Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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.[1] 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?”:[2]. No answer, not a problem, nobody goes to my stuff, anyway. So I tried this: [3]. Helpful? Who but a code person could get this? [4]. 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: [5]. 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)

SaltyBoatr, Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

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

---

Obviously a very controversial topic, but SaltyBoatr is being highly disruptive. He has created FIVE talk page sections today [6] , all making essentially the same complaint. He is repeatedly failing to WP:AGF and making personal attacks accusing all the editors of extreme bias. Several editors are attempting to engage him, and address his concerns, but he continually making accusations and highly sarcastic comments. A few choice comments from today (basically every comment he has posted today).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Closure

Can we get an admin to look at this and close it per WP:SNOW? Every editor that has commented is in support of the topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 16:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

A lot is being undone here

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly! The people who do this kind of work appreciate the tags. Another PITA is Chowkatsun9 (talk · contribs) who continues a Hong Kong-based IP evasion of his ban as we speak.[7] Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is that simple and I can't speak for other editors ability to apologize. As to proof perhaps you are unaware how things work at SPI. Socking can go on rapidly but response to reports about it do not. I filed a report on Pe [8] including proof that he admitted to being a sock that saw ten days go by for any action to be taken on it. So you are saying that I should not have been allowed to tag any of the IPs he was editing from before or during those ten days? I am sorry (see!) but that is taking a simplistic and absurd view of how thing work around here. IPs who have received an improper block happen (and some of those are for reasons other that socking) if you feel that is wrong then that is your prerogative. Articles that get vandalized by socks and editors who get trolled by those socks occurs much more often and my concern over removing the tools to deal with that is mine. I am logging off now so this takes care of stating my opinion on the subject. MarnetteD | Talk 06:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Request close

1. The TfD was closed, innocuously, as delete (3-0-1) by @Plastikspork: at 23:33 28 Sept 2013 [9]. It looks like they just went through TfD and closed a whole batch -- SOP for regular admins.
2. This ANI was opened at 00:51 29 Sept 2013. I don't see where Plasticspork was notified??
3. Discussion was initiated at User talk:Plastikspork#IPSock Template at 01:37 29 Sept 2013.
4. Plasticspork asked if Doc9871 wanted it relisted, and then did relist it at 02:30 29 Sept 2013 [10].
5. The balance has now shifted to not delete.

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

Look at the large number of IPs in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zombie433 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rovers Forever - the tagging of IPs is an invaluable tool in range blocks for blocked and banned editors. As far as I am aware nobody else edits from these ranges. GiantSnowman 11:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:Harassment from User:Binksternet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Binksternet has been harassing and hounding Steeletrap for months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I read everything. But I am not going to comment on Steeletraps's complaint. And I read this stuff which does not address Steeletrap's complaint – so that's why I commented. I am restating the obvious with the hope that Steeletrap can receive whatever redress is justified. E.g., this side issue does Steeletrap's complaint a disservice. – S. Rich (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Belittling personal attacks on Binksternet and Srich32977

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stale

 –
No new points being made, and I (one of the "victims" of the belittling remarks) do not consider the remarks worthwhile of this extended discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose per Carolmooredc, Carlton, MrX, Mojoworker et al. And Sitush also hit a nail on the head. Writegeist (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Being wikihounded for sure

My letter to info-en-q at wikimedia dot org (re AFD on everything I am associated with musically in the open source and on the greatest online encyclopaedia ever

Haello all, delete my page but leave Adam Rabuck's and Mike Wagner and Josh Alpert's bands alone. This is my note to the ppl who are supposed to aid me against this duffbeerforme witchhunt against everything I have ever done.

[show]Copy of en email to WMF re a series of AfDs

Hi all, I know I am notable. So do you because I was told so unequivocally several times and have screenshots of chat room transcripts and more wiki archival correspondence to support what I started this email with. It's true. But Ellin Beltz and DuffBeerForMe in particular are ignorant of this.

The Dennis Donaghy page (abbrev 'DD') may need cleanup (again, first time Revent was the user that neutralized the DD page). But not AFD Deletion.

Why? I am a musician, subject to musician guidelines as far as living people.

Musician guideline 6 even as reads now and even without my note edit a few minutes ago, is how I was repeatedly told you can never really become un-notable unless they change the rules or something. IU may be mistaken but I have screenies showing vet wiki ppl tellin me this. Snapped shots just in case Duffbeerforme types who inevitably emerge to strike ppl like me (is how i truly feel) instead of getting up and earning a possible notability if thats what they want. I didnt ever want notability (actualy in '07 I unpromptedly made a page called Iteprunct (Multimedia Artist) but didnt contest the deletion, had fun with it. Having fun with this one too, as much as I can, but it's stressful and I thik it's unfair for this and here is why I characterize it as a witch hunt-

This Duffbeerforme person is AFD'ing everything I am associated with. He's trying to unnotable all the bands that made me notable. Look fer yerselves, dont believe me as I am the biased subject.

But seriously, I am aware Duffbeerforme is perfectly entitled to do these afd's the tags etc, but man it really seems like overkill, like you know, some OTHER motivation other than loving and defending the wikipedia. maybe jealousy or to prove a point, or to flex wiki muscles, I have no idea. I don't have and never had 'wiki-jealousy' or feel the need to slash away at ambiguously notable ppl. I have been simply trying to adhere to the rules, creating pages (Button King, Golden Eagle Regional Park and Sports Complex, and I just helped oon the Navy Yard Aaron Alexis thing) and not editing DD page except those two minor times after RRevents neut. where I made totally minor uncontroversial edits to correct wrong info.

Anyway, Duffbeerforme has quickly slapped tags on everything associated with me. I don't care what happens per se as long as it is FAIR.

It seems fishily unfair at this point to me and I am trying to be careful pointing fingers. It's weird for this user to start hacking away at a very admittedly grey area as if its some clear-cut flagrant violation of some highly prized moral code he's crusading on. I made a page about me, it was neutralized, I corrected it, uhh, LOTS of time transpired where I either did nothing, or edited other pages.

The DD page is a listing of a man, a person (me) who seems fairly notable despite fragmented open source citation material, and virtually or not virtually, admittedly absolutely zero major media. WHICH IS WHY I was characterized initially as OUTSIDER MUSICIAN! read the entry, thats me almost to a T but I digress...

For the interest of your time and efforts please realize Revent was the first user who neutralized the DD page. It can be done again, but DELETING Dennis Donaghy, Blanket Statementstein, and Dirt Bike Annie over this is seriously weird since I had nothing to do with either of those bands since I left, nobody was questioning their pages and now they are due to my page being suspect.

You guys should leave Adam's andd Mike's pages alone (Rabuck and Wagner) they don't deserve to be part of this witchhunt, if its me you want knock me out of the wikipedia I wanted that in the fucking first place

This is so frustrating, but thx guys (meaning guys and or gals)

Dennis

So that's it. I'm done. (with this afd defending myself bs, not done contributing quality volunteer work here lynching successful or no. squigglies. Phaedrx (talk) Phaedrx (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"This is the Help Desk for requesting help with using or finding your way around Wikipedia. AfDs should be discussed on the relevant discussion page. If you genuinely feel you are being wikihounded by a user systematically reverting your past contributions or nominating them for deletion, you can report it to administrators at WP:ANI, but their first concern, like any other users', will be with the individual merits of each revert or AfD nomination. Other than that I'm afraid there's little for us to do here, unless you have a specific question. - Karenjc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)"

in the interest of full disclosure I felt the need to prominently publish the above text, verbatim, on my personal Official Artist Website at www,phaedrx.com and use it as a platform to defend myself, however MY site's rules govern what I can do there. I am acting with love and in righteousness as I always do. I am not simply gonna sit and take this if I think it's wrong. Please be fair. Thanks. squigglies Phaedrx (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

THANK YOU WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION AND THANK YOU ADMINISTRATORS. LOVE, PHAEDRX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrx (talk • contribs)

??? I have no idea what's is going on here, or what is being asked. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief, I thought it was just me. Looking at his website, I'd guess he's cross with us. Not that what he's written there about us makes more sense. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So, we AfD'd some articles he created. Most were deleted by the community. He whined to the WMF, and is copy/pasting those e-mails here. He's mad because the community determined his "work" was not-Wikipedia-worthy ES&L 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, based on some of the comments, like "I know I am notable," I get the impression he's also talking about articles he or someone created about him, and is complaining that they were deleted. I think maybe WP:COI might apply as well. If this editor can establish through sources that the subjects of the articles involved, whether they directly relate to him or not, meet guidelines as per WP:NOTABILITY, then I guess he is free to create pages on them, although he probably should indicate his relation to the subjects of some of those articles somewhere. Otherwise, honestly, I don't know if there is anything that can really be done here, and I guess maybe, except for perhaps someone maybe advising the editor of some of the relevant policies and guidelines, this thread could be closed as there really doesn't seem to be in any way really actionable. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. He presumably ended up here because of my response to his email copypaste here at the help desk, which he's then repasted here along with my reply. The catalyst seems to be the AfDing of the article about himself but he was claiming a sustained campaign. I hatted him but offered links to WP:HOUND and here, with what I hoped was a suitable caveat, in case he found he did need admin assistance, but he's obviously not reading links or taking advice, just forum shopping. Sorry to give him this as another venue. -Karenjc (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this today, so it's new to me, too. It's a COI and a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. His associated IP account was blocked for edit warring on his bio [11], and in his dudgeon he's taken swipes at other editors [12], [13] and played with the music notability guideline page for WP:POINTY effect [14]. The subject interprets the AfD process as a personal attack, and is questioning the integrity and motives of other editors. JNW (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• A person with no wiki experience and little knowledge of our processes who is understandably (not "justifiably") irritated with what he sees as a concerted effort to wipe him off the wiki map. Pay it no mind, let the AfDs run their course, and this will all blow over. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You're mostly right on all accounts, as usual, Drmies. But: he has edited at least since April, when he created his bio, and has subsequently edited primarily to debate his notability, using--per his admission and credible claim that there was no intent to sock--multiple accounts [15], [16]. This is someone with enough wiki knowledge to have created and, as much as possible, controlled their own bio. That's not unusual, but it neutralizes our response when the subject cries foul. JNW (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, well, maybe I should say "limited" wiki experience. I do believe that this will blow over. Then again, I'm not singled out on their website. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hi: I was one of the people working with this editor from the beginning. On my advice he left a note on his userpage about his previous use of other names and various IPs, and has since edited under the single account of Phaedrx. The article on him was rewritten by an experienced editor to be more neutrally worded, and Phaedrx has been occasionally tweaking it to make it more accurate. (Those edits are in the record of course; I have the article watchlisted and did not see self-aggrandizement in them.) He's also written a couple of other articles about topics other than himself. His notability rests on his having played in various bands; now the bands have been taken to AfD as well as the article on him, and the nomination statement refers to it as a vanity article. Unfortunately his response culminated in his blanking most of the article while logged out, and I was forced to block him for edit warring, so he will not be responding for a few hours more. That's the short version. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a good summation of the history, Yngvadottir. Though for all your good intentions, perhaps you, too, will receive acknowledgment at Phaedrx's website. JNW (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you'd already been thanked [17]. This and Ellin Beltz's experience to be filed under the heading of 'No Good Deed'.... JNW (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As one of the ones getting the "barnstars" on this user's personal webpage, I too hope this blows over. The user asked me to review the article. I read the notability criteria for musicians, offered my observations on the situation and he was apparently displeased. While I found the writing in the article to be non-biased, the citations didn't have the content to back up the phrases in the article. Also I noticed that the subject's name as shown on the Wikipedia page did not occur in several of the citations listed, including "The New York Times". "The New Yorker" and "The Seattle Times" articles. There were valid links to his own website and a couple of blogs. Please let me know if there's anything else I have to do to reply to this ANI? Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

IP making unfounded accusations

IP 212.50.182.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been prodding a number of law-related articles created by David91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who no longer seems active on Wikipedia and is therefore unable to respond. While I have no reason to doubt that said articles do need reviewing by expert editors and the prods will follow their natural process, I consider that unfounded and malign accusations, such as these, supposedly "supported" by links that do not in any way support said accusations, should not be tolerated and need to be brought to admin attention and corresponding action taken, including removal of such comments.

