Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive736

SPA Tagging at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action

User has agreed to stop, any further discussion has no chance of being productive (User notified using Template:ANI-notice.)

Over at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action (which is very high visibility at the moment because of the banner on every page) user Youreallycan has been SPA tagging users. I see no evidence that he is following the WP:SPA guideline "In communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added after their name" and "Before adding such a tag make sure you are doing so with good reason". Rather he is doing so because he feels that only autoconfirmed users should be allowed to participate.[1][2] I removed the tags and asked him to discuss this on the talk page and seek consensus[3] to which he replied that he does not need to follow consensus[4], reverted one of my removals[5] and tagged several more. [6][7][8] I again encouraged him to discuss this rather than edit warring, and warned him that I would bring this up at ANI if he kept edit warring[9] and his only reply was "I just added another one - more should be added."[10]

By my count, six editors have opposed his tagging[11] and nobody has supported it. I am open to a discussion where he tries to convince the six other editors that the tags belong and no consensus is required, but instead of discussing he simply adds more SPA tags.

I would also note that removing these tags is very difficult because of the large number of edits causing edit conflicts. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding these templates when there are so many SPA and unconfirmed users posting votes is also a pretty full on job. However many users oppose the tagging of SPA votes in such an important vote I an in my right to tag them as is normal in such discussions. Youreallycan 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC) can 02:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a normal situation as we have a big banner visible to all readers asking for their input on this matter. There is nothing in that banner or in the introductory memo from Philippe Beaudette of the Wikimedia Foundation that indicates that only experienced editors are welcome to support or oppose an option regarding how we respond to SOPA. SPA tagging in this specific context is a form of biting newcomers, in my opinion, and I urge Youreallycan to stop. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the SPA tags- I agree entirely with Cullen328. Reyk _YO! 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A question for YRC. Is it your intention to tag all new accounts that appear not to have edited elsewhere on Wikipedia and all unconfirmed users taking part in the debate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the general test of a SPA apply: "A user who appears to have a very brief editing history, or an apparent focus on one (or at most a handful of) matters or purposes, creating a legitimate reason for users to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, aware of project norms, not improper uses of an account, and aimed at building an encyclopedia." The way I read that is a user with a very brief editing history (unconfirmed, for example) is automatically a SPA. I don't see the "banner" Cullen refers to as changing the test, and even more limited discussions, like AfDs, are "visible" to everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It says to assess whether their editing and comments appear neutral, reasonably free of promotion, advocacy or personal agendas, etc. Youreallycan is assuming without evidence that this is true of all non-autoconfirmed users. He is also wasting his time; the votes will be evaluated by Wikimedia Foundation staff, who are perfectly capable of how many edits each voter has made without Youreallycan's help. Finally, his stated reasons for tagging are pure POV pushing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SPA accounts and unconfirmed users voting on such an important can be templated and its totally usual to do it. It needs doing actually - drive by created accounts an IP addresses with no edits have no weight in such decisions - There are so many that it is difficult - I am just tagging the ones I see - the closing administrators are obliged to assess and reject such users votes anyway - but it is beneficial and helpful to highlight them prior to closure. I have heard it all from the activists tonight - "readers get a vote" - no they don't. Youreallycan 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Our policies refer to editors not readers. Readers of WP creating an account for the sole purpose of voting in the SOPA poll clearly fall under WP:SPA and may be tagged as such. Only editors are part of the WP community. --Surturz (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that an unconfirmed user is automatically a SPA is contrary to established Wikipedia precedent - and demonstrably false. There are contributors who have been editing for years as IPs. Frankly though, given the way the discussion re SOPA is going at the moment, I think that this is all rather unnecessary, and looks close to breaching WP:POINT - these 'SPAs', if that is what they are, are unlikely to make the slightest difference to the outcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno about the precedent part, but it is not "demonstrably false" based on the language of the essay that everyone is quoting as if it's policy. A SPA is clearly defined as one of two things (it's stated in the disjunctive), one of which is a "user who appears to have a very brief editing history". Thus, if an IP has only one edit (a !vote), they are by definition a SPA. If that editor has been editing with different IP addresses "for years", there's no way to tell that on the face of it. If this automatic labeling of an IP a SPA is wrong, perhaps the essay should be changed. Do we have anything to guide us other than this essay, or is it just "precedent"? I will confess that, before now, I never thought of an IP with one edit as a SPA. I also thought of SPAs as editors (registered or IP) who make many edits, but only to one article or to related articles. At the same time, in general, I'm uncomfortable giving much weight to the !vote of an editor who has virtually no history, regardless of whether they are an IP or a registered user.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think YRC has done anything wrong here, but I also think the that the tagging should be ignored by closing admins. It is not a vote on content, and readers are entitled to vote and have their votes counted, since the vote may be of concern to them. I think it would be gracious if YRC stopped with the tagging. --FormerIP (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am well within my rights to tag SPA in such a vote - I have been quite conservative in my tagging. I will also be (whats the word) appealing to the three closing administrators to pay attention to and to rejects the size of the SPA votes. Youreallycan 03:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- am I the only one who finds it funny that we are arguing about who is and who is not allowed to express a view on internet censorship? Reyk _YO! 03:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Agree wholeheartedly that the tagging is inappropriate. We're directly inviting our readers to comment via a banner. No sense whatsoever in tagging them as SPAs when they do comment. Swarm ^X 03:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Any passer by can opine about such , however - any passer by does not get to vote to close down en wikipedia - passer bys can comment but they don't get counted. Youreallycan 03:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Another question for YRC. Have you tagged any 'oppose' !votes? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not know - I have been recently blindly tagging any SPA from this page quite a conservative position and with no idea which section they had commented in. There are so many, some get missed and edit conflicts happen Youreallycan 03:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"passer bys can comment but they don't get counted" - Seriously? Where is that written? When we put up banners, we address all. Not just our active editors, but our readers as well. Swarm ^X 03:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats a standard position in regard to important issues here. Banners were not discussed - "readers" do not get to vote to close the project down. Youreallycan 03:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We make no distinction between readers and editors when it comes to providing opinions on policy. Yes, if they registered in the last few days and the only edit is to talk on that page, there's a chance its an SPA, but it could also be a long-time reader that wants to comment on the action. Since we can't make the distinction, we can't call anyone out as an SPA for this purpose, nor is it proper to do so. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not, YRC? Wikipedia is supposed to be written for the benefit of readers, not editors. I'd strongly suggest that for your own benefit, you stop this tagging, YRC. You are perfectly entitled to draw the attention of closing admins to a possible problem with SPAs, but given your clearly-partisan position in the issue, it is difficult to see how you can be a neutral judge over who is and who isn't a SPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that I've contacted Philippe for clarification as to whether such a restriction is in effect for this discussion. "It's standard practice" is simply not true. Swarm ^X 03:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Swarm - Philippe isn't in charge here, and has no rights to override usual policy and guidelines. Youreallycan 03:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Masem - This is nothing to do with policy. Even a long term reader is a SPA with few edits apart from this - this is just the historic way it is, no one is calling the contributor out, just aiding the closing admins as to how much weight to give their vote. Youreallycan 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Andy - my tagging has been as I said, pretty conservative. I will tag SPA from a neutral position as I see fit. Youreallycan 03:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippe is a WMF staff member involved in this, and I've asked them for clarification. But that aside, I just noticed that you have indeed voted against the proposal. In this case, you're not doing this from a neutral position and this is wholly inappropriate and needs to stop immediately. Swarm ^X 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if this isn't a policy-related discussion or not. We still don't make said distinctions. Readers have just as much say if WP should black out in protest as editors. Calling anyone out as an SPA without proof in that conversation is very improper. (The only time I've seen SPA called out is when there is firm knowledge of external pressure to have editors jump into a conversation like AFD or RFA; unless you have evidence an external page is directing people to comment on this, it's outside of these cases. ) --MASEM (t) 03:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@Swarm - I am tagging SPA from a blind neutral position. Drive by created accounts do not get to vote to close down wikipedia. Youreallycan 03:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas - we have editors stating clearly that CANVASSing has been done on the non-English Wikipedias regarding this, and it appears that some of the "limited edit history" editors may have arrived as a result of that. SPA or not is not important - if they arrived as a result of CANVASS their presence is not valid for determining WP:CONSENSUS on the issue. The bit about readers being able to comment is true if, and only if, their presence is not due to violating CANVASS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Swarm is asserting that equal weight is given to any vote in this issue - according to User:Swarm anyone from the internet, anyone at all, gets an equal vote to close wikipedia down. Youreallycan 03:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, could you please explain why it is that you ignored both of my requests to talk this over on the article talk page and instead pushed ahead with the SPA tagging? You could easily have discussed it and then done your tagging before the deadline - nobody at the Wikimedia Foundation will be counting votes until after the deadline has passed. It really looks like your goal is discouraging people from voting, not helping the vote-counter. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And could you please explain why you have continued the tagging[12] even after reading the multiple negative comments here? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing that has been said here has affected the reasons to SPA tag. I will continue to SPA template as I see fit as is usual in such important discussions. Youreallycan 04:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to reply that I will then delete any SPA templates you add as I see fit and cite your refusal to discuss on the talk page and the overwhelming consensus here if anyone brought up 3RR, but when I looked at the page I could only find one SPA tag to nuke. It appears that other editors are deleting them as fast as you are inserting them. Stop edit warring now or you will be blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors work on creating content for readers, who are our customers. Customers don't get to decide whether the workers go on strike. If the goal of the strike is to spread awareness by inconveniencing our readers, it makes no logical sense whatsoever for the readers to vote on the strike action. YRC should not be vilified for correctly tagging SPA's --Surturz (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The question for me is whether the SPA tagging is being done indiscriminately, or with YRC's POV in mind. If it's the former, then stop edit warring the lot of you and leave the damn tags there (assuming good faith and no sockpuppetry at all, it is actually interesting to know the proportion of voters that are newbies). If it's the latter, YRC should be given an indefinite block pending a resolution. —WFC— 04:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been tagging, as I have said, indiscriminately from a conservative point of view - I don't know about Guy Macons comments but there are currently about fifty SPA templates on the page and there are imo at least fifty more that need templating, probably more. Youreallycan 04:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Youreallycan, you might as well stop tagging the SPAs; those of us who are going to close are already pretty aware of these issues, and it seems your actions, which I have no doubt were initiated in good faith, have wound up annoying some people needlessly without adding much to the discussion. Perhaps you could figure out how to get SineBot or its equivalent adding signatures to any unsigned opinions - that would be really useful from the closer's perspective. Risker (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will stop tagging, at least its on the radar. SPA and drive by accounts do not get to vote to close wikipedia down. Yes, sine bot is not bothering there which is creating more problems. Youreallycan 04:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I still encourage you to discuss your concerns on the talk page - perhaps in a new section so that the SPA tagging issue doesn't cloud the discussion? You have a legitimate concern and even though I disagree I would very much like to see you make your case as effectively as possible. The folks taking the vote will certainly read the talk page, and they may very well agree with you and only count autoconfirmed users. I know that if it were me I would count it both ways to see if the autoconfirmed users have a different opinion than the non-autoconfirmed users. Come to think of it, once the deadline passes you or anyone else can count it any way you choose and post your results along with the assumptions used when counting. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"SPA and drive by accounts do not get to vote to close wikipedia down." According to the WMF, they do. Still, thank you for being reasonable in your actions, at least. Swarm ^X 07:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Block sockpuppets

The user E.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used several sockpupets, and has been blocked both here and on svwp earlier. After a checkuser verified a number of users active on svwp I would like to get the same users blocked here on enwp as well. Some of them have been used here in the same manner as earlier, trying to influence consensus. The identified sockpupets that have a SUL account and thus have edited here, or may do so in the future, are:

• Bianessås (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Glytt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paved with good intentions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Voice (SWE) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Formion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dark Claimant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last time I asked for a block on E.G.'s sockpupets a local checkuser did a check to verify, if such a check is done this time I would appreciate it if any other accounts that are found get banned as well. GameOn (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingen Alls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) couldn't be checked on svwp since no edits have been done there nor any login, the user shows several traits similar to the other sockpupets. GameOn (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingen Alls is  Stale. The following accounts have been indeffed, and  Confirmed by checkuser:

• Paved with good intentions (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Formion (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Glytt (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bianessås (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Voice (SWE) (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dark Claimant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also, underlying  IP blocked. AGK [•] 13:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for block

Hello. I am requesting a block on User:209.56.73.2 (his/her talk page can be found here). It (let's refer to him/her as it, since we do not know the gender) has made many unconstructive edits, and has been blocked for two years. However, it still makes very many vandalizing edits. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For ease of lookup, 209.56.73.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 2 years. Please feel free to use WP:AIV in future for such reports - they will handle schoolblocks as well as dynamic IPs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest---block requested

• User: Gizgalasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Articles: Especially, Azerbaijan International, also
  • Ali and Nino: A Love Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Lev Nussimbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kurban Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gizgalasi has admitted to being a member of the research team for Azerbaijan International's series of special articles on Ali and Nino: A Love Story (see User Talk:Gizgalasi#Ali and Nino and associated pages). I've been trying to work with the user for the past week or two (see talk page discussions), but the user just isn't getting it. I think the user has almost understood the idea that the AI article is not "theirs", but continues to add promotional links, excessive details, etc., all designed to enhance this article, and, in particular, the special issues xe worked on. As a good example, look at the last sequence of 72 edits on the AI article: [13]. I'm happy to work with a COI editor if they show an understanding of what they can and cannot do; this user does not. Unless someone else wants to step in to mentor/advise, I see no solution other than a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the links to 4 websites and 4 Twitter pages from the body of the article Azerbaijan International, but User:Gizgalasi reinserted them. I removed them again with a note on the editor's talk page citing WP:PROMO and a warning not to reinsert them, but other editors should keep on eye on the article. There is a link to the magazine's website in the External Links section of the article, and presumably that site has links to the other websites (if it doesn't, that's not our problem). This single link is sufficient, the addition of 4 other links and the Twitter pages definitely crosses the line into being promotional, especially considering they were posted by an editor with an admitted COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Add the Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels article to the COI editing this User is doing. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So....am I just totally off the mark here? Is this user reformable? Or is this simply uninteresting? I've refrained from reverting any recent edits or responding to recent comments until I can get a better read from this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This looks like someone going too far in regards to WP:COS. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. I'd say this can be considered excessive, especially since there's an effort to exclusively promote the POV of AI. -- Atama頭 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Priyabhar repeatedly removing Template:Copyvio

