritas's bad behaviour (for which you've shown no evidence) just because I like Claritas. Yet if I suggest the converse, that you are interpreting completely benign things Claritas does as disruptive based on your personal dislike, and that you wouldn't see the actions of someone you agree with in the same way, somehow that's unfair? Reyk _YO! 04:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Actually the sequence of events was:- First, you accused me of wanting Claritas blocked because, you allege, I don't like them. (This was your very first post in this thread.) I answered by saying I don't want Claritas blocked and you do like Claritas. Then you said if Claritas was an inclusionist then I wouldn't be here. I replied that that's not fair and there's no basis for saying it, because I've never started a thread on AN/I for this purpose before in all my years of editing Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, regardless, it looks like you're asking for a topic ban from fictional character AfDs and an editing restriction about their (non-standard but not problematic by itself) sig. We can talk about influences and guess at people's motivations, but it looks like there was no actual restriction from AfDs placed or agreed-to, and nobody in the unblock thread even mentions such a restriction, so IMO arguing that he violated some kind of unspoken unblock conditions is a non-starter, and we would need evidence of recent problems to contemplate those sanctions. If "a consensus about whether Claritas should be participating in fictional character AfDs without writing any content, and for a consensus that Claritas should use a signature that clearly identifies the account, and for Claritas to be formally advised of these consensuses going forward" somehow isn't a topic ban, well, that doesn't need to be on ANI. Start a RFC/U or something, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Look, here's the deal. If Claritas wants to challenge articles at AFD, that's his prerogative. If the challenged subjects pass GNG or a special guideline, they will survive. If not, they will go. That's the way AfD works. My experience is that these challenges are mostly with merit — they aren't off the wall. Are they annoying? Yes, if one is an affected content creator, sure. Are they necessary? Mostly probably not. But there are deletionist editors who hate "County X-Country Y Relations" articles and editors who hate articles about pop songs, or small bands, or small companies, or politicians, or highways, or whatever. They make their challenges and they either succeed or fail at AfD on their merits. Claritas is no different. As a self-described inclusionist, I defend his right to be a deletionist. The rule of law does prevail at AfD — it is probably the most consistent and "just" aspect of the entire Wikipedia project. Just leave Claritas the hell alone is my advice. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I defend anyone's rights to be a deletionist, but I think when >90% of someone's contributions are to AfD and basically arguing with others, then it could be argued that this is a battleground mentality, and that wikipedia isn't a punching bag-type therapy where one can make oneself feel better by taking it out on others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Question: What percentage of the nominations end up in deletions? There is a big difference between nominating lots of articles that most people agree should be deleted and nominating lots of articles that most people agree should be kept. --06:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Judging from this, the majority end up as delete or merge. Reyk _YO! 06:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While his general AfD percentage could appear not so catastrophic, you cannot put on the same plane delete and merge outcomes. Tecnically an AfD discussion which ends in a merge outcome should be considered for keeping, not for deleting the article's contens. And I also should note that this year (better, this week) he nominated 4 articles for deletion, and none of them is/is going to be deleted. If you call for stats, you need to analyze them more carefully. Cavarrone 08:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Claritas's AfD nominations are based on the claim that the articles would not be notable, and per WP:FAILN and WP:ATD-M, a merge is a valid alternative to deletion in case of non-notability. That some of the AfDs resulted in merge outcomes only means consensus essentially validated the AfD rationales (ie it's not "keep"), as Merge is one of the outcome options that can be considered at a deletion discussion. I !voted "merge" in some of Claritas' AfDs, I fully support their rationale and reject any reinterpretation of my comments as meaning "keep" in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• (In reply to Carrite) It's not his prerogative. This is a user who was site-banned for serial sockpuppetry in fictional-character related AfDs. The user came back on the strength of a promise to stop socking and start writing content. The user then asked for a rename and clean start, and was denied it and told not to start any AfDs for six months. After making no contributions at all for more than six months, the user's come back and done nothing but participate in fictional-character-related deletion discussions. My position is that while in the normal course everyone's entitled to participate in AfD, Claritas has forfeited that entitlement by abusing it and repeating the behaviour they promised not to repeat as part of their unban negotiations.—S Marshall T/C 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Without taking sides, as it were, one could see being told "don't do xFDs for six months", making no edits at all for six months, and then returning to a primarily-xFD editing style, as WP:WIKILAWYERING with regards to the restriction, if one was of a mind to do so, seeing as the clear intent of the restriction was to allow non-xFD editing during that period to establish a pattern of reformed behavior (or not). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, in the general case, you're right. The problem with this specific case is that there was no such restriction. There was exactly one person, who opposed the unblock anyway, who even mentioned such a thing. Yes, Claritas mentioned on their talk page that they'd be willing to undergo such a restriction, but nobody ever said, "yes, that restriction is a good idea, let's do it." Certainly, the unblocking admin (ReaperEternal) made no mention at all of it. How can we possibly say that someone is guilty of violating a restriction nobody even spoke about? Frankly, I don't buy this "they were unblocked on the strength of their promise to avoid XfDs"--if they were, then you'd think that at least one person supporting the unblock would've, y'know, mentioned it or something, especially considering how much they did mention mentoring. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm User:Simone. Wikipedia notified me that someone named me in this discussion. I didnt read all (seems pretty long) but I can tell you that I never heard Claritas. I'm italian, I used to help the italian wikipedia (I did thousands of edits in the italian version). I hope that this post can be usefull. SγωΩηΣ ^tαlk 17:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Can we just close this? No action was sought, no action needs undertaking; in fact, it's obvious no action should be undertaken. I'm not interested in people's motives here, but this is just eating up time that would be better used on actual problems, not a mild matter such as this. No sockpuppetry has been found to have taken place, and it's clear that no actual topic ban existed, however much some people wish there was one. Going back on agreements one made a significant time in the past isn't exactly uncommon, or even objectionable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If there really is a consensus here that Claritas is once again welcome to participate in AfDs on fictional characters, then I will of course accept it. But your contention that "no action was sought" is inaccurate.—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No, not accurate at all. Given the editor's major socking at Afd, ban, unban promises, defacto name change despite denial of name change permission, and current renewal of Afd editing, I'd say a one year topic ban at Afd is not at all unreasonable. Jusdafax 23:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this user is "right" at AFD or not, the problem we have here is that Claritas has a history of being deceptive and unable to keep to promises. As a condition for his unban, he offered a voluntary restriction from AFD participation, which gained him a fair amount of support at the unban discussion. However, he very quickly went back to heavy AFD participation until he was called out on this, and maintained that "OK, this time for real" he would stay away from AFD. He appears to have done so for several months, but here we are back again at AN/I for more of the same. I don't think an imposed topic ban is the least bit unreasonable at this point. BOZ (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The fake signature is a direct WP:SCRUTINY violation. Putting that together with broken promises, it's clear that that user is WP:NOTHERE to actually contribute to the discussion. Going back to the topic ban, indefinitely, would be a good thing. It's also not true that AfDs are kept or not solely based on their merits--often times, a plethora of similar, sequential AfDs drives down participation from the community at large, and amounts to a nose count among those with time to invest, which is far from a consensus-based model. Removing Claritas would not harm AfD at all, and in fact would almost certainly improve it. If there's one thing that I've seen about previously identified sockpuppetteers who've returned to Wikipedia editing, it is that they don't really care about anything except for getting their own way. Consensus-based dialogue is generally absent in discussions with Claritas and similar partisans. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SCRUTINY deals with the use of multiple accounts. Claritas has not been accused of using multiple accounts in the current period, so far as I am aware. There are no formal or informal sanctions against the filing of AfDs. A deletionist believes that enforcing GNG and Special Notability Guidelines is improving the encyclopedia, just like a gnome might feel that fixing spacing errors or standardizing spelling is improving the encyclopedia; WP:NOTHERE also would not seem to apply. Carrite (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

SCRUTINY deals with concealing past identity to avoid current behavior being associated with past misbehavior. Whether or not such an attempt is halfway effective or not doesn't really factor in: the act of any previously-sanctioned user to conceal his or her identity violates the spirit of collaborative editing and reputation-based interaction. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong on three counts. WP:SCRUTINY talks about multiple accounts and nothing else, it says nothing about signatures. Nor does it say the rules are different for editors who have been sanctioned in the past. Nor is Claritas doing this to conceal their identity; these edits knock that idea right on the head. You're like Humpty Dumpty- policies always mean precisely what you want them to mean, no more and no less, regardless of what they actually say. Reyk _YO! 04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Whether you like Claritas or not, labelling them as WP:NOTHERE is a barefaced personal attack, since they clearly are attempting to improve the encyclopedia, regardless of if you like them or not, Jclemens, or if their methods are strictly orthodox. Also, how is it a fake signature? The signature may be named differently, but it still points to his account, does it not? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether you like it or not, there are nine separate headings in WP:NOTHERE describing types of inappropriate behavior, and Claritas has behaved in as many as five of those nine ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Firstly, sign your post. Secondly, WP:NOTHERE very clearly states that Focusing on particular processes and Difficulty in good faith, with conduct norms are not violations of that guideline. Since these are the two things people are complaining about most, NOTHERE doesn't apply, and saying that Claritas is violating this is an obvious and barefaced personal attack. Claritas isn't wandering around vandalizing articles, isn't socking anymore, and isn't spending all of their time at ANI/AN whining about any users. Their approach may be controversial and unconventional, but they ARE here to improve a part of the encyclopedia that needs a LOT of work. End of. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd agree that Claritas is genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia. I think Claritas' deletionist zeal is badly needed in topic areas such as fringe science and marginal BLPs, and I wish Claritas would shift focus. However, we have to accept that there's no prospect of this happening without the community's help. Claritas is here to delete material on fictional characters and for no other purpose, and will not voluntarily change track. By itself this would be within acceptable Wikipedian norms, but it's combined with quite extreme views on that one subject, which makes dealing with Claritas expensive in volunteer time. Too expensive.

  Everyone's entitled to the assumption of good faith, until there's evidence of bad faith. At that point the assumption of good faith ends, so I'm under no duty to assume good faith of Claritas. I'll believe their promise to stop socking when they keep their other promises to stop focusing on fictional characters and start writing content. Since Claritas needs the community's help to keep these promises, I propose a community editing restriction. Let's say:- First, do not start new AfDs relating to fictional characters; and second, participate in no more than one fictional character-related AfD per week. This editing restriction should be reviewed by the community, whenever Claritas wants, with a presumption that it will be removed when and if Claritas keeps their promise to create some content.—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The original sin was sockpuppetry. Simone recognized the error and came back vowing not to do that again. So long as he does that, we should extend him the courtesy extended to everyone else: to attempt to improve the encyclopedia as he sees fit. I appreciate that there will be content creators in the "fictional characters" subject area who will not appreciate his efforts. Trust in AfD to defend what is defensible. Don't start pieces which can't survive — it's not difficult to steer away from pages which can not survive scrutiny. The signature isn't a violation either of a policy or guideline or the spirit of a policy or guideline. Just leave Claritas alone. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• The original sin was disruptive behaviour at AfD, and Claritas repeatedly offered an indefinite, self-imposed topic ban which he's now weaselling his way out of.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Again, there's a big difference between being a net negative, and being WP:NOTHERE. Claritas repeatedly offered the topic ban, but it was never officially enforced; any self-imposed sanction can last for as long as, or as short as, the user wants. It wasn't even officially part of the unban/unblock stuff, as much as some people seem to want it to have been; therefore, there is no reason to sanction Claritas at this time. He is not being particularly disruptive right now, the argument over the signature is lame to say the least, and I believe the majority of his AfDs (which aren't flooding in) have merit. This thread should be closed, as I said before. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Concur, S Marshall offers no evidence of Claritas' bad faith, outside of their views on fictional characters that S Marshall obviously doesn't share at all, but are nonetheless grounded in policy and shared by many others. From what I see, this discussion failed to reach consensus that Claritas would have relapsed into blockable behavior, on the contrary they have respected Arbcom conclusions by voluntarily keeping away from AfDs for 6 months. Their number of AfD participation since then certainly isn't unreasonably high, and per Afd stats the opinion provided is within standards. I see no reason for editing restrictions, deletionism, even extreme, isn't offensive behavior. Besides, if Claritas was restricted per the above request, then should we follow the logic and also restrict those users with equally "extreme" inclusionist views on fictional characters, whose AfD stats probably took a deep plunge recently ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• My problem was with battleground mentality whereby nearly every edit is in some conflict area with virtually no content building - serially attempting to remove others' content as ones' sole contribution I see as disruptive. And this is the problem I have with your contributions as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Personalizing content issues is never a good option. Of course, if you see removing content for whatever reason (OR, POV, notability...) as removing someone's content, that's gonna create tensions. If editors in the fiction area could feel less emotional attachment to "their" content, then AfD certainly wouldn't be as drama-filled it now is. But the point is, we have guidelines for fiction, and sometimes, something needs to be done about it. That some users will be pissed off by it is unavoidable, but that's otherwise part of how WP works. That's what I meant by my last sentence, there are certainly users who think you're being disruptive by wanting to keep absolutely everything, but the solution is to be objective, to work together and to stop trying to knock each other from the board.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel, you are of course a user in reasonably good standing on en.wiki and your community bans on fr.wiki and it.wiki don't affect your account here; but I found your (unanimous) ban discussion on fr.wiki intriguing. I think it explains exactly why you're so interested in this discussion and taking it so personally. I also think it aligns exactly with what you've just said. I think you genuinely do see inclusionism as an emotional attachment to content.—S Marshall T/C 09:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're the one still insisting that Claritas be sanctionned, despite obvious disagreement that there would be an imperious need to do so. That this comes barely a few weeks after the failed TTN report doesn't surprise me, neither does your genuine and avowed hostility towards what you label as "extreme deletionism". I have no particular affinity with Claritas, I don't condone the use of sockpuppetry to further the deletionist (or inclusionist) cause, and if it was established that they have relapsed into such behavior I would support sanction, but if they have done nothing actionable, they should be left alone. I'm starting to take it personally because you have suggested that an opinion itself could be cause for sanction, and there are certainly users in this very thread who have labeled me an "extremist" before, so naturally I want to protect my account against a possible renewed hunt for deletionists. And yes, when certain users speak about "someone's content" and not merely "content", I think we've touched the heart of the problem.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. Personalizing content generally is a bad idea. It's not quite so bad to personalize your own, since it's understandable to be upset when your own work is deleted (and you put everything up in good faith), but generally attacking people who nominate things for deletion, as S Marshall has done so (and before you cry foul, S Marshall, you bringing up an irrelevant banning discussion elsewhere is very much in line with this) is not helpful. And I'm neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist, before someone tries to throw that onto me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• That was a specific discussion of Folken de Fanel's indefinite ban on fr.wiki, which is pursuant to a French arbitration concerning disruptive deletion attempts on fictional content there, and is relevant to Claritas because of the obvious similarities. This is very far from being a general attack on people who nominate things for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's not relevant whatsoever; as you stated, "you are of course a user in reasonably good standing on en.wiki" - bringing up the bans elsewhere is a deliberate attempt to discredit Folken de Fanel and their statements, and you know that. I'm still displeased this thread remains open, for obvious reasons. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:22, 14 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.