Although circumstantial, I have consulted with an admin, who is also a lawyer and had a number of dealings with David91. Said admin is of the opinion that the latter is a lawyer with many years of law practice, which coincides with my opinion that the IP's accusations in that respect are, to say the least, unfounded. All of which seems to suggest that there is probably more behind this than an IP wanting to help clean up Wikipedia. --Technopat (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

While it is a hassle, you can remove PROD tags if you object, Technopat, and then if the IP user wants to nominate them at AfD, they will have to register and compose a nomination for each article which is more work than slapping a tag on an article. I'm glad you're watching over these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, Liz. While the prods themselves undergo their due process, I do think that the IP's unfounded accusations regarding the bona fides of a user who is no longer active should be removed by an admin.--Technopat (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, now I'm slightly doubting myself for assisting the IP user in the creation of this AFD. Seemed like the correct thing to do at the time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This may be worth mentioning. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The article "Civil recognition of Jewish divorce" was started by the then a 14-year-old Singaporean school pupil (([18]); ([19])), then in (secondary, or middle) school in England, but pretending to be a "retired "lawyer" " of 91 (([20]); (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive44#Searching_for_info_on_User:David91); (User:SouthernNights/Archive_5#David91); ([21]); ([22]); ([23]); ([24]); ([25]); ([26]) (see the words "retired" or "memory" on the pages given at the last six links)), who somehow thought that he knew Law by getting hold and reading one of (probably his father's) academic (not legal) titles (the difference between "academic books on law" and "legal books" is that between books about "how the law should be like, and how they should be changed accordingly" and books about "how should you practise the law as it is, as the law currently stands") (by one John Greenwood Collier, who only used to teach (a very specific area of) Law, possibly as a jurist and a legal theorist; there is no available evidence to suggest that Collier is himself ever actually a member of the Law Society as a solicitor or a member of the General Council of the English Bar as a barrister) (([27]); ([28]); ([29]); ([30]); ([31]); ([32]); ([33])) on the subject of Private International Law (Like his book, he even changed the name into "conflict of laws" after the title, and often wrote without even the article.), and started thinking that he had studied Law and could write about Law, when he had in fact neither—nothing, not even GCSE Law, International O-Levels Law, IGCSE Law, A-Level Law, International A-Level Law or IB Law (if the last in fact exists), as I had originally thought and opined accordingly, albeit upon a different page!


It was very unlikely that he was not giving out private legal advice, especially on divorce, perhaps by internal E-mail from his Wikipedia account ([34]); and the whole article was his private "crackpot" theory—like me, as an outsider, not being a Jew—on how to procure a Jewish religious divorce with unreasonable, immoral or unlawful terms (perhaps secured with the help and co-operation of an unethical Rabbi or Rabbis) to the benefit of one of the parties, and how to make such terms somehow "stick" and enforceable as if they were valid in civil and secular courts of law and record without the need to secure a separate civil and secular divorce for the marriage to be lawfully dissolved in the eyes of both Jewish (Orthodox) religious law and secular law, based upon his own private theories on Private International Law. (He believed that even mere academic theories, purely on the drawing board, of Private International Law (that he mistook as actual law), can somehow take precedence, nay override, national and international law without so much as a signed and ratified (and enacted, for some jurisdictions) treaty or convention.)


He certainly could not have been a "lawyer" (When was the English, Northern Ireland, Irish and Scottish distinction between solicitors, barristers, Scottish advocates and notaries public abolished?) in the United Kingdom and Islands or in any of the jurisdictions within any of the most other major Countries within the British Commonwealth of Nations and also retaining the use and application of the English Common law, if he thought that the Law Lords in the House of Lords (He simply described them as "the House of Laws", a layman's term, instead of "the Law Lords".) somehow had appellate jurisdiction over the Isle of Man, Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey—when the House of Lords did not, on almost all things since probably the last 200 to 325/350 years; the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey were treated as autonomous private fiefdoms of the English and British Crown, or, the Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, and the Parliaments of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not usually have jurisdiction over them, and it was long considered (by an extension of the legal principle—from the ruling detailed in the enrolled (with the Master of the Rolls) Memorandum from the Lords of the Privy Council for the King-in-Council, on the 9th. August 1722 ("...Acts of Parliament made in England, without naming the foreign Plantations, will not bind them ...")—to cover the Isle of Man and the Two Bailiwicks) that Acts of the Parliaments of Great Britain and the United Kingdom do not apply or extend to the Isle of Man or to the Two Bailiwicks unless they are specifically named; hence their "Supreme Court" is (a Committee of) the Privy Council (originally a body of advisers to advise the King or the Queen exercising his or her Royal Prerogative independent of Parliament), not a few members (the Law Lords) sitting in a chamber (House of Lords) of the Legislature that is not normally supposed to have jurisdiction over those Islands) (A person who had actually been brought up in a British Colony when it was still a British colony would also highly unlikely to mistaken the Lord Laws/House of Lords with the Privy Council's Committee (JCPC), bearing in mind that Colonial capital cases in the 20th. century were sometimes referred to the Privy Council/JCPC, and were widely reported locally.); or even to think that the Isle of Man, Jersey or the Guernsey were ever a (constituent) part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—an unforgivable mistake that he would not had made, if he had even watched so much as the FIFA World Cup, or even the Commonwealth Games! (User_talk:Morwen/11#English law)


He lacked competence. He was a charlatan. He was a fraud. He was a pretended "lawyer" who had only read one (wrong) book, and too lazy to decide whether he wanted to be a solicitor, a barrister or a notary public. I have not yet even gone into his amateurish way of mixing American and English cases—something that only academics—but not usually actual practising or retired solicitors and barristers—are allowed to do (because English cases after the year 1776 are not usually considered "persuasive" in American Courts, and American cases have almost never been considered persuasive in English Courts)! And if he were an American attorney and not an English (or a Singaporean) solicitor or barrister, then why was he even giving out commentaries on English law in the first place? An American attorney who comments on post-1776 English law (but without also qualifying as an English solicitor or barrister), in the same way as what "David91" did, based upon his record of edits ([35] ), would definitely fall under the Competence rule!


I do indeed realise with much foreboding that each and every word of what I had written and about to submit can cause your most loyal, humble and obedient servant to be blocked, nay banned, yet I am a faithful believer of "calling it what it is", and I also faithfully, earnestly and sincerely believe that, by "role-playing" on Wikipedia like some kind of a game of Second Life, he MUST be considered to be partly acting in bad faith, and all this has to be said. All his misguided support (([36]); ([37])) did not in any way serve to refute my case, my allegations in any material way—playing the man (me) instead of the ball.


Supposing that I were to believed, if he could lie about his age, his education and what his did as an occupation, what else could he also not lie about? And could a 14/15-year-old really write in the way, manner and style that he did? Can it believed that his works was his, and his alone? I know that I could not, when I was at that age! It would be highly foolhardy and reckless of us to think that none of his words were copyright violations, either from any of the works of this John Greenwood Collier, or from some other source.


The evidence of his other glaring and unforgivable errors, unbecoming of either a solicitor or a barrister in England, include the following: (([38]); ([39]); ([40]); ([41]) ("Northern Island"? "Guerney"? Pull the other one!); ([42]); ([43]); ([44]); ([45]); ([46]); ([47]); ([48])) The fact of the matter is, in England, barristers and solicitors are not—and probably never, unless the trial was supposed to be wholly conducted in Latin—supposed to throw Latin legal terms and phrases about in Court as liberally as our "David91" and also a lot of our cousins in the American sister profession do. There is probably never a tradition in England for it (see the Proceedings in Courts of Justice Act 1730, Chapter 26 (4 Geo. 2.)). — 212.50.182.151 (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question was last active in 2006. May i kindly remind you that this particular horse isn't just dead, it's actually been turned to glue. Kleuske (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A series of bad editing dating back some 7 and 1/2 years ago, if discovered, should still be exposed, in my view, and not in any way to seek to punish the now retired editor, but in order to remove the bad edits, bad information and the simple rubbish from Wikipedia. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop making wild accusations and conjectures. I have found nothing anywhere in the impressive-looking wealth of "evidence" above that bears out any of the accusations. Needless to say, I have not even bothered to check out the external links provided, for obvious reasons. For the benefit of those who might be considering wading through all of the above, the vast majority of the links are completely irrelevant and the few that could possibly have a direct bearing on the "case" are so circumstancial as to be derisory, to say the least. Might I suggest that editors'/admins' time would be better employed to see whether the prodded articles are encyclopedic or not, which is what should really concern us. --Technopat (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tecnopat opened this thread without discussing with 212 first, includes vague accusations and an appeal to authority to an admin / lawyer who isn't participating, and now says reviewing the editor's response is a waste of time? Given that a longstanding editor supported 212's analysis at Talk:Conflict_of_property_laws -- indicating we've had a very poor article sitting in mainspace for over seven years -- we should be thanking 212 for improving the encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Circumstantial? There are none so blind than those who refuse to see! With the greatest possible of respect, and with no undue disrespect to Americans (or even Canadians), but a licensed New York Attorney (having personally confirmed his record of license, I have no reason to question that), practising or otherwise, is no more qualified to judge who is a "kosher" and "legit" English solicitor or barrister or not than my neighbour's black cat! The legal professions of England and the State of New York are far from identical, and the legal traditions of the two respective jurisdictions are even less identical, and so much so that all this is a little like an American telling me that there is nothing wrong with a counterfeit English one-pound coin with "dodgy" indentations, or with a forged twenty-pound note, and that I am somehow being rude for refusing to accept either of them.

Has it ever occurred to any of my detractors that he might had been simply making things up as he went along? Just delete ALL of his surviving creations that are in any way remotely "original" or "controversial", I say! Wikipedia is surely making a fool of itself by allowing the jokes of his kind of original legal research to stand! --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia practice -- as mentioned in that wall of text on top of this page -- is to discuss issues with other editors before opening ANI threads. NE Ent 10:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:. Replied to NE Ent here. --Technopat (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

All the accusations by the IP that involve outing (i.e. any speculation about the identity, age, region, ... of User:David91 should be removed (rev-deled or oversighted) for violating WP:OUTING, and the IP told that he needs to stop or will get blocked. Food for thought; the IP claims that David91 is a 14-year old, based on this post he linked above. The problem is that that post is from 2010, but David91 joined Wikipedia and created e.g. Freedom of contract and Closed-end leasing in 2005, when he was thus supposedly 9 years old. Just to show you how dubious the sleuthing by the IP is. Really, we shouldn't care whether David91 is 91 years old or from 1991, what only matters is the quality of his edits. (Note, this post should be oversighted or revdeled as well of course). Fram (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do pay careful attention that barring the odd grammatical mistakes, I had used the past tense throughout. I claim that he was then (at the time) a 14-year-old back in the year 2005. There is and can be no "outing" when NO real names, real addresses, real telephone numbers or real E-mail addresses were ever given out. This is not "outing"—a deliberate private inflation of the term—but simply the supply of off-Wikipedia evidence. --- 212.50.182.151 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it is completely reasonable that a 91-year-old Wikipedian who has an interest in law, a college kid born in 1991 who likes SimCity, a married-with-children Singaporean who helps ex-pats online, and a schoolboy in the UK are all the same guy. Please. I agree, your outing really isn't an outing because it is actually a ludicrous amalgam of a several different people who all just happened to use the not-uncommon username "David91" somewhere on the Great Wide Internet. You then created a very imaginative, but ultimately silly, set of theories to explain why our Wikipedian didn't write or conduct himself like a married 14-year-old British-Singaporean SimCity-loving, ex-pat with kids. Can we put this foolishness away now? Thanks. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 04:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Article on Alfred H. Bartles

Some time ago I submitted to Wikipedia an article on Alfred H. Bartles, American composer. Some editor decided that it had too much "original research" in it and that it needed more references. I presumed that that was the end of that submission and thought it completely canceled and rejected.

I then gave what I had written to the library of the Blair School of Music at Vanderbilt University, where "original research" is welcome. With minor changes, it was then put on the library's website, as I had hoped. It was my intention then to rewrite the article for Wikipedia with references to the Vanderbilt website for facts. Today I get a notice from Wikipedia that my Wikipedia article -- which I thought had been completely rejected and thrown away by Wikipedia -- is in flagrant violation of Vanderbilt's copyright! Well of course! The website IS my rejected Wikipedia article!

I find it extremely difficult to communicate with Wikipedia. For example, there is no clear way to respond to this strange notice. Your instructions for authors are verbose and confusing. I have no idea whether I have found the right way to respond. But I know that I do not like being accused of plaigerism of myself when the problem is the difficulty of communication with Wikipedia.

In any event, would you please completely remove the previously submitted article from any place where it is still lurking in Wikipedia files.