Resolved

 – Priyabhar blocked indef by Elen. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Priyabhar (talk · contribs)
• Mobile Payments in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Priyabhar created this article which contains massive copyvio from https://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~gr224/PAPERS/Mobile_Financial_India.pdf http://www.mobeyforum.org/content/download/16699/175936/file/Mobile%2520payments%25202012_Innopay_v1.0.pdf http://www.ncc.org.in/download.php?f=NCC2011/1569367349.pdf. Duplication Detector reports for 3 biggest chunks: [14], [15], [16]. It was blanked with {{Copyvio}} and reported at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 9. According to the OTRS clerk, the OTRS received did not establish a credible claim to ownership of any of the above sources. The copyvio template has now been removed 4 times, the first two by an IP and now twice today by this user, despite a clear warning on his/her talk page [17]. I've now reverted twice today and can't revert again. Eyes please. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User notified. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... seems to be another case of a well known cultural dichotomy. He doesn't appear to have responded to any messages and the many warnings (5 uw plus all the deletion notices) and perhaps cannot read sufficient English to understand what he's doing wrong. Nevertheless, if he reverts the current COPYVIO notice, we should block for a very short time or until the copyvio/OTRS has been resolved, to prevent further disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) PS: and perhaps PP the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to expunge the copyright? I tried to look through it but didn't have time to do a full sweep. If that can be done then do it and let me know (so I can do some RevDel). At the moment my feeling is that the article is un-rescuable and it's probably easier just to scrap it and start afresh. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No comment right now on the copyvio, but communication is vital, and an editor that won't or can't communicate really doesn't belong here. I've told the editor that. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who blanked it with {{copyvio}} and listed it at Copyright problems. The topic is potentially suitable, but the current article is unrescueable in my view and needs a complete rewrite da capo. I only listed the three sources that account for the vast majority of the copyvio (and the article), but I suspect that virtually all of it consists of individual sentences copied from other sources. Given the editor's level of written English (e.g. [18]) virtually every sentence in the article written in grammatically correct, idiomatic English is highly likely to have been lifted from somewhere. Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; that was my feeling too. Now you have confirmed it I just went ahead and deleted the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article existed before Priyabhar became involved. I nominated a couple of images that had been in use for deletion because they were aparrently copyvios / contained invalid licenses, but after the first was deleted an earlier editor showed up asking why the file was deleted. I was aparrently in error when nominating the second and I withdrew the nomination; I can no longer recheck the first. See the discussion at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#File_.28Image.29_deleted. So I should draw your attention to the fact that:

• It is possible that there exists an earlier version of the article that could be restored
• The discussion linked above was never responded to, so it's also possible that the deleted image could also be restored.

RichardOSmith (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was an oversight on my part (sorry). I have undeleted an older version of the page before this editor came on board :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through his deleted contributions. He's done an awful lot of uploading with no license, and when that's deleted, uploading copyvios and claiming he owns them. I have blocked him indefinitely - there is a risk to the project to allowing a serial copyright violator to remain uploading copyvios. If at some stage he communicates and demonstrates an understanding of copyright, an unblock could be considered. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Death threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A request has been filed with the developers to implement an e-mail screening feature. It's in their hands now. 28bytes (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

(Redacted)--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked with no talkpage or e-mail access. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is yet another case of an account using a Mailinator address with a clearly unacceptable name to harass other editors. I've previously raised this several times, only to meet the general response that it is my problem, which can be resolved by disabling my email -- as I know some editors already have done. But it's not my problem, nor theirs, it is a serious problem affecting the working of Wikipedia. If it remains ignored then we are likely to find that the Wikipedia email facility becomes discredited and very many editors will disable it, thus rendering it useless. This problem really must be addressed, not treated to a shrug of the shoulders. RolandR (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you suggest the problem be addressed? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody has said, "It is just your problem." However, there is absolutely nothing we can do except block them without email access as they show up. As I mentioned before, you needed to file a feature request at bugzilla.wikimedia.org before the developers will implement it, which I have done at bug #33761. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The dismissive response above yours is indicative of my complaint. I have no idea how to file a bugzilla request, but the only response I've received is that I should do so or disable my email. I am being told that it is a personal problem, to which I should find my own solution. If I knew how to solve this, I wouldn't be asking here, and it's simply not good enough to continually return the question to me. RolandR (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reaper Eternal is not being dismissive. He filed the Bugzilla report himself. The developers are aware of the issue and it's being discussed there how to proceed. Just click the link he gave you and you can read all about it. 28bytes (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to ReaperEternal, but to "the comment above" his. RolandR (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I misread your comment. Regardless, RE's got the bugzilla ball rolling on this, hopefully we'll be able to see some progress there. 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added my support for this feature request at bugzilla; as RE says, that's really all any admin can do until the developers implement this. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Did Twinkle just die?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can't access any twinkle commands, not even showing up on screen. Dead? Maintenance? Conspiracy? N^oformation ^Talk 21:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was able to get an MfD for this page started, but I cancelled.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's working OK for me. 28bytes (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not working OK for me. There's a similar thread on a more fitting forum, WP:VPT. →Στc. 21:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Gadgets not working, all of a sudden -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Weird that it would work for some but not others. Anyway, thanks for the redirect, I'll read the VP thread. N^oformation ^Talk 21:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent Deletion of POV Dispute Tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This board is not for content disputes, and there is no need for administrative action. -- Atama頭 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

This request for administrative intervention is basic. in order to facilitate resolution of what I perceive to be a clear WP:NPOV policy issue, I today elevated my prior Talk:Swiftboating inquiry to formal "Dispute" status with the placement of an associated "POV Section Dispute" tag. Despite my explanation in talk as to the specifics of elevating my objection to formal dispute status, my tag placement was twice reverted by User:Snowded, first with an edit summary "No dispute documented on talk page with sources. Just variants of I Don't like it" and second, with an edit summary "Tagging an article when you are not providing any properly sourced proposals on the talk page is disruptive editing". This is, IMHO, both a specious and contrived misrepresentation of the pertinent WP:NPOV guidance (as I attempted to demonstrate in my talk comments) and, furthermore, a contentious, highly disruptive, wiki-lawyered misrepresentation of WP guidance on the placement of dispute tags and the legitimate exercise of an individual editor's unilateral right to arbitrarily remove another editor's tag prior to consensus resolution of the issue.

Pending administrative review, I am seeking both administrative reinstatement of my POV Section Dispute tag and some determination as to the WP propriety of User:Snowded's editorial conduct. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See comments on talk page. No attempt is being made to provide a properly sourced justification for the PoV tag. The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds. This article gets periodic attempts by people who think the Swiftboat veterans position should be represented as valid, when the sources say otherwise. We are in one of those periods, so some more experienced editors would be welcome. Mind you, I hadn't realised just how strongly JakeinJoisey feels about this issue. --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds.

That is erroneous. The tag in question is, contrary to your misrepresentation, a POV Section Dispute tag twice inserted by me and twice deleted by you as opposed to the general POV Article tag placed by another editor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag". You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag. Just changing from the whole article to a section makes no difference to that. Tagging, without properly raising the issue on the talk page (which doesn't mean just saying that you don't like it, or that you think the Kerry campaign would) is disruptive editing. Better to make a proper case and raise a RfC if you feel you are not being listened to. --Snowded ^TALK 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag".

That's a minor concession evading the heart of your misrepresentation. You stated that there were "several editors" who had removed my tag. There were not...just you.

You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag.

Your apparent inability to understand that "sourcing" is irrelevant to the aspect of WP:NPOV guidance at issue here will, hopefully, be rectified at the completion of this exercise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver, my references are to those tags collectively. --Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver,...'

False! I had no part in the placement/removal of the "Article" POV tag and, hence, it has zippo to do with your singular removals of MY legitimately placed Section tag...the subject of this ANI petition. I'll defer any further comments pending the requested administrative determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Jake's tags were removed by involved editors. I agree with the removals because Jake's wishes for the article are opposed by too many other involved editors. His wish is to remove the absolute nature of the term "swiftboating" being a "smear", a fact which is established by multiple scholarly sources. Jake would rather the article say "swiftboating has been described by critics as a smear campaign". The supposed critics are dispassionate and neutral scholars examining the issue thoroughly. If Jake's dispute tag is honored for the duration of Jake's wish to change the article, it will stay up there for-freaking-ever. I think Jake's tag cannot remain there as a badge of shame, and I do not think Jake will ever be satisfied with the scholarly tone of the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Jake's tags were removed by involved editors.

No, it is NOT true. My tag (singular) was twice removed by User:Snowded. The legitimacy of those removals is the sole purpose for this ANI petition for administrative determination...not an administrative determination as to the merit of my WP:NPOV objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, NPOV is absolutely about sources. "Neutral" on Wikipedia does not mean "fair" or "balanced" in the sense that a journalist tries to present all sides of the story. Neutral on WP means that we represent what is published in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. We don't, for example, pretend that intelligent design has merit just because conservative Christians think it does, and we don't seek to "balance" our article on evolution to account for those views. N^oformation ^Talk 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are special rules for giving some degree of preference to the scientific point of view on scientific and medical questions. This does not apply as readily to politics.

My view in general is that if any good faith editor thinks the POV tag justified, it remains until the issue is settled. It's more sensible to argue about the meirts of the article, than about the tag. I don't seeany contradcction between an article and section tag; the meaning I assume is that someone thinks the article as a whole is non-neutral, and one section is in particular, or perhaps in the opposite direction. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The article states that swiftboating is a smear because that is what all reliable sources say—the talk page contains nothing to indicate otherwise. There has not even been an attempt to argue that a source passing the sniff test claims that swiftboating was ever anything other than a smear. A tag cannot remain on an article without justification, and given the overwhelming sources stating the obvious ("swiftboating" is a smear) there would need to be more than a couple of dissenters to warrant a permanent badge of shame on the article: such a tag backed by no reliable sources would be an NPOV violation as the article would then be stating that there is significant doubt about the article content (but there is no such doubt). Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My view in general is that if any good faith editor thinks the POV tag justified, it remains until the issue is settled.

Thank you for your consideration and determination. So as to be explicitly clear, it is my understanding of your determination that any further removal of my POV dispute tag prior to resolution of the specific issue addressed is improper per WP:POLICY. Based upon that understanding, I am restoring my POV Dispute Section Tag and will return to the discussion on resolution of the issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No tag is warranted until there is at least one reliable source showing some doubt about specified text in the article. An alternative, if further time wasting is wanted, would be to hold an RFC on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note the in general . The interpretation of policy is in the hands of the community. The thing to do is to answer the matter on the talk p., not here, and get consensus. If it's just one person with a isolated position, the discussion can be very simple. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "determination" is a bit worrying JakeinJoisey DGG is contributing to the discussion not deciding the issue. You have to contribute sourced material to support your position on the talk page, or the tag will be deleted. At the moment tagging seems to be the back up strategy of you and one other editor having failed to make the case for any change on the talk page. POV tags are meant to indicate that is a real dispute, not that one side of the dispute has no evidence but is unhappy--Snowded ^TALK 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DGG is contributing to the discussion not deciding the issue.

The "issue" addressed in this ANI petition is the WP:POLICY propriety of your editorial conduct in the removal of a legitimately placed and talk-supported POV Section tag, not the merits of my POV objection...and the "determination" in this instance has, I believe, been made.

Any purported rationale that, per WP:POLICY, traditional WP:RS "sources", external to WP:NPOV policy, must be provided to legitimately support the placement of ANY POV tag is patently specious and suggests that neither you, nor others objecting on this basis, have yet to come to terms with the substance of my POV objection. The pertinent and controlling "source" is the specific WP:NPOV policy language I cited and should be evident to anyone reading the text of my POV objection. Your rationale is, therefore, unsupportable in fact.

That being said, as you have suggested some lack of clarity as to the exact nature of the specific determination in this ANI, I will refrain from re-tagging the pertinent section pending further clarification from DGG. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point, and appear to be repeating the wiki-lawyering that followed your previous block. You are conveniently ignoring comments that suggest you address the source issue. Also DGG says (and I agree with him) that a POV tag placed in good faith should be left until the issue is resolved. If you had provided just one reliable source to back up your political position I would not have removed the tag. However it is not acting in good faith to simply make your own political statements on the talk page and then use POV tags as a substitute for proper sourcing. Remember also that no editor can "determine" content issues, that has to be resolved by sourced material --Snowded ^TALK 22:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

@DCG The distinction between science and other topics is not as large as it appears. If ID were published in reliable sources then we would of course include the ID POV, and that's the main thing. So even in this situation, unless this editor can provide reliable sources that demonstrate that the article is one sided, the tag isn't justified. I imagine the fact that we're having this conversation (not you and I but ANI) is because the user is unable to provide substantiation for his claim; if he did then there'd be a legitimate reason to keep the tag up. N^oformation ^Talk 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are certain tags, like POV or COI, that require an accompanying explanation on the article talk page to justify their inclusion in the article. It's not difficult to figure out which ones they are, any tag that says "Please see the discussion on the talk page" absolutely requires such a discussion. Otherwise it's meaningless. Keep in mind that those tags aren't saying that there is any actual violation of NPOV. All the tag says is that the neutrality is being disputed. That's all. So it shouldn't be necessary to defend the tag by convincing others of the legitimacy of your complaint, the tag simply points out that the complaint exists.