Does this require action? (Ijustreadbooks)

Yesterday, Ijustreadbooks (talk · contribs) made 25 edits and deletions to the article Paul Robeson. I suggested on his talk page that he use the preview feature or the sandbox, and reverted two edits.

On the article's talk page, he called my edits a "waste of bytes" and "too low brow".

On my talk page, he told me "you have 24 hours" to delete an edit, and "your edits were terrible".

Thank you. Richard Apple (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1. All true
2. His reverted my edits, I did not revert his edits, yet.
3. He has 23 hours now to revert his edits. His edits added too many bytes to the article.
4. His edits were terrible and not helpful. They destroyed the structure of the legacy section.
5. This is a dispute over content. He added too much detailed content. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• 23 hours to remove them according to what? Doc talk 12:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am requesting him unrevert my edits. I will eventually unrevert my edits. I am requesting he unrevert his edits. His actions were inappropriate. I have 2000+ edits in the article, and I gave up looking for the number of edits he has after lower than 7. 23 hours for reverting his edits, his edits will be reverted today, tomorrow, new week, next month, or next year- I am in for the long haul. I request he unrevert my edits ASAP. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't own the article, but his edits were really terrible. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

and a total waste of bytes, and completely redundant, in an article that is way too long as it is. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• With this account you don't have 2,000+ edits to the article. Is this your first named account, and you used IPs before it? Doc talk 12:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ijustreadbooks' deletions are extensive, and I see no consensus for them on the talk page, so I have reverted them. Since they are contentious, IJRB needs to discuss his proposed changes and get a consensus from other editors for them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think he means that he has over 2000 edits. 1357 to Bert Bell and 583 to Paul Robeson since his account was created on 24 Jun 2012. The editors work includes really only these two pages with 117 edits to Talk:Paul Robeson and 23 edits to Talk:Bert Bell. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, the editor said quite clearly that he or she has "2000+ edits in that article". It would be very difficult to have that number of edits in the article without being one of the two main contributors to it, 66.234.33.8 (talk · contribs), who has 1404 edits, or Catherine Huebscher (talk · contribs) who has 1264. It just so happens that Catherine Heubscher is an indef blocked editor, blocked for sockpuppetry. I would suggest that it might be worthwhile for a CU to take a look at the relationship between Ijustreadbooks, Catherine Huebscher and 66.234.33.8. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I read it the same way that they had "2,000+ edits in the article", not 2,000 total edits. CU would not publicly connect any IP to any named account, but the possibility of a CH connection is intriguing. Doc talk 13:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• It looks to me as if Ijustreadbooks = 66.234.33.8 = Catherine Huebscher. The tight focus on Robeson is the key factor, plus the fact that Huebscher's indef block was not only for sockpuppetry but also for disruptive editing and personal attacks, which seems to be in line with the attitude that Ijustreadbooks projects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• If the CU confirms Catherine Heubscher is IJRB would that be a problem? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@CG: Yes, it would have been, since CH is indef blocked for sockpuppetry, edit warring and general disruptive editing. If she is editing under any IP (which she did after being blocked), that is block evasion, which is de facto disruptive. As I wrote below, I no longer believe that IJRB/66.xx is CH, so that question appears to me to be moot in regard to this discussion, but the general point still stands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• The Catherine Heubscher account is likely far too stale for a CU to work on. A SPI may be in order. Doc talk 14:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

if the account is too stale for CU, than an SPI is not going to do anything that we can't do here by just looking at the editing patterns. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI is the correct place for that kind of investigation, not here. GiantSnowman 15:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

With a little more time available to me today, I looked more thoroughly at the contributions of CH, IJRB and 66.xxx.xx.x, and have concluded that it's very unlikely that IJRB/66.xx is CH, so I have not filed an SPI and I offer my apology to Ijustreadbooks for reaching the wrong conclusion last night. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not Caterine. Catherine does not do articles on NFL Commissioner's. I am 66.34, whatever ip address. Ijustreadbooks (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bert Bell Ijustreadbooks (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1357 edits in the Bell article, + 1268 + 100, Not really that tight of a focus on the Robeson article and Catherine reverted edits ad infinitum, she worshiped Robeson, and would only allow viewpoints from certain authors. Bottom line is this is completely redundant:

"Several public and private establishments he was associated with have been landmarked,"

"In 2002, a blue plaque was unveiled by English Heritage on the house in Hampstead where Robeson lived in 1929–30."

Also, I am probably the edition who put in the original edit that included the blue plaque statement :P

Maybe someone will some day respond to me on the talk page, no one ever does https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Robeson&action=history Ijustreadbooks (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• It would be a shame for this to archive without action, given just how clearly Ijustreadbooks is attempting to WP:OWN the article. Blanket reverts, threats, personal attacks... time for a topic ban from this article perhaps? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

self-promotional userpage

The userpage User:Kanagavel2win seems to be a bit too promotional, supported by the fact that these are the users only edits[149]. May be too minor for this board, but I didn't find another. --Túrelio (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Deleted as promotional. No worries about bringing that here, though bringing it to an admin personally would also have worked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• It seems to have been recreated again as a promotional page - I didn't see the original so can't say if it has improved at all. Perhaps the user needs a talking to? Organics^LRO 10:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Collingwood26

I'm asking for an uninvolved administrator to have a look at the edits of user:Collingwood26 and what looks like personal abuse on Nick-D's talk page. See [150]. Collingwood26 has made some dozen or so changes to the Canadian flag on the info box of War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) over the last year, variously deleting it or moving it. See examples [151], [152], [153] [154]. He has been reluctant to discuss this on the talk page, although after some encouragement, he has. He has repeatedly stated he has "facts" to support his actions although these have yet to be provided. Collingwood26's recent outburst on Nick-D's page seems to be about a short, perfectly proper discussion several days ago between me and user:Nick-D regarding his renewed edits to the Canadian flag on the info box of War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present). I raised it with Nick-D because frankly I wondered if it was worth the bother continuing. Unfortunately user:Collingwood26 has previously featured at ANI in these discussions; [155] and [156] Nickm57 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that 1) the discussion on my talk page which Collingwood26 is abusing me over actually concluded before the discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Canada in which he's claiming that I'm going behind his back and 2) Collingwood26 has form in attacking me and trolling more generally, and has been blocked for this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive769#Renewed personal attacks by Collingwood26, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Collingwood26: concerns about POV-driven editing and extreme talk page posts. The long-running edit warring in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) appears to be part of his Australian nationalism-driven editing: the goal is to belittle the Canadian contribution to the war while puffing up the Australian contribution, and he's never provided any sources to support his contention that Australia's role in the war has been more significant. Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not about Canada/Afghanistan. I thought me and Nick-D had worked that out, also how are my edits nationalism-driven? Was it nationalism driven when I put Germany, France, and Italy behind Britain and above Australia? No because I am fair and acknowledge their roles in the war.

This is not about Canada/Afghanistan, let me reiterate that once more. This is about how I recieved no response from Nick-D after I made a very public apology to him, then when I went to his talk page to write him a message of friendship, here I see him and NickM collaborating against me. How do you think that makes me feel?--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It should make you feel sad that your actions were so bad that they started a chain of events in motion that had taken on a life of their own, so that by the time your made the decision to apologize, more than an apology was going to be needed. It should make you feel sad that you were shortsighted about the effects of your original altercation. It should make you feel sad that had you apologized sooner (or not made the behaviours at all), you could have resolved things much easier and much gentler. Finally, it should make you glad that the article is being fixed as per both policy AND consensus with or without your help, as is the nature of Wikipedia. ES&L 09:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to be rude, but what are you talking about ESAL? I don't understand what you mean? Why is this my fault when I was the one to apologise? Where's my apology from Nick?--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What I said was that if you had done something bad enough that you had felt the need to go back and apologize, then perhaps you should not have done that thing in the first place. Now you forced people to discuss you and your edits elsewhere in order to try and resolve the problems - you shouldn't have been surprised by that fact when you had showed yourself to be difficult to work collaboratively with earlier ES&L 10:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I don't like being ignored by someone when I'm trying to apologise to them, even worse he didn't have to write those things about me behind my back.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Well actually, this conversation is about your dozen or more edits to the Canadian flag on War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present), and nothing else. All you have illustrated here is that you are either unable to reflect on what you've done on that page over the last twelve months, or that you are unwilling to do so. Which I assume means your edits were totally without foundation. Nickm57 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC) But while I'm at it - this edit here "Is this really note-worthy?" [157] at Talk:United States federal government shutdown of 2013 doesn't inspire me with any confidence you understand the problem with your edits at Wikipedia.Nickm57 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26, please indent your replies so that the conversation can be followed. I've taken the liberty of properly formatting the section here, please be sure to properly thread the discussion in the future. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't NickM57, maybe you need to look into Nick-D and my conversation with him on talk page War in Afghanistan, where we completely resolved that. Think before you write next time.--Collingwood26 (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, what Collingwood26 needs to do for a conclusion (on this page) to this matter is a) make an acknowledgement of and apology for the personal abuse of Nick-D that occurred here [158] and make an undertaking never to do this again to any editor and b) make an acknowledgement of the inappropriate edit-warring and an undertaking never to do this again. Nickm57 (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What personal abuse? Also I already apologised to Nick-D, now it is his turn and somewhat NickM57 as well to apologise to me, you were talking behind my back about me in a negative light. You are meant to notify an editor if you are talking about them, neither NickM57 nor Nick-D notified me, THAT is why I am angry and deserve an apology.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot "force" anyone to talk to you, and "demanding an apology" is fruitless - apologies cannot be forced. The short form appears to be this: you screwed up, people got mad. They're not ready to forgive and forget yet. Stop your improper behaviour (if you have not already), back away, and rebuild a more positive reputation from scratch - THAT is the way to make friendlier discussions ES&L 10:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope - that protocol applies to notifying an editor they have been reported here at ANI, not that their edit warring has been discussed on someone's talk page. So it's pretty clear - you have no intention of changing your habits. Nickm57 (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Collingswood26, please indent your replies. Not indenting makes a discussion nearly impossible to follow. (Also continued refual to properly format after being asked to do so can be considered disruptive). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No that protocol applies in a general sense when negatively talking about another editor, in those circumstances you are required to notify that editor, you nor Nick-D notified me of your intentions. You are in the wrong. Also to Bushranger, sorry but I don't know how to indent?--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood, you're starting to become your own worst enemy. Discussions about your behaviour can take place ANYWHERE without you being notified or invited. There's NO requirement to invite you. However, once you are reported to an admin noticeboard, you ARE required to be advised. You were properly notified of this ANI discussion 3 minutes after it was opened. Let me repeat my advice above, and I hope you pay close attention to it so that we can close this timesink: "The short form appears to be this: you screwed up, people got mad. They're not ready to forgive and forget yet. Stop your improper behaviour (if you have not already), back away, and rebuild a more positive reputation from scratch - THAT is the way to make friendlier discussions" (oh, and read WP:TPG while you're at it) ES&L 12:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

How did I screw up? People didn't get mad I got mad because as I was apologising both Nicks were chatting about me negatively. How Is my behaviour improper when they didn't properly notify me of their intentions?--Collingwood26 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

See the ::: before this comment? That's how you indent; you just add another one for each comment so that it's indented one ":" more than the one before it. Also, they are not required to notify you of anything when they're discussing you on their talk pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely that User:MyVoiceIsHeard is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia

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

---

Resolved

It seems likely that MyVoiceIsHeard (talk · contribs) is WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia.

The user was initially blocked for disruptive editing which included changing the sourced percentages of people to unsourced numbers. It was clearly explained to them that doing so was not allowed: [159] Within their first three edits back from the expiration of their block, the user jumped back in to do the same thing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering the dubious demography-related edits and stuff such as this, it's probably better if this voice is no longer heard here. Blocked indefinitely.  Sandstein  14:31, 13 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.