Someday, if I have time and get over my irritation with the self-righteous attitude of Wikipedia, I or someone else may send you an article on this remarkable American composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClopperAlmon (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi ClopperAlmon. I'm sorry for the frustration you've been put through. The Alfred H. Bartles page was posted on 10 January 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. Wikipedia uses a variety of namespaces, each having a different purpose. Wikipedia articles are posted in Main/Article namespace. Your post was in Wikipedia:Project namespace in a project called "Articles for creation." In that WikiProject, contributions can become Wikipedia articles, but are not Wikipedia articles themselves (because they are not in Main/Article namespace). The notices you received on your talk page included a username of the person who posted the notice. You can communicate with them by clicking on the "talk" link next to their user name. The previously submitted article has been deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alfred H. Bartles. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created Alfred Bartles and notified ClopperAlmon on his talk page. I think some of our templates (particularly the standard Twinkle notifications for A7, G11 and G12) are bitey in the extreme and said so previously. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I tried to provide an explanation at User_talk:ClopperAlmon#My_view_of_the_sequence_of_events--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if undeleting the AfC and histmerging it into the new article would be appropriate attribution? Rgrds. --64.85.216.33 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So here's a dumb question... we tend to blindly accept university publishings as reliable sources, but it appears that ClopperAlmon was able to write a paper (which, itself, is totally unreferenced, by the way) and get a .PDF hosted on a .edu domain. We now have the exact same text that was rejected as OR being used to reference an article, which summarizes the original OR (OOR?)... Is this really according to the spirit of WP:V? Is there even the remotest hint that someone at Vanderbilt reviewed this paper? Usually a university applies some kind of peer review process on "papers" published by their students. I agree that a university is the right place to do and publish research (and WP Is not the right place to publish research), but in this case, I think we've gotten twisted around. I suppose I should take this to a different noticeboard, but since all the history is here, it made sense to ask it here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Administrator threatening me

Admin User:RegentsPark removed properly sourced "Pathan" [49] from Prithviraj Kapoor and now telling me to stop adding this ethnicity in articles.[50] I find this as a threat and a bad behaviour by an admin. This all started when POV-pushers User:PISCOSOUR786 (talk · contribs) (from India) and

(Pakistani from Australia) repeatedly removed Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor. [51] I reported them, PISCOSOUR786 got blocked as someone's sock and Saladin1987 got blocked for a month. RegentsPark and User:Fowler&fowler now took over the article and are removing "Pathan" from it. On the talk page I presented more than enough reliable sources (RSs) for the Pathan claim, which includes: 1) Kapoor identified self as Pathan; 2) his father and grandfather were described as Pathans; 2) his son Shammi Kapoor in an exclusive interview tells that his parents and grandparants were Pathans [52]; 3) Madhu Jain (author of a 2009 book on the Kapoors) explains in details that Prithviraj belonged to a "Hindu Pathan family" [53]; 4) and several other RSs which confirm this. [54] The mentioned users strictly refuse to accept Prithviraj as a Pathan no matter what experts say [55], and they wonder how can there be such a thing as a Hindu or a Sikh Pathan (note: Pathan is alternative for Pashtun, both terms redirect to each other). I also provided convincing evidence that there in fact are Pathan Hindus and Pathan Sikhs [56]

They consider themselves “sons of the soil” – Pashtuns to be more specific – and are identified as such. “We are proud to be Pashtuns,” says Sahib Singh. “Pashto is our tongue, our mother tongue – and we are proud of it.”[57]

I think it's appropriate to warn RegentsPark and Fowler&fowler to stop removing Pathan from Prithviraj Kapoor's article.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a threat at all. You're going to have to try to work with them because getting rid of them like this isn't appropriate.--v/r - TP 15:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I find it as a form of threat, especially coming from an admin. I told him and the others to wait until editors familiar with the issue come and resolve the issue but why is he telling me to revert proper edits?--Fareed30 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

A "form of a threat" is not a threat. It's an extreme hypersensitive emotionally-biased interpretation to suit your own purposes. The question is whether it is or is not a threat. The diff contains no mention of action against you. Admins are editors as well, they can make comments such as "You're close to violating XXX policy" without it being a threat. The only time it becomes a threat, or even against policy even if it were a threat, is when they say they will take action against you themselves while they are involved in a dispute. That hasn't happened, move on.--v/r - TP 18:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The expressions "Hindu Pathan" or "Hindu Pashtun" do not appear in the reliable sources of the last 50 years. See here (what appears are five copies of a sentence, "Dynasty after dynasty tumbles down, revolution succeeds to revolution; Hindu, Pathan, Moghul, Maratha, Sikh, English, all are masters in turn ...") I have already told you, your sources are unreliable, "Pathan" is not relevant to his notability (there were no Pathan or Pashtun schools of Over-Acting, or Theatrics in Peshawar, Kabul or Kandahar, besides he wasn't from those places anyway; he was reliably only from Lyallpur in the West Punjab. Your claims about "blue eyes" and "sharp features" of Pathans etc (see talk page) are in the realm of lore and speculation. Finally, as I've stated on the talk page, India is a multi-ethnic country with a great deal of diversity. There are people there of all shapes and sizes, colors and looks. The Indian constitution doesn't recognize the imagined phenotypical claims of a few. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You are again and again mentioning "Hindu", a term that relates to religion, and I told you again and again that I'm not interested in religion stuff. This issue is over his Pathan background, it is mentioned in every source so it should also be mentioned in his Wikipedia article. This is done everywhere, and him being born in Lyallpur is another issue that has nothing to do with his Pathan background. Hasnat Khan was born in the same area and he is Pathan as you can read in his article. Peshawar is where Prithviraj grew up, his father was a sub-inspector of police in this Pathan cultural center. When Prithviraj went to India, he even made a popular play called The Pathan (or Pathan), which was about his personal experiance living in Peshawar among Muslims. This play was performed about 600 times on stage in Mumbai, India, to the mostly Hindu audience. You cannot hide someone's background just because it may upset you. Btw, there were stage shows and cinema schools in Peshawar.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly Fareed, no one has threatened you. I merely pointed out that repeatedly adding an ethnicity against consensus is tendentious. And, doing that in numerous blps, and possibly in an underhand way, is disruptive. When the ethnicity on an individual is in doubt, it is better to leave it out. Once again, my suggestion is that you demonstrate your good faith by self-reverting yourself. --regentspark (comment) 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm making constructive edits, properly sourcing everything and nobody other than you guys are challenging me, and I'm not being silly so please don't use such provocative words. You have to learn to wait until this argument over the Pathan background is exhausted.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's called getting consensus. You should try it sometime ES&L 18:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I did try it but the above users (RegentsPark and Fowler) decided to flee from the discussion, see the last few comments at Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

From what I can read, you tried to gain consensus for the addition, but failed. You then continued to insist, even though consensus was against you. You've become increasingly belligerent about it. Please stop - consensus rules on Wikipedia, as per WP:5P ES&L 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• ES&L, you probably didn't understand the situation correctly so let me explain. I added in the early years section of Prithviraj Kapoor's article that he was of Pathan background or at least he presented self as that and cited reliable sources, and then Saladin1987 changed Pathan to Punjabi, which is a different group of people. After he got blocked, RegentsPark and Fowler decided to support Saladin by completely removing "Pathan" from the article, claiming that it is disputed but nobody has ever disputed this. I asked to provide a source which mentions the dispute but they failed and decided to flee the discussion. I told them on Prithviraj's talk page that I'm busy and would take the issue to ANI so others can have a chance to review everything and decide what is best. There was no need for RegentsPark to leave a message on my talk page in which he tells me to remove "Pathan" from Anil Kapoor's article. These actions of RegentsPark are inappropriate, he's suppose to discuss edits on the article's talk page so others may get involved and if that doesn't work then he's suppose to start discussion somewhere else, he's a long time editor and an admin so obviously he knows these basic rules.
• Whenever I read an article about a famous person I get to learn everything about that person, including race or ethnicity, but here they're saying don't menion Pathan. Why shouldn't we mention this when it is mentioned in articles of other famous Bollywood actors, including Shahrukh Khan, Kader Khan, Madhubala, and Feroz Khan?--Fareed30 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I write for a living; please don't ever suggest that I had trouble reading something well enough to understand ES&L 00:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this a first? A complaint about an India-related discussion in which I have been a participant but I am not being lambasted? Since I agreed with RP and F&F, the consensus thus far is even stronger than the reporter acknowledges. Fareed, the whole ethnic thing here is nebulous, you've had the issues explained to you time and again and those explanations have come from some contributors who have a pretty vast experience in dealing with the subject matter on Wikipedia. Of course, they could all be wrong ... but it isn't likely and this is not the place to resolve your differences anyway. At most, it is a content dispute and there certainly has been no threat. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sitush, that is indeed a first, you should treasure it. It's also as far as I know the first time the mild-to-a-fault RegentsPark has been taken to ANI in the guise of a "threatening" administrator. Shows it can happen to anybody. Bishonen | talk 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC).

You guys work together editing Indian related articles so the consensus is unfair since you guys share the same anti-Pathan POV. It would be different if non-Indian editors get involved.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So go follow the steps outlined at dispute resolution if you want to shift the consensus. Coming here and whining about it isn't going to change anything. Nothing is going to come of this ANI complaint, so you may as well drop it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not whining. I'm busy renovating one of my bathrooms (marble and tiles cutting and grouting, etc.) so I can't concentrate on this right now.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(I might be repeating something already said, but here goes.) Fareed, simply telling you to stop adding material is not a threat. If the admin said "Stop adding this or I will block you", then it would be a threat, and then the question would be whether the "will block you" part was within policies (eg. if you were in an edit war, you can be blocked temporarily for edit-warring regardless of the merits of the content.) And I posit that a truly inappropriate threat would have taken the form of "Stop adding this, or I will hunt you down and do nasty things to you." THAT would be the sort of thing that would warrant an AN/I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I added relevant information in Anil Kapoor's article which many readers like to know. If there was a problem with the edit, someone would have reverted or removed the addition. I'm not into edit-wars, it's silly and just a waste of time. I just want to expose these editors so they can cool off with their anti-Pathan POV.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If everyone else who edits the article says to NOT include what you consider "relevant" (which it isn't), then it doesn't go in - hence the word "consensus". You re-adding it ran the risk of getting yourself blocked. It also does not mean they're "anti-Pathan", and saying such could ALSO get you a block, because now you're accusing someone of racism. Time to rethink your way forward ES&L 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusion very fast. First, I didn't re-add. Second, I was saying they're against the term "Pathan" so they're anti-Pathan. That's the shortest description, what should I call them? Pretend that their editors from different background when they're not? I'm not accusing someone of racism, you can clearly see what they're doing or what they're up to. They edit mostly Indian articles and that's not something they can hide from anyone. It means that they think like Indians. Based on their edits, it is more likely that they are Punjabi Sikhs of Indian origin. It helps to know this whenever there is a consensus or a dispute, especially when ethnicity is the primary focus. I'm an expert in this area (on South Asia), the Punjabis hate Pathans (Afghans) with a great passion. This is due to the wars between these groups since 1738 until around 1818. Pathans destroyed their holy sites, killed many Punjabi Sikhs, including Sikh leaders Baba Deep Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa and others.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Fareed, I notice that you're busy editing here but you haven't reverted your addition of the Pathan ethnicity to various Kapoor clan pages. I'm going to do that for you. --regentspark (comment) 00:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I got most of them. Now please don't re-add it without first going through some sort of WP:DR. --regentspark (comment) 00:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Anil Kapoor.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fareed, I an assure you that I for one am not a Punjabi Sikh. I'm not even religious and I'm not even Indian or indeed from anywhere in South Asia. I also certainly do not "think like Indians" and that is one of the reasons why I have been reported here myself so often. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsure How to Proceed

Effective today, Nielsen has completed it's purchase of Arbitron. As you all may know, back in 2009, Nielsen filed a DMCA Takedown Notice (via OTRS ticket #2008091610055854), which caused all TV region templates to be removed because they had Nielsen television "DMA" information. Since Arbitron's radio "DMA" information is now owned by Nielsen, this will carry over.