Since the tag shouldn't be removed until the dispute is resolved, the natural question should be, "When is the dispute resolved?" That's not so easy to answer, WP:DR covers that particular question and obviously it's not an easy answer. But all too often, those tags are seen as black marks that warn people that the article needs to be fixed and they really shouldn't be seen as such. The only reason we caution people about their use is to dissuade someone from seeing an article that they think has such a problem, placing a tag, and moving on as if that meant anything. The tag is meant to draw attention to a dispute, that and nothing more. -- Atama頭 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course what you say is correct in general. However, in the case we are discussing, there is no dispute because there is no evidence on the article talk page to suggest there is an NPOV problem. When you look at the situation the text "swiftboating is a smear" is not contentious because all reliable sources state that swiftboating is a smear. There is no reliable source that suggests there is any NPOV problem, so a couple of editors should not have their personal views permanently recorded by a tag on the article. Let them find just one reliable source to support their case, and we can hold an RfC. Until that happens, tagging should not be permitted as a weapon. Inserting something like "critics say that swiftboating is a smear" would be a violaton of NPOV because it suggests there is a sustainable argument to the contrary—according to reliable sources that is not correct. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing this participation here is almost as good as placing the tag itself. What this horribly POV biased article needed was exposure...and it's at least getting that now. While I had no intent to argue the merit of my POV objection here, those in opposition are apparently intent on doing so. Sooooo...as to the opposition premise being offered here, that any POV tag somehow mandates "sourcing" (as in WP:RS), it is wikilawyering bunk. What they cannot recognize (or simply refuse to acknowledge) is that my suggested NPOV improvement is an almost a verbatim replication (with a simple subject matter replacement) of the NPOV example given in the WP:NPOV POLICY guidance. This suggested edit doesn't change the content AT ALL, save for its PRESENTATION in the NPOV style mandated by WP:NPOV. This will be a necessary NPOV improvement that will not set well with those who have this Swiftboating article on their watch list, but it's high time that principles of WP:NPOV be brought to bear on this article. While those in opposition may hold the Swiftboat Veterans in less esteem than "genocide", even "genocide" gets presented per WP:NPOV guidance. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen any engagement with the explanations provided. Instead, all I see is repetition of the claim that an article should not say "X is a smear" because that fails NPOV. In general, that would be correct. In this case it's not, because all reliable sources state that swiftboating is a smear—there is no doubt (according to sources) whatsoever. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"What this horribly POV biased article needed was exposure...and it's at least getting that now." No. And I'm closing this thread because of it. This is not the place to bring attention to, or discuss content complaints or disputes. The way you do that is through WP:RFC or other, similar requests for an outside view. I see that nobody, yourself included, has bothered to even begin the proper process at WP:DR. That is not the purpose of this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 02:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Ban or block User:Zachy580 - her/his edits have all been acts of vandalism

Resolved

 – blocked by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs)

All of the edits of User:Zachy580 have been acts of vandalism, including editing Liberalism and replacing the word "liberalism" with "the retarded liberal's" [19]; on the article H. G. Wells he/she replaced the word "an outspoken" with "homosexual" [20]; has edited the New York Police Department by replacing the word "largest" to "most corrupted" [21]; on the Pittsburgh article added "THE STEELERS ARE THE WORST TEAM IN THE NFL!" [22]. Everyone of this users edits have been reverted for being acts of vandalism. This user has nothing positive to contribute to the Wikipedia Project and is only here to cause a nuisance and to damage the Project, I support a prompt ban of this user - this user is not here for any positive purpose and is only here to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia articles.--R-41 (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the correct avenue for this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Where this report would probably be declined as No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs), apparently. -- Luk ^talk 14:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At least he had the Steelers part pretty much right :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not while the Vikings are still in the league. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Or the Browns. Close call, though. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins .. that will be about enough of that. :/ — Ched :  ?  00:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Retaliatory tagging (or the appearance thereof) is strongly discouraged; editors should not engage in behavior likely to escalate conflicts, regardless of whether individual tags may be merited. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Hi all, I seem to have sparked off a conflict with User:Armbrust when I challenged his NAC close of this AfD on his talk page (here). We were not able to resolve that amicably and I have raised a deletion review. When I notified Armbrust of this, he began to tag almost every single article with which I've ever been associated using twinkle.

This is a partial sample from my watchlist

19:35 Marina Weisband‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:34 Highways in the United Kingdom‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:34 Compulsory purchase in England and Wales‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:34 Marie-Laure Augry‎ (diff | hist) . . (+64) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{linkrot}} and {{ref improve}} tags to article (Twinkle)) 19:34 Christa Goetsch‎ (diff | hist) . . (+36) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP unsourced}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:33 Lida Gustava Heymann‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:32 Suzanne Lacore‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{unreferenced}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:32 Mélanie Fazi‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:31 Brigitte Fouré‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:31 Geneviève Fraisse‎ (diff | hist) . . (+69) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} and {{ref improve}} tags to article (Twinkle)) 19:31 Marie-France Stirbois‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:30 Françoise de Veyrinas‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:30 Peter Flötner‎ (diff | hist) . . (+37) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{more footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:30 Erna Scheffler‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:29 Elisabeth Selbert‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:29 Geneviève Gaillard‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:29 Anne-Marie Comparini‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:28 Johanna Wanka‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{BLP sources}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:28 Helene Weber‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:28 Alice Salomon‎ (diff | hist) . . (+67) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{linkrot}} and {{more footnotes}} tags to article (Twinkle)) 19:28 Maria Probst‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:27 Danielle Casanova‎ (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{ref improve}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:27 Esther von Kirchbach‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle)) 19:27 Christine Teusch‎ (diff | hist) . . (+35) . . Armbrust (Talk | contribs) (Added {{no footnotes}} tag to article (Twinkle))

I then began to go through reversing all this tagging, using the edit summary: "WP:POINT violation. User is going through tagging all articles associated with me". He responded by restoring all his tags with the edit summary: "Removal of valid tags without addressing the problem." I'm now ceasing to interact with Armbrust for the time being, and please would uninvolved users review the situation and take whatever action they think is necessary? Thanks—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added these tags, because everyone is valid for the article on which it's applied. If you don't want them to be on the article, than address the tags. Removal of them isn't the solution. (There was even one which I could BLPPROD, but only added BLP unsourced, because the German article contains references.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 19:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, S Marshall, I'd suggest not calling his actions "defective" if you want good results. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, I accept that. I didn't claim to be innocent.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And really, they seem to be reasonable tags. I'd suggest fixing the ones you can, and if there are some you can't fix right now, leave the tags so someone else can take care of them. If Armbrust is done tagging for now, I don't see that any further action is needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting quandary. On one hand, it does appear to be obviously retaliatory. On the other, several of the taggings I looked at are reasonable if considered outside the context. There are a few iffy ones, to be sure: this one seems unnecessary given that there are already plenty of footnotes in the article. I once got a batch of retaliatory "citation needed"s on some articles of mine for doing something that someone didn't like, and my solution to that was to go put in the requested citations before removing the tags. A time-consuming solution, of course, and a little bit irritating to have to take time out from the task I was working on, but probably the best solution, all things considered. Now, if there are some obviously spurious tags added, I am sure Armbrust will have the good sense not to reinstate them once they're removed. 28bytes (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, that addition would seem to be unnecessary, but there are a few fairly important statements towards the end that are missing footnoted refs, like the assertion of a revival of interest around 1900. So, I'd call that not-obviously-spurious. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• So we're saying retaliatory mass tagging is acceptable as long as the tags are valid? Cos two can play that game...—S Marshall T/C 20:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest that might be a sub-optimal strategy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why? Either retaliatory mass-tagging is okay, or it isn't. What's not okay is to have one rule for Armbrust and another rule for me.—S Marshall T/C 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say retaliatory tagging is "acceptable", exactly, but we should consider what the best way to deal with it is. What are your thoughts? 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's as plain as your nose that the mass-tagging is vexatious in character. Its purpose is not to improve the encyclopaedia but to annoy me. I think this constitutes WP:WIKIHOUNDING and Armbrust should be asked to withdraw his tags. No prejudice against someone uninvolved re-adding them, although I'd take it as a courtesy if that person would please add them at a rate I could reasonably deal with while still having a job and a family life...—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's usually only a problem if they're invalid. I think what SoV meant in one of their statements was that "cos two can play that game" suggests you were going to do the same thing, which would of course lead to a block for pre-meditated disruption (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems very unsatisfactory to me, BWilkins. How could my hypothetical retaliatory tagging be pre-meditated disruption when Armbrust's actual retaliatory tagging is somehow not?—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You did, of course, read the wikilinked document, right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read it many times, because I've been on Wikipedia far too long. Question stands.—S Marshall T/C 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Armbrust unnecessarily escalate the dispute with retaliatory tagging? Yes, I think so. Will anyone here say "yes" if you ask them if they think it's a good idea if you likewise escalate the dispute with more retaliatory tagging? No, I don't think anyone will. I can understand why you think this is an unsatisfactory double standard, and you're right, it is. But my suggested solution (just grumble and resolve the issues brought up in the tags at your convenience) has the nice side effect that once that's done and the tags are obsolete, no one can use this tactic against you again. Yes, maintenance tags are irritating, but they can certainly be left in place until you have the time and inclination to deal with them. 28bytes (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

However, I will add this. Armbrust: consider that retaliatory mass tagging is not a helpful approach to take with your fellow editors, even if the individual tags are reasonable. I hope you will, as a good faith gesture, consider either withdrawing the tags, or helping resolve them yourself by fixing bare URLs and other issues you've flagged. Karma does exist. Just because something isn't a blockable offense doesn't mean other editors won't remember whether you unnecessarily escalate disputes or help de-escalate them with good-faith gestures that are not technically required by our rules. 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) Oy. The encyclopedia comes first, and the seven diffs I checked seemed ligit. Since there is no deadline, can properly attributed sources be added? I hope so. If not, then there is an inadequate sourcing problem. I think the hounding issue should be separate from the tagging issue; therefore, maybe you should drop the tagging issue entirely, and instead focus on the hounding issue on its own. Armbrust might at least be admonished and/or warned on that issue, as it is rather undesirable. Rgrds. --64.85.220.38 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, apparently Armbrust can do this to me and I can't respond in kind. That's frankly pathetic and shoddy, and I'm bitterly disappointed that the vexatious edits will stand. I'm cynical about the prospects of getting any help in cleaning up the mess he's created. I see AN/I's failure to address this kind of behaviour as a disincentive to writing content because content-writing makes you vulnerable to retaliatory edits in a dispute. I suppose I'll get a certain amount of satisfaction from bringing certain diffs up at Armbrust's third RFA, though.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You're attributing a motive to his actions. It may or may not be correct. If it is, he's being a WP:GIANTDICK. IIRC, you haven't specifically done anything that requires someone to closely monitor your edits, which would often be permitted. You're also personalizing the issue by saying it's being done against "you" - wrong idea. It appears that the tags are, in many cases, correct in their application. By all means, use it in their RFA, but take the high road. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"May or may not be correct?" Oh, please. It's as obvious as a coal pile in a ballroom.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Mentor or block?

I can see this going either way, and we don't seem to have a mentoring program page per se, so I figured I'd put it here and let some sort of consensus prevail.

I came across User:Brandon Banks (a new account), because he vanity vandalized a page on my watchlist. Checking his contribs, I noted that just about every single edit he has made so far has been reverted for one reason or another (vandalism, grammar, simple MOS violation, and so on). He sent an obvious joke article to AFC, where it was declined and speedied. He then asked for it to be userfied and has edited nothing but that draft since, which he has userspace draft templated as if it is going to be a serious article. Now, I don't see a useful contributor to the encyclopedia in this instance as of yet, but it's not so bad that I see an immediate indef block being necessary at this point in time. Thoughts? MSJapan (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks to be a young editor just "sandboxing" in his user space at the moment; as long as he's just practicing with the editing interface there, no harm done. At some point he'll likely get bored with that and either stop editing entirely or resume editing mainspace articles. I'd be inclined to leave him alone unless/until he resumes editing outside his sandbox. Not sure mentoring would do much. 28bytes (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• notified — Ched :  ?  00:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Central notice grammar and spelling

• "fewer than" not "less then".
• fragments of sentences after a colon do not start with a capitalised letter. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Being discussed at meta Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked editor apparently back and IP-hopping