Copyvios by User:America789

User:America789 has been plagiarizing several articles up until now, even after I had warned him about it in April. The following passage in its entirety was ripped from parts of this blog post in this edit: "The Army does not intend to spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market. Up to 140 candidates are being considered. Due to budget constraints, the selection process has a relatively tight deadline of 24 months. The field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a requirements document that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors. After a light tank is selected, the Army will buy a handful for testing and turn them over to the XVIII Airborne Corps for trials. The plan is called 4-14-44: four vehicles at the platoon level, 14 at company level, and 44 for a full battalion..." Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Even despite today's notice, this user is still creating violations: [160]. Among other close paraphrases in this edit, we've got "expressing his government’s opposition to British military operations against Boer (Dutch) settlers in South Africa. and need for prohibiting military small arms projectiles “which aggravate wounds and increase suffering” focused on the British RL2 9402, Mk III .303 bullet," Suggest a block to minimize harm. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The disputed section on M8 Armored Gun System has been rewritten. On .303 British, the section in question was not written word for word from the reference; instead you did rewrite it that way here, adding in words I did not write. Just because parts of a sentence were written from the reference, and not all of it, does not mean I am plagiarizing. America789 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you did write the words, at least the ones in italics. Even for some of of the words not in italics, all you did was change the derivation (for prohibiting → to prohibit) or the word order (e.g. The Netherlands representative → A representative from the Netherlands. That you wrote this is the same voice and in the same chronological order as the article tells me that all you are doing is copy-pasting the article. Please read WP:Close paraphrase. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Then there's this edit: "Elton said that the upgrade, which has so far provided 14 aircraft that (The Stinger gunships) have been deployed to Afghanistan, was needed to replace the aging AC-130H gunship and provide an example for the new AC-130J Ghostrider. Modifications began with crews cutting holes in the plane to make room for weapons, and adding kits and bomb bases for laser-guided munitions. Crews have added a 105-millimeter (mm) cannon, 20-inch (in) infrared and electro-optical sensors (,) and the ability to carry 250-pound bombs on the wings." The italic text are America789 words and the words in round brackets where his words differed from the source text. A whole sentence and the following sentence (with the exception of an added unnecessary serial comma and two abbreviations) are straight from the article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit: "(The) Air Force Special Operations Command wants (the ability) to pack up an MQ-9 Reaper in less than eight hours, fly it anywhere in the world aboard a C-17 (Globemaster III), and then unpack it and have it ready to fly in another eight hours." and "MQ-1 and MQ-9 drones must fly aboard cargo aircraft to travel long distances because they (the) unmanned aircraft don't have the refueling technology or the speed (to travel themselves)." plagiarizes this source. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have opened a CCI request. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Useddenim

I'll try to keep this short this time, since an admin didn't comment on the last report. Useddenim began proposing changes to Template:ETS LRT route on 15 August 2013, and a discussion went back and forth on what to do with it until 8 September 2013, when Useddenim left the conversation. I continued to make proposals, on 9 September 2013, 14 September 2013, and 2 October 2013, and asked him to rejoin the discussion on 19 September 2013, 20 September 2013, 30 September 2013, and echoed him on 2 October 2013. He acknowledged the discussion on 5 October 2013, but without a reply to my propsed change (WP:SILENCE), I made the edit on 11 October 2013. Useddenim then reverted it, without detailing his rationel on the talk, and reverted it a second time without explaination. I have made it obvious that I am open for discussion, directing discussion to the pages where concerned editors will see it, and replied to all of Useddenim's comments. Useddenim has "boldly" edited without much discussion, and despite my many warnings, makes edits he know is controversial without participating in discussions. 117Avenue (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, and thus not an AN/I matter? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You couldn’t get anyone to censure me last week so you’re reporting me to ANI again? That is just so petty. Useddenim (talk) 03:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to have a dispute when the one side does not talk. Is it not disruptive editing when a user vandalizes or edits against consensus without explanation? 117Avenue (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Cardenio.jpg opposed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

This image is nominated for deletion. I suggested the nominator to use FFD rather than NFCR. But Future Perfect at Sunrise interferes by removing the image in The History of Cardenio. After several reverts in both pages, he threatens to block me or Beyond My Ken if either of us remove the tags again. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, FPAS feels that admins are privileged editors, per the edit summary: "Next time a non-admin removes this tag, they will be blocked". (emphasis added) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• FPaS is correct about this not meeting the criteria, period. We can replace this poster with a poster for a pre-1923 production (for example), or a US production from before 1970-ish which had no copyright notice. Y'all need to calm down. The non-admin bit was likely meant so that individuals who are hoped to have a better understanding of Speedy can see it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Crisco, that is not correct, please take a closer look at FPAS' actions, including his filing of an editorial opinion in the deletion discussion. The edit summary was clearly meant as a threat, and FPAS did nothing to disabuse me of that in commentary on his talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    • When we're talking about another editor's actions, we are kinda supposed to WP:AGF. I don't support FPAS' edit summary, but I understand the sentiment (as I've written above). In the case of CSD, particularly as clear-cut as this, it may feel pointless to wait however long FFD is taking nowadays. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
      • • It really is irrelevant how long FPAS feels like waiting. A community discussion has been opened, there is a legitimate dispute which needs to be settled, and FPAS does not, simply because he is an admin, get to override community processes just because he anxious to delete, as you suggest he may be. In the context of the deletion discussion, the edit summaries at File:cardenio.jpg and The History of Cardenio and the commentary on his talk page, there is no reasonable interpretation of FPAS' edit summary except as a threat aimed at those who have taken a contrary position. This is especially true in the light of the previous RFC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
      • In WP:NFCR, he treats that review as a "deletion discussion", although it's not supposed to be. --George Ho (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
        • You are correct that it is not. However that has no pertinence to the use or lack of use of a CSD tag, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Being technical, eh? Anyway, I tried to reach the original uploader, but he is blocked for sockpuppetry. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Yes, his blocking was in part the result of his using his sockfarm in harassing of me - see this. This is why I have no particular emotional connection to the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say, if you really want to keep the image, make an article on the 2002 production. Then it would meet NFCC #1 for that article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, reverting this is clearly valid, as uploaders / creators are not to remove CSD tags. Period. See WP:CSD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not the image creator or uploader, I merely cleaned it up at one point, and previous versions were deleted as non-free. The edit history of the image will confirm this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• And uploaded a new version. Thus, you are an uploader. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh pish-tosh, a technicality, and not the point of the rule. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps not the point, but the "word of the law" is quite adamant that you would be included. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Fine, trout me, then, if you feel you must, but let's not lose the focus here, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Crisco, please read the article section where the image was included. No pertinent images would exist prior to 1994 as that is when The Second Maiden's Tragedy was first claimed to be a slightly altered version of The History of Cardenio. FPaS is arguing that the image is replaceable because he says the information can be covered sufficiently with plain text. He made four reverts to remove the image, but claims it is an "obvious violation" of the NFCC per the preceding argument and therefore exempt. I do not believe he can validly claim the 3RR exemption in this case.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The History of Cardenio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and File:Cardenio.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should help. Is that not enough? Is further discussion unnecessary, like FFD? George Ho (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The larger point here is that admins are indeed charged with enforcing our NFCC policy to the best of their understanding, but it is the communuity as a whole which decides how the policy is to be applied. If an admin such as FPAS runs into good-faith objections from editors in good standing, and a deletion discussion is opened, the admin needs to step back and await the result of the community discussion. Admins do not make policy, or, ultimately, decide how policy should be applied, they follow the community's lead. If the deletion discussion were to result in the image being delete, I'd have absolutely no problem with that, and wouldn't even bring it to DR (if there were grounds). What is not acceptable to me, or I imagine to George Ho, is for an admin to usurp the community's perogative when they come face to face with community resistance to their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Further, as I commented on his talk page, FPAS cites policy from WP:3RR allowing him to edit war in enforcing NFCC, but that policy clearly says that the immunity is only valid in cases where it is "unquestioned" that the material violates the policy. Here, there obviously is a question, since there is a deletion discussion under way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some perspective: If the CSD tag on the article is left alone, the file could be deleted on the 15th. If the FFD discussion is allowed to go on, the file could be deleted on the 20th. Compare this to the fact that the image has been in the article for more than 2 years; I don't see the rush. Are these 5 extra days worth fighting about? In either direction? It seems fairly obvious to me it doesn't meet NFCC, but it also seems fairly obvious to me that BMK is making a good faith objection, and he's not crazy. If it's as obvious as I think it is, it will be deleted on the 20th. BMK: FP@S can be abrasive, but he's very often right. FP@S: BMK can be abrasive, but he's very often right. People like you two often bump heads, and it takes time away from each of you that you could be spending being right about something else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I believe being right can only excuse so much and it does not change that he is also abrasive when he is wrong but thinks he is right. Do you think an admin should be making shaky claims of 3RR exemptions, edit-warring with two different editors, and then threatening to block both of them after making four reverts on one page and three reverts on another, most of them within a few hours, in a dispute where he is involved? He does that sort of thing enough that he is known for it (what you call being "abrasive") and that is not the sort of thing for which an admin should be known.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Even if the image unquestionably violated NFCC, I don't think the article removal and the CSD tag and the deletion discussion all need to be steadfastly warred into use simultaneously. Only one should've been considered important to address NFCC concerns. I'd say once the deletion discussion started, that would take precedence; it's no big deal if the CSD tag stays off at that point, and the article use remains, until the deletion discussion ends. Basically per Floquenbeam, there's no particular emergency, but I think FP@S' reaction was the more hasty in this case (I know it's more fashionable to blame both parties equally, but I think people learn less from those niceties). equazcion� 23:44, 13 Oct 2013 (UTC)

When an image is at FFD, it should not be removed from the offending articles until the FFD is completed, so that editors in the FFD can see the image in context. The few days it takes the FFD to close is not going to harm us under NFCC rules. Future's actions are out of line in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You people here are defending Future Perfect at Sunrise and shunning the image. But we haven't heard his comments here yet. We'll be patient for his awaiting comments. In the meantime, let's discuss his administration priviledges instead of the image. We have at least one admin scolding that person here. --George Ho (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I was asked to opine here. So I will. a) The image clearly violates NFCC, and FPaS is justified in removing it, b) threatening to block editors who disagree with him has the appearance of impropriety. He should instead ask the community to perform the block at WP:ANI or on an administrator talk page, c) edit warring was inappropriate from BMK. What's more, BMK actually had the audacity to taunt FPaS by WP:TEMPLARing him.[161]. d) BMK's removal of the {{rfu}} tags on the file was beyond inappropriate. First off, he didn't let the tag run its full course of one week; the proper course is to use the disputed tag. Second off, he used the rollback tool to revert FPaS. Third off, if he is going to assert the right to act as an administrator and remove the tag, then he needs to show the maturity and knowledge of an administrator, neither of which he showed here, given that the image is obviously replaceable fair use. e) It appears that Wikipedia has conflicting policies. One says that someone may removing a fair use image with invalid rationale as often as s/he likes; the other says that the image is supposed to remain on the article until the deletion process is complete. Can someone clear up this contradiction? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OMG!!! How dare a rank-and-file editor template an admin for edit warring!!! What total gall for a non-admin to remove an inappropriately placed tag!!! Clearly, I do not know my designated place in the Wikipedia scheme of things (which appears to be down a substantial number of rungs and to the right a bit.)

(Or could it be that Magog the Orge has a perhaps somewhat distorted view of what the duties of an admin are, and how they differ from ordinary editors? My understanding -- but then, I am clearly not of sound mind -- is that rank-and-file editors can do anything that admins can do except those things which require the extra buttons which the admins are entrusted with when the community endows them with the mop. If Magog the Orge has a different understanding of the role of the admin versus that of the lowly editor, then I would ask him to point out where this understanding comes from in Wikipedia's policies.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If you actually read what I said in context, I said that you are perfectly well within your rights to act as an administrator, but that your actions were completely incorrect (for several reasons) regardless and would be deserving of censure no matter what your status as editor is. The appeal to ridicule response isn't helping your cause. Now please explain to me why I shouldn't remove your rollback rights right now for using them as part of an edit dispute. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 04:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It may not be helping my "cause", Magog the Ogre, but it did wonders for my blood pressure. (And, believe it or not, I did read -- and understand -- what you said, as well as the tone in which it was said. My mom always told me it's nmot so much what you say, it's how you say it.) Bye. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The only reason that one is allowed to exceed 3RR (per WP:3RRNO) is when " content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)". This is a very likely vio of NFCC, but it is not unquestionable, so is not exempt from 3RR. (One might be able to argue that the poster of the more modern play is necessary, but someone would have to do the legwork to get that). So it falls back to the regular routes for deletion and while those discussions go on, the images should be left in place. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are clear on the context. The performance is of The Second Maiden's Tragedy, which is purported to be a slightly altered version of the original play The History of Cardenio, but is believed to actually be a play by someone else. Said claim about the play was first made in 1994 and since then performances of that play have been stating plainly that they are performances of the lost play Cardenio. FPaS claimed that it was not NFCC-compliant to use the image related to one of those performances because he believed plain text was sufficient to convey that performances of The Second Maiden's Tragedy have been presented as performances of Cardenio.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the image likely fails NFCC and it should be removed (in part, as that specific version of the play is not the subject of the, and there's no specific discussion of the image.) I am saying, however, that failure to meet NFCC is not crystal clear to justify exceeding 3RR or conflicting with the current FFD. It's a due process in case someone can find a strong justification to keep during the FFD period. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, FPAS may be right. If I was feeling a bit more charitable (unlikely at this moment, after being inappropriately raked over the coals by Magog the Orge), I might even concede that he was "likely" right, or "very possibly" right. But, as you imply, once the FFD discussion is open and under way, it is no longer FPAS' job to determine whether he is right or not, that has become the community's perogative, which he may not usurp. Maybe the community will agree with him -- fine, but that does not excuse either his behavior or his edit summary.