Currently, most radio station pages carry a link to the Arbitron page for the respective station in the external links as part of the {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}} templates. To avoid another DMCA takedown notice, should we remove the Aribtron links from those templates (which would require an admin as they are indef full-protected) or will they be OK as-is? If this isn't the proper location for this discussion, my apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

How can a takedown affect something they didn't own at the time of the takedown demand? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but they do have a copyright on the term "DMA" (which stands for "Designated Market Area, by the way) and from what I understand Nielsen was allowing Arbitron to use the term "DMA" in their ratings. That copyright is what caused the DMCA takedown notice back in '09. Arbitron didn't have a problem with us using it, so we didn't have a problem there. We do now since Nielsen has said they don't want us using their copyrights here on Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you DMCA a link to your own public database? Linking to them, isn't the same as hosting the data onwiki. That said, without having OTRS access, or being familiar with the past removal, its hard to say with any certainty. Still, my preference would be to wait and see if they DMCA anything. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I would rather they don't DMCA anything. Last time they did, legal didn't fight it (the "DMA" information could have been easily removed) and it took 3 months or more of non-stop work to get the TV region templates created and back up (sans the Nielsen information, of course). I don't want to have to do that with each and every single radio station page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would wait to see if they take any action on the radio database, though have a backup template ready in the sandbox for the AMSD and FMSD templates sans Arbitron info ready to go if we get the C&D. The Arbiton people are still there for now and until we hear from Nielsen we should be able to go forward with it. My thinking though? They'll eventually throw it up behind a paywall to block all access to everyone except paying customers since the only way to get the weekly Nielsen ratings publicly is the USA Today chart on Wednesdays, and they're even more strict about their numbers than Arbitron has. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Render unto English Wikipedia what is English Wikipedia, and render unto WMF what is WMF's Since DMCA take downs go to WMF (as the actual owner of the website) it seems it like something they should provide guidance on. (Message left on liason's talk page) NE Ent 02:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Things change, corporations change. WMF should wait for a takedown before any action is taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's good and all, but what do we do if legal decides not to fight a DMCA notice from Nielsen like last time and we have to rebuilt thousands of radio station pages? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no point worrying about stuff that might or might not happen someday. We will deal with it if and when it happens. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. I just hope that DMCA notice never comes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have interest in content that is the subject of a DMCA notice, and you feel the notice is invalid, it is possible to file a counter-notice (or "put-back" notice) with the hosting party (see OCILLA), which would be WMF in this case. Doing so may open you to additional legal liability, however. I would definitely not take such an action without consulting a lawyer. Possible additional sources of assistance would be organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The WMF also has an assistance program for legal fees for users exposed to liability as a result of being administrators or other functionaries on a project, though I don't know how this would work out if the WMF was claimed to be hosting infringing content—they do have the safe harbor protection, as long as they comply with the DMCA, which includes complying with authentic take-down and put-back notices. Anyway this would only be relevant if a notice was actually filed, of course. --108.38.191.162 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

"DMA" is a proprietary (to Nielsen) value assigned to each radio station for the purpose of grouping them for various statistical reports, right? It was the publishing of this DMA value in the TV templates that was the target of the DMCA, right? How is this the same as simply providing a link from a station article to Arbitron's (or anyone else's) website? We are not publishing any information proprietary to Arbitron – the link doesn't even contain any sort of code specific to them (e.g. like those produced with transclusions of {{IMDb}} and {{Find a Grave}}) – they solely use the FCC-assigned callsign as the key. Arbitron has a similar grouping code (ARM) for radio stations, but there is no mention of this in {{AM station data}} and {{FM station data}}. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw personal attacks

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

---

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

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

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

Frankly, I am sick of this POV-pushing right-wing editor, who PUBLICLY SELF-IDENTIFIES on WP (with first initial and last name plus a link to his works) and is also an administrator at Conservapedia, (see [58]) and has an obvious pattern of pushing a political agenda into WP. He's nearly derailed some FACs with his POV-pushing edits (see Richard Nixon and Thaddeus Stevens) and is now throwing a temper tantrum because he's getting called on his stuff. He's pissed because I removed his overactive adjectives from the article in question, but who needs to keep adding the words "liberal" and "left-wing" every three sentences, particularly when NOT adding the words "conservative" and "right-wing" in an equal fashion? Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Um, this was pointed out to you before you posted it here: [59] and that's the MSU-Bozeman library's page about the wikipedia ambassador site, not MSU-Billings faculty list. It also doesn't say you've been anywhere "for years" AND it looks like it's a resume you yourself submitted. Just saying. Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recently finished battling with Rjensen over at the US labor union article; noting that his editing style is right wing and not neutral is stating the obvious. Equally problematic is that he's largely unaware of this (see here [60]). To see an example of his POV pushing see here [61]. My fairly limited interaction with user:Montanabw has been fine. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Interaction ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close this?

Given the interaction ban proposal directly above is going nowhere, and the comments from either side aren't the kind of thing we typically warn or block for (mainly a disagreement over who's following WP:NPOV and who isn't) I don't really see anything else for admins to do here. Can we close this, with perhaps a reminder to everyone to try to get along a little better? 28bytes (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Tendentious and disruptive editing by user:Czixhc at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - part two.

See here [62] for part one - the extensive previous discussion on this matter. In brief, User:Czixhc has spent the best part of three months on Wikipedia doing very little beyond arguing that an image s/he created [63] based on one by architect and cartographer Jonathan Hagos [64] should be used to illustrate "skin color for modern populations" despite the fact that the creator of the original is neither qualified to compile such a map, nor claims to have done so. Having supposedly agreed at the previous ANI discussion to drop the matter (on September the 22nd), Czixhc then added his/her map image to the World map article (on Sept 27th), without any edit summary - and without giving the slightest indication that the map had been the subject of extensive debate, and was not considered a reliable source. [65] Needless to say, this attempt to smuggle the image back into Wikipedia did not go unnoticed - at which point, Czixhc again raised the matter on WP:RSN, under the thouroughly-misleading topic header Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is the University College London reliable?. Yet again, it has been explained by multiple contributors that the map is not a reliable source for what Czixhc claims it to be, but yet again, Czixhc refuses to accept this, with the same repetitive and circular arguments that have wasted so much time for so many people already. Accordingly, I think that there is no alternative than to call for an indefinite topic ban for Czixhc on any matters relating to human skin colour, cartography, and/or the works of Jonathan Hagos, broadly construed. Enough is Enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like Andythegrump again have brought an issue on which i'm involved, and again is unnecessary, actually more unnecessary than what it was the last time. As anybody can see here: [66] I already accepted the consensus of the comunity, which is that for now the sources aren't enough to make the file reliable, thing that i told to him here [67]. Right now i am discussing with another user the policies regarding reliable sources, because i don't want to be involved on a discussion like this one again, i have no intent to prove the file as reliable for now, that's something that i've left very clear I would sugest to close this discussion right now as a false alarm and to really check the behavoir of andythegrump, i mean, something who acts like him really is of not use on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note the weasel-wording: "for now" - it is self-evident that Czixhc will find yet another excuse for yet more tendentious time-wasting, given the slightest opportunity. A topic ban is essential, if we aren't to have to go through this nonsense yet again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I say as of now because the source must not have enough sources today, but what if 6 months on the future the creator of the work on which my file is included is featured on National geographic or something like that huh? Nothing can be permanent. That's exactly why i am discussing the policies with the opposition right now, i'm more tired of discussing this than you or anybody else. Really the one who needs to be put in check is you, for wasting administrators time on issues where they ren't needed, issues that aren't existent at all. Czixhc (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The above illustrates perfectly why a topic ban is essential. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think that you should give a look to what topic ban means on wikipedia. i'm not being disruptive, i'm not even trying to push my view on the discussion anymore. the one who needs a topic ban is you, one that prevents you from posting on ANI, you are too inmature to do so, I can only imagine how many times you have reported users here without any valid reason or with the resolution not being what you asked for. Czixhc (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - User:AndyTheGrump is a respected member of the Wikipedia community, even if he is known to be a grump. Czixhc's allegation that he is "too immature" to post to WP:ANI rises to the status of a personal attack and raises competency issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support either a topic-ban, or, better yet, a community ban on this wiki-lawyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't knew that "inmature" constituted a personal attack on wikipedia, mind you this same user has attacked me way more times and with real insults on past discussions. A topic ban really is not necessary, I already accepted the consensus of the comunity (like two hours ago), I'm very tired of discussing this. Czixhc (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I want to make clear some things here. I accepted the consensus of the comunity around 6 hours ago, this one being that the new sources presented weren't (again) enough to make the file reliable because varios users say so. If i upset some users with this discussion or the previous one, they must know that it wasn't my intention and that wikipedia's guidelines are very important for me (maybe the reason of this incident was that i care too much for them, who knows?). I need a rest from all this "noticeboard storms" and i really don't feel like coming back to any of these any time soon. I will make some edits to articles that might need it from time to time. I can't say that i didn't learned from this, now i know that what the comunity says has more weight than any source (something that i didn't expected to be honest). At this point i care more about finishing this tiring and pointless discussions than if the resolution favors me or not. I also hope to continue being helpful to wikipedia in the future. Since i already stated all that had to be stated on this i'd like to have this rather pointless case closed and move on. Czixhc (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban but preferably a community ban. This editor has responded in an insulting manner to other editors with whom he has had contact, and has tendentiously argued for the inclusion of an image long after it has been explained to him why it is inappropriate. TFD (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've never insulted anyone, the further i've been to do so have been to call an user attitude inmature, for bringing a non-existant issue on this board. As i told above i have no interest on arguing on that file for a long time. Czixhc (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"I've never insulted anyone"? Demonstrably false, as was pointed out in the previous ANI discussion, where I linked this comment by Czixhc: "How come that after i fully explained wich was the contribution and flaws of every editor here and why most of them aren't experts you just pretend that nothing happened and keep repeating the same lies?" [68] AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Czixhc's most recent comment where he states- "How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously" which I assume was directed at AndyTheGrump. Insulting and a personal attack.Camelbinky (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would Support the proposed topic ban, but not a community ban, as a way to stop these endless arguments. From time to time, most of us find some point on which we disagree with the rest of the community - push that point for too long and you end up flogging a dead horse. It doesn't help either side. I really think Czixhc should have a chance to contribute to the rest of the encyclopædia, and a topic ban could help accomplish this. if possible I would prefer a slightly narrower scope for the topic ban, ie. get rid of the "broadly construed" as I think the current issue is quite specific. bobrayner (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Czixhc continued to ignore explanations (such as being told a number of times that an academic's description of his interests on his personal page on a university site is not an endorsement of expertise in those fields), continued to argue after saying he accepted consensus and has not left me reassured that he won't be back on this or something similar sooner than he thinks. His statement "I've never insulted anyone, the further i've been to do so have been to call an user attitude inmature," doesn't square with him telling Andy earlier this morning "How come that somebody as clueless as you is editing wiki? seriously". Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have a feeling that a topic ban may just be the first stop on a path to community ban as this editor has real difficulty with WP:HEAR, but we can hope for improvement. Topic ban is appropriate and measured. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Czixhc has made it clear from his numerous discussions that he is trying to weasel his words and arguments and threads to try to get the consensus he wants and he wont stop bringing up the topic until he gets the result he would like.Camelbinky (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Some things are being ignored here. I called Andythegrump "clueless" because he brought an issue at ANI, his opening post, clearly states that I "refuse again to accept the consesus of the comunity" However, in this diff is clearly seen that I accepted the consensus of the comunity [69] and this happened two hours before Andy openned the case on this place, I notice that various users here think that i haven't accepted the consensus yet, when i clearly did it (not sure why this happens, they probably just read the post here). Not sure about what other people think, but in my opinion an editor that opens a case arguing that i refuse to accept a consensus when that person (me) actually accepted the consensus two hours before is something that makes the "clueless" adjetive very appropiate. If somebody wants to take part of a discussion on a noticeboard (any) the person must have a clue of what is going on, and that person on question have insulted me more times and with real insults before, just give a look to the archived ANI case or to his block log [70], there are blocks due personal attacks there. I also find that andy have "brought" evidence of previous personal attacks (even though he is the least likely person to complain about that), and his evidence is that i said that another editor said "lies" However, he takes it out of context, and if i recall correctly i said that the editor in question was lying because he keep repeating the same things over an over despite that i have explained everything to him before (similar at how that same editor said that the file on discussion was violating copyright yesterday, ignoring that the file has been proved twice to not violate any copyright). Finally i don't get the idea of calling a topic ban on an issue that i've said repeatedly to not have interest on discussing anymore. Czixhc (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, Czixhc is making false assertions. Two minutes before I started this thread, Czixhc was still arguing about the validity of the disputed map at WP:RSN: [71] Sure, Czixhc had said that he/she wasn't going to carry on arguing - and then did so anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, the assertion that Czixhc makes regarding a diff which is supposed to illustrate "accept[ing] the consensus" is revealing too - what it actually says is " it's seetled for now (I say for now because the reputiation of Hagos or his work might change in the future, when more sources that favor him get published as one of much examples, and when that happens i'll try again)". [72] A clear statement that Czixhc had no intention whatsoever of dropping the matter, and was looking for an excuse to go through the whole business again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was clearly discussing the comunity's definition of "seminary", not if the file is reliable or not, I've said multiple times that i want to know wich are the definitions of the comunity about these topics, because i don't want to enter on a discussion like this again. And watch out, you accusing me of making false assertions is a personal attack according to your own criteria. On the another topic i already told you above that nothing can be permanent, what if the map or Hagos are featured on national geographic? or on an academic text by the University of Cambridge? If that happens then the document in question would be undeniabily reliable. Czixhc (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Providing verifiable evidence that you've made false assertions is not a personal attack. And yet again, after asserting that you have dropped the map issue, you start arguing about it once more... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good, on that case i haven't attacked anybody either. And what part of "i was discussing the comunity's definitions of the policies" is not clear for you? Czixhc (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You weren't 'discussing definitions' in your last post - you were telling us that you intended to raise Hagos again at the first opportunity, while utterly ignoring everything that you have been told. I think that it will be clear to everyone that until you are obliged to do so, you will use any excuse to drag this ridiculous issue up again, regardless of any claim to have dropped the matter. Anyway, I've provided more than enough evidence, and it seems that my call for a topic ban has substantial support. Hopefully we can lay this matter to rest, and get on with doing something more useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• So you are saying that you know better than myself what I do? That's ridiculous and you are grasping at nothing at this point. And i don't get what's the point of a ban on a topic that i have no interest on discussing anymore, I'm really tired of all this bias, next time that i have a source i will contact an uninvolved administrator personally and ask his opinion, hopefully that way i will avoid having contact with you ever again. Czixhc (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin again