A couple of years ago Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats and disruptive editing on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's come to my attention that the same person appears to be back and doing much the same thing on the same article, primarily from 86.145.70.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP has already been warned for edit-warring and 3RR, but note in particular the comment on its talk page: "If this IP address is blocked, we shall move to another IP address." It's probable that the IP editor is the subject of the article; the style of writing (using the majestic plural etc) is very much his, as is the apparent feud with the writer George Monbiot (false information about the latter has previously added to the article [23]). On his previous IPs/accounts he has been advised about WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:V and all the rest but has ignored all such advice. This has now been going on for some weeks. At the very least, the article needs to be semi-protected and some (careful) intervention is needed with the IP editor. Prioryman (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Having undone IP edits which added badly sourced material and wording contradicted by the cited source, or removed well sourced information, fully agree that the article needs to be semi-protected. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is the 21st century version of a strongly-worded letter to The Times. --NellieBly (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the IPs apparent threat to start removing sources from the article as he sees fit, in response essentially to not getting his way, I think urgent semi-protection is an essential first step. Is there any chance of a check user on the old account to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The protection log on that article is quite lengthy. I've semi-protected indefinitely. However, I wouldn't know a Viscount from a Visigoth, so what state the actual article should be in is up to other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt that a rangeblock would be practicable. Looking at the editing history, it seems clear that the IP is a dynamically assigned one from a major UK ISP (BT) and the collateral damage of a rangeblock would be enormous and would far outweigh any benefits.Qwyrxian's indefinite semi-protection should be sufficient, I think. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, your statement that it is 'probably Monckton' is definitely libellous unless you have some form of proof. See WP:BLP. Please remove your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.198.134 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Gee, another legal threat The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) specifically claimed to be the selfsame Monckton (who styles himself Monckton of Brenchley), and that the new IPs are editing to the same purpose as Mofb with very similar style, so Prioryman's statement isn't exactly a huge leap here. --GenericBob (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are topic-banned from climate change articles as a result of WP:ARBCC. And you have the largest number of edits on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (by quite a wide margin). Without disregarding the activities of the IP editor, I find more than a little bit questionable that you are violating WP:OUTING here in relation to that specific BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no question of Prioryman's having outed Mofb, since Mofb enthusiastically identified himself as CM three years ago. If associating an apparent IP sock with a self-identified account is enough to constitute prohibited outing, then that has unpleasant implications - it offers a handy way for editors to make themselves virtually immune to ban evasion/sockpuppetry investigations. --GenericBob (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It says London, which certainly narrows it down. Regardless of who a user claims to be, you can't assume he's telling the truth. It could just be a troll who's latched onto this particular subject for no apparent reason (as trolls often do). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is of course possible, but as against that the IP editor seems to be very well aware of obscure details of Monckton's travels and activities that have not, as far as I know, been the subject of press coverage (see [24]). The style of discussion on the IP's talk page - using the "royal we" throughout - is very distinctive. If it's a troll, it's a remarkably well-informed one who's capable of perfectly imitating Monckton's style and concerns. Personally I think the duck test is quite sufficient in this instance. Prioryman (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's actually the subject of the article or not, the probability seems strong that it's the same guy. And if so, as far as any "outing", he did that to himself when he chose to edit via IP's instead of logging on. Given that it's a BLP, editing has to be cautious and conservative, regardless of whether the editor is the subject or not. But a subject can't "own" his page, any more than anyone can "own" any given page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Very true. I will add though that there are wider concerns - specifically that this BLP has previously been anonymously (ab)used to post false information about others, as noted in my initial comment above. As past incidents have shown, that's a real threat to Wikipedia's integrity and reputation, to say nothing of the damage it causes to innocent third parties. Qwyrxian has rightly semi-protected it indefinitely and I strongly recommend that it should be remain so for the foreseeable future. Prioryman (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite semi is the way to go, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Monckton in London, though? I heard he was "somewhere close to Glasgow (or shall we say Rannoch?)"... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that relates to a different ISP from the most recent IP editor on that article. Geolocation is exceedingly complicated when it comes to British IP addresses. Sometimes the IP address does correspond roughly to the physical location of the user, within a few dozen miles at least, but it often doesn't in my experience, and geolocation software gives conflicting information. When I checked the IP address you mentioned (95.145.99.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) it geolocated for me to Glasgow, someone else geolocated it to Skipton in North Yorkshire and now it seems to geolocate to London. The fact that it geolocates to London is quite possibly due to the presence there of Telehouse Europe, which is effectively the main hub of the UK in Britain. It's not a big country and the ISP infrastructure is a lot more centralised than in some other countries. Prioryman (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcRey

Despite having an "editing history on Wikipedia stretching 7 years" [25] (through his previous accounts Ancient Land of Bosoni and Bosoni and IPs [26]) user MarcRey (talk · contribs) continually inserts tags that do not apply on the Bosnian language article in order to prove a point [27][28][29][30][31] and exhibits an extremely hostile attitude towards other editors and carries a xenophobic attitude in general. He refers to editors as "you and your likes" [32] and makes statements such as:

• "I presume you to be part of the neo-Serbo-Croatian movement on Wikipedia. Maybe you could help me answer the following rumor: Serb editors on Wikipedia are on a pay check from the government (or individual municipalities) in Serbia to protect "the interests of the Serbian nation"? Would explain a great deal." [33]
• "a fraction of Serb (possibly Croat) editors have had the comfort of editing undisturbed for a long while." [34]
• "an undefined number of Serb editors have succeeded with this by semi-hidden maneuvers over the last few months." [35][36]
• "At times like these editing on Wikipedia is really pinpointed by the phrase "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded"." [37]
• "I award Tiavo this star for his incessant attempts to reintroduce a defunct linguistic classification the whole world renounced 20 years ago just "beacsue there is no better", for his attempts to smear other users, and lastly but not least for his attempts to dodge all input to the discussion." [38]

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone should inform him of the WP:Discretionary sanctions status of articles related to Eastern Europe outlined here. He could find himself blocked in a hurry. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

None of these so-called pseudo-incidents are to be considered as violations of any sort but rather substantiated opinions which I am entitled to posses and share at will, or is PRODUCER claiming that Wikipedia is isolated from the basic foundation of democratic values underlining the Western World? Freedom of speech is the key-word for you sir. This is an obvious counterattack staged to neutralize, under false pretenses, an editor (I) with views contesting the biased ones of Serb users PRODUCER, Taivo and Biblbrooks. If anyone feels like maintaining that the ethnic background of these editors is irrelevant I will strongly have to disagree. Their background may be of little relevance when it comes to articles on the Cosmos or the Gila monster, but more so relevant on articles related to the territory of former Yugoslavia considering the still-ongoing blood-feud between Serbs and their neighbors. It is generally known, and by no means any violation to express the democratically justified opinion, that Serb editors have been abusing Wikipedia for a long while. Too see PRODUCER with administrative privileges is highly disturbing as he is bound to support other Serb users simply because of their ethnic background. I shall in the following weeks investigate the legal extent of Wikipedia's right to contend controversial inaccuracies in articles simply because one ethnic group (in this case Serbs) is in majority and choose to capitalize on bully-tactics for the disqualification of individual users with opposing views. Has it not ever stricken you that Serb users are constantly editing Bosnia-related articles whereas Bosniaks and Croats seldom edit Serbia-related articles? This is a phenomenon requiring closer scrutiny. Basalisk, if you do not revise your comment which you apparently wrote without being familiar with the issue at hand I will have to consider you as biased. The current "report" by PRODUCER is plain abuse of the Wikipedia administration and I will soon counter-file own reports discussing these issues. In the meantime, despite not confessing to any actual violation, I may admit that my emotions got the best of me and that some sentences may have been formulated differently, but this has to be put in perspective to the complete disregard of objective discussion by, among others, Taivo who is pushing for the totalitarian and controversial revival of "Serbo-Croatian", part of which Taivo and other users are deliberately distorting interpretations of sources in reality discussing Serbo-Croatian from a historical point of view. Any accounts I may or may not have had several years prior is of even less importance and yet another illicit attempt to discredit me. The whole issue is extremely deplorable and will be handled legally if required. Portraying highly controversial and inaccurate information as valid in a supposedly encyclopedic context is considered to be a significant abuse of legal rights at least in my current country of residence, Sweden. If nothing else, I will insist that domestic Internet service providers post warning messages on certain articles on Wikipedia related to Ex-Yugoslavia, most recently the Ex-Yugoslavian language articles which are currently suffering a large "Serb" offensive trying to reintroduce Serbo-Croatian, a defunct linguistic classification of no contemporary substance. This issue of controversial original research will also be addressed by me through WP:DR. But as to everyones attention, PRODUCER is currently underway of neutralizing any actions from reaching that point. By his ignorant appeal, Basalisk is indirectly aiding this illicit process. I am deeply saddened. MarcRey (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating baseless rant from MarcRey. I'll have to tell all my Irish and Scottish ancestors, who emigrated to the US in the 17th and 18th centuries, that they're really Serbians because MarcRey says they are. --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fascinating baseless rant from MarcRey", may this be noted as evidence of Taivo's subjective outlook pervading much of his chauvinistic behavior on Wikipedia. Previous discussions between the two of us are riddled with the similar sort of impudence, and will be presented accordingly in the report I am currently writing up on "Scottish" Taivo and his kinsmen (bullies) in opinion, Taivo and PRODUCER. MarcRey (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this useful information, which was completely new to me. I might have to re-evaluate my rhetorics irregardless of how absurd these news were to me. What is important, however, is the highly inappropriate use by PRODUCER of this "report" as a diversion of my and your attention from the POV-changes caused to the articles on the language standards of what is former Yugoslavia. I will not allow myself to become a victim of their conspiracy and therefore I promise to tone down my rhetorics. The issue with "Serbo-Croatian" shall proceed in a composed manner. In addition, as I am sure you do not know, there is a special form of lawyer (Ombudsman) in Sweden working on behalf of the government and offering consultancy free of cost to the general citizen for certain matters, of which one is "political discrimination", hence if I were you I wouldn't mock my previous statement, as I have used these services previously for related matters Taivo. MarcRey (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of language such as "Serb users PRODUCER, Taivo and Biblbrooks", "kinsmen", etc. as a means to discredit users by their ethnicity is absolutely inappropriate. I mention your previous accounts because they also contain evidence of such contentious editing and you have apparently created this new account as a means of avoiding scrutiny. Your actions and indeed the very terms you use ("a large "Serb" offensive") show that you view Wikipedia as a battleground. "The whole issue is extremely deplorable and will be handled legally if required": Using legal threats as attempts to force editors to succumb to your nonsense is forbidden. "I will insist that domestic Internet service providers post warning messages" Again, a laughable threat revealing how you regard Wikipedia and its editors. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Producer please do not disturb the chronological order of the posts. I wish to discredit no one's ethnicity, in addition "kinsmen" does not pertain to ethnicity whatsoever. I am puzzled to see that you can mind-read the reasons behind my creation of this account, which in turn is completely unrelated to any prior accounts I may or may not have had years ago. You are gravely abusing your administrative rights and shall be reported for it. In addition, you are continuously attempting to bestow your comments with some sort of fictional authority by excessively citing guidelines; another example of your distortion. I view Wikipedia as no battleground, this view does rather seem to part of a group of closely associated editors supporting each other throughout every edit determined to revive the pseudo-language "Serbo-Croatian". Coincidentally, all these editors seem to have the same national background and have set their mind on conducting original research on highly inflamed issues certain to agitate a large number of people coincidentally belonging to other closely related national backgrounds. Not to mention that the revisions are plain wrong and inaccurate. What is more, Taivo is breaching the very guidelines PRODUCER is accusing me to breach: "if I don't accede to your Bosnian POV and ignore reliable linguistic sources in Wikipedia?". I am part French, and part Bosnian if you are curious. I have clarified the legal paragraph a short while ago, and excused myself, but PRODUCER is relentlessly continuing to fuel the heat. Taivo and PRODUCER are obviously on a personal crusade/witch hunt here technically claiming "We know who you are, your explanation is of no use. You cannot repent. It's over". I am not threatening anyone, nor will I ever, any prior rhetorics hinting at is will not be repeated. However, do not taunt my intelligence, I realize that the Swedish ombudsman has no jurisdiction over Wikipedia or its editors (a heterogeneous group) as I in fact meant to highlight that any opinions by Ombudsman as orchestrated through the national ISP providers (Wikipedia is frequently used in the Swedish elementary school) may be used as reference of your fallacy. Your witch-hunt and deliberately false representation of other users' posts will not be accepted. For my part, I see no possibility to continue this discussion without the supervision of an unbiased outsider. MarcRey (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My report is not a "diversion". Please stop this ridiculous view that all editors who oppose you as being in a "conspiracy". Furthermore, your legal threats will not be tolerated. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I will certainly do everything in my power to foremost settle the current issues through Wikipedia rather than resorting to external law. If the latter ever becomes topical I shall immediately discontinue all of my editing on Wikipedia and inform you accordingly. Hence, I do not wish to threaten anyone but instead I hope we shall be able to confine this issue were it belongs; on Wikipedia. Hence, my sincerest apologies if anyone misinterpreted my previous post. In addition, I hereby vow that my future use of language on Wikipedia will be absent of arrogance and hostility. MarcRey (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There were no "misinterpretations". You were clear in your language and you are accountable for your statements. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, MarcRey, you're threatening me with legal action in Sweden if I don't accede to your Bosnian POV and ignore reliable linguistic sources in Wikipedia? I guess I should worry about traveling to Sweden, then. Perhaps there's a special jail cell at the Stockholm airport for Wikipedia editors that disagree with a Swede. I also notice on your user page that your profession is biomedicine. Perhaps you should leave linguistics to the linguists if you find it so frustrating that you resort to incivility, toothless legal threats, and other actions that are in violation of Wikipedia community standards. --Taivo (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Taivo insists on continuing the resentment with no regard to the resolution and reformation which I have agreed upon. Taivo will account for this in my the report I am preparing. Please note Taivo's incessantly discrediting attitude towards my knowledge and appropriateness: "I also notice on your user page that your profession is biomedicine. Perhaps you should leave linguistics". Taivo is relentless and continues to be highly uncivil, he offers no resolution and healthy continuation. I rest my case. MarcRey (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcReey, should I be worried since I asked about "some info on when are those checks due to arrive?" Could this be treated as a genocidal act towards Bosnian language? Eek! --biblbroks (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Another violation of the same character I am ironically being solely tried for: "Could this be treated as a genocidal act (referring to Srebrenica) towards Bosnian (referring to Bosniaks) language? Eek!" MarcRey (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me summarize the situation in brief. 1) A long time ago, based on reliable linguistic sources and the nature of the linguistic relationship between Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin, several linguists agreed that "a variety of Serbo-Croatian" was the most accurate statement to be used in the description of all these speech varieties that have recently been called "languages" (even though, as MarcRey himself admits, they are all perfectly mutually intelligible). 2) MarcRey (who may or may not be a sock puppet, a new editor, or a previous editor with a new name who refuses to identify his former incarnations), shows up and begins a rather heated attack on the previous consensus, claiming that all who disagree with him are on Serbia's payroll. 3) Refusing to accept the sources or the validity of the previous consensus, refusing to bring reliable sources of his own, and refusing to moderate the rhetoric, he has failed to convince anyone of his point of view. 4) He was brought here by PRODUCER because of his incivility, where he has continued the personal attacks and now threatened legal action against Wikipedia and the editors he has failed to persuade with his acerbic rhetoric. --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I never in my wildest dreams wanted to refer to Srebrenica genocide. Please accept my most honest apologies. I will back down from this discussion since I clearly crossed the line. --biblbroks (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to Taivo. Preposterous. 1) The Bosnian language became the official language of Bosnia-Herzegovina as early as in the 1880s, but was abolished in 1907 and replaced by "Serbo-Croatian" as part of the imposed politics of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, what happened then is of very little relevance 85 years later as the linguistic umbrella term "Serbo-Croatian" is declared defunct by every official authority and further use considered archaic. The attempt to "scientifically" present Serbo-Croatian as a proper linguistic classification in 2012 is original research and POV. Arguments given by, for example, Taivo are of the sort that "there is no better option" and "who cares about the political dissolution of Ex-Yugoslavia, Serbo-Croatian is still scientifically correct". On the talk page of the Bosnian language I clearly demonstrate by a simple Goggle search that Serbo-Croatian is vastly less common than Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, but this thorn-to-eye was excused by Taivo by hardly serious references to "commas versus slashes". I invite all the administrators to pay the talk page a visit, and in advance I excuse for any former inappropriate rhetorics. 2) Smearing. 3) On the discussion page I make sure to underline that I am underway of collecting sources and that a POV-tag is appropriate until the issue is settled, since there is obviously a dispute as well as a notable number of previous editors, also on the Croatian language page, who have raised the issue before me but succumbed to the persistence and coherency of Taivo and other users. The sources currently invoked by Taivo et. al. are in reality contradicting the agenda of Taivo et. al. but are suitably taken out of the very historical context they discuss Serbo-Croatian by Taivo et. al. to support the original research they wage. Also, note that the revival of the Serbo-Croat classification on Wikipedia is largely the result of work over the last few months; this is by other words only an addition of newer date. 4) Fueling the heat in the wake of the witch-hunt. I see no possibility for further discussion without the supervision of unbiased and knowledgeable moderators. Biblbroks, as you can see we all make mistakes but should they be held against us? No, one can reform. MarcRey (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not being a linguist, MarcRey amply demonstrated above that he mistakes political decisions with linguistic fact. But this report isn't about content. It's about his unacceptable behavior. Indeed, even before I had made a single comment to him, he had already begun an attack on my credibility and begun to make his threats of an edit war: [39]. He never approached this in a spirit of cooperation or in a spirit of neutrality or neutrally examining sources. At no point did he assume good faith. He simply accused those who disagreed with him of ignorance and threatened them. --Taivo (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Last time I write this. I will no longer answer on any blatant provocation from user Taivo. MarcRey (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No "mind reading" is being done. The accounts above obviously belong to you (I encourage everyone to compare the userpages themselves) and even have the same exact little story about Bosnia's history. The only difference was that you made a slight attempt at appearing more impartial by removing several pro-Bosniak userboxes. It was also only after I pointed all this out in an SPI that one of the userpages were blanked. [40] Why you bother to deny something so evident is beyond me. Again, despite your "7 years" of editing you failed to assume good faith and immediately labelled everyone who disagreed with you as being behind some "Serbo-Croatian conspiracy" and receiving "paychecks". At discussion and my own talkpage you brought up the Srebrenica massacre, the number of casualties in the Bosnian war, and countless other absolutely irrelevant arguments to a linguistic issue [41][42][43] and in the process proceeded to use ad hominem attacks. Most recently you've used legal threats as means of coercing other editors into your charade and continue to view the Wikipedia as a battleground where you oppose alleged "Serb offensives". Nothing is being "falsely represented" and everyone can review the diffs provided and the discussions. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And the same goes for the provocations of user PRODUCER. His recent abuse of the guidelines of Wikipedia is exemplified in his SPI. MarcRey (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a final comment before I entirely hand this matter over to the administrators. PRODUCER's argument that some, or all, of my thoughts are absolutely irrelevant is merely his opinion and nothing else. Also, it is yet another blatant biased attempt to extract "Serbo-Croatian" from the historical and socio-political context in which it came into use, and a consequent attempt to characterize "Serbo-Croatian" as a scientific classification standard in the year of 2012. This once again exemplifies the highly objective stance of PRODUCER, and likely Taivo. MarcRey (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, everyone stop typing please. There's far too much text already and this argument is clearly not reaching any sort of resolution. MarcRey, I've posted a notice regarding discretionary sanctions on your talk page as a formality. I'm going to start reading now. Danger ^{High voltage!} 08:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcRey, you have been warned in the past about personal attacks against other editors. Ukexpat is correct; you do not have the right to unrestricted free speech on Wikipedia. We are here for a purpose: to build an encyclopedia. Speech that acts contrary to that aim is not appropriate here. PRODUCER has summed up the issue well. Right out of the gates, you have attacked other editors for their (supposed) nationalities, introduced inflammatory political rhetoric into what should be reasonable discussion of best academic practice, and made degrading remarks about the intelligence of your fellow editors. It is clear to me that you see them not as colleagues in the aim of building an excellent resource, but as enemies and personal ones at that, as shown by your attacks on Taivo before he even edited the article.