In any case, everyone makes mistakes. Some recognition on his part that he blew this deal would go a long way toward calming the waters here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - NFCC images will "fail" certain parts of the criteria depending on who judges them. Doc talk 04:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Which is essentially why a community discussion decides the application of the policy when there is any doubt about it. Generally, speaking, the collective opinions of many is what we're about, although the individual is also to be respected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • And know, I will do my utmost to refrain from further comment in this discussion, unless someone chooses to ream me a new one again. I believe I've made the salient points that represent my thinking on this issue, and would only be repeating myself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a note, since "Templating the regulars" (and really - WP:TEMPLAR? Way to pick a provocative acronym...) has been declared "taunting" above, I'd like it to be known that if I ever screw up and do something for which Randy in Boise would get templated for, this regular, at least, hopes he'd get templated as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can't punish Future Perfect at Sunrise, would any administrator here at least add back the image, so anybody can access to the discussion easily by either the file page or the caption? --George Ho (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

My warning stands. And the argument of visibility during discussion is bogus: people who comment at FFD know how to use page histories. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Is any administrator allowed to namecall my argument that way? Anyway, since when a general reader with no technological knowledge knows or cares about page histories? --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, where do you stand on NFCRs and FFD? --George Ho (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Is that a question to me, about what I think the functions of these two venues are? (In general, you might want to try and make more of an effort to be coherent and comprehensible in what you write; that might make communication with you less difficult.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure of whether the response was polite or impolite, but why are administrators allowed to comment about my communication skills the way you did to me? As for the question, yes, that is what I meant. --George Ho (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with me being an admin; I'm simply pointing out one of the factors that may be contributing to you causing so much unnecessary trouble. This [162] edit of yours in particular, which started the whole mess yesterday, was little short of incoherent gibberish. But to your question: NFCR quite often leads to deletion, so in that sense it too is a deletion process. It is simply less strictly structured than FFD and therefore more suitable for the more complex and messier types of questions. I personally prefer FFD over NFCR for most cases, but once a file has been listed in either venue, there is rarely a good reason to process-wonk and push it around from the one to the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I merely stated that FFD should have been used first because that guy used failure of "contextual significance" as a reason for non-deletion review. The image looks replaceable or irreplaceable, and significant or insignificant. Poster of one production cast looks irreplaceable and significant, but someone else would disagree. However, why overthrowing FFD process in favor of one single action? --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, as I said. Incoherent bordering on gibberish. You definitely need to work on that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimthing

After an AFD that closed as "no consensus", Jimthing (talk · contribs) reverted my bold merge and disambiguation of Control Center into iOS 7, canvassed every possible outlet (including my talk page) to remind everyone that it closed as "no consensus" and thus, must not be deleted in any way (because "merge = deletion"), and proceeded to call me an "idiot" in edit summaries.

This is inappropriate conduct in any situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What part of "No consensus to delete" do you not understand exactly. This has been explained to you now several times, yet you continually ignore other users. It's plainly clear you're now involving yourself in disruptive behaviour, ignoring other editors who almost exclusively said "NO" to your AfD, hence the final editor closing it accordingly with this note. Yet you have still just gone ahead and attempted to use completely false reasoning in trying to explain this as a merge, which this IS NOT — it's a redirect to a disambiguation page, which effectively achieves the same result as DELETION, so is NOT a merge. Learn how the site works before insisting you're doing something you are clearly are not doing, and taking other editors time and efforts up in the process. Hence in sheer frustration, making them call your behaviour idiotic. Thank you. Jimthing (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Viper, there was no consensus for the Afd. I don't know why you see Jimthing as pushing his opinion when you are at fault. KonveyorBelt 19:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Still, he used a personal attack. That isn't allowed in any situation. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Except that both Jimthing and Konveyor Belt are quite wrong. A "no consensus" AfD close is not equivalent to a "Keep". No consensus is effectively a null result to an AfD, and does not preclude any editor making any change to the article that would be valid in normal circumstances, whether that be redirecting, merging or indeed re-nominating for deletion. Of course, any other editor is welcome to oppose that change, and gaining consensus first is preferable, but ViperSnake has not done anything wrong here; the only thing wrong here is Jimthing's personal attack on ViperSnake, which he would be well advised not to repeat. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed; Keep means Keep, No Consensus means, as far as the article is concerned, that the AfD never happened, basically - "normal" WP:AGF, WP:BOLD and WP:BRD come into play just like any other article. Also, the "merging is deletion!" meme gets annoying after awhile... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:CIVIL by user Trust Is All You Need

Recent post on my talk page by TIAYN contains highly improper language including "you don't know crap about what you're talking about" and the "F" word two times. His posts on user:JHunterJ's talk page also contain language abuses of similar manner - the "F" word [163]. In addition, TIYAN shows highly aggressive behavior in editing political-related and Syrian-related topics (like this and this). I don't think any explanation by myself would help him to improve his behavior.GreyShark (dibra) 20:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop, but its because he is basing his arguments not on facts, but on his personal opinion.. For instance, there is no difference between "Corrective Revolution" and "Corrective Movement" but he seems to want to push his agenda onto the disputed article without logical reason. If he had based his arguments on actual, verifiable sources we would not have been in this mess. But ok, I will stop, but this attempt at nominating me is more an attempt to block me so that he can ensue his aims.. Why am I saying that? I haven't called him any of those words today, but now suddenly he's nominating me, that's a little bit suspicious.. Anyhow, sorry, I will stop. I am a constructive editor with a bad temper, especially when I meet an editor such as Greyshark09. Sorry. There is currently a move discussion at the 1970 Syrian Corrective Revolution article, please feel free to join, it would help to solve our conflict.

But regarding the issue on Single-party state, that is am article, not a list, so why have a huge list in it? its seems, well, wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• GreyShark, such "highly improper language" as you link to is no model of politeness, but I'm afraid it's pretty common on talkpages, and not a reason for admin action. Looking at the links you provide to show "highly aggressive behavior", they link to entire article histories, and nothing aggressive jumps out from merely looking at those histories. Please supply diffs for some putatively aggressive edits by Trust Is All You Need if you want us to look at their editing. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

• As another example we have TIAYN adding to my own talk page today, here. I was not appreciative of this comment when he completely changed an article that removed hundreds of items. I wasn't going to re-add 100s of items and it wouldn't let me undo just the removed items. He then left this post on my page. Actionable, certainly not. I simply let him know not to do it again. But in checking his talk page it led me here so there seems to be a pattern of uncivil posts by this editor. He says himself that he has a "bad temper"... well that won't last long on wikipedia if it shows itself regularly. Maybe a warning explanation and a nudge by an administrator is all that's needed here? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing was offensive stop being a drama queen. The "Fuck you" was not aimed at you and used as an example. Stop complaining.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.46.233 (talk • contribs) 03:26, October 15, 2013‎

Tag removal and personal attacks at Uralic languages by User:Taivo

There's currently an ongoing dispute at Uralic languages regarding how to treat the traditional classification into two branches as opposed to newer theories criticizing that classification. I have largely avoided the debate, as contentious and personal, and have argued repeatedly that our personal opinions do not matter, that what we need to do is provide all scholarly theories and deal with the controversy by attributing them per WP:ATTRIBUTE.diff 1, diff2

User:Taivo has been intimately involved, and has at least twice attacked another editor for his credentials: "You're not a linguist, so when a linguist gives you some advice on how to reference scholarship, take it like a man" diff and "Since Nug is not a linguist and is ignorant of theory" diff. He is arguing his view of the facts as opposed to the scholar's views. "If you actually knew anything about the field of Uralic, Nug, then you wouldn't even need to ask that question".

Now Taivo is summarily reverting CN tags as invalid before addressing them and and "by whom" tags without addressing who holds an unattributed "doubt".diff.

As I file this I now see he has violated WP:3RR: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, and revert 4.

Please admonish the editor to stop his personal attacks, removing tags requesting attribution without addressing them, and outright edit warring. μηδείς (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This report is as one-sided as it could've possibly ever been. The finest specimen from the other party in this dispute: "I just realised that Kansas is part of the American Bible belt, you are not a closet creationist are you?" — Lfdder (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The user you quote without a diff Lfdder, is not a party in this filing, and I am not defending his or anyone's behavior or taking any specific content position. (As far as I am aware, he and I have never interacted once.) But when you get immediate edit warring and personal attacks as part of any attempt to participate in this article or it's discussion page, it makes it impossible for editors like myself to take even reasonable positions. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the merits, but if you think someone has violated WP:3RR consider separating that part and filing at at WP:ANEW. It's a much speedier system for edit warring, beyond that its unclear if further action would be needed? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Shock and horror, I didn't include a diff. It's right there on the Talk page, ctrl+F. So it's ok to point to Taivo's interactions with other users in this filing -- albeit they've nothing to do with this filing, apparently -- but not to other users' comments he was responding to? — Lfdder (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, getting your addition reverted is not edit warring; but reverting the revert is. So congratulations, you've been edit warring. — Lfdder (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

And really, "admonish"? We're not in fucking kindergarten, are we? Have you even approached Taivo say on their talk page before coming here? — Lfdder (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This filing is not about the 4RR, which didn't occur until I was already 3/4 of the way through writing this report. It's about the personal attacks and removing of tags as if they were invalid and didn't need addressing--basically ownership behavior. Feel free to admonish anyone else who's misbehaving, but please don't tell me one editor's misbehavior is justified by another's. Inability to do anything at this page without immediately being reverted and attacked has kept me away for weeks. I also ask that Lfdder recuse himself if he finds it necessary to respond to the word "admonish" with insult and obscenity. I can't believe the fact I am asking the editor to be warned rather than blocked is a subject of ridicule. μηδείς (talk) 21:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the diffs given such as [164] demonstrate a case since there is insufficient context. If someone was displaying particular ineptitude at the sub-discpline, I wouldn't be surprised if someone with expertise got heated in some way with people misinterpreting the scholarship (I have no particular expertise so I can not easily deduce if that was the case with ease in this instance). Nug also appears to be giving as good as he's getting as Lfdder highlights. Certainly this isn't something to be encouraged, but not indicative of any action needed. The main issue appears to be the content dispute itself. The edit war at 12 Oct looks like a two way edit war between two editors (you and Taivo). It probably would be good for the page to have some temporary page protection. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Saying that someone is not a linguist, is not a personal attack. It is a statement of what someone believes to be a fact. There is a no case to answer.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"please don't tell me one editor's misbehavior is justified by another's" I did not say that at all. What I said was that you're not presenting a balanced/the full picture here. "I can't believe the fact I am asking the editor to be warned rather than blocked is a subject of ridicule." Oh, so you're doing him a favour then? Bless your heart. "Warn" and "admonish" have different meanings. — Lfdder (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

One has to wonder about some of the strange edits by User:Medeis (μηδείς). Here are some of his/her edits to a sentence that has a valid citation. I think these edits are bizarre. It is legitimate for use to discuss these edits as how Taivo dealt with them is part of the substance of the complaint here.

• 18:27, 12 October 2013 Inserts Weazel tag before citation.
• 19:18, 12 October 2013 re-inserts Weazel tag.
• 19:24, 12 October 2013 inserts doubt tag.

Incidentally the claim that Taivo broke 3RR is dishonest. Alleged revert 4 was the reverting of what I perceive as vandalism by an IP editor.

Taivo's removing of inappropriate tags seems fine. His/her removing a citation needed tag and immediately afterwards replacing it with a citation,[165] is the behaviour that citation needed tags are meant to produce.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Telling someone they have no linguistics training is not a personal attack, especially when it is clear from their comments and their user contributions that they don't actually know the field. Indeed, the other editor has never claimed otherwise. I might note that two of the alleged reverts were actually one: I reverted Medeis' tags, then as I was writing up the reference to deal with the citation issue, he reverted me two seconds after my revert. I then had to revert again (see my edit summary) in order to paste in the reference I prepared while Medeis was rapid-firing on the revert button. --Taivo (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

So, Taivo's entitled to remove cn tags, yet we are not allowed to restore them, because we should psychically know that he is working on a citation? When did revert first, cite later become the way to edit? And Taivo's entitled to respond to everything an editor says with an ad hominem comment because the comment is true? Is this behavior okay to continue? μηδείς (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

And, Medeis, were you just sitting in wait so that you could lightning revert? That sounds more like edit warring than writing a citation to address your referencing concern (which was legitimate). --Taivo (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what's bizarre with my actions here. Nug made an edit inserting three tags, "peacock", "weasel" and "cn". Kwami immediately reverted it saying Nug didn't know what he was talking about; yet another personal attack on Nug's competence. I agreed that the "peacock" tag was unnecessary, so I simply restored the "weasel" and "cn", tags which were both perfectly appropriate. (I did not "insert" the weasel tag, I restored it when it was not answered.) In comes Taivo simply reverting the edit wholesale first without providing the cite. Then when the cite was finally provided after an angry edit summary comment I changed the "weasel" tag to "by whom" because I have been arguing on the talk page that we need to attribute these claims. Then we get Taivo's third wholesale reversion removing the "by whom" tag without attributing to the source. At this point we've got tag teaming insults and reverts coupled with days worth of abuse on the talk page, and myself asking that we attribute claims, but facing 4rr if I restore a "by whom" tag reverted without answering. The "by whom" tag needs to go back up, and the editors reverting valid challenges on the basis of their opinion that an editor is not competent to challenge them needs to stop. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, you apparently didn't read my edit summary when I reverted your last "Who" tag. The tag is ridiculous because the references are at the end of the sentence. We don't go along placing a tag or reference behind every single word in the sentence. When the entire sentence is the subject of a reference, then the reference comes at the end. Or would you actually prefer to see the same reference repeated after every single content word? --Taivo (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

This dispute has grown rather tiresome, and it comes on the heels of a dispute about the speaker population of Hungarian using Fyodor's tourist guide as a reference. Bit of a Randy in Boise problem. I reverted because the tags seemed POINTy and I wasn't going to bother separating the silly ones from the valid ones, so thanks to μηδείς for doing that. Using "peacock" for calling an agnostic classification "agnostic" suggests the user doesn't know what the word means. The cn tag was appropriate, and Taivo supplied a citation. But 'weasel'? "Growing more common" is a referenced statement of fact, so neither the weasel tag nor the by-whom tag was appropriate. (If the ref that is already provided fails to support the claim, then we have specific tags for that.) So there's nothing inappropriate about removing the tags, and as for the "attacks", well, how is pointing out that Randy's argument shows an ignorance of the literature an attack rather than a relevant evaluation of his argument? — kwami (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was notified on my talk page that I was mentioned in this discussion, so I suppose I should comment.

The contentious article statement "Doubts about the validity of most of the proposed higher-order branchings (grouping the nine undisputed families) are becoming more common" is vaguely attributed and implies something stronger that the original source statement: "Especially after the analyses by Häkkinen (1983, 1984) it has become increasingly clear that the traditional view of the interrelationships of Uralic languages depicted by a binary or nearly binary tree is based on much less solid evidence than has been tacitly assumed."[166] In this case "it has become increasingly clear" in the original text is a reference to the author's POV but the way the statement is written, without proper attribution, e.g. "Doubts about…" rather than "Salminen has expressed doubts about…" and the addition of "are becoming more common", it implies something stronger that is not actually represented in the source. Hence the unattributed line is weaselly worded.