An incident was reported here 2 days ago about CFredkin, which went to the archives without any action. Well, the editor is again inserting original research and synthesis into articles concerning living persons. Kay Hagan Mark Udall Joe Donnelly Amy Klobuchar Al Franken All of which he was reverted and warned on his Talk page, which he deleted without comment(as he does to almost all attempts to discuss his editing). And then promptly reinserted the edits without comment. He is also inserting claims by one blogger into articles concerning climate change without discussion. I have asked the editor(and another editor) to stop reverting the addition here and follow BRD, which was ignored. The editor was recently blocked for using socks to edit war on other political articles.This editor has been making mass changes to many articles and does not seem to want to follow basic Wiki guidelines. Something needs to be done. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Let me also add the climate change edits(1,2) are either unreferenced or by known paid advocates that were hired to disprove climate change. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Those looking into the matter may wish to add Jon Tester to the above list, though his edits there are not as problematic as the ones above. Montanabw^(talk) 04:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been through all of the edits in question but, at least as far as Amy Klobuchar is concerned, the claims of original research and synthesis appear wholly unfounded, and certainly not appropriate for any sort of Admin action. The editor has supplied extremely well-sourced material which, on its face, contrasts with the other material in the article. The reader is left to draw his own conclusion. Are the edits made because of the editor's POV? Of course... as are the baseless criticisms reflective of the critic's POV. John2510 (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit should signify the level of maturity we're dealing with. This editor has demonstrated a lack of good faith, and an extremely inappropriate habit of snarkiness, insult, and WP:POINTy, contentious editing. When DD2K pointed out that CFredkin's is canvassing at John2510's talk page ([73] John2510's is the only other user talk page CFredkin seems to have ever edited) CFredkin's only response was to accuse DD2K of whining and bias. This is extremely troubling, and I see no signs of this improving with experience. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Grayfell and DD2K raised a series of different objections (lack of context, synthesis, unreliable sources) to my above edit to Amy Klobuchar, which I addressed in every instance. After running out of excuses to block my edit, Grayfell then applied his own revision to my edit which involved adding an inappropriate reference to Al Franken. I believe this demontrates where Grayfell is coming from.CFredkin (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you (eventually) added valid sources after we pointed out the serious problems with your edits, and that is exactly what I wanted you to do. I clarified your addition because your phrasing was inappropriately painting Klobuchar in a bad light without giving enough meaningful context about a complicated situation. Franken is the other senator from Minnesota, and the source you added specifically mentions both of them. If you don't think it warrants mentioning that, fine, that's what WP:BRD is for, but what does that have to do with where I am coming from? Please remember that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting User:Dogmaticeclectic

Hi.

I am filling this report because I have run completely out of choices. Wikipedia is full of nice people but people visiting this board often are probably familiar with User:Dogmaticeclectic. We have previously tried discussion, discussion and discussion, various methods of dispute resolution, WP:EW and blocks; yet, in the latest dispute in Talk:Windows Movie Maker, he has called me a liar (explicitly) and threatened me. Normally, I'd use WP:DR but that is only good for editors who want things fixed, right?

I am not even sure what is the lie.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)... okay, let's see how administrators choose to handle this - with or without hypocrisy? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Note for administrators: this user has willfully misrepresented another user's comments in order to provide support for this user's own position in a content dispute - is that not a blockable offense? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional note for administrators: I previously reported this user in this dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221#User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline). In that report, you can see that this user had reverted to this user's preferred version of the article five times before this dispute flared up again recently. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S. There has been a case before; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221 § User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline). Meanwhile, it is interesting that in the diff above, he has invoked WP:BRD to justify a revert. Does BRD really apply in these cases? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I invoked WP:BRD not for my own edit directly, but in the sense that you did not follow it when you repeatedly (as the edit warring case clearly shows) removed material that had previously been in the article without obtaining consensus. I've now clarified this at the talk page of the article in question as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed: Topic ban

It seems clear to me, given Dogmaticeclectic's lack of WP:AGF, accusations and block log that they have trouble editing articles about Microsoft products. I wasn't aware such a topic was this controversial, but apparently Dogmaticeclectic believes that it is. So I propose a 6-month topic ban from articles about Microsoft products and their talk pages.--v/r - TP 14:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yet another administrator supports WP:OWNERSHIP for certain users. How impartial.

Seriously, how do these people become administrators? Is the Wikipedia community willfully blind? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, Dogmaticeclectic, insulting Admins, as a group, is not going to help your case at all. And your arguments are not somehow more convincing when they are bold. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support(ec) Though I generally am known for opposing "draconian solutions", in the case at hand the editor seems not to quite comprehend why specific processes are used -- and that edits from months previous do not count as reverts (Albeit we do have a precedent from ArbCom that four reverts in five months is "edit war"!) I would limit the ban to any edits regarding Windows products, and not ban from the new tablets etc. lest the topic ban be too broadly construed. Appending: the reply above seems quite unhelpful here. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Four of the five reverts were made in the span of two weeks - what do you say to that? (Or perhaps: do you not quite comprehend that?) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Attention: I am about to open a separate case against both of you, as well as anyone else who decides to join you in supporting this, for the simple reason that WP:NPA states: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support their proposal below combined with the stuff shown in the original complaint and the block log is enough to convince me this editor has a problem. As noted by Collect, the reply seems to just reenforce the point as does the further reply. I'm not sure just banning them from Microsoft articles is a sufficient, but an indef block is a bit much and undesirable if they can prove to be a productive editor without such problematic editing so I'm hoping it will be. It seems the problem is at least partially personal yet interaction bans can be problematic so probably not desirable particularly without CL asking for one. Howecer I would take a dim view if they start to show up in other areas (if any) where Codename Lisa is active if they weren't active there before (if they are already active, I hope they realise they're on thin ice). Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Questions: do none of you realize that this report is essentially for my involvement the discussion of the content dispute in question? Are you seriously proposing a topic ban that would basically be for discussion in an attempt to resolve a dispute? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between discussion to resolve a dispute and attacking another editor. Your later comments there were clearly beligirent and largely unhelpful for resolving the actual dispute. (For example, the bit where you accused CL of being a liar was dependent on how you interpret what was said. And was also just a dumb accusations since you were referring to an old discussion which someone may not remember and may not bother to check before commenting. Yet the old discussion itself was at the end of the previous section i.e. right above above, so was a dumb thing to 'lie' about anyway.) You've backed that up by showing similar behaviour here. The fact that you don't understand all this is further proof of why your editing is problematic and some action appears necessary. Considering that your biggest problem area appears to be Microsoft related ones, it seems to be a fair call as I mentioned in my support. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban at minimum. DE's behavior in the topic area has been clearly problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for commenting - the material for opening a case against you per WP:INVOLVED is quite welcome indeed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if I were an involved admin here (which I don't think I am), one does not need to be uninvolved to support sanctions in an ANI discussion. You are free to try to open an Arbcom case against me though, if you feel I've abused my tools. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should wait in case that other administrator (you know who I mean, don't you?) comments here, though... oh, what fun that would be! Although I'm not quite sure whether that would fall under WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK, and which one of you is which... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, WP:ALLSOCKS applies ES&L 16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I'm surprised Dogmatic isn't blocked already for the outright personal attacks. Then there's the user's WP:BATTLE mentality evident in this thread. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • You're back on my case? And here I thought I wouldn't get the chance to report you too... Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider me reported. Now, back to your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• The users initial reply on this thread ("You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)") was pretty a clear sign that there will be troubles ahead unless something is done. And the remaining posts just confirm that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support anything from a indefinite topic ban to a full-on indefinite block. Is Codename Lisa perfect? No, she isn't; she's made mistakes. Dogmaticelectic's standard response is to abuse anyone who opposes them. Willful vandalism has occasionally, but rarely occurred; usually it's just edit-warring to keep their version in play, regardless of consensus. Anyone who opposes them must be a sock or meatpuppet in their mind. Anyone who opposes them gets abused; even in this very thread, their first comment starts as "You little sneak (yes, this user has caused enough trouble that WP:AGF - and even WP:CIVIL - basically go out the window in this case)" which is even worse than it originally was (prior to the snarky addition)... There's one reason why Microsoft articles can be so depressing to be involved in, and that reason goes under the pseudonym of Dogmaticelectic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Block for User:Codename Lisa

pointy discussion collapsed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This user has seemingly asserted superiority on several occasions on account of not being blocked as I have. A block seems to be the only fair way to deal with this and bring this user down a few notches to force discussion instead of reverts. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) I don't think that's a helpful suggestion. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC) As an alternative to a probably (I haven't looked in to the details) undeserved blocked to dis/prove that you both have equally problematic editing patterns, how about you prove your behaviour is problematic as shown by stuff other than your block log so most people won't even bother looking in to your complaints? That way perhaps finally you may learn that whatever problems others may have, it doesn't excuse poor behaviour on your part which may be shown by more than just your block log. And at least people don't have to look far for evidence of your problematic editing. To prove your poor behaviour, how about you do something silly like come to ANI and propose a block for such silly reasons guaranteeing a boomerang? Oh wait .... Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Comprehending this poorly-written paragraph is a bit difficult, but I can definitely say that I wasn't the one who came to WP:ANI. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC) You will note I never said you came here first. However you clearly did come to ANI otherwise I couldn't be responding to your response to my response to your comment (well unless someone copied them here without your permission). Nil Einne (talk) Oppose: This is a ridiculous and tendentious proposal. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Ludicrous proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Speedy close/oppose - Obvious pointy proposal is obvious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed: Behavior ban

I am proposing an alternative to topic ban. Mainly a topic ban is punitive and if we ban one topic, he just continues doing what he is doing in other topics. (I come here from this instance of his talk page; I suggest you guys check there too.) Our real problem with him is his behavior, including narcissistic edit warring, rudeness, lying and most importantly failure to understand when a person is extending him an olive branch and responding with "you didn't explain why you are doing this". (Again, his talk page!) With the objective of guiding him towards learning communication and teamwork skills, widely construed, I am proposing:

1. 6 month revocation of the right to revert (0RR, widely contrued) be it manually or via revert button, be it to revert vandalism, to contest a bold edit or to enact the outcome of a consensus in good accuracy
2. Six month revocation of the right to use uw- templates