I am particularly concerned by your apparent implication as declared above to seek legal remedies if the result of this dispute is not to your liking. ("I will certainly do everything in my power to foremost settle the current issues through Wikipedia rather than resorting to external law.") Until you can demonstrate that legal action is not on the table, regardless of outcome, and that you willing to work with others, I am blocking you. Danger ^{High voltage!} 09:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone block Fastily for his Jihad war on NFL helmet logos

Having just got back form celebrating a NY Giants win I still see that the files I asked for back at undelete have not been done but I have been told to ask Fastily, but on taking a closer look I think he has somehow lost it, as far as I can see he has gone on a Jihad war on ALL of the NFL helmet logos, can someone block this tosser and restore all the files he has deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYGFan (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, calling people tossers isn't going to get you anyway. I would suggest you say your goodbyes now, because you are going to be blocked by an admin who comes along. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User NYGFan only has 6 edits to the projects. Needs to learn some civility and Image use policy, and that we won't be so generous next time. NYGFan Warned. No further admin action necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Only 6 edits, and one of them is a familiarly articulated post at AN/I. 2 others are undelete posts. While trying to assume good faith, I still find myself doubting that these are the user's first six posts. --Colonel Tom 10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fastily is one of the best admins in the project and is of the most active.I feel this thread should be closed.I really see him around.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

... lol ... sorry .. j/k — Ched :  ?  19:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.--Crossmr (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat

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

I just blocked Luciferwildcat for 48 hours, then promptly reversed myself as I'm almost certainly WP:INVOLVED, so someone else should do the deed. Luciferwildcat has recently created a few articles that fall distinctly under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The first one that I know of is Trey Scott Atwater--that case is Snowing delete under both policies as an article about a trivial person who allegedly committed a trivial crime. The second was Attempted murder of Michelina Lewandowska--also snowing closed due to the fact that the crime is routine, and that it adds additional harm to that already done to the victim. The thing that caused me to block was his creation today of Case of Trey Scott Atwater, as if simply renaming the article on Trey Scott Atwater somehow mitigated the problems being discussed at the AfD. One editor prodded the article, which Luciferwildcat removed; I've CSD'd it under WP:CSD#G10 as a duplicate of the existing article already at AfD.

The reason I feel a block is necessary is that I believe that these articles do real, serious harm to living people (the second more than the first, but still much more)--and this is the core purpose behind WP:BLP. That these articles have to spend a week going through an AfD creates a very large chance that they'll be cached and mirrored--then, even though deletion from our site isn't in doubt, they're going to live on indefinitely. This behavior has to stop. Short of a block, a topic ban on creating new articles about current events would also stop this problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The names and information contained in the articles are freely available through news sites. The articles also appear to be written neutrally so I don't see how this is a BLP violation. Delete them as one events and leave a friendly note to the creater, but blocking seems harsh at this point. AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The hand-wringing piety that Michelina Lewendowska's life will be damaged by not speedy deleting her story on Wikipedia is IMO an unfair myth.  A Google news search for ["michelina lewendowska" OR "michelina lewandowska"] reveals 767 newspaper articles just on the first page, and languages I don't recognize on the following pages.  I read the AfD earlier today, and the editors I have seen posting in the AfD have overstepped the bounds of reason by declaring that there will be no long-term notability in the incident.  The judge in the case has called the murder attempt "uniquely chilling".  Add to that the irony that the attempted murderer's gift of the engagement ring is what was used to escape death.  The couple (would-be-murderer and intended victim) has a three-year old child, and the 27-year-old woman face-on is beautiful.  IMO the correct thing to do with articles like this is speedy incubate (currently a WP:IAR procedure) to prevent premature attempts to ascertain notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

News articles fade from search engines relatively quickly; Wikipedia, and its mirrors, do not. There is a radical difference. Note, also, that I'm not actually advocating speedy deletion of that article--what I'm advocating is that Luciferwildcat be stopped from creating new problems of this type. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fade?"  "relatively quickly?"  "Radical difference"?  What is this?  I above gave results from Google news, there is a setting how far back you want to search: "Any time" "Past hour", "Past 24 hours", "Past week", "Past month", and "Archives"—the results I gave were for "Any time".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the notability of the article, but whether Luciferwildcat's actions merit blocking. AIRcorn (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying that this is not the place to discuss the notability of the article is something of a truism, since this is not an AfD discussion—the discussion at hand as per the OP is the concern that cached and mirrored sites are "going to live on indefinitely" and therefore LWC's "behavior has to stop."  OP still believes that Michelina Lewandowska's life is receiving "real, serious harm" by Wikipedia.  What is the evidence?  Further, I'm saying that any admin could have avoided the entire issue being raised here at ANI with a speedy incubate.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Luciferwildcat got caught in an autoblock because of my short mistaken block of an account (btw, my left cheek is currently accepting trouts, should anyone feel the need). I believe that I have correctly lifted the autoblock (first time I've had to do that). Xe indicated xe is interested in participating in this thread, so if I've done everything technically correctly, I expect xe'll be along shortly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

On an encyclopedia whose induction encourages Don't be afraid to edit blocking an editor for creating neutrally worded reliably sourced articles is surreal. Nobody Ent 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. Does this mean you no longer looking for a block of this account? AIRcorn (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nither one of these cases could be BLP issues because they are not attack articles, they were written based on the sources available and reflected what was in those sources. This sounds like a thought police moment from a ridiculously overzealous editor that is way too inpatient for an article to be AfD and dislikes my keep vote. Sad times.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy does not only deal with attack articles. You must provide reliable sources and please read WP:BLP1E. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't dislike your (Luciferwildcats's) keep votes; rather, I dislike your creation of multiple articles that contravene WP:BLP1E and do harm to living people. I especially dislike the fact that you tried to get around the obvious consensus on one AfD by creating a second article with much the same content under a slightly different name. I also dislike the attempt to use Wikipedia as a sensationalist news site. We provide information about subjects with lasting notability, not random crimes that catch the attention of the media because they're flashy. And, in part, I'm not reacting only to you, Luciferwildcat, but to the fact that we go through this problem routinely, where editors see some subject get hot coverage on the news and race to make articles about it...then defend them based on the claim that "this will make significant precedent" or "people will remember this person for years to come" or "this is the start of a vast movement" or "this is totally unique and unlike any of the previous several thousand stories like it"...then try to find any other means to keep the same information. It's already in policy at WP:NOTNEWS, but maybe it should be made more prominent: our job is not to get it first (that's what mainstream news and even Wikinews are for); our job is to get it right. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am only seeing three articles here and the Case of Trey Scott Atwater could quite easily be a response to this comment. I dislike the trend of creating articles on a minor news topics as much as you, but blocking any editor for doing so without first discussing it with them is just wrong. Let alone a new editor that created a neutrally worded, well sourced article with no obvious BLP violations. AIRcorn (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize Luciferwildcat was a new editor...I had assumed that, given that I've seen xyr at ANI, I had assumed this was a more seasoned user. So yes, perhaps my ire is unwarranted. For my over-agitation, I apologize. And as long as Luciferwildcat will agree to stop making articles of this type, I can also live without any action being taken. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see a keen and enthusiastic editor here with a strong inclusionist tendency (not necessarily a criticism) but who perhaps has not studied the policies and guidlenes intensively enough. I would hesitate to say that Luciferwildcat is a 'new' user. He launched into Wikipedia with his first edit on 11 November 2011 and began almost immediately in maintenance areas. His performance at the 97 AfDs he has edited is mediocre with a hit rate of only 53.0%. Two-and-a-half months further on and only 533 edits to mainspace, he still appears to be attracted to meta areas with little experience of our processes and policies and seems to have got involved in a couple of battles with other editors that have been the subject of AN/I. I shouldn't say too much about any AfDs that have been mentioned here because I probably voted on many off them myself, but recreating a copy of Trey Scott Atwater under another page name while the jury is still out is definitely unconstructive. Not strictly blockworthy in my opinion, but he should learn from his errors, and perhaps begin to be more objective in his comments at AfD with regard to policies and guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is whether creating reliably sourced neutrally worded BLP articles which end up being deleted are grounds to block the creator editor. Qwyrxian, do you have sources for your claims a.) that such articles cause harm to living people, b.) the purpose of WP:1BE is to prevent harm to the individual or c.) news articles "fade" from search engine results? Sipho William Mdletshe, accidentally declared dead in 1993 has no article (per policy) ; a Philadelphia Inquirer news blurb appears on the first page of a google search. Nobody Ent 11:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My evidence is what the WP:BLP policy says: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." And in the subsection WP:BLP1E, "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. " Additionally, WP:VICTIM and WP:PERP explicitly show how important the crime/person must be for them to receive an article. If you want to rewrite the policy, take it up on the policy talk page or the Village Pump, but this is how Wikipedia treats BLPs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't have said better myself. I wholeheartedly agree, Qwyrxian, and have issued Luciferwildcat a warning pursuant to the requirements of this Arbitration remedy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Synthesizing notability/(wp:victim) and blp into a new conclusion is not evidence of any policy; WP:VICTIM states A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.This explicitly does not preclude including victims on Wikipedia -- it only says not to create a separate article (in support of the WP:NOT pillar). The justification given for the block (harm to living persons) does not hold up.