Kwamikagami's "Randy in Boise problem" exemplifies the arrogant assumption of bad faith (FWIW I have a postgraduate qualification too), WP:OWNERSHIP and apparent dishonesty that has been endemic to this content discussion. The problem started the Kwamikagami's removal of "Finno-Ugric" from dozens of articles as documented here and here. In response Kwamikagami claimed: "That's what was done in the discussion when we decided to abandon FU. It's not my area, but the consensus was they made a convincing case."[167] Kwamikagami has since ignored all subsequent requests to provide a link to that discussion, so it seems he lied. He went on to claim a particular image I derived under creative commons was "fraudulent" (even though an identical image exists in the Finnish language article[168]) and then edit warred the image in commons[169] and in the article[170],[171],[172], then made a series of WP:POINTY edits [173], [174], before reverting it back to the original [175].

Nor am I particularly surprised that Taivo has now be caught up in edit warring too, given his apparent WP:OWNERSHIP issues, assumptions of bad faith, and sad to say, apparent difficulty with honesty, for example perversely accusing me of somehow being "slippery" about sourcing[176] after I pointed out his error in attributing a chapter to the editor of a handbook (and not the actual author, thus rejecting the source)[177] which was earlier cited by Kwamikagami (and not me)[178], and continuing the claim I was wanting to virtually remove all mention of other points of view from the article[179] even after I had explicitly told him[180] that I called for the presentation of all viewpoints according to due weight and opposed the total removal of any mention of "Finno-Ugric" from articles as originally reported here

For all of Taivo's tiresome touting of his and Kwamikagami's alleged PhD qualifications[181], he seems to have difficulty understanding WP:FIVE and particularly WP:WEIGHT and how to identify and present majority and minority viewpoints. --Nug (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

And that, folks, it what we've been dealing with for weeks. — kwami (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for succinctly demonstrating your attitude. --Nug (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. The fundamental problem is that Nug doesn't understand linguistic methodology and when it is pointed out to him, he resorts to 1) wikilawyering, 2) proof texting from sources he doesn't completely understand, 3) making personal attacks. But none of Nug's comments above have anything to do with Medeis' charges against me (not Kwamikagami) here--1) personal attacks, 2) removing tags, 3) edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Shrug. I don't think attempting to bludgeon your content opponents with your allegedly superior qualifications is compatible with the WP:FIVE pillars. I stated why I believed that unattributed sentence was weaselly worded, and obviously I don't think you were justified in edit warring over the tags. The question is, if you are shown to misrepresent the arguments of a fellow Wikipedian you disagree with, as linked above, can you be trusted not to misrepresent the arguments presented in sources with which you disagree? I guess that's a question you probably ought to reflect on, or not, I really don't care. --Nug (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What is interesting is that even in this forum you continue the personal attacks and your own claims of persecution from the "big, bad scholars". --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, comments about your behaviour on an admin noticeboard in a thread about you is the appropriate context and I've linked evidence of that behaviour. There you go again, this time with a misrepresentation about claims of persecution from the "big, bad scholars", a claim that was never made. I'm not surprised my question regarding integrity is lost on you. --Nug (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since your comments are entirely about a content dispute, Nug, they are immaterial here. But it's been over 24 hours since anyone else has bothered to post here. Medeis' complaint is a dead issue without merit. I made no personal attack against you because you are not a scholar of linguistics (a postgraduate certificate in something else doesn't qualify) and I simply stated that fact. I did not conduct an edit war. And my removal of tags was justified because I replaced one tag with a citation and removed another tag that was just WP:POINTy. Since this issue is dead now, I'm not going to comment here anymore. --Taivo (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Author, Playwright Gary Beers: Ref.: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gary_Eugene_Beers

Dear Wikipedia,

Please see the following link on Wikipedia concerning a well respected and loved, author: Gary Beers. Here is Wikipedia's link to same:

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

As you can see, the culprits removed the author's and playwright's photo; (Gary Beers). These persons responsible are vandalizing his name and successes with horrible sayings with no regard to this writer. Such writings of these persons, cannot be true of such a successful writer, as Gary Beers. This Wikipedia source on Gary Beers must be edited, the photo returned to the article, along with the initial information intended for the Wikipedia audience to read and enjoy by Beers's fans around the world. Please make note of this right away. The page needs to be edited and returned to its original luster it once had prior such efforts by the vandals to destroy the good name of writer and children book writer, Gary Beers.

Many thanks, Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.227.16 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a long history of vandalism at this user page. I've reverted back to the version of 1 Sep 2011, the last time that User:Gary Eugene Beers edited the page. I've also added the {{User page}} template to mark that this is a user page and not an article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a user page clearly masquerading as an article, in contravention of WP:FAKEARTICLE, Shouldn't it be deleted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to an MfD being opened. —C.Fred (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I've left a note at User talk:Gary Eugene Beers - I'll see if there is any reply, and if there isn't one, start the MfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• I found a quicker way. Deleted as a fake article. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That was a clear G11. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Probably for the best. I was actually beginning to wonder whether it was a 'fake' fake article, given the poor level of literacy demonstrated by the supposed 'renowned author'. Could it perhaps have been written by someone with a grudge against Beers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Someone said "beers"? Yes please! Also, I don't think there was anything else to it--just a very inept attempt. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump

WP:BOOMERANG. Time for a deep breath and a nice cup of tea. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:48, 15 October 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. He calls me names. Ban him Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Let's see..."no". I assume this is the "pov-pushing" reverts which is not "callig names", and we're not banning anybody, but you might want to look out for a WP:BOOMERANG.- The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC) (EC) It's customary to notify editors when you report them at this noticeboard. I have done that for you. As for name-calling, I see nothing at all in recent edits to suggest that Andy has done anything of the sort - would you be so kind as to provide diffs? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Ok. here's a name: clueless Islamophobic POV-pusher. [182] The article concerned says nothing whatsoever about archaeology. As for Indiasummer95's long history of Islamophobic posting, it's hard to know where to start - though the obnoxious little shit's last post [183] seems quite sufficient evidence to justify a boomerang block - preferably indefinite... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Obnoxious little shit? Bit racist of you. And if the article mentions the Gospel of Barnabas, then that is archaeology. LeftoIslamofascist wank stain nonce. Indiasummer95 (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC) It's kind of sizeist and scatophobic too. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I've just blocked Indiasummer95 for a day for clear personal attacks, but I'm also troubled by the tone of Andy's comments, i.e. "obnoxious little shit". Anyone have any more thoughts on the issue? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC) That was in response to Indiasummer95 adding me to category:Islamofascism. As for his later comments above, I think WP:COMPETENCE seems relevant, since Indiasummer95 evidently doesn't know the meaning of the word 'archaeology'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Does IndiaSummer95 realize his name is based on a Native American pornstar? :) Dan skeptic (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC) No matter what the provocation, it is unacceptable to come to this board and call another editor "an obnoxious little shit" and Andy should be sanctioned for it.Smeat75 (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Give Andy a "slapped wrist" Barnstar, quick. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC) For further evidence of Indiasummer95's POV-pushing agenda, I'd draw people's attention to this disgusting rant posted in August: [184] And note the inconsistency: Indiasummer95 alternates between denying that Islamophobia has anything to do with racism (as in this post), and accusing others of 'racism' when they criticise him (see also this confused post on my talk page [185]). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC) That really is a disgusting post, surely it should not have been allowed to sit there since August and shouldn't it be removed?Smeat75 (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Andy’s “obnoxious little shit” is in clear violation of WP: NPA. A quick look at his block log indicates that he has a history of such personal attacks. Also, Andy is at 3RR at Rochdale sex trafficking gang and closing upon the same at Oxford sex gang.Tristan noir (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I disagree, the situation would need to be considered. If you prod someone enough, they react, and being added to the Islamofascist article [[186]] is certainly a big prod. To be honest, looking at Indiasummer95, It appears much like the page of a British Neo-Nazi, and particularly problematic one at that. I would suggest that he probably shouldn't be editing articles anywhere slightly related to Islam? It would seem a topic ban broadly construed would be in order for Indiasummer95, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC) ATG has indeed been uncivil from time to time, and this wasn't an ideal response. On the other hand, best save any scolding or remedy for an occasion where the target doesn't deserve it. Making a big deal of this right now serves no purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I'd be inclined to extend the block on Indiasummer95 (talk · contribs) to indefinite, on the basis of this beyond-the-pale rant on top of competence issues and the overall tendentious nature of his contributions. Seriously, if WP:CIVIL means anything (a doubtful proposition, I realize), then it means we don't tolerate this kind of offensive, racist nonsense. I'd also be inclined to ask Andy to be nicer to people who clearly aren't well-suited to this project. MastCell Talk 22:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC) As deeply obnoxious at this indiasummer character is, Islam is not a race. I had to say. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC) If you prefer, you can replace "racist" in my comment with "discriminatory, offensive, hateful speech disparaging an individual's religion and violating WP:BLP to boot". My view of the proper remedies would stand. MastCell Talk 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I wanted to say that per MastCell above, indiasummer is indeed being "discriminatory, offensive," using "hateful speech disparaging an individual's religion and violating WP:BLP to boot". --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 00:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Indiasummer95 is clearly Islamophobic and that bothers me however I think do to how new the editor is we should give them a second chance. Maybe this situation will cool them down. As for AndytheGrump, while me and him do have various disagreements I do not see him as an aggressive editor and I think his comment was a singular incident that I don't think will happen again.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Indiasummer95 been here over a year and made more than 5,000 edits. And I don't see how spending more time on Wikipedia will help him learn not to say stuff like this. It's not a question of acquiring technical proficiency with wiki-markup or familiarity with sourcing policies; it's a question of attitude. People generally don't learn basic human decency through pseudonymous online interactions, so I'm not sure why we should expect him to improve with additional editing. MastCell Talk 23:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I've been coming across some of Indiasummer95's editing recently, and I entirely agree with MastCell. IndiaSummer is tendentious, quarrelsome, and appears dead set on warring an anti-Islam POV into articles, categories, etc. Just look at their edits, and edit summaries, and edit warring, today alone on the articles Oxford sex gang, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Theories of Muhammad in the Bible. We should do ourselves a favour and indef. As for AndyTheGrump, he's thanked for his defence of the encyclopedia and kindly asked to change his nature and his username to AndyTheNiceDefenderOfTheWiki. Just give me some warning first so I can come up with a new anagram. Bishonen | talk 23:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC). I didn't examine India's past contribs in detail before blocking, so I'm not opposed to extending the block. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Agreed. Wikipedia is a worse place for nasty bigoted people like that around. As for Andy's comments, surely WP:SPADE is at least partial mitigation. Reyk YO! 23:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Regarding Indiasummer95's contribution history, could an uninvolved person take a look at the biography of Azad Ali that Indiasummer95 recently created? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC) POV and UNDUE issues to be sure, probably needs to be heavily reworked or rewritten. KonveyorBelt 00:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC) @Bishonen: Per [187] -- please do. (Indef.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 02:40, 15 October 2013 Support indef. Holy WP:NOTHERE, Batman. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I think we should all learn to stop using unnecessary adjectives and stick to report the facts on problematic editing behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Proposed topic ban for Indiasummer95 Due to a history of tendentious editing, Indiasummer95 is indefinitely banned from editing content related to Islam or Islamic cultures broadly construed, or commenting on Islam or Islamic cultures broadly construed. Indiasummer95 may appeal against this restriction at this noticeboard or WP:AN after a year or, per WP:UNBAN, may request a review at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Comment by Indiasummer95 General discussion Support as proposer. If the editor displays further problematic behaviours after this in other areas, I think a site ban should be a hair-trigger away. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Support a site ban now. I'm going to assume bad faith here, after the PA on Andy below. I'm also getting tired of giving second chances to bigots. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Support the ban on Islamic discussion by this editor. They are clearly Islamophobic and bigoted. I still believe though that they could contribute to other topic areas so I'm glad the ban is only on that topic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) Gross personal attacks, presumably motivated by this thread See User:Nounstired above, and User:Kanspena who has posted multiple attacks on my talk page. And for the record, the ridiculous accusations of antisemitism can easily be shown to be complete and utter bollocks, by referring to my edit history. My opposition to all forms of bigotry, whether based on ethnicity, religion or otherwise, is self-evident to all but those blinded by hate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Add the unoriginally-named User:AndyTheGump to the list of clueless bigots above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Can I assume that a sockpuppet investigation will be done on the above accounts, in relation to Indiasummer95? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Another imbecile: User:AndyTheGrump = Islamic gump. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC) I now have a sock User:AndyTheGrump = Islamic gump1 reverting my edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 15 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.

single-purpose SPAM account

Resolved

 – Spammer blocked. Tracked down more spam links and pages; dealing with those. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Andieshinigami (talk · contribs) has created a single-purpose account for adding link SPAM to an unrelated blog.[188][189] The editor's user page is also being used for the same purpose.[190]--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

DigbyDalton

Hi, I hope this is the right place to request this....

In this edit, DigbyDalton displays a colorful disregard of the principles highlighted in the ARBCC decision. DigbyDalton's broadside begins

"I'm not going to read ARBCC because I already know that the communists have taken over the Global Warming article on Wikipedia..."

This was in reply to my third informal head's up about ARBCC (prompted by edit warring, etc). Two of the informal ARBCC warnings I gave him are in his user talk page thread titled

• "Edit warring in articles under ARB decision"

and a third head's up is on his talk page in the thread titled

• "Please self revert, go to talk, and maybe consider joining me at WP:THIRD"

Both of those threads include DIFFS for separate instances of recent climate-related edit warring.

ACTION REQUEST Pursuant to WP:ARBCC would some uninvolved admin please give DigbyDalton an official ARBCC warning and then make an official record of that warning in the notification section of that decision?