Hopefully, this will leave him no choice but to talk to people and convince them; just as participants in WP:FA must do. And hopefully, this will make him see that commenting on the contribution only, politeness, teamwork, honesty, dispute resolution, negotiation, compromise and checking the sources carefully does magic. Fleet Command (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: There are numerous aspects of Dogmaticeclectic's behavior that are chronically and protractedly problematic. I support this as well. Toddst1 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps getting better and better! I must admit I didn't expect to see you here, but welcome (to this evidence-gathering section for a future report on all of the users who have tried to make my experience at Wikipedia miserable). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• comment given the free form comments in this discussion, I don't see that there is any chance that a ban from using uw-templates will increase the actual communication. (At least the with the use of templates there will not be WP:NPA and WP:CIV attacks.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• support I agree with TDPoD that I'm not sure how much a ban on uw will help although Dogmaticeclectic does seem to be very free with them so perhaps it will. Either way limiting Dogmaticeclectic further in some way can't be a bad thing. Frankly their continuing behaviour here doesn't give me much hope (seriously if all you can see is the hole, it's really time to stop digging), this could be put down to a bad day except having looked more closely at their talk page and interactions with editors elsewhere (e.g. Mark Arsten, Lisa) it seems it's not. So I'm no longer opposed to an indef block and I'm unsure that anything weill help or whether they will just continue to insult etc others. But we can only try. Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic blocked

This is has gotten out of hand. I've blocked Dogmatic for 1 week for the highly confrontational, disruptive and tendentious editing that is patently evident on this page. Feel free to modify this block if consensus is other remedies would be more effective. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Like Reported to ANI for their behaviour, and their behaviour on ANI leads to a block. When will he understand that it's not the members of Wikipedia who are making his life here miserable, it's his treatment of others and bizarre interpretations of the rules that are making his life miserable here ES&L 20:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Toddst1's reasoning is spot on. Sergecross73 msg me 21:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

After re-reading this thread, I'm not convinced that my 1 week block or the proposed sanctions are enough to stop these problems. The sentence that jumps out at me really represents the root of the problem:

"I am about to open a separate case against both of you, as well as anyone else who decides to join you in supporting this"

This was in response to a reasonably well thought out proposal about how to deal with Dog's problematic behavior. What that tells me is that this user doesn't have the skills to engage in any type of a constructive disagreement. I don't think we have a place here for those who can't disagree without threatening to report, gathering evidence or otherwise bully those they disagree with. This is not new so I propose a community ban from editing Wikipedia for Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose extending it or changing it to an indef, but let's wait awhile before jumping to a ban. Will a week off give Dogmaticeclectic a chance to cool off and reconsider their approach to Wikipedia? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the realization that people are seriously considering a ban will be sufficient to encourage them to rethink things. I think it's worth a try. 28bytes (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• My experience with this user is they never cool off. The temperature variation is from hot to very hot. They are also extraordinarily stubborn.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• I want to agree with 28bytes though I think Bbb23 is correcter. (I have the same experience with this editor.) But I think we should see what happens a week from now, per WP:ROPE. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, I wasn't supporting a community ban. I was just reacting to 28bytes's comments and predicting what I think will happen. If I had to vote at this point, I would be opposed to a community ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I've seen quite enough above. Indef per WP:NOTHERE. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 28b NE Ent 00:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per 28bytes. Dogmaticeclectic is capable of discussing, as I have done so with him on some articles a while back, and isn't at the point where I think he needs to be banned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I would not be against an indef until such a point as we actually see some assurances that this battlebullshit won't happen in the future, and any unblock being based on immediate re-indef should the behaviours recur, I'm not 100% to the community ban point ... yet. ES&L 00:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - Seems reasonable, considering everything I've seen. 173.58.106.118 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jasper Deng and ESL. Dogmatic is not a "lost cause" yet, which is what we would be saying with a community ban. I sometimes find myself agreeing with their position on issues (I'm not referring to this particular one), whilst banging my head on the wall wishing they would cut out the battleground stuff and hostility towards anyone who fails to agree with them. I think it's appropriate to use some more of our precious ROPE here to see if they can conform to community norms enough to be productive. Maybe this block will be the impetus for that. The low cost of reblocks is often cited here, and one would surely be forthcoming very quickly if the kind of battleground display above were repeated. There would then, in that eventuality, be little doubt that a CBAN was appropriate. Begoon ^talk 15:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

400 articles about Transformers characters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

I have to agree with the original post in this section when he said "This is probably not the right place to discuss this." I also am not aware of any rule about a limit on the number of articles covering characters in a fictional series. Until a rule is established limiting that number this subject is pointless. Mathewignash (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

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

---

Unacceptable commentary regarding the BLP subject and transgendered people during the debate was a big problem the last time a month ago. I see the first such comments in the second RM have already come along, with User:KoshVorlon making inflammatory and disrespectful commentary regarding the article subject.[74]. His comments were redacted by one editor, then reinstated, and he has refused on his talk page to make any changes to it. -- Josh Gorand (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.) Josh Gorand

2.) TP

3.) Fluffernutter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They have been pointed out in various places, including here. Furthermore, stating that Fluffernutter's view "is the one that matters" could also be seen as provocative and inflammatory. Her opinion is not more important than anyone else's just because you happen to agree with her. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

(Pro-Gun?) Administrator Needed...

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implied legal threat

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ownership issue on Federal assault weapons ban page?

I think there may be an ownership problem on the Federal assault weapons ban page involving one or more of the following editors: Anastrophe, GregJackP, North8000 and possibly Sue Rangell. In that time, the following incidents have occurred:

1. 9 AUG 2013: Despite my being a newbie WP editor and our never having worked together before, Anastrophe reverted an edit I'd made, accompanied by a terse warning on my talk page about "scrubbing" the article. He also said there'd been previous discussion and consensus on the "scrubbed" word.

My newbie mistake: I'd removed three instances of the word - a word highly debated among concerned parties - from one section of the article. It still appeared in a subsequent, less complex section. (I'd also made a half-dozen edits for WP:MOS and WP:BETTER, guided by my experience as a trained news writer.) As for discussion, the only thing recent I found on the subject was the first two sections of Archive2.

2. 10 AUG 2013: I started an RfC about use of the word in the section in question. Despite knowing that I was a newbie WP editor, he continued to criticize me without citing sources or WP policies or guidelines. He also made it WP:PERSONAL by making "you" statements to me over 30 times, by questioning my ethics, by saying I was making a mockery of the process, by accusing me of vandalizing his user page and of ignoring his remarks.

3. 14 AUG 2013: After only four days of the threaded discussion under the RfC - about a contentious topic, and without my knowing that the default RfC length is 30 days - GregJackP used the terms IDHY and DROPTHESTICK (about 15 paragraphs down - it was a lengthy discussion).

4. 24 AUG 2013: Anastrophe deleted my addition of a simple, sourced statement to the lead. Although the lead already contained the statement, "There were multiple attempts to renew the ban, but none succeeded," Anastrophe said the addition of "Several constitutional challenges were filed against provisions of AWB 1994, but all were rejected by reviewing courts" was WP:UNDUE. He moved the statement to the end of an unrelated topic, and suggested that it could be returned if a Legal challenges section was developed. A section was developed, but not allowed to be put in the article. GregJackP wrote: "Third, in the section just below, the current consensus is to not add this section to the article. If you feel you must, go ahead, but either myself or ... Sue or another editor will revert it based on talkpage consensus." The "consensus" was based on a three-person vote.

5. 5 SEP 2013: A discussion about renaming the article was closed by Sue Rangell - in mid-discussion. Keeping the article title in caps is supported by nothing more substantial than that's how it's been for years (although it was not in caps, and properly, for years before it was changed to caps). Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

6. 30 SEP 2013: Most recently, after active editors agreed to use the BRD cycle and after a number of WP:MOS and BETTER edits (many that an English teacher or good newsroom editor might have made), and a few sourced WP:BALANCE edits that helped to make the article NPOV, North8000 said the article was a "mess" and suggested that it before reverted to a version from five days earlier. Four hours later, GregJackP rolled it back to week-old version, with the "consensus" of Anastrophe, North8000, and Sue Rangell. Lightbreather (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is a microcosm not only of the hyper-vocal pro-gun lobby and its advocates, but also of the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia. If anyone can suggest the best place to report that, I would be happy to know.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented my participation in the events of 30sep2013. Please remove the claim that I was in favor of the decision, which in fact I argued against. I see a pattern by this single-purpose advocacy account of claiming 'new editor mistake' when POV edits are made, yet showing a deep and well-versed understanding of even the most obscure wikipedia policies, completely out of character for a new editor. This appears to be a microcosm not only of the hyper-vocal pro gun-control lobby and its advocates, but also of the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia. I'd like to know the best place to report this as well. Anastrophe (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misrepresented you. At 02:35 30 SEP 2013 (UTC) you wrote, "...I don't think there is a burning need to revert back to an earlier date," but at 18:29 (same date) you wrote: "I have no strong objection to a rollback...." It looked to me like you'd changed your mind and agreed to revert. I disagree with your assumption that mine is a single-purpose account. My only claim of new WP editor mistakes is on items #1 and #2, and since #3 happened when I'd been an active editor for less than one week, I think I could rightly be called a newbie then, too. After almost eight weeks now I'd rate myself an intermediate WP editor. And that is entirely from what I had to learn - on my own, with little help - responding to various comments made to or about me, often using uncited sources and WP jargon. (I have shared that I am a trained writer and editor outside WP, but WP has its own rules and jargon that is very complex, IMO.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The only "ownership issues" I see are on your end, Lightbreather. Just because you don't agree with what the 4-5 other editors have done at that article doesn't mean you should get your way. ROG5728 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Lightbreather has about 750 lifetime edits, and about 98% of those were about 730 edits on this ONE article (and its talk page and sandbox work for this article) in the last 7 weeks. My assessment is avalanches of gnome edits with some heavy POV editing mixed into them. I would LOVE an outside look at the article and the situation there, including the SPA aspect. We just put the article back 5 days (had about 100 edits in mainspace in 5 days) and now are saying the everybody should slow down and also go to talk with controversial edits, and definitely not bury them in avalanches of edits. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Could someone share with me please how to go about looking at the details of other editors' edit history? I assume, from context, that "gnome edits" are harmless or maybe even good edits? I was going to as ask what "SPA" is, but after replying to Anastrophe's comment above I think I've figured that out, but just to be sure, single-purpose advocacy, right? If so, I disagree. (Please refer to my reply to A.) As for the 100-edits-in-5-days comment, the link to the whole discussion is in #6 above. Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This SPA account should be considered for a topic ban. It is extremely disruptive, consistantly burying controversial/POV edits in avalanches of gnome edits, making it nearly impossible to fix. It is *NOT* a newbie account, as is apparent by it's extensive knowledge of Wikipedia, more extensive than my own, and I have 7 years experience, and advanced privileges. I was unaware of the existence of this article, until the this SPA canvassed me for support, as I was a supporter of the ban, and I am sure that whomever manages the account assumed that I would support them as well. I am certain that this SPA is a political advocacy vehicle of some kind, it's origin, timing, and efforts are very suspicious, and I hope that a neutral party will look into this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Sue here, and I saw this boomerang coming from a mile away. I closed an RfC in relation to this article at the beginning of last month, which has been my only involvement with this topic. I have observed the kind of discourse there happening since my close. Lightbreather frequently points to WP:BRD in defense on their edits (e.g. [75], [76]), but when reverted, they claim that editors are not assuming good faith ([77], [78]) or disagree with the notion that it is hard to deal with their substantial edits that change both uncontroversial and controversial things about article content, some of which was the subject of prior discussion and consensus ([79], [80]). It is not terribly surprising, given this editing behavior, that there has been a proposal to roll the article back a couple of days. I see some evidence that Lightbreather is getting better at interacting with other editors and using the talk page appropriately, but there is too much disruptive activity still, and I do not see their contributions, on the whole, to be very constructive. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

If "SPA" means single-purpose account, then I absolutely disagree. As for the newbie thing, see my response to Anastrophe above.

I have been a Wikipedia user for many years. At some point, I set up an account to add links to some Beatles album pages. I also contributed a little to a local politician's page. The first time I edited a firearms related page was Oct. 2012 when I removed the word "cosmetic" from the article in question. At that time, I must've added it to my watchlist (a feature I'd never noticed before). I didn't edit on WP again until August of this year (2013) when I received three MediaWiki emails. The first two, on Aug. 8, said, "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been deleted," and "The Wikipedia page Talk:Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been restored." The third, on Aug. 9, said, "The Wikipedia page Federal Assault Weapons Ban has been changed." Since I am interested in gun politics, I followed the link to see what was happening. When I saw that "cosmetic" was back in the article, I removed it again. From there, you can read #1 above for further info. I was a newbie WP editor then, and boy, did I pay the price.! Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is no-one going to even look into the issue I raised? Even the possibility that there could be WP:OOA going on? (I can give more examples, if necessary.) It wasn't easy for me to come here. Is bringing up an issue here only likely to draw attention to one's own history? Lightbreather (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of the editors who weighed in above have looked into the issue you raised, and so has yours truly. No one thinks you are correct. So I think that should be the end of your complaint. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with North, Sue, and any others who are calling for an outside, neutral review of the article. I brought up the last one I could find, but was told that a six year old peer review "is as useful as tits on a boar." Lightbreather (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for User:Lightbreather

Should this account (and the claim to be a newbie account making newbie mistakes stretches credibility by rational Anglophone humans) be topic-banned?