If an argument is to be made that LWC is not following policy by creating too many inappropriate articles the issue is disruptive editing, not BLP violation. If the community feels this is the case, lesser sanctions should be attempted before implementing blocks or bans. Nobody Ent 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• So this is all about two articles. Qwyrxian, someone suggested to Luciferwildcat that he make the article about the case and not the person. Instead of using the move command to rename it, he made the mistake of creating a duplicate by a different name. Assume good faith please. You could've asked why he did it, instead of just assuming it was to somehow get around the current AFD for an article, which would make no sense since obviously it'd be noticed. And it doesn't harm people by adding in information in the news with references aplenty to the news that mentions this information. Dream Focus 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  OK, let's not skewer people here. Had I seen it, as an uninvolved admin I probably wouldn't have blocked myself, but I'd have given it serious thought, and I certainly wouldn't have objected to another uninvolved admin blocking. Hopefully Luciferwildcat gets the message that it's not a good idea to keep running afoul of NOTNEWS and can improve from there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The mother of all bad blocks, clearly. Definitely Strike One, assuming we're judging Administrators by baseball rules and dude isn't already out LBW... LWC is an energetic new editor who is still making errors. This latest of visits to the Drama Board isn't his fault though. In the future, Qwyrxian, be advised that the correct procedure for dealing with articles which you feel should be deleted is taking them to AfD, assuming there is no applicability of the SPEEDY or PROD rules. I would have thought this would have been the subject of one of those oh so very tricky questions that some people regale in at RFA... Carrite (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I undid the block in under minute, and never should have made it. Nonetheless, this is an issue that LWC must learn quickly. This is not something someone can curve up to gradually. We must not have articles created about people in violation of WP:BLP1E, especially in cases that are so obvious that they're snowing closed. So, yes, I should have taken the issue to Lwc as a polite warning, rather than the way I did; the reason I did not was that I mistakenly assumed he was a long term editor, and because I read the last action (recreation of the page under a different name) as a bad faith action. If LWC would acknowledge that these articles should not have been created endeavor not to create such articles again in the future, I will consider the matter finished (unless, of course, people want to explore sanctions for my own mistakes, which I accept). I do not consider it acceptable, though, for this matter to simply be finished with "xe's still learning". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He's obviously not the only one who's still learning. Why don't you block yourself for making a bad block? Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you stand by your unsupported contention [44] that creating neutrally worded, reliability sources articles in violation of BLP1E harms the subjects of the articles due to something to do with search engines? Nobody Ent 02:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I stand by that unsupported claim. I further consider it a travesty that we even cheat the matter with articles like "Murder of Person X" that are 90% about the murderer, or "Person X Incident", as if that somehow excused the matter. I am aware that in this matter I am outside of the mainstream consensus, and thus, while I argue the point, do not make administrative decisions off of it. I do, however, also argue that (and this keeps getting left out) that WP:NOTNEWS should be applied swiftly and certainly--that we should not make articles on the chance that something might become notable, but rather should make articles only well after (most) events, on evidence that they were found notable; the vast majority of crimes fall under this category. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You cited BLP in your reason for blocking LWC [45]Nobody Ent 11:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP was the reason for blocking. I, like many others, consider WP:BLP to be so important that blocks should be delivered rapidly because of significant potential harm to both the encyclopedia and to the subjects. I consider WP:NOTNEWS violations also to be a problem, but not usually one that requires rapid blocking as the potential harm is much lower. My reason for raising the issue above was that I believe it is also an important point to consider, and that, especially when you put the two rules together, it should give a new editor a better understanding of when to make a new article on a person in the news and when they should not. 12:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Concerned about unproven use of indef block

I am worried about Daniel Case (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef blocking a suspected, but not confirmed sock. See the block [[46]]. You can see that while this guy was not making great edits, no SPI or ANI notice was completed before the indef block. The only "evidence" seems to be a non-admin user egging him on to block the accused sock [[47]].

Certainly I can understand blocking in the short run, but we should WP:AGF right? Please unblock, review and start an actual sock investigation, and indef block only if proven true. Summary executions are not wikipedia style. Thanks. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you try discussing this with Daniel Case before coming here? Kcowolf (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, if you insist: Noeffingway (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of Johnwangxun (talk · contribs). The block was completely appropriate. --MuZemike 05:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I assume you checkuser it? I just wanted to make sure that this block was done appropriately, since no API or SPI was done previously. Thanks for looking. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:DENY, it's not too uncommon to block without filing an SPI if the admin is familiar with the style and is reasonably sure it's a sock. N^oformation ^Talk 05:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that we generally block suspected socks indef if we feel there's strong enough ground for the suspicion, i.e. the sockmaster has a long history of doing this. I also saw that two users whom I trust believed it to be a sock. Had it not turned out that way the suspected sock could have easily been unblocked. "Indefinite" does not mean "forever". Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed - admins who are reasonably certain do not necessarily need to file an SPI. It's what we often refer to as The duck test. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank everyone for the explanation. I think, maybe these essays you reference do not make great policy, but a lot of momentum is behind them already. It may just be that summary executions are the best way to handle so many users. OK, thanks. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are limitations to the checkuser tool. If too much time has passed since the final edit of an older account, there is no data for the tool to check against. Even when there is data available the tool sometimes comes up with inconclusive results. In those cases, we have to go by behavioral similarities to determine whether or not they are the same person, which is what people refer to as the "duck test". At other times, the behavior is so similar that use of the checkuser tool isn't necessary. -- Atama頭 17:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Impersonation ?

Hi. Seems that this newly registered username is similar to my own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Panoniann I am not sure about Wiki policies about this, but I think that there is some policy that do not approve that newly registered users are using usernames similar to usernames of existing users. Can something be done about this? PANONIAN 14:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It's discouraged, but given the content of their first edit, it might be legitimate. I'll talk to them and see what they say. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Gazifikator

Please block Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for its sock editing and reverting of Tamara Toumanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gazifikator is a sock of Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), indefinately blocked for edit warring and sock puppetry. On January 2, 2012 Gazifikator was blocked for 2 weeks. As soon as the block was lifted, the user continues his Armenian crusade. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rast5 and User talk:Gazifikator#January 2012. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 10:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User Antique Rose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) twice backed and supported the blocked sockpuppet (with the last name User:Andriabenia) and was a part of POV-pushing to the article. As he was warned [48] for disruptive behaviour at Tamara Toumanova article now he reports his content dispute here. Gazifikator (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It has been established that you are identical with sock Rast5 (previously trying to conceal this fact), and today you made the same revert as Rast5. Being a sock puppet master you should be blocked. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 11:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the true sockmaster, see how many times you backed the mentioned sockpuppet [49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] and was warned for it [57]. The article's current version is new (and reliable sources are provided), it is not a revert. And then, how can you justify a indef blocked user's removal of sourced info? Gazifikator (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI a sock master is a user who makes edits and/or reverts using one or several other accounts. What other accounts have I used? The diffs you provide are edits done exclusively by me. You, on the other hand, has been blocked for the use of multiple accounts, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gazifikator/Archive. Checkuser Elockid has confirmed that you are identical with Rast5. [58] The evidence speaks for itself. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit generous with the 2 week block considering that I gave a one month block on the Rast5 account for socking while edit warring. There are aspects here that I am just saying wow, just wow. But I am not able to state them publicly (privacy reasons).

@Gazifikator, you need to come up with more substantial evidence to prove that Andriabenia is Antique Rose. Andriabenia has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Satt 2. IMO, this seems more likely. I am not convinced that Antique Rose is related to Satt 2. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that Gazifikator (i.e. Rast5) is allowed to edit the article on Toumanova? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 15:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

He/she may edit the article I guess, but it's not unheard of for a person to be reblocked if the same issue arises right after the block. I'm not sure, but the 1RR may apply to the article. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 15:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking to ask a checkuser for Antique Rose. I don't know if he/she is a sock or not, but it is a fact that he is related to Andriabenia (=indef blocked Biographyspot) and supports him everywhere. He also receives support from their side during his ungrounded accusations [59]. Gazifikator (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can't just ask for a checkuser because another user disagrees with you. You'll need to provide solid evidence (usually diffs) demonstrating that someone is, in fact, violating our multiple account policy. Simply saying "it is a fact that he is related to Andriabenia" doesn't prove much. TNXMan 16:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it is important to show their relation at this noticeboard, but if yes for example see:

• First time (Nov 9 2011) he edits Tamara Toumanova when he reverts [60] one IP's edit to sockpuppet User:Biographyspot's version with an attacking edit summary "Reverting nationalistic POV from floating IP addresses)" and no explanation at talk. I'd like to mention that a floating IP was on Biographyspot's side too but it was ok for Antique Rose and less 'nationalistic'.
• then he participates in an editwarring [61] again with no explanation at article's talk (and the issue is a content dispute, Antique Rose deletes the same sourced info the indef blocked users deleted [62]).
• then he reverts [63] again with an editsummary "adding sources in support of Toumanova's Georgian descent".
• All the actions are in support of indef blocked User:Biographyspot (he just reverts to Bio's version, no any serious explanation, f.e. here [64] he is joking at article's talk). And so on, so on. Gazifikator (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

And about AntiqueRose-Andriabenia relations: Andriabenia's account was created on Dec 24, 2011, on Dec 24 he edits Tamara Toumanova with a similar to Antique Rose position [65] (compare [66], BTW Rose was recommended by an admin "make no more edits on this article regarding the subject's nationality until a result is obtained from the open RfC" [67]), similar edit summary ("does not explicitly mention the armenian origin") and without explanations at talk. On Dec 29 Andriabenia contacts [68] Antique Rose for the first time (he asks to a previously 'unknown' user for support in a checkuser case he opened on the ninth day of his account's creation - and very similar to the case opened by Rose and rejected). Antique Rose without any additional questions supports him here and here. Gazifikator (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Gazifikator, to prevent another block, I highly advise that we speak privately. Because as it stands, you may be grounds for another block. I also must reiterate what Tnxman has said. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of vandalism

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — madman 19:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Referral from Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#BrownyCat; non-administrator intervention unsuccessful. User repeatedly describing removal of content "vandalism." Nobody Ent 14:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

this message makes it easy. "Please hang yourself and die"? Do we really want that person here? -- Luk ^talk 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No, which is why I'm indefinitely blocking now. Should the user show any understanding of NPA, an unblock would be fine, but not until then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Verbal abuse via email

Hi, this user Prg.sdme removed info from the Vijay Kumar Singh without reason, which i reverted and then sent warnings to him. 20 minutes ago, he emailed me the following response, and removed the info again.

“ V K Singh is present Army General (Chief Of Army Staff) of India. The age row/dispute ,that General is facing,is not a public issue to discuss. It is black mark on nation.

I ,personally,don't want anybody to talk over General's age dispute as he is most respectable person.

Supreme Court is looking into matter and the procedure is going on.

please Remove the content regarding this .

”

After reverting his content removal in this and another article, i received this message from him.

“ who are u ? Jimmy Wales !

Fuck Off

”

As such, i request any concerned administrator to take the necessary required action against this fellow. Thanks. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for the attacks. If it continues, an indef would be warranted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 19:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved closer requested for WP:AFD/List of organizations that support SOPA

Resolved

 – Closed by TParis (talk · contribs). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Preferably an administrator who is visibly neutral in the matter, as well as experienced with contentious AFD's, since it's an imminent heated issue, some concerns over NPOV have been raised at SOPA, and an easily understood rationale might keep things cool generally.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by 206.228.109.58

Resolved

206.228.109.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of vandalism, including two brief blocks, and three "final warning"s, two of which were followed up with more non-final warnings. The last of those warnings was in March. Their edit history since then speaks for itself, dozens of minor edits which on their own seem like test cases or minor "corrections" of information which would seem to be good faith edits, but a long, long history of disruptive vandalism. I'll just give you today's edits, on Jewish History and Arab Spring. --Quintucket (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

{{schoolblock}}ed for 1 year. Thanks for the report, Quintucket. In future, you can report this kind of thing at WP:AIV, which is often (not always, but often) quicker to react. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit new to this. For a long time, reporting vandals was one of those things that I always hoped someone else would do. --Quintucket (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Employment problem

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Idiocy" seems among Kainaw's favorite ways of describing the blackout [69]. That's not calling him names, unless you also infer by the same logic that he called idiots all the people who supported the blackout. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

And, unlike me, he even called people idiots [70]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EC with above) Kainaw apparently does not wish to withdraw their legal threat and seems to be suggesting they will really take legal action if necessary [71]. Personally though, since this threat is directed at the foundation without any real direct bearing to editors (so doesn't really have the same chilling effect a legal threat against editors does), I'm more concerned with their threat to vandalise wikipedia [72]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hang on a minute. While I think the 'legal threat' was too silly to take seriously, Kainaw's threat to "spend [his] time developing hacking and vandalism tools" [73] must merit an indefinite block, surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point he is clearly trolling for a block [74] [75], so if one is issued, talk page access should be disabled as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also, he's been using multiple Wikipedia venues for soap-boxing along the lines of Baseball Bugs. Another one [76] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occupy Marines

I would welcome some admin oversight at Talk:Occupy Marines as there seems to be an entrenched WP:BATTLE mentality there with a number of editors edit warring to strong arm material into the article. I have tried to get external opinion on the use of "The Raw Story" at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#The Raw Story but the same group of editors dominated the dicussion there. From its webpage The Raw Story appears to be a weblog organisation and as an WP:SPS would not typically be considered a reliable source. Editors are now claiming there is a consensus among themselves that this is reliable [77] as if this trumps WP:RS. Repeated requests to show this meets our requirements to be considered a reliable source have met a brick wall, with personal attacks and other unacceptable behaviour; one editor received a block for incivility as a result. In the past I tried to tag this as an unreliable source and there was edit warring to remove the tag claiming consensus as justification. This article in a very short history has already been raised at ANI twice [78],[79]. User:EverSince did a great job of cleaning the article up here [80] and it would be a shame to see it slip back to the deplorable state it was in before. And to put it all into perspective, this is an article about a Facebook group. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Actually the above does rather neatly illustrate the problem. Looking through the archives the first time this came up as an WP:SPS it was considered unreliable [81]. The second discussion did not conclude its reliable [82] and in the discussion I started we had one external opinion [83]. This concluded it was acceptable to source the opinion of Muriel Kane the author but not for sourcing controversial facts that were contradicted by other sources - which included the parties involved. Muriel Kane's opinion is no longer in the article and once again its being used to source a purely speculative opinion. Its the classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT where they only selectively hear what they want to hear.