Thanks for your attention and assistance NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

PS User was notified of this request here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I give up. I've looked everywhere I can think of. Is there a template for the notice or do all the admins just copy and paste the same text? Shouldn't be this hard.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

You can find them at Template:Uw-sanctions. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

e/c

@Bbb23: There is a template that doesn't really get used much

{{subst:Uw-sanctions|topic=cc}}

and a sample of commonly used copy-and-paste text is

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose, at their own discretion, [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|sanctions]] on any editor working on pages broadly related to [[Climate change]] if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], any expected [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standards of behavior]], or any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. Inappropriate behavior in this area may result in sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Final decision]

Thanks for your interest

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I used the template Paul pointed to. It may not be commonly used, but it has a very pretty box. Besides, I like templates for this sort of thing. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

At least it wasn't Nazi Communists infiltrating the article... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Followup: Enforcement request under ARBCC

You can lead a horse to water....

• 00:45, 14 October 2013‎ User given formal ARBCC warning, but a day later....
• 15:19, 15 October 2013 user posts uncivil anti-FOC and anti-AGFWP:BATTLEGROUND climate change POV on his talk page saying:

"Not really. I added that the storm was especially destructive because it hit land at high tide, which was 5 feet, and it's clear that every reversion to this text was done merely to "hide the tide" and make it look like Sandy's destructiveness was mainly due to global warming's 9 inchs of sea level rise, which happened over the course of a century. These reversions, as preposterous as they were, were done entirely for political reasons, because left wingers are still banging the global warming bell trying to tax the corporations to redistribute the wealth, and the IPCC is still fining the rich nations and giving to the poor ones, once again redistributing the wealth, and it's all so obviously a part of the communist manifesto a child can see. Call it socialism, Marxism, call it what you want but forced redistribution of wealth is communism. Global warmists don't care about the planet, they don't care about the warming or the sea level, they only care about redistributing the wealth. That's communism. Own it, don't deny it."

Would some admin please impose an approrpiate ARBCC enforcement action? I think discretionary sanctions apply. Thanks for your attention, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

PS User alerted here NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy does not fall under ARBCC because it's not related to climate change. It's an article about a hurricane. NewsAndEventsGuy is the one being disruptive because he keeps reverting information about the hurricane. I posted that it was especially destructive because it hit at high tide, he keeps downplaying that to make it sound like it was destructive due to global warming's sea level rise (9 inches in the past century) when IN FACT it was actually destructive because it hit at high tide (5 feet in a few hours). He cares nothing about the truth, just his global warming alarmist agenda. DigbyDalton (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@DigbyDalton:, ARBCC does apply here: "The climate change topic, broadly interpreted" - the fact that you continue to make these edits based on climate-change, by your own admission, brings them under its umbrella. You have been given plenty of warnings on this issue, so consider this your final one: if you don't drop the stick on the contribution of climate change (or not) to Hurricane Sandy you will be sanctioned under WP:ARBCC, and if you make further comments accusing other editors and/or Wikipedia itself of being part of a Communist plot you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and please create a papertrail explicitly stating that this includes soap and battlegrounding on user talk pages (see diffs above) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II, take 2

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

---

Could somebody shut down the blacklisted links task again for now please? The bot seems to be going wild again — it's now tagging old archive pages, talk pages, user pages, log pages, process pages, etc., for blacklisted links.[191][192][193][194] There is a broader discussion to be had somewhere soon about this bot and its many problems, just hoping to avoid a bunch of nonsense tags for now. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It is currently disabled, see User:Cyberbot II/Run/SPAM. This of course means that all those unintended tags will not be removed again automatically. Amalthea 08:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this bot needs some major changes before it is allowed to run again. It is too unstable, has made numerous errors and obviously lacks supervision: in this last run it tagged 950 pages erroneously over a four hour period. I have started to revert these manually, but it would be good to see the bot operator, Cyberpower, help with this job. Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I can mass-rollback those if desired. Amalthea 13:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about that. That would be great idea... I've done a hundred manually and it is a slow job; and there are 850 to go... Can you point me to the page where the mass-rollback procedure is described? I guess I could probably do use mass rollback myself, but I think I'd rather let you do it this time so that I can watch and learn.Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A mass rollback script is at User:John254/mass rollback.js, there are probably others. In this case I'll do some work first to make sure no other edits are rolled back, and I think there was an option to add a "bot" flag to hide the reverts from recent changes. Amalthea 14:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will watch how you do it from your contributions, I guess.--Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• 950 pages erroneously? This is the first time I've ever seen this bug. The API isn't communicating correctly with the bot. I have no idea what's causing it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The bot is operating normally again after resetting the connection to the API. The connection was apparently "half-dead" for a lack of a better choice of words. Provided the bot is switched on, the bot can remove it's own mess.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Amalthea (bot) has already kindly taken care of cleaning up the mess. Cyberpower, I realize that you are frustrated, but by far the best thing you can do is to wait for consensus to develop about this bot, hat it should be doing and how. I will have some concrete proposals for the community to consider shortly. --Slp1 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nevermind my question. When it gets the data from the API in it's serialized state, PHP doesn't seem to be able to unserialize the data. I don't know the cause at the moment. As a result it's getting blank data in place of the page that tells the bot which links and pages to ignore. Once I have the bot working again, I will re-enable it to have it remove the incorrect tags.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"I have no idea what's causing it" that's one of the problems with this bot... Overall, there needs to many changes to this bot and its operation before it is let loose again. Please do not re-enable the bot again until there is consensus to do so. Too many editors have too many concerns about it over a period of more than a month. Slp1 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

There already has been a discussion about its concerns and consensus has already been established, if you ask me. It could also be a PHP error. There is no logical reason why the bot can't read the API anymore. I have made no change to the framework recently that could affect it. Ordinarily the bot should terminate itself in the event of an API failure. I'm going to try a reboot of the script to see what happens once the run completes.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than attempting some sort of half-arsed diagnostic analysis here, will you please accept that there is sufficient concern about your attempts at automation for you to cease and desist this process until you can satisfy people who actually know what they are doing that you have the necessary grasp of development, testing and execution to prevent further examples of the wholesale incorrect and disruptive tagging with which your bot has been associated in recent weeks? Leaky Caldron 14:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And with that snarky comment, I have just disabled all of my bots.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that is a very good decision.--Slp1 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant I shut them all down.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I had understood that.--Slp1 (talk) 16:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, that means RfX Reporter, tally, adminstats, badimage task, afdbot, rfubot, rfppbot, noombot, and others as well. If that's how you're interpreting it, then I'm going to ask, why? If not, now you know.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup, you are right, now I do know. Your behaviour is a variation of WP:DIVA and taking your ball and going home. Is that really what you want? I doubt it, I truly do.--Slp1 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. I am responding to Leaky Caldrin's statement. Just as editors here with competence issues shouldn't be editing here, the same principle goes for botops. Since Leaky called me incompetent, I shut down my bots. Where did I get that accusation from incompetence from? Well...I was apparently "attempting some sort of half-arsed diagnostic analysis" and apparently I don't "actually know what I'm doing" and "that I don't have the necessary grasp of development". The bolded as been changed from second person to first person but is still within context.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Loads of editors raised concerns no more like a few who have decided to almost stalk the bot if you ask me and on top of that Leaky caldron's comment above is completely out of order. The bot has one fault just now and on all previous runs its not been a fault with the bot but rather users not happy with links being on the blacklist. What on earth is the point in having a blacklist if we don't enforce it. The answer is their isn't one at all. Think maybe a RFC specifically on how we enforce the blacklist and remove links that have sneaked in is the way forward getting full community support so that the few who aren't happy with it being enforced can have no complaint. Very disappointed in some users conduct regarding this.Blethering Scot 14:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower, there's about 3 or 4 editors who attack your bot every chance they get. Don't let them convince you they're a bad idea with everyone else saying otherwise. Leaky cauldron, this has came to ANI once already, and to WT:BRFA, and neither of those established consensus that the task should be stopped. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the bot has had multiple problems, and in fact has had to be stopped twice in the last two days for errors in tagging [195]. And please note accusations of stalking require serious evidence. It is also disappointing that other editors are choosing to misrepresent the concerns from other editors: as far as I can see on all the discussions all editors understand the problem and that blacklisted links removed or whitelisted, but are unhappy about the method that has been chosen, most especially when the bot seems to be quite unstable and often runs unsupervised. Having said that, I would thoroughly agree with Blethering Scot that an RFC about how we deal with blacklisted links is a very good idea. That should be the first step before this bot is renabled. I was actually about to launch something in this line. Slp1 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We all know that consensus can change. There is clear evidence that this bot has random characteristics that may be doing harm and creating much work to rectify. There can be nothing more off-putting to lay readers (not wikipedians) who see a wall of text at the top of an article they are researching that talks about blacklists, whitelists and what to do about essentially technical errors on the page. It's about time we looked at this from the perspective of the general public user of our articles, not those of us who simply maintain the stuff. These messages in their current location are gobbledygook. If it was accurate gobbledygook that would be one thing. It turns out that much of it is inaccurate gobbledygook. Leaky Caldron 15:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am apparently an incapable bot op. I supposedly don't supervise my bot. I apparently can't debug things. I shouldn't be running bots. With that being said, since bot work has become my contributions to Wikipedia, I have nothing more to do here. So I will make this statement. This bot has resulted in the whitelisting process to be more responsive. This bot has freed 1500 pages of blacklisted links, where only a small fraction resulted in actual removal of the link. This bot has resulted in fixing a good chunk of a faulty blacklist. The bugs that happened, was a result of a labs NFS shutdown confusing the bot. This bug isn't logical.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like this was a simple case of the connection to API timing out. The bot seems to functioning normally again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Some of those links are blacklisted for copyvio - and copyvio links don't belong anywhere. I'd like to see the bot working again for that reason and because we should be enforcing our blacklist. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody disagrees that we need to get rid of the blacklisted links. But there are other ways of achieving the same end with some changes to the bot's method of operation without causing so many problems. Please see the suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval that I am about to post. Slp1 (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

To my eye 98+% of the "problems" are "ermagherd there's a big ugly tag scaring people away from clicking this link". The solution to the "problem" is the removal or whitelisting of the bad links - something that would still be in ostrich mode if not for the bot. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• A trout to Leaky Caldron for their utterly inappropriate comments. And to Slp1 for some of their comments. These are two users who clearly have next-to-no coding knowledge whatsoever, otherwise they wouldn't be making the downright stupid comments they have made (such as claiming it is a good idea for all Cyberbot programs to be closed down, despite the fact that the issue is one minor bug that isn't even necessarily the bot's fault) and they would also understand just how much effort coding takes. Without bots like Cyberbot, Wikipedia would be a far worse place. Bushranger is 100% correct; rather than bitching and whining about "omg there's this big tag on mah article" (when the tag is no larger than the COPYVIO tag, and is potentially as important), people should actually make the effort to get the link whitelisted, or replace it. It would be FAR more constructive if people did so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Who suggested that he shuts down all of his bots? It wasn't me. Cyber decided to chuck all of his toys out of the pram, don't blame that on me. I might not be able to code - but I can read. I stick by every word. You know what you can do with your trout. Leaky Caldron 22:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
    • +1
      Leaky Caldron and Slp1 are right here. Cyberpower shouldn't be such a diva and should do more rigorous testing of his bots. I'm lightly reminded of Betacommand. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Regarding the comment "There can be nothing more off-putting to lay readers (not wikipedians) who see a wall of text at the top of an article they are researching that talks about blacklists, whitelists and what to do about essentially technical errors on the page." - does that mean you also support removing templates such as {{BLP sources}}; {{Unreferenced}}, and {{notability}} from their position at the top of articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
      • The advisability of cleanup tags on article pages may be a question for another day. The vast majority of people who see articles are not article editors, and it does them no good to subject them to tags designed to goose the editing community into taking action. Tags that call into question the quality or legitimacy of article content diminish Wikipedia's function of providing authoritative information to the reader. Sometimes that's apt and necessary, for example, NPOV or COI tags flag for the reader that there is a dispute among editors regarding whether article content is apt. A notability or even an AfD tag lets the reader know that this may not be a worthy encyclopedia article, and a reference-related tag lets editors know that the article may not be trustworthy. A blacklist tag, by contrast, taints the entire article for the presence of a single questionable link. For questions of spam, there are plenty of other ways to goose (or better yet, empower) editors without degrading the reading experience or calling the article quality into question. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
        • We're going to get off-topic if we return to the issue of the template headers themselves. The issue for this thread is surely the recent mistagging - after which the bot was disabled, its owner established the cause and another editor quickly cleaned it up (thank you Amalthea). There may or may not be arguments regarding the degree of care required for bot operation, about civility, about the operation of the blacklist, about whether to template article or talk pages. But AN/I is not the place to resolve these disputes. As a specific incident, this is surely close to being "resolved." Euryalus (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand (and I'm not a coder either), there was a problem with this bot's interaction with the API, cyberpower ^Chat_Online has seen to the correction to this problem. I'd say that he can reenable the bots he runs. Larger conversations about the role of bots, the use of templates goes beyond this incident with Cyberbot and I agree with Euryalus, it should be moved to a different forum.