• Support as per Sue Rangell. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• involved complicated !vote Certainly lightbringer has been a source of disruption, but I am on the edge as to if this goes so far as to require a topic ban. They do show some signs of wanting to improve, but they have a lot to learn. Perhaps mentorship as an alternative, but certainly if things continue as they have been I would have to reluctantly supportGaijin42 (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined above by Sue Rangell. ROG5728 (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Mentorship would be preferred, as LB did some very good work when she had some direction and positive comments. It was only when a disruptive editor showed up that it went downhill again. If mentorship were to be declined or unsuccessful, then I would very reluctantly support a topic ban. GregJackP Boomer! 00:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Temporary topic ban IMHO this is a very wiki-saavy SPA who I think is feigning lack of knowledge of Wikipedia. They are expertly conducting warfare linking policies and guidelines and accusing editors of violating those. At quick glance it appears that sbout 730 of the about 750 lifetime edits by this account were on this one article (including talk and sandbox development for the article) in a less than a 2 month period, and the second half of the gnome edits have had a large amount of POV work blended into them. (a barrage of about 60 edits in the article space alone of that article Sept 26-29) and the large amount of gnome edits appear to be a means to that POV end. If they want to be a Wikipedia editor, then can spend a few months on the other 99.999% of articles to develop that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As noted below, I feel that a short (3 month) page ban would be a a middle-of-the-road solution. That leaves them the other 99.99998% of Wikipedia articles to work at. I think that the most important thing is that some relief from their relentless and overwhelming hammering of the article is needed. If that causes them to move the same assault elsewhere, that could be dealt with at that time. North8000 (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• STRONG Support given this SPA's history and ongoing behavior. Scores of AGF attempts have not been useful. Even an Article ban would be useful as this SPA, for all intents and purposes, only edits the one page.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I only claimed to be a newbie in #1 and #2 above - because I was a newbie then. Also, I've only ever brought up newbie-ness in response to accusations from the first 3 or 4 weeks of my active participation on the page (which began Aug. 9). Also, if "SPA" means single-purpose account, I absolutely refute that. I have been actively involved for almost eight weeks and consider myself an intermediate-level WP editor now because I've spent so much time defending myself and my edits - which have ALL been made in good faith. Votes like this are one of my biggest complaints with the system. If you read the policies, votes aren't supposed to be The Final Word - participants are supposed to present civil discussion and sources - but my experience on this article has been, if you're bold, you're told to discuss first, and if you discuss first, you're dismissed quickly and told you're being disruptive if you ask for civil discussion and sources. Lightbreather (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. And there better not be an "anti-gun" undercurrent agenda to this. Doc talk 01:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there are no idealogical lines here. Several of us supported the gun ban, and would likely be siding with the SPA account, were it not for the terrible behavior. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I intentionally left it vague on the agenda: either LB or anyone else. Clean block log - do we need to jump to a topic ban? I would have expected better precedence for the ban. Doc talk 01:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's it - LB and Sue are actually on the same side, politically speaking, IIRC. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, forget gun politics. LB has a clean block log. Disruptive editing necessitating a topic ban should have earned at least one block. A topic ban is so much easier to agree with when there's proof of prior disruption. Jus' sayin' Doc talk 02:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose banning every editor who shows up on ANI -- who's going to be left to edit the encyclopedia after we ban everyone? NE Ent 01:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Woohoo! You! Writing content! S**t Ent, you knew it was going to happen one day. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • With, for example, a quarter million {{unreferenced}} tags currently present, the scope of the job is beyond my personal capacity; best to keep every editor we possibly can. NE Ent 09:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Reducio ad absurdum much? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - For obvious reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do we normally go from no blocks for disruption to a full topic ban to prevent disruption? If this is a sock account, that's another ball of wax. How does one get to a topic ban with no concrete history of disruption to earn it? First block for disruption. If it continues, escalate the blocks. Going straight for a topic ban is overkill. Doc talk 04:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that a topic ban or page ban is milder than a block. They still leave the person free to edit the other 99.999% / 99.99998% of Wikipedia articles. And it leaves less of a "record" when it's over. Maybe a short (3 month?) page ban would be a middle-of-the-road solution? I think that the most important thing is that some relief from their relentless and overwhelming hammering of the article is needed. If that causes them to move the same assault elsewhere, that could be dealt with at that time. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not know that a topic ban was considered worse than a block, especially in cases like this one. A block deprives a user of the entirety of Wikipedia, while a topic ban only deprives a user of a small section, in this case that amounts to basically a single article. Given a choice, I would personally prefer a topic ban over a block, but thats me. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Community WP:Discretionary sanctions

Should the article be put under community Discretionary sanctions?

• Support - Article is becoming a battleground. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support Oppose I have no idea why there is a sudden interest in this article from a few editors; while I feel like discretionary sanctions could be helpful, I'm not entirely confident that they are necessary if the concerns are just with Lightbreather and another recent editor. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - the only current issue there seems to be with one editor and that is being discussed above. ROG5728 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, there has been nothing that has not been able to be handled through the normal processes. GregJackP Boomer! 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The only problem is that two editors were barraging this article (Lightbreather and SaltyBoatr). SaltyBoatr was continuously nasty and continuously hurling accusations. Lightbreather has not been very nasty, but has been relentless/dominating of the article and problematic. (see above) Everybody else seems reasonable, ready to discuss any matter, proceed carefully and wanting of an objective, informative article. A look at the discussion on the talk page bears this out. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Defer, but I think I know why it became an article of interest recently. If you look at its history, you will see that it was part of another article and then moved to this article on Aug. 8 - which is when I got involved, because I received a MediaWiki email. (Please see my comment about this above.) Also, I think I've only made a "nasty" (rather, hasty) comment once - and I apologized. Also, because the topic is closed, so I can't comment on it there re banning SaltyBoatr: GregJackP said, "Every editor that has commented is in support of the topic ban." I commented, and I didn't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightbreather (talk • contribs) 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I think the source of the trouble is being taken care of, but I would be in favor in the future should more disruptive elements suddenly pop in out of nowhere in the future. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of some test modules

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

---

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

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

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

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection of Irenaean theodicy and Augustinian theodicy

An anonymous user has been repeatedly making changes against consensus to the GA Irenaean theodicy and the FA Augustinian theodicy for a while now, trying to make sure that references to the contributions of John Hick are as strong as possible, often using inappropriate or inaccurate wording in the article. He was reverted many times by many users. When that failed, he has claimed both articles are copyright violations for using the terms "Irenaean theodicy" and "Augustinian theodicy" without Hick's permission -- a clearly spurious claim -- and keeps revert warring to insert speedy deletion notices on the pages. I have semi-protected both articles for 2 weeks. I just wanted to make more admins aware of the issue, since I don't see it going away any time soon. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 21:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it only 209.3.238.61, or are other addresses also causing problems? Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like 209.3.238.61, 209.3.238.62, and 72.68.5.132 are all different IPs for the same user. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I agree with the semiprotection; note that I didn't see the 72. address and didn't notice that .238.62 was a different number. I was simply questioning whether we should block one IP address instead of semiprotecting; that's why I was asking about the addresses and not the person/people operating them. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This is odd, this is the second complaint I've seen about an IP connected to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Not sure what that is about. But their edit summaries, with statements like "User:Bink is presently being evaluated for WP:ANI" shows a great familiarity with daily WP operations. Probably an alternative account of a regular who doesn't want it connected to these edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This person, whoever they are, has been doing pretty good improvement work at the Prometheus article, but has engaged in quite a lot of original research at other articles where I have been trying to limit the damage. (My efforts in that direction have not been, let's say, welcomed by the IP.) This person seems to think their opinion is sufficiently authoritative to establish facts on Wikipedia. I've posted a bunch of NOR notices on the various IP talk pages involved. The first step in helping this person to be a more useful editor is to get them to faithfully follow Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. The second is to stop posting rambling rants and nonsense claims. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 90.212.73.227 adding derogatory and racist comments to article

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

---

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

• Revision as of 21:05, 1 October 2013 [81] - "who all need to fuck off and go back to Poland where they belong"
• At 21:22, 1 October 2013 I revert and warn the editor: User_talk:90.212.73.227
• Revision as of 22:46, 1 October 2013 [82] - "who come here and steal our jobs and dont learn english"

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

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

• Thanks for the report. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued personal attacks by IP user 92.238.252.159

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

• This is the first time I've seen a comment worthy of a boomerang trout, Technical. Congratulations. 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)

User:Useddenim

Perhaps this should have gone on the dispute resolution page, since User:Useddenim and I have disagreed about page content, but I feel that Useddenim has had a disruptive editing pattern, ignoring the voices of other users (primarily me), and has made edits without garnering consensus, and ignoring requests to participate in the related discussions. On 13 August 2013 Useddenim asked me to review a template he had written, I asked why, and with no explanation after two days, I nominated it for deletion. He responded with a tit-for-tat nomination of the template that has been widely used for years, and said we were having a disagreement, I replied that the solution to an edit war is discussion not forking. I asked him again about the use of the template on 9 September 2013 and 12 September 2013, Useddenim has yet to respond. Since Useddenim has indicated on Template talk:ETS LRT route that he would like changes to that template, a discussion was started on how that would work, when Useddenim left the discussion after I left a proposal (WP:SILENCE), I went to commons:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests to look for other users willing to help out. There Useddenim called my proposal half-assed, so I asked him to rejoin the discussion, twice, he has yet to. Up to two months ago the Edmonton LRT had one template, that worked just fine. The addition of more templates has been called unnecessary multiple times[83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95], yet on 9 September 2013‎ Useddenim created a fourth. Its deletion discussion closed on 22 September 2013‎ as no consensus, so I edited it twice [96][97] hoping to clean it up, and correct it, and each time providing my rational in the edit summary, Useddenim subsequently revised/reverted it. I also brought up my concerns on Useddenim's talk page, and the template page, and asked him to respond to my concerns twice[98][99]. When he failed to respond to my concerns with the template, I made the changes, which was reverted without an explanation on why his version is right, but stated I was ignoring WP:BEBOLD. I don't see how a user can hide behind WP:BEBOLD, which doesn't allow a user to assert his version without discussion. On 30 September 2013 I reminded Useddenim again of the open discussions, he has yet to comment in any. 117Avenue (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I will not judge anyone's behaviour (as I only occasionally happened to interfere with this story), and can only say that most of Useddenim's proposals and solutions go in line with a more or less established consensus across Wikipedias & Commons (again, no point on his actions). Commonly raised questions were: including an RDT in addition to a list of stations (as I wrote, they are complimentary), having two templates instead of one (over time I myself came to a conclusion that this may be beneficial, if templates present different aspects of the system; so the accusation of forking does not hold here) and including proposed stations into RDT (Useddenim seems to have provided sources[100], but I won't judge their reliability). I would say that both sides should (on their on will) take a break from editing anything related to Edmonton LRT. In the end, this edit warring will have little effect on whether these stations would be built or not and how soon; so let's embrace m:eventualism... YLSS (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Need block adjusted

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

---

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

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Grapestomper9

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Trekphiler. I did not put any block on you of any kind. You have deleted every single word I have had to say on the Day of Deceit article, despite the fact that much of what I had to say was corrections of your juvenile and dirtbag extreme and radical point of view on this subject. Your outright mis-quoting. German hater came up in an extremely obtuse way (that you obviously are too full of wind to understand) when you accused me of essentially agreeing with holocause deniers (Which is absolutely absurd) simply because I agree with the idea that the US provoked the Japanese into attacking our assets so we could enter into the war. You used "weasel" language to imply most germans are Holocause deniers. Shall I mention your threats and your promise of obscene insults if I did not leave "YOUR" article alone? Well, I have grown tired of your dangerously radical and violent tendencies and threats and have not edited either the day of deceit article or the related McCollum memo article since, out of fear for "my" personal safety. I do not need a creature like you threatening me.Grapestomper9 (talk) 05:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

♠You're joking, right? Fear for your safety? Called Germans (or you) "holocaust deniers"?