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

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

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

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

78.93.222.179

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Block review

user:Vsmith just blocked [84] a new user he was in conflict with[85] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:INVOLVED. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pigs may not fly, but the block log has been updated to indicate the reason for the length of the block [86] Nobody Ent 02:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The Shivers

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

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

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

Name Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YinYangJihad is back

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Ban for YinYangJihad

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

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

Quick talk page access removal please

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring/BLP/dispute resolution

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

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

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

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

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

• Hello, I am a little taken aback by this, because I have tried to contact user Jerzeykydd via his talk page in order to explain my rationale and ask for his assistance, and received no response from him. It was not my intention to make any sweeping or controversial changes. I was striving to provide uniformity among HOR pages- there are impending elections and in using Wikipedia as a resource it is clear that many of the House of Representative articles lack any kind of cohesive organization. Using Nancy Pelosi as a template, I was attempting to clean up the articles, make them more consistent and accessible for users by including a Political Position sections. I believe that it does make a difference, and its hardley puff, the job of the encyclopedia is to present information in a digestible format,a political position section gets to the core of the Candidates views and is distinct from the tenure section in other house/senate pages. Sorry if there was some confusion, but I definitely reached out to the only editor who seemed to find this controversial. Will be happy to continue this through the proper channels. Questionable pulse (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I still have yet to hear a response back from User: Jerzeykydd, or anyone else regarding this dispute. Again, the issue, I am trying to standardize the information for House of Representatives articles in order to improve this category. I have contacted Jerzeykydd via his talk user talk:Jerzeykydd#Tenure Subsection page (prior to this dispute) and in this thread as well...Questionable pulse (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China" discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Blofeld removes "Taiwan Dao means Taiwan Island" [87] [88] without giving a reason. Reversions without giving reason are not helpful. He also resists to go to the talk page, where I started a thread asking why removing "Taiwan Dao means Taiwan Island" Talk:Taiwan#Removal_of_Taiwan_Dao.

Dr. Blofeld associates me with Taiwan nationalists [89] - not sure he was intending to make a joke or so?

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

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

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

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

Hainan

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

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

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

Mary Whitehouse is at the gates, banging for entrance

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collateral damage

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Employment problem

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Idiocy" seems among Kainaw's favorite ways of describing the blackout [90]. That's not calling him names, unless you also infer by the same logic that he called idiots all the people who supported the blackout. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

And, unlike me, he even called people idiots [91]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EC with above) Kainaw apparently does not wish to withdraw their legal threat and seems to be suggesting they will really take legal action if necessary [92]. Personally though, since this threat is directed at the foundation without any real direct bearing to editors (so doesn't really have the same chilling effect a legal threat against editors does), I'm more concerned with their threat to vandalise wikipedia [93]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hang on a minute. While I think the 'legal threat' was too silly to take seriously, Kainaw's threat to "spend [his] time developing hacking and vandalism tools" [94] must merit an indefinite block, surely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point he is clearly trolling for a block [95] [96], so if one is issued, talk page access should be disabled as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also, he's been using multiple Wikipedia venues for soap-boxing along the lines of Baseball Bugs. Another one [97] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occupy Marines

I would welcome some admin oversight at Talk:Occupy Marines as there seems to be an entrenched WP:BATTLE mentality there with a number of editors edit warring to strong arm material into the article. I have tried to get external opinion on the use of "The Raw Story" at WP:RSN see WP:RSN#The Raw Story but the same group of editors dominated the dicussion there. From its webpage The Raw Story appears to be a weblog organisation and as an WP:SPS would not typically be considered a reliable source. Editors are now claiming there is a consensus among themselves that this is reliable [98] as if this trumps WP:RS. Repeated requests to show this meets our requirements to be considered a reliable source have met a brick wall, with personal attacks and other unacceptable behaviour; one editor received a block for incivility as a result. In the past I tried to tag this as an unreliable source and there was edit warring to remove the tag claiming consensus as justification. This article in a very short history has already been raised at ANI twice [99],[100]. User:EverSince did a great job of cleaning the article up here [101] and it would be a shame to see it slip back to the deplorable state it was in before. And to put it all into perspective, this is an article about a Facebook group. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Actually the above does rather neatly illustrate the problem. Looking through the archives the first time this came up as an WP:SPS it was considered unreliable [102]. The second discussion did not conclude its reliable [103] and in the discussion I started we had one external opinion [104]. This concluded it was acceptable to source the opinion of Muriel Kane the author but not for sourcing controversial facts that were contradicted by other sources - which included the parties involved. Muriel Kane's opinion is no longer in the article and once again its being used to source a purely speculative opinion. Its the classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT where they only selectively hear what they want to hear.

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

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

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

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

78.93.222.179

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Block review

user:Vsmith just blocked [105] a new user he was in conflict with[106] This seems to be in direct contradiction with WP:INVOLVED. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pigs may not fly, but the block log has been updated to indicate the reason for the length of the block [107] Nobody Ent 02:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The Shivers

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

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

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

Name Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

YinYangJihad is back

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Ban for YinYangJihad

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

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

Quick talk page access removal please

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring/BLP/dispute resolution

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

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

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

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

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

"Taiwan" vs. "Republic of China" discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Blofeld removes "Taiwan Dao means Taiwan Island" [108] [109] without giving a reason. Reversions without giving reason are not helpful. He also resists to go to the talk page, where I started a thread asking why removing "Taiwan Dao means Taiwan Island" Talk:Taiwan#Removal_of_Taiwan_Dao.

Dr. Blofeld associates me with Taiwan nationalists [110] - not sure he was intending to make a joke or so?

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

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

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

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

Hainan

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

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

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

Mary Whitehouse is at the gates, banging for entrance

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collateral damage

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

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

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

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

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

Block needed

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

---

Would some kind admin take this person off our hands? [111]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:MarkAlexisGabriel

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

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

• Please see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel and recent attack on user:Σ: diff, preceded by another offensive edit summary. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days for harassment. I was inclined to make it longer, but WP:ROPE comes into play here. --MuZemike 12:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you MuZemike. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuous recreation of deleted pages despite warning

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

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

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

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

The major article space names have all now been salted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential Change Needed to GeoLocate Link on Anon Footer

Resolved

 – Did the change.--v/r - TP 15:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

On all anon contrib pages and talk pages (otherwise known as MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon), there is a "GeoLocate" link, which currently goes to ip2location.com. A couple months back, ip2location.com started using a "credit" system for IP searches. They also took away the Google Map that was quite useful when trying to figure out where users were located in emergency situations, plus some tracking information for rangeblocks. For any admin who uses the "GeoLocate" link often, the "credit" (of only 20 per day) would be used up quickly (it is not renewed for 24 hours). There is another and better option, infosniper.net. Gives all the information that ip2location.com once did, the useful Google Map, tracking information for rangeblocks and no "credit" system to worry about.

I previously posted this on WP:VPT before the blackout (see here and only got one response from User:Goodvac who suggested that WhatIsMyIPAddress.com would be better as it includes a proxy checker. I, in turn, suggested a compromise and have a link for each. One marked as "GeoLocate - Proxy" and one as "GeoLocate - Technical". The user or admin could choose which one to use based on what information they need at that moment. After that response from Goodvac and myself, no action was taken. Blackout was announced and it was all but forgotten (more like ignored). I tried to get eyes on the discussion post-blackout, but to no avail. So, I have no choice but to bring it here.

I would like to propose that the "GeoLocate" link on the contrib pages and talk pages of anon accounts be changed from ip2location.com to WhatIsMyIPAddress.com for proxy information, marked as "GeoLocate - Proxy" and InfoSniper.net for technical information, marked as "GeoLocate - Technical". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not an incident, so I'm not sure it goes here - but, if it got no traction at VPT, I'm not sure where else to send it. Note also that it's kind of been a busy week. For my part, I would have no objection to the proposed change. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say do the change and see if someone complains. I have a free account at ip2location so I'm not really affected by the 20 queries limit. However, whatismyipaddress is a good resource too and I have no objection of using it instead. -- Luk ^talk 14:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Try submitting an edit request here. I'd make the edit myself per WP:BOLD, but I'm afraid I might break something, since this is a template... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems someone already posted there. Neat, dueling posts. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks TParis. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked sensitive IP?

I blocked the IP 66.230.230.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for CSS vandalism on many pages, redirecting them to my user talk page with invisible pictures. (Don't ask me why....) When I went to block it, I got this message: "You are blocking a sensitive IP address belonging to the Wikimedia secure gateway. Please be sure to notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee immediately." However, the IP has been blocked repeatedly in the past by TorNodeBot (talk · contribs) for actually being tor, and the IP is not in the range listed on Wikipedia:SIP. So should my block be overturned? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

...and I've just revoked its talk page access for adding the CSS vandalism to its talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots of TOR shenanigans going on today. You might check with the devs and see if they're moving IPs around, or where the system list (the one that generates the warning) is kept (and who updates it). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Incivility and disruption of an RfC

• User: AndyTheGrump
• Insulted party: R-41
• Discussion: Talk:East Germany (RfC)
• Diff: [112]
• Policies: WP:NPA (personal attack), WP:CIVIL (civility), WP:DISRUPT (disruptive editing)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since Andy the Grump has removed his comment,[113] I do not see any need for administrator's action. However the RfC will proceed better if all editors avoid name-calling, including insinuations of other editors' beliefs. TFD (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is a malformed RfC the root of the problem here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(translation from Italian account)Guenter Schabowski had premiered recently as spokesman of Krenz was certainly not an expert in communication. That evening he announced a new decree on travel ". He said that henceforth the permits to travel in Western Berlin, through the gates of the wall, would be refused only in exceptional cases. It was clear that the Government he loosened the reins under popular pressure. The daily mass disubbidienze and the absence of rituals revealed the fragility of the repression power. The four hundred thousand Soviet soldiers, stationed in Eastern Germany since 1945, not intervened to restore limited sovereignty in the country rather than satellite: they thought as making ends meet, as in the mother country there was a climate from bankruptcy and money for wages and subsistence arrived irregularly from Moscow. [114]

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

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

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

Do you really consider discussing my mental health on ANI to be appropriate? Oh, and quote: "you are behaving like a total asshole to me", "you treat me like shit", "you are treating me like a dog". [115]. If you'd taken your own advice, maybe none of this would have happened.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Are you claiming to be medically qualified? And what is all this nonsense about 'multiple temper tantrums'? My reference to me losing my temper again was in regard to an earlier incident, where I, um, reported myself to ANI for incivility. [116]. Anyway, you called me an asshole, I called you an asshole. We've both admitted it isn't the right thing to do. I didn't make a fuss about it when you did it [117] - you, um, reported yourself. There seems to be an alarming degree of symmetry here, but little other reason for your righteous indignation. Evidently we rub each other up the wrong way. That's life. If you want to engage in controversial issues on Wikipedia, you'll need a thick skin - I've had far worse. Hell, I've had worse in this thread (though coming from Bugs, it is a little difficult to take seriously - and yes, he retracted it too). Anyway, we'll both be on an enforced break for a bit in a couple of hours, so I suggest you go out for a jog or whatever, and worry about it in a couple of days... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: despite this not yest resolved ANI, AndyTheGrup and R-41 are still continuing their private battle in spite of requests from other discussion participants for them to calm down. I really think an immediate topic ban for both editors is the solution that is needed right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points: Firstly, I'd like to see diffs indicating where I've done anything wrong since this thread was started. And secondly, I feel that I have to suggest that given that you were responsible for the problematic RfC (which failed to actually make clear what the issue under dispute was), it might be more appropriate for you not to propose anything. I have tried to discuss things calmly with R-41, but he seems to be swinging wildly from one position to another: compare this [118] where he basically concedes my point that 'satellite state' is a subjective term which shouldn't be used in an infobox, with this [119] where he accuses me of being "openly prejudiced" for suggesting that the term 'client state' is also subjective. I note also that R-41 stated above that he was going to take a break from editing the article, which he has not done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blatant canvassing for a RFC