AN/I is a place to discuss "incidents" and it sounds like this one has been resolved, thanks to Cyberpower. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The bot has made many faulty edits for various technical/design reasons since launch and the evidence is that the author uses considerable guesswork in their root cause analysis, to quote "This is the first time I've ever seen this bug. The API isn't communicating correctly with the bot", "The connection was apparently "half-dead", "PHP doesn't seem to be able to unserialize the data. I don't know the cause at the moment", "There is no logical reason why the bot can't read the API anymore", "I have no idea what's causing it", "The bugs that happened, was a result of a labs NFS shutdown confusing the bot. This bug isn't logical" and finally in this section "Looks like this was a simple case of the connection to API timing out." There a dozens of similar explanations about this Bot on other pages where complaint has been made during the last 3 weeks. This sort of scatter gun approach to diagnostic problem solving is a sure fire way to one thing only; further problems. No matter the cause, Bot owners must take responsibility for their process to handle exceptions and error conditions in a non-disruptive, elegant manner. Simply restarting an interface without some sort of measure to prevent the bot reacting the same way the next time a connection times out is insufficient. I see no evidence that this process owner is doing anythinbg to his script to learn from these numerous events. Without collaboration involving relevant experts to establish robust exception handling this bot must not run again. Leaky Caldron 13:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What evidence are you looking for? What "experts" do you suggest? I've strained myself trying to WP:AGF here but I can only conclude that for whatever reason there is a serious dose of WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding this bot, with an associated campaign to get it permanently disabled by whatever means necessary. The reasons for such a campaign against a blacklisted-link-tagging bot, including the spurious declarations that it will confuse/frighten readers through its tags, are difficult to fathom, but the only conclusion that can be reached about all this is that there's a disturbingly sizeable, and obviously vocal, group of editors who really would rather everyone's heads be stuck in the sand when it comes to the widespread distribution of links that are on the spam blacklist on Wikipedia's pages, and since Cyberbot II kicked the anthill it must be destroyed. (And once again, I have 7,250 pages on my watchlist and have seen all of two taggings - and none since the last brouhaha.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea regarding the motives of anyone but myself. Don't waste your time scouring previous conversations on this topic for any evidence that "I don't like it" because you'll be wasting your time. I have no opinion other than those expressed in this section. To summarise:

• the software as it currently stands is not stable,
• has a track record of failure leading to potential harm,
• has resulted in others needing to get involved in recovery,
• the author of the bot appears to be in denial about the extent of their competence to identify root cause & prevent further malfunctions,
• has so far been reluctant to seek advice from those bot experts (he is a relative novice, I understand) to achieve a stable process fit for live operation,
• Until these concerns are progressed, there is more risk than gain in allowing this bot to resume.

Leaky Caldron 15:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Given that you are VERY clearly not competent enough to run such a bot, or even understand the work that goes into it, I think that you are just being disruptive now. The bot does not have a track record of failure; it has a track record of a couple of errors, and a history of people like yourself hugely overreacting/throwing hissy fits every chance you get. And you prove your own incompetence with the arrogant and stupid statement of "the author of the bot appears to be in denial about the extent of their competence to identify root cause & prevent further malfunctions", given the fact that C678 has worked hard to fix the issues, and appears to have done so. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• And with that, this discussion has officially jumped the shark. The bot's offline, the latest errors have been cleaned up, and a broader discussion of blacklists and the bot is underway elsewhere. Can we please close further discussion as moot? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• That would be wise, I think, seeing as apparently "when you're in a hole, stop digging" doesn't seem to be on the table. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 15 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.

Harriet Beecher Stowe

• Harriet Beecher Stowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stowehistoricaldata (talk · contribs)
• Brunswickhistoricalsociety (talk · contribs)
• Downeasthistoricalinformation (talk · contribs)
• 75.68.244.122 (talk · contribs)

Long term unsourced or poorly sourced addition of content, going back at least to August. Primary intent appears to be the promotion of a property that Stowe purportedly rented. I've removed this content too many times, and rather than continue to edit war over this would really appreciate help. I've issued numerous warnings and tried multiple times to engage these accounts in discussion, to no avail. I've also requested page protection and opened discussion at the article's talk page, but the situation is complicated by the apparent use of multiple accounts and the lack of outright vandalism. Nonetheless, this is a persistent disruption. Thanks, JNW (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Brunswick is blocked for user name reasons. You could consider filing an SPI on these SPAs. If disruption continues after protection runs out we can block for that reason, without an SPI. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Herr chagall (talk · contribs) and repeated violations of WP:NFCC

The user in question is repeatedly inserting File:Cameo Word Up rear.jpg into the article Word Up! (song). There is zero critical commentary of the rear of the cover, fails WP:NFCC #1,3,8. Can someone please give the user a clue about policy? I have warned the user but they refuse to listen, I think only a block will be effective. Werieth (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The contrary is true. Werieth has repeatedly deleted images on the article page despite the fact that they conformed to WP:NFCC. Ultimately, it has been decided that they are to be kept on the page, see [[196]]. He does however try pushing his POV regarding the matter and waits for a certain amount of time to pass before he reverts the article to his liking. The image in question of the rear cover conforms to all criteria of WP:NFCC, since there are several different releases on various media. It is that of the original vinyl 7" single release, which has a specific track listing and producer credits. Apart from asking for other users who do not share his POV to be blocked, I fail to see any substantial contribution by Werieth, particularly given his inclination to delete images despite better knowledge. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The file in question was just re-removed by an admin [197] for failing WP:NFC Werieth (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Mishae's deletion nominations

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'm concerned about Mishae (talk · contribs)'s engagement with our processes here. While doing CSD patrol this evening I encountered Altica tamaricis, a stub on a species of beetle. Mishae nominated it for speedy deletion under G7: [198]. I found this problematic on three grounds: the article had existed since February 2012, the article was not obviously problematic in any way (nothing wrong with stubs), and Mishae couldn't really be considered the sole author for attribution purposes (see history. I declined it, and then decided to check Mishae's deleted contributions. I was surprised to find three articles, Altica bicarinata, Altica aenescens, and Orthotylus flavosparsus, where Mishae had followed a similar process (G7 for long-standing article), and then re-created the article afterward, with just the top revision. Puzzled, I raised the matter on his talk page: [199]. Mishae replied on my talk page, indicating that he was intent on saving server space: [200]. I must admit that this is not the response I expected.

There's been further discussion at User talk:Mackensen#Re: Strange deletions and it's been rather unfruitful. I note also that @Eastmain: challenged a similar deletion about twenty minutes before I did and there's been discussion on his talk page as well. In the interim I restored the missing article history for the three pages in question I apologized to the two deleting administrators for stepping on their toes. Looking through Mishae's deleted contributions I see several more probably valid articles, mostly on beetles, which were written in the mainspace and then deleted for whatever reason. I have several problems with what I'm seeing here. First, it seems to me that it's an unusually assertive level of WP:OWNERSHIP (much like the parent asserting to the wayward child "I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it"). Second, it makes a mess of page history and attribution, since in the re-created article you've got text touched by other people but without any evidence they were involved. Third, it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how MediaWiki software works and Wikipedia's relationship to its servers. Space is not an issue, and even if it were, deleting an article doesn't lead to less space being used. Mishae's last comment to me suggested that he wasn't taking any of these concerns onboard, so I'm bringing it here for wider discussion. I should note finally that I don't believe I've ever interacted with him, Eastmain, or the two other administrators. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Mackensen:'s summary and analysis seem to me to be correct. Mishae has not tagged any further articles for speedy deletion since he was asked not to. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I personally don't understand the whole circus here. I nominated my articles for deletion as according to G7. JohnCD was a great admin, whom unlike you did an honour in my opinion. Yet, because of one rogue admin I need to suffer, and maybe get blocked...--Mishae (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • They are not "your" articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• My two cents I was asked by Mishae to come here. Simply put, this can be resolved by discussion between editors and by referring to deletion policy. It's nice in a way to save server space but there's really nothing saved by deletion as the revisions still exist on the servers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  How does it even come close to "saving" server space? Creating new log entries when nothing gets deleted? The whole concept of "saving server space" is useless anyways. Legoktm (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

  • There's also the fact that it makes the "new" articles copyright violations as it breaks the attribution history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Justin for intervention, I too believe that we could have discussed it without the above circus, unfortunately someone wants to show who is the boss...--Mishae (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • @The Bushranger: Are you accusing me of copyright violations? If so, where?--Mishae (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not "accusing", I'm just pointing out that deleting an article and then pasting in the contents into a "rebooted" article is the same thing as a cut-and-paste move, and thus a violation of WP:CWW - this is why, even if doing this did save server space, it's not a good idea at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• There was a discussion here in April about Mishae trying to save server space in a different way, and it includes both background and possibly the statement by Ryan Vesey that Mishae has misunderstood. It looks as if a short block resulted; Mishae, you promised at that time that you would stop trying to save server space in ways that the community finds disruptive, and you had it explained to you then that any and all changes are recorded on the servers; deleting an article does not make that record go away, it just makes it invisible to all but administrators. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I remember it, now I didn't knew that it will be disruptive too.--Mishae (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It is, for two reasons: you were not the only editor of the old version of the articles, so by having them deleted you are removing the public record of others' contributions to them - whether those contributions were major or minor, that is not right and actually violates the terms, which was The Bushranger's point; and secondly, it doesn't remove anything from the servers, because everything is recorded and remains recorded, including the history of deleted articles (which is why admins can see them and undelete them), so as with the edits removing spaces, you are actually adding to the consumption of server space. Please stop doing this. In any case, as you have been told before, the servers have plenty of space. Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Fascinating, I was not aware of that discussion, and both that discussion and this one feel needlessly confrontational (in the interim Mishae threatened me with a circus on my talk page, I've seen better circuses than this). This really ought to be a straightforward technical exercise but mainspace articles can't be treated this way. Mishae, you say you didn't know it would be disruptive. I, an uninvolved user whom you'd never interacted before, told you it was. You immediately became defensive and said you would be "very angry" if you couldn't do this. This is a collaborative project. We're all wrong sometimes. We have to be willing to take on criticism, usually constructive but sometimes not, from other users. Otherwise we're going to be back here again. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, if you say we all wrong sometimes, then take back the threat. I used the term circus only as a term, there was no indication of a threat at all. As far as disruption goes, I was defensive because I didn't knew it, but now I kind off do. There are still many questions left unanswered: For example, how does a deletion of the entire article and its recreation afterword does add up more space? Like, I personally thought that by combining all edits into one, will result into a consumption of space. Second, how does my actions violate the copyright terms if I recreate the article the same way it was? And don't threaten me with Otherwise we're going to be back here again! What people don't realize is that eventually, someone will get the ownership of the articles to themselves, whether it will be Jimmy Wales or anyone after him... Theoretically, every article is owned by Wikipedia and therefore, by Jimmy Wales himself. In Russian Wikipedia there was numerous accusations of copyright infringement from Wikipedia part. And please, don't take it as a threat, its just my observation. Another question, is updating versions and dates is considered to be disruptive as well?--Mishae (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

{ec}Firstly, in the previous ANI that you were brought up in, which I believe was earlier this year, you were told that everything that is done on Wikipedia is saved, including any deleted articles. Deletion here does not mean that they are wiped away and replaced but that they are moved such that only those with admin (or higher) privileges can view them. When you recreate the article a new version is saved onto the servers. In essence, your attempt to "save space" has in fact used up even more space. However, you were also told previously that your attempts to save space were disruptive and warned against doing it again. Secondly, your hypothetical is incorrect. All articles and material on Wikipedia are copyrighted by those who wrote it or uploaded the images. However, the editors and uploaders freely release, irrevocably (meaning they cannot revoke this release), their copyrighted material for use by anyone as long as it does not violate copyright laws. Therefore, no it does not belong to Wikipedia nor does it belong to Jimmy Wales. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the copyright policy works here. Blackmane (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you all for calm explanations, I will follow them from now on. Still though, I am worried will I get blocked for my misunderstanding even though it happened before (but a long time ago)?--Mishae (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To anwer your other questions above, even if you recreate the article in the same state that it was when it was deleted, there is no longer a viewable attribution history that shows others' edits - and that is required under Wikipedia's licensing, therefore it becomes a violation per WP:CWW. As for updating versions and dates - I wouldn't call that necessary, however I also wouldn't call it disruptive - it simply reflects that the content is still there but has been updated. I would, however, try to merge such an update into a cleanup/copyedit/wikignoming of the rest of the article if possible. As for potential blocking, now that things have been explained and you understand them, as long as you follow the advice given here and there isn't a repeat of what caused this, I think we can wrap this up with nothing more than some fresh seafood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:37, 15 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.

Disruptive editor

186.116.48.122 (talk · contribs) [ Outing removed } is attempting to censor information from a source he doesn't like by blanking sections of the article, Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and replacing with his own editorial comments about the source he doesn't like.[201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208] His general complaint is about material sourced to a former high-profile member of the religion (Raymond Franz) who is frequently cited in other sources as an expert about the religion. The critic's views are clearly presented as his own views, and there is no valid reason to delete entire sections from the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

More recent diffs: [209][210]--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is pretty obviously [ Outing removed ] and have warned Kitaro for 3RR. Including the IP he is at 5RR now. Jeffro, reverting him isn't an exemption from 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR: The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... 4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Note also that the editor deleted entire sections—including information citing other sources—rather than only statements from the individual source he was complaining about.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed the other account - per WP:OUT if he doesn't disclose his name or IP address, we can't connect the dots either, it's considered outing. File an SPI or keep the speculation out please. (Yes I looked at the edits, the behavior is similar so I hear you loud and clear about that )

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

He did disclose his username,[211] and I object to the accusation of 'outing'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The disruptive edits are continuing with this. I have firmly warned the user. DES ^(talk) 17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't outing, as in revision 577276180 the IP signed with the username. Peter James (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, Peter James, however, per this it would still be considered outing. (Because we don't really know if the IP was the identified user or not )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  

Um, can you point to the exact diff that says connecting an IP with a username is outing? Because I don't see it, and that would fly in the face of a lot of WP:SPIs... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: - well actually any competent CU will NOT link an IP to a named account, unless there is evidence of disruptive and/or long-term sockpuppetry. Have a read of WP:CHK which governs what data is actually made public i.e. little to none. GiantSnowman 19:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's true, and I could have phrased that better - I meant that in the sense that that would imply connecting an IP to an editor per WP:DUCK and then putting "user Foo" in the block summary would be "outing" in that case" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a fine line i.e. names accounts committing block evasion as an IPs, for example. Personally, if there's clear disruption then linking the two are fine. GiantSnowman 19:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The Sunshine Village edits may have been deleted with "WP:OUTING" as a reason, but discussion suggests it was actually more of a BLP issue because of alleged COI. In cases such as these, if IP is the username, then the connection is disclosed so not outing, and if not then impersonation and also not outing. Peter James (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

PeterJames, like I said, I agree with your reasoning, remember, however, that we don't actually know that the IP user is really the user he says he is. He could be an impersonator. Because we don't really know, assigning a username to him based on his say-so is wrong. Also, we have an example to look at in checkusers, they never state that an IP is so-an-so user, so if they can't, and they're trusted with more information than we are, do we have a right to say it ? I'd say no, but like I said, I do understand where you're coming from.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we have the right to say that IP X and User Y are editing in a similar disruptive pattern, whether they are the same person or not, and that is the main issue for the purposes of this notice board, in my view. DES ^(talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In any case, this represents at least the 3rd such edit by a logged-in user. Completely ignoring any IP edits, this (and the warnings provided) is enough that any further such edits would merit a block, in my view. DES ^(talk) 20:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerry Pepsi

Jerry Pepsi (talk · contribs) is currently mass removing category of James Bond film locations with the edit note "not defined by presence in fiction", and seems to be starting edit wars when his removal are reverted. Since I have been editing one of the articles, I am rather posting a note here than stepping in. Olivier (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. Many of these are unexplained with no edit summary. Some do have some explanation as, "real locations are not defined by their presence in fiction" or similar. I fail to see how this applies to Oddjob's hat, a film mcguffin defined entirely by its (notable) part in the Bond canon. In some cases though I have some sympathy for this: Schilthorn existed before and was unchanged by its minor role in Bond. Piz Gloria though, the restaurant/lair on top of the Schilthorn, has a more major role and its general perception to the wikipedian on the Clapham omnibus comes almost entirely from Bond. Likewise for cars: the Maserati and even the BMWs had minor roles that were insignificant to their perception. The Lotus Esprit and the Toyota 2000GT though have used their film role as a major part of their marketing. There is almost no other way in which the Toyota is known in the West apart from the Bond film.