♠OTOH, "dangerously radical and violent tendencies and threats"? Really? I invite anyone, indeed everyone, to read the linked posts. I invite everyone to read every single word I wrote on that page. Find even a single threat, let alone one of actual violence.

♠Then there's this....

♠"juvenile and dirtbag extreme and radical point of view". Obviously, somebody can't stand his POV being challenged. I rest my case. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

End of moved material. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, this is fun. Trekphiler, you are referring to a block from three years ago? Don't bring that up; it has no relation to this case or this editor. Anyway, to the meat of the matter: it's a decent morning here and I don't feel like blocking anyone yet. But Grapestomper9 will have to stop with the nonsense--the sneers, the ad hominems, the accusations (like this kind of stuff) or they will be blocked. No more of that, please. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that any more personal attacks, including in edit summaries, will result in a block. As an aside, I actually found the "dangerous villain" comment rather amusing due to its ridiculousness, makes Trekphiler sound like a Bond baddie. GiantSnowman 14:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

He's lucky ya'all have gotten here first. I think calling Trekphiler a "German people hater" is sufficient enough for a block among other things. I was about to do it until I saw you two here. I guess I'll just repeat the same, anymore accusations or battlefield behavior will result in a block.--v/r - TP 15:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• We're the good cops, TParis. No, the language is unacceptable, but I typically don't see much use in blocking afterward, without a kind of final warning (which is how I intended my comment above). If it happens again, I'll be glad to pull the trigger. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a 3yr old block, & clearly I'm being held to a different standard. I don't know why that surprises me anymore. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to relax, guy. Everyone here has sided with you and Grapestomer9 is on the verge of a block. What are you so bent up about?--v/r - TP 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

[ec with TParis, with whom I am in perfect agreement this time.] If anyone is interested, they may look at User_talk:Trekphiler/Archive_3#Bad_warning, where one will find ample warning that a block was going to happen if certain behavior continued; since that behavior continued, the block did happen. So I don't know what "different standard" is being referred to here, and it's a moot point anyway--I just note that since Trekphiler saw fit to bring up some perceived wrong from the past, they opened themselves up to an investigation of those circumstances. It has nothing to do with the current thread, and I suggest Trekphiler stop digging, and that they be pleased that Grapestomp has been duly warned. And that's all I have to say on the topic; as far as I'm concerned we can close this, unless Grapestomp wants to come by and say the right thing. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Continuous unconstructive edits/vandalism by 71.46.49.251, possibly block

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

---

User:71.46.49.251 has a long story of disruptive edits (User_talk:71.46.49.251) and two previous blocks.

After the last block expired on June 2013, the user has made unconstructive edits to several articles. The user has also made lawful edits during that time.

The IP in question is assigned to Bright House Networks, which in turn assigns IPs dynamically to most of its customers. Despite this, a look at Special:Contributions/71.46.49.251 shows that most of the edited articles are related to musicians/music bands, both before and after the last block, which could suggest that the IP has been used by only one person.

I suggest applying an anon-only block like the last time, even if the user has not been warned since the last block. Facugaich (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges?

This morning my watchlist is full of changes like this, this, this, this, all made by different IPs, each IP having made about 20 such changes in the last 12 hours. I have hundreds of such edits in my watchlist. Before the end of business day I cannot verify whether the provided links are spam or not ("access blocked, proxy avoidance"). Can therefore someone please

1. check if those edits are fine or not,
2. advise what to do?

--Pgallert (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Archive.is is one of those "save a page" services like WebCite. And a relatively recent one, started only last year. I have also seen IPs mass-adding links to archive.is. I could not tell you whether it's an honest company. I'm not sure why so many IPs from India are doing this now, and why it's being done from IPs at all, and why they are using misleading edit summaries. Something strange is happening, sure. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a userfied article about the website at User:Lexein/Archive.is, which had been deleted at AFD about a week ago. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My concern is, why would they use different IPs? Can somebody confirm that the urls in question contain archived newspaper articles? --Pgallert (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Archive.is_RFC --Facugaich (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion that is itself heavily tainted with proxy IP edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is an old ANI thread on the same subject. It appears as if previous IPs doing this have been blocked, but it also appears as if the operators command so many IPs that blocking them one by one might be futile. I think I'll revert the few edits that break existing syntax and leave the rest alone. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit filters are above my pay grade, but is it possible to create one that prevents the insertion of archive.is links by any non-registered user? Bobby Tables (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There's one in place. I'll have to research how these are getting past it.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Update: Since about 14:30 the same mechanism inserts links to http://web.archive.org, not to archive.is. --Pgallert (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollbacks needed again, Drmies and others with access to such tools. I've manage to block the proxies used in today's attack. Some of them were caught by filters before making any edits, so some of the contribution lists are empty.

• 120.56.235.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 106.51.223.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.238.25.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.196.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.84.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.78.233.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.208.1.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.96.212.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.64.190.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.28.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.132.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.205.228.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.125.64.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.65.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.166.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.56.134.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.172.32.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.106.104.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 183.82.133.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.206.246.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.104.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.198.176.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.52.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 120.62.179.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 182.68.185.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.194.115.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 125.99.118.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.177.246.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.203.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.189.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 115.242.84.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.203.103.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.202.6.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.23.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.63.6.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.139.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.162.61.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.218.75.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.133.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.194.225.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.168.73.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.193.54.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.141.70.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 101.58.143.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.203.53.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.190.144.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.4.200.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.167.17.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.219.242.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.99.159.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.170.96.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 118.95.58.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.207.160.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.196.175.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.116.52.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.250.156.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.17.129.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.124.251.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.162.175.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 123.201.32.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 1.23.234.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 116.73.43.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.219.160.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.169.2.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 114.143.115.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 18:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the scale of these attacks, Blacklisting should be done ASAP. Werieth (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That would make editing about 15,000 existing articles nearly impossible, Werieth. That's why I'm trying to get a consensus to remove all the existing links at that RFC. But yes, the scale of these attacks makes it incomprehensible to me precisely why anyone would defend the site. Right now, I've tightened the filter so that it is more difficult to add new links so that the problem doesn't continue to grow.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If its blacklisted you will continue to be able to edit those pages like normal as long as you dont add/remove those links. If its acceptable I can mass remove these. Werieth (talk)

Nope: it blocks you if you edit the paragraph in which the blacklisted links occurs.—Kww(talk) 19:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a bug in the blacklist. According to the numbers less than 13k pages are affected. If needed I can mass remove them. Werieth (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've rolled back all those edits. Might not be a bad idea to check again in case I missed any though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks, Mark.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

From my watchlist I have found the following related IPs with edits still unreverted:

• 122.161.117.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.195.57.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 171.48.9.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.166.20.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 202.142.93.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.176.64.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 113.21.79.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.92.77.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 14.98.82.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 61.3.187.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked and reverted.—Kww(talk) 19:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The tool I've been using only gets those that are the most recent revision, so if there were subsequent edits after the bot I've been missing them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The annoying fact about this latest charge of proxies is that they didn't only add the disputed archive.is but also established services like archive.org which would be totally ok under normal circumstances. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

RotlinkBot has always added other archives when it saw fit. I'm not sure what the reasons are.—Kww(talk) 20:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Cary Lee Peterson [New Article Creation]

Dear Administrator(s),

Please refer to the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rvplpr/sandbox#Cary_Lee_Peterson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rvplpr/sandbox

Thanks in advance for your help getting this article into Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvplpr (talk • contribs) 09:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

As admins do not determine content, you would be better served by reviewing the articles for creation process. I have also left some useful information about creating your first article on your personal talkpage. Good luck! ES&L 10:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IP 72.207.247.59 BLP violations

I definitely think this individual is NOTHERE to make this encyclopedia a better guide. [101] [102]. Notifying them now. Tivanir2 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I know ANI is quicker, but it is my sworn duty to point out to you that you should really report this at AIV, and there should have been a final warning, and blah blah blah. Blocked for 31 hours, thanks for the note. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• And I just saw this one. I'm somewhat surprised that this isn't vandalized more. If there is more of this, on a frequent basis, consider WP:RFPP for semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks. First ever ANI start so I will try to keep AIV in my mind if this comes up again. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No apology necessary; thanks again. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin not explaining why he or she believes a passage is consistent with WP:Label

The lede of the Men's Rights Movement article contains a sentence which appears to be in violation of WP:Label. Specifically:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has effectively forbidden further discussion of this issue on the article's talk page.[103] The same admin insists that there is a consensus in favor of the "misogynist" language and has repeatedly sanctioned users who believe the language should be changed, insisting that the arguments for a change are "weak", and saying that people asking for change are "disruptive".[104][105][106]. Full disclosure -- I was also the recipient of such a sanction, but that's not my concern here.[107]. In light of all of this, one would expect bbb23 to explain why it is he or she believes it is clear that the passage is not in violation of WP:Label. After all, if the arguments for changing the passage are weak, then the WP:Label argument must be weak, and there would be a reason for that weakness which could be explained. However, bbb23 has not, when requested, provided such an explanation.[108]. Furthermore, the apparent decision that this passage is consistent with WP:Label appears to be in contradiction with other decisions involving the same policy. For example, after a lengthy discussion, the Weather Underground is not described as a terrorist organization in the lede of its article, though the controversy of whether or not the label is appropriate is discussed in the body. That, despite the considerably stronger sourcing for the "terrorist" description of the WU than for the "misogynist" description of the MRM.[109]William Jockusch (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know what Bbb has or has not said, but LABEL is quite clear: "...unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That condition is clearly met, judging from [110] and [111]. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That depends on what constitutes "widely used". Note that as shown above, the usage of "terrorist" in the Weather Underground case is considerably wider than the usage of "misogynist" in the MRM case. Indeed, the "misogynist" sources are both considerably more obscure and less numerous than the "terrorist" sources.William Jockusch (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The matter has been discussed plenty of times on the talk page; please check the archives. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has, I agree with you. But it is remarkable that until your note above, I can't find anyone addressing the WP:Label issue from the pro-inclusion-of-misogyny-accusation side. What consitutes wide use? In the MRM case, we have some scholarly sources, up to seven so far I believe, including the "Gender and Sexuality" and "Women, Men, and Gender" links you provide above. In the WU case, we have the NYT, the WSJ, and Time magazine, with a total of over 50 references linked here.[112]. Which list of examples better exemplifies "widely used"?William Jockusch (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So you have seven scholarly sources backing up the statement, but you want it removed from the article? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct, they don't add up to "widely used" as they are relatively obscure. Additionally, per WP:UNDUE, a significant viewpoint should have prominent adherents. And the whole point of WP:Label is that before you label someone in a certain way, the term should be in wide use. Seven relatively obscure sources does not constitute "wide use." Additionally, none of the sources are particularly prominent, which makes it WP:UNDUE. Note that in the Weather Underground case, 50 sources, including prominent sources like the NYT, the WSJ, and Time Magazine did not amount to sufficiently "widely used" to put it into the lede. Yet in this case, the list of relatively obscure scholarly sources are apparently enough to put it into the lede. That's grossly inconsistent. Additionally, I want admins who are enforcing something to explain themselves in regard to the core issue, which bbb23 is failing to do.William Jockusch (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, in some cases (and I don't know if this is the situation here), a proposal has been sufficiently discussed that there is a clear consensus on what to do. At that point, it can be disruptive to keep bring it up over and over again. The best example is the people who want to add conspiracy theories to Barack Obama. They won't even entertain that on the talk page, since the last 9000 discussions came out the same way. So I guess it all depends on how much the issue has been discussed in the past. That's my view, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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 [113] 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)

IP editor tag-bombing of Erotic target location error

An IP editor has taken to re-tag-bombing the Erotic target location error page.[114][115][116][117][118]

• The IP editor's diff comments include POVs like: "Considering the incredibly dubious, inflammatory, and fictitious nature of this article, I believe this is necessary"[119]).
• The editor has history of tagging the page, to which no other editor has agreed (c.f. [120][121]).
• And the editor falsely claims that sources do not contain info that it is actually easily found (cf., [122][123]).

Because the page falls under the ArbCom sexology sanctions and cites one of my own RW works, I thought it better to ask for a read from other eyes.
— James Cantor (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a warning under the Sexology DS to the IP for disruption. If he keeps up the disruption we can block. I've semi-protected the article as well since IPs have been a problem in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect; thank you.— James Cantor (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)