Tagishsimon (talk · contribs) has been posting very charged messages to several users, attempting to get participation for his side in a RFC. [120] is one of the messages, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Proposal for the closure of this project is a post he made to his entire WikiProject. These are all his messages he posted: [121]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have to agree. This is blatant canvassing. Just to note, I've never been involved with the subject being debated, haven't commented in the discussion, etc. I have no dog in this fight at all. But Tagishsimon left messages on over 100 user talk pages, and the messages were far from neutral. That violates our canvassing guideline, both in "scale" and in "message". And it looks to have blown up the discussion, which is precisely why our guideline restricts this behavior. I see that Tagishsimon has already been warned about this behavior, strongly, so I don't think there's any further action needed, but it should be said that this behavior is not at all appropriate. -- Atama頭 19:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Making people aware about a discussion isn't wrong - in fact, it should be encouraged, the more people who comment the better. However, by saying "this means you" made it personal & clearly implies that the RfC is a threat, and intends to sway it in his favour. Blatant ccanvassing. GiantSnowman 19:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

ad hominems, budding edit warring, and insults by AnonMoos

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

---

User:AnonMoos put a rather impolite rant on Talk:Plateosaurus. After receiving several replies he proceeded to become more impolite and aggressive, reverting an explained revert of his edits. I admit that my first response to his continued impolite replies was not friendly. However, he continued to swear and belittle people. I posted a statement to his user page, asking him to stop [122]. This edit he reverted with an insulting edit reason [123]: "rv patronizing condescending nonsense from obnoxious asshole". User:AnonMoos also reverted a revert of his edit [124], despite the issue being under discussion on Talk:Plateosaurus, showing that he is unwilling to use talk discussions. HMallison (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

User:HMallison has chosen to play a purely negative and unconstructive role on Talk:Plateosaurus, engaging in fact-free and content-free flame wars for the sole and exclusive purpose of having a flame war. Since he chose to intersperse his injection of childish and juvenile taunting and personal attacks into a thread which had not previously contained them[125] with smug sanctimonious lectures on my user talk page about how I should strictly obey Wikipedia policies, he sure seems like an obnoxious asshole to me (though I'm sorry if it was unwise to say so). AnonMoos (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I strongly recommend an interaction ban between the two users.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Tempted to agree - they lost me at "You started it" and "Nuh-uh". UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything that stops him from insulting me all over wikipedia. If that involves ripping out his fingers one by one I want to be a witness ;) Alternatively, I want a free pass for calling him names. HMallison (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words you want me to be punished, but you want a "free pass" for your own distinctly worse behavior. Unfortunately, that "I don't have to obey the rules, but other people do" attitude has been part of the problem from the beginning... AnonMoos (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Linguistics, for all your bragging your mastery of the English language is somewhat - shall we say "lacking"? Ever heard of the word "alternatively"? HMallison (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm about the block the fricking pair of you for your atrociously childish BS on this page alone. Are you adults? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

disruptive IP, likely sock

Could an admin please block 217.34.55.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He appears to be spamming racist propaganda. This user is likely a sock of the banned user mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). aprock (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked, but I'm sure they'll move right along. Can't keep a good racist down. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

IP and blackout bypass instructions

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

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

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

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

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

...says the man in the Spiderman suit... [126] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Ah Cullen, the NYT made it easy: just hit ESC after loading. I used it to read our article on Aeneas so I could improve that on the Dutch wiki. ;) And then I went outside and peed in my legislator's yard. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if your internet was slow enough. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and talk page hounding/stalking by Wikireader41

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

Attacks at RFCs: [127] (has been rebuted by an unrelated editor for this attack) & [128] (after warning).

Attacks on talk page: [129], [130], [131] & [132] (after repeated warnings of not editing my talk page while he continues to barge into discussions he did not start or was invited to).

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, here are the diffs for the RFCs mentioned above (talk page comments already in diffs): [134] [135] [136]. I don't think there's any excuse for such allegations and the user was also warned for this by uninvolved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User notified [137]. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 17:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't explicitly ask for him to be blocked, I did however mention his block log as it was relevant. The least that could be actually done here is to ask him to stop labeling people. I can bear him but simply saying that this venue can not deal with the issue (while it can atleast attract admin opinion on his labels and barging into user talk discussions) will definitely encourage his behavior. About the SPA, I guess I've quoted WP:SPA itself which would be sufficient. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If he's reading this page, which he should be if he was notified, then he now knows to be careful with labeling, and understood that days ago. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by User:Zenanarh

After a series of uncivil personal comments on Talk:Zadar and Talk:Luciano Laurana directed at (the truly incredibly patient) User:Silvio1973, User:Zenanarh has decided to post a few personal attacks at me as well when I tried to offer my opinion in favor of Silvio1973. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia, where he started a WP:CANVASSING thread trying to garner support among other Croats, Zenanarh posted his first personal comment regarding my always having been "superficial" [138]. On Talk:Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) he posted a real set of personal attacks [139]. I asked him to strike them, he did not respond.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"pro patria mori" is moving on a war memorial, but wearying in a Wikipedia debate. I believe Zenanarh's contribution above illustrates the problem. He may well have good edit's to contribute, and as recent straw poll in another venue pointed out (illustrating it with the difference between the French attitude to Dunkirk and the English version) kids are actually taught different versions of history depending on where they went to school, but viewing himself as a solitary Croat surrounded by legions of Italians really is not helping. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Unglücklich das land das helden nötig hat (Berthold Brecht) - Silvio1973 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Serial spammer, copyvio

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

---

Please block Charukishnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Only edits are spam from site http://www.cardekho.com/, and copy-pastes of copyrighted, POV text from same website. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've given them a final warning, but I'm in a good mood. If another admin feels I'm being too nice, I won't oppose an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Spamming after final warning, blocked indefinitely. WilliamH (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Attempted outing

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

---

RESOLVED AS:

Feelings his oats due to recent support from some users, timed exquisitely (he thinks) and knowing full well that I'll probably get more scoldings for complaining about him - OH, NO, NOT THAT AWFUL SERGE WHINING AGAIN (SIGH!!!)" - than help, User:Pieter Kuiper's latest caper in his 4-year harassment campaign is this attempt to out me. Once again: help, please!. Interaction ban, as recently discussed again (SIGH!!!), would be a good idea for us all, including him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify people of ANI threads relating to them. (And please no caps or bold text.)

This would appear indeed to be a possible outing. Per WP:OUTING:

Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

I'm going to block for 48hrs. --RA (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Eomund asked me what I thought. This was relevant, possible hoax. And SergeWoodzing is acting for Ristesson on Commons, no secret at all. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to say that the book was self-published, or unreliable, without attempting to identify an editor as the author. --RA (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for using capitals (meant as entertainment, even if admittedly way too loud) and for not notifying PK myself. I can't bring myself to post anything on PK's talk page and had immediately asked another very active editor, who has acted as a go-bewteen before, to notify him. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban: SergeWoodzing be banned from interacting with Pieter Kuiper (but not vice versa)

I would suggest, SergeWoodzing, that if you want an interaction ban so badly that you stop interacting with him/her yourself. Why are you reverting edits and opening threads about the edits of a user you want to be banned from interacting with?

You would appear to be hounding this editor. So, I support your request to be banned from interacting with Pieter Kuiper (per your previous requests also). However, at this time, I don't propose that Pieter Kuiper be banned from interacting with SergeWoodzing. --RA (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What you are claiming about me cannot be substantiated. I have never once, not on any of three projects, sought out, stalked or in any other way impacted any of his work unless he in each and every case has impacted work of mine to start the unpleasantries. Nothing else can be shown in fact, simply because it has never ever happened. Kuiper has stalked me for 4 years. If that's unclear to you, you might want to check the facts and figures a bit more carefully. The one and only link you are basing this on is all about PK removing info that he knows I have been heavily involved in providing. He knows everything about me and all of my work because he has policed my watchlists and contributor pages for years. What he's up to isn't always obvious. He's talented at what he does.

Why not also read up a bit on all the support I've had for the mutual ban before, rather than jumping on me at once like this? 6 against 1 (PK) last time, with him categorically refusing to cooperate. Respectfully, SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

PS one of the few thing PK does not know about me is who I am. I'd like to keep it that way. I am truly frightened of him, especially when he wins good people like you over with his innocent act. His behavior is well known, here and at Commons, so is mine. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't answered why you were initiating interactions with someone that you have asked three times on this board to be banned from interacting with. I am supporting your request to be banned from interacting with him/her.

If Pieter Kuiper continues to follow you, despite you no longer interacting with him, it will be clear that he is stalking you and so he/she can be banned from interacting with you also if that time comes. But, in the mean time, you will have had your request to be banned from interacting with this person. --RA (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I must have written something unclear above, even though I took the rather drastic step of bolding. Here's the answer to your question as clearly as I am able to answer it.

• I have never once initiated interactions with Pieter Kuiper and have never had any interest in doing so, nor will I ever have any interest in doing so in the future. Anything that looks like I have done so is misleading because it at first glance does not show how it was my work, not his, that was interacted upon, thus creating the illusion of an intitated interaction by me, not by him. Any such case, if investigated just a bit into the details, will reveal the truth of what I'm stating here.
• Pieter Kuiper has initiated interactions with me hundreds of times on Swedish and English Wikipedia and on Commons. There is ample evidence of this on all three of his contributor lists, especially on English WP where an substantial amount of his visits are devoted to argumentative, sarcastic, ridiculing attacks on my work, intercations always initiated by him, never by me.

I hope my reply is clearer this time and that, upon a bit of investigation, should you care to perform such, you find me totally vindicated. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking me to agree to a ban w/o him agreeing to anything? SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am exhausted tonight (our time) and will need to think about that. Right now, I can't see any advantage or disadvantage. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You are interacting with him/her while at the same time asking to be banned from interacting with him/her. Do you not see the irony in that?

Am I asking you to agree to a ban without him/her agreeing to anything? Yes. Will you accept a six-month voluntary interaction ban? During that time, you voluntarily agree not to:

1. edit Pieter Kuiper's user and user talk space;
2. reply to Pieter Kuiper in discussions;
3. make reference to or comment on Pieter Kuiper anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
4. undo Pieter Kuiper's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

An exception to (3) is that you may raise concerns about Pieter Kuiper's behavior either here, or another suitable venue, or directly with an admin. You can come directly to me, if you want. If you breach this voluntary interaction ban, you may be blocked. However, merely agreeing to this voluntary interaction ban is not to be seen as a "black mark" against you or as an indication of poor conduct on your part.

In parallel, Pieter Kuiper's behavior will be observed. If he/she is seen to be genuinely stalking or harassing you (or otherwise in breach of policy towards you), that will be obvious and action will be taken as appropriate. I will warn Pieter Kuiper about this on his talk page, if you agree to the above. --RA (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree to that as now detailed (as long as it's copacetic with WP guidelines and consensus), and thank you very much! I will write to you if any further problems arise and sincerely hope I very rarely will feel the need to do so. This does not make me feel like a "bigger" person but I am always interested in constructive cooperation. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• RA, thank you for getting on this. I am getting sick of seeing these two names (which, individually, are really cool) come up together at ANI time after time after time after time. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not gone through the details of this. An interaction ban must be mutual though - interactions are always between (at least) two people. For it to be one ("not vice versa") way makes no sense. LadyofShalott

That's not true. Indeed the boilerplate interaction ban (which the points above are copied from) is one directional. In my experience, conflicts like this can be resolved by even one editor involved "being the bigger person" and just stepping away. SergeWoodzing has asked several times for an interaction ban (whereas Pieter Kuiper has refused to agree to one), so SergeWoodzing is the natural choice. Edits in their usual zones of interest can continue but SergeWoodzing would merely stop all interaction with Pieter Kuiper.

In the warning to Pieter Kuiper that I suggest above, I would foresee strongly urging him/her to adopt a similar (even informal) interaction ban. Certainly, it should be emphasised that to him/her that by SergeWoodzing agreeing to an interaction ban, Pieter Kuiper's behavior towards SergeWoodzing would now come under a microscope and if Pieter Kuiper is harassing SergeWoodzing that will be seen immediately.

I do want to emphasise that the terms are that merely agreeing to this voluntary interaction ban is not to be seen as a "black mark" against SergeWoodzing or as an indication of poor conduct on his/her part. Only if he/she breaches it, after agreeing to it, should there be seen to be a pattern of poor behavior on his/her part. Until then, certainly in my opinion, he/she would be seen to be "the bigger person". --RA (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather see them just get along. I don't understand why interaction as innocuous as what's going on at Talk:Oscar II of Sweden, should lead to an interaction ban.--Atlan (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Beyond My Ken

• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs)

User:Beyond My Ken seems to have become so annoyed at what he sees as pointless formatting changes made by me that he has started mass reverting my edits, apparently with no regard whatever for what they are or for whether they violate Wikipedia style guidelines or not. I really couldn't care less about most of his reverts; many of them may actually be perfectly justified. Unfortunately, because he is now reverting me without regard for the content of my edits, he has violated a number of guidelines (including WP:MOSFILM. He has among other things restored trivia sections and 'year in film' piped links, which WP:MOSFILM prohbits. Could someone please tell him to stop this crap? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll repost here what I just posted at WT:FILM, since PoC didn't wait to receive a response there:

Please see this I was invited by PoC to revert edits he made which made no difference in the redering of a page, but which made editing the page a little more difficult. It was my intention to only delete those edits, but perhaps I made mistakes -- without any assitance from PoC, such things will happen. I've now been warned twice by PoC about those edits, when the timestamps on the edits will show that they were all made at one time, and all before his first warning.

In short, this is a tempest in a teapot. PoC should stop making edits which make no different in rendering a page, and I won't have to delete such edits. Thanks.

That's about the size of it, I got a few edits wrong in trying to correct PoC's unnecessary edits, and apparently a Federal case is being made out of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a rather silly dispute to me, and BMK's edits seem ok to me. I think this is best solved by continuing discussion at