There's also the aspect that MediaWiki categorization is navigational, not defining. None of these (AFAIK) were obviously outside this, even for those that couldn't be said to have a reasonable defining role.

Overall, I think Jerry has a reasonable point and it's applicable to some of these, but he's pushing it too far. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

He is also removing (non-Bond) categories on grounds of WP:PERF[212] which, if it is not a joke, is incomprehensible to me. Even if WP:PERFORMER is meant, the rationale applies to articles, not categories. Thincat (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Per long-standing consensus as first formulated in this discussion, real-world locations are not defined by their presence in fiction and are therefore not categorized in relation to the fiction. If you or another editor believes that consensus on this matter has changed, please feel free to open a discussion in an appropriate forum. As it now stands, consensus is against this manner of categorization.
• Also per long-standing consensus, people are not categorized on the basis of the fiction upon which they worked.
• And oh no, I missed like one or two edit summaries. Big deal.
• Accusations of "edit warring" are baseless and sensationalized. Any concerned editor could have left a message on my talk page and I would have been happy to explain my actions, although the edit summaries are as far as I'm concerned quite explanatory. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• I used an incorrect abbreviation in some edit summaries. I meant Wikipedia:OC#Performers_by_performance when I used WP:PERF. But again, simply asking me instead of tattling here would have I'm sure allayed many concerns. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring is when you continue to remove these categories, even whilst still at ANI and gaining no support from other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerry, accusing other editors of "tattling" is uncivil at best and could be construed by some as a personal attack, so please assume good faith on their part. As for your category cleaning, mass removal of articles from categories, even if it doesn't leave said categories empty, really should be discussed at WP:CFD or the relevant WikiProject's talk page, especially if your edits are reverted - even if you are 100% in the right and following policy, edit-warring is still edit-warring, and Bold, Revert, Discuss applies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue of categorizing real-world locations in categories for works of fiction was discussed at CFD over three years ago and consensus was and is not to do it. I would have been more than pleased to explain that to any concerned editor had they contacted me on my talk page instead of bringing it to a sanctioning forum. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors make editorial decisions, using their judgement. If we could reduce every part of this to a dogmatic script, as you suggest here, we could all go home and leave it to a 'bot to do the editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The only suggestion I'm making here is that a better solution to this situation would have been to open a discussion with me on my talk page instead of bringing it here. I'm not sure what "dogmatic script" is supposed to mean but all I've done is remove articles from categories which were against the consensus of the project as expressed through CFD. Still not seeing the problem with that. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at all of your obvious "Bond" removals last night. If you look at the logs, you'll see that I restored only some of them – maybe a third. The point of WP:PERF is that actors appear in more than one role, so that cat'ing by performance would be a mess of clutter. As always, we need a commutative relationship. We should not categorize such things merely because they were important to Bond, but if and only if Bond was important to them. For those I restored, I consider this to be a supportable claim – although arguable for Fort Knox and the Nene Valley Railway, as I noted. There is a difference between the Schilthorn and Piz Gloria: for Piz Gloria, Bond gave it a popular prominence that it didn't have before and wouldn't have without this appearance. A Lotus Esprit prop car recently sold for incredible money, because the first Lotus Esprit is still known better from the Bond film than anything else. These are relevant categorizations. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The project operates on consensus and the current consensus is that real-world locations are not properly categorized based on the fiction in which they appear. Removing such articles from the Bond categories was not because of WP:OC#PERF but because "part of a James Bond film takes place here" is not per consensus a defining characteristic of the place. Per its history, Piz Gloria was in the Bond locations category at the time it was discussed and deleted so clearly whatever prominence it gained from being in the film was not considered sufficient to justify the categorization. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Jerry, as I told you above, once you are reverted WP:BRD applies. Repeated removals after you are reverted are disruptive even when you are "enforcing consensus". Even if you are 100% in the right once you are reverted unless it is obvious vandalism or a BLP issue you must discuss, it does not matter that there was past consensus - among other things consensus can change. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• (outdent) Thanks, I'm aware that consensus can change but I have seen no evidence that consensus has changed in this instance. Again, all that had to happen here was for one editor of another to open a discussion on my talk page. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The article and the talk page dont match

Resolved

Could someone who knows what they are doing fix

• Enoch (ancestor of Noah) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and

• Enoch (Biblical figure) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For some reason, the article is located at the top version but the talk page redirects to the variation at the bottom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, I think. If you run into this again, you can just tag the redirect under G6 then do the move yourself. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin Discussion closure requested

Would an uninvolved admin take a look at THIS WP:OR Noticeboard discussion and take the appropriate action? Thank you. The thread was started October 1st, and it has now sat there for over 7 days without any additional activity. My kind regards, Mercy11 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP undoing edits after final warning

Resolved

90.200.85.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned many times mainly by User:TheOldJacobite about disruptive editing and began to restore all of the disruptive edits within an hour (Most recent edits:[213], [214]) after been given a final warning. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's a dynamic IP, unfortunately. I've blocked it for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for your time, I'll check the contributions now and see if there's any damage to be repaired. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing this before. Here are two links to previous dealings we have had with this problematic editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/90.200.85.232/Archive and User:Rodhullandemu/Archive/34#The_90.199.99..2A_IP You will notice just how long this has been going on. Thanks for the block of the current IP. MarnetteD | Talk 20:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars (sources declared unreliable), user removes material etc

There's currently an edit war going on in the battle of Lesnaya article, in summary Shervinsky (talk · contribs) decided to swap out the already existing material on casualties and losses, hence they were well sources, without having it mentioned in the 'discussion' at first. I've been undoing his edits, saying he should join the discussion page. In short, he's claiming his sources are more reliable, yet they're said to be "unreliable" according to modern Russian sources I'm using. He currently, finally after waiting, joined the talkpage but won't answer to why his sources should be included. He seems to have a somewhat aggressive behavior to it as well saying stuff like "idiot" etc. Besides, he's removing much of my edits of article material (over 6000 kb) which I refer to as vandalism. I think there's a major difference between this and other "edit wars" as his sources are unreliable and I have clearly informed him of that here. Please, have an admin look into this and see if there's a good way to settle it. I have notified the user on his User talk:Shervinsky. Imonoz (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Block of user 108.95.180.195

I am requesting that 108.95.180.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked permanently. This user refuses to establish a proper username and instead is using an IP address 108.95.180.195, which registered to AT&T Internet Services. The user has made over 500 disruptive edits and has been warned to cease by TRL, Mark Arsten, Fun, Manticore and myself. The user's talk page and contribution page speak for themselves.Oanabay04 (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is, of course, no requirement that a user "establish a proper username". As to disruption, I looked at the last few edits in the contribs, and they seem to be very minor formatting changes (many making sure that "Production notes is a bulleted list) but I don't see significant disruption there. Perhaps you would indicate specifically which edits are disruptive and how? I may well be missing something. DES ^(talk) 21:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of productive edits. I'm more concerned by Oanabay's statement regarding establishing a username above and am extremely concerned by "never edit another Three Stooges film again". Without diffs from Oanabay, I can't be sure that the IP's edits were MoS violations, but even if they were Oanabay handled it the worst possible way. Ryan Vesey 21:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan Vesey on this. DES ^(talk) 21:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Broken reference names being removed from articles rather than fixed

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.

---

Frze (talk · contribs) has been working on the "pages with broken reference names" backlog and making some good fixes. However, he has also been "correcting" the problems by either commenting out the offending reference, as in North American Wetlands Conservation Act or erasing it from the article altogether,as in Jado and Just Knud Qvigstad. This converts references which someone has goofed up and can often be fixed into unreferenced statements. He has been doing this very rapidly today. Can he be stopped, and can the erasures be replaced? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

A check should be done before he removes them to ensure that the named reference never existed. This should be easy using wikiblame. Why was this brought here right away? You left a note on his talk page, and brought it here before he made another edit. That's a bit hasty, so this should probably be closed. Ryan Vesey 21:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

[double EC] When you can't easily fix the reference, commenting it out is better than leaving it, because the broken citation doesn't reference anything. Removing the citation fixes the backlog, but it makes it harder to repair the citations, so I've asked him not to remove them entirely. This isn't something that needs further attention. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 15 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.

Serious Concern. Please look into this matter

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.

---

Sir, with due respect to everyone present/involved, i'd like to bring this serious concern of mine into your notice. An editor named TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom has been constantly involved in heinous activities such as edit wars, disruptive editing and removal of perfectly referenced information from large number of pages and even complete deletion of pages and images without any prior notice.If you please visit his talk page, you will find a lot of complaints and arguments regarding his disruptive editing,edit wars,misbehavior,use of abusive language, deletion of well referenced information from multiple pages, deletion of pages and images which should have been discussed before removal and many such heinous activities that are not acceptable on Wikipedia . Link to his talk page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

Sir, this is one such conversation in which he used abusive language. Please have a look on the talk page content for more. You kight even check the talk page history to find even more content of misbehavior, edit war warnings and other warnings. THIS IS ONE SUCH CASE:-

Finished reading Wiki Guidelines[edit]

I have finished reading the Wiki guidelines and I will be keeping a close watch on all your edits to make sure you are not involved in any war edits as a subject you might even be blocked. I saw someone pointing out that you were involved in an edit war. I am assuming good faith in you and hope you do not take part in any edit wars. Thanks Marcelrios (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I discovered that you made some recent changes on prankvsprank, making a few changes. I am still waiting to hear from the website about the reliability of the article so that there is no biased POV here. I suggest that you look into Wikipedia:Systemic bias before you continue with your edits on Wikipedia. Marcelrios (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

huh wah the fuck does Systemic Bias have to do with PvP? Have YOU actually read that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

He misbehaved with user Marcelrios by saying the above statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.20.19 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 October 2013‎

Or, Marcelrios (talk · contribs), you could stop trying to use a blog as a source for criticism. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

->Activities such as these are not at all acceptable on Wikipedia and one should try to keep a strict control on his/her words. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and we all should work together to enrich this. The user RedPen has been constantly ignoring all the warnings and has been editing articles in a disruptive manner , has been using abusive language, has been involved in edit wars and has been removing well referenced information from pages . Please check the user page of RedPen to see the kind of attitude he has taken up regarding wikipedia. - 1.38.20.19 (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my stupification of wondering huh wah the fuck does Wikipedia:Systemic bias have to do with any editing at PrankvsPrank and whether Marcelrios had actually read it before making the post on my page.

(for what its worth, Marcelrios likely geolocates to Canada (IP edit on my talk page followed by Marcelrios appending his sig geolocated to Canada, and the IP making the post here (and on other boards via other dynamic IPs) has been from a mobile platform in India and so they are unlikely actually socks.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

-> What do you want to say ? Me and Marcelris are socks ? 1.38.20.19 (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

-> Sir, I do not have any personal issues with the RedPenOfDoom. And why is no one watching his talk page ? At least visit his talk page for once and check the number of complaints about disruptive editing and the number of complaints about edit wars . Also see the use of abusive language . 1.38.20.19 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC) -> Oh please! did you really see his talk page? Okay, let's say you did . When a normatl user on wikipedia does disruptive editing or is found involved in edit wars , or is using abusive language, the user is BLOCKED . Then why not so called " RedPenOfDoom" . what is so special about him ? why should he be spared ? And i do not think that only the user with whom he misbehaved can start a discussion . Anyone can. This is a collaborative environment. PLEASE BE UNBIASED, IT'S A REQUEST !!! 122.163.226.164 (talk) 10:34, 16 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:Iamwhiteman

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

---

This user is in need of an indef block.[215][216]User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Do fascists not have spell check? Carrite (talk) 02:47, 16 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.

Genderqueer article harassment.

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genderqueer&diff=577362737&oldid=577362218

This person as you can clearly see called me both scum which I resent and Cis which I resent more because I'm not.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There I.P. address is 50.171.49.77. They made a clearly binarist (bigoted towards non-binary transpeople) edit as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for harassment. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Like. Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 16 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.

Subtle POV vandalism by IP

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

---

69.248.60.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made a bunch of subtle changes to many US state election pages today, changing numbers to (I surmise) make the GOP look better (as if). Several warnings on talk page, and also reported to OTRS as vandalism. Another set of edits date back to June. A preventive block might be in order to prevent other editors to have to follow them around reverting their changes. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by Zad68. This is egregious enough that it could have been reported as vandalism at WP:AIV; just an option to keep in mind for the future. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:41, 16 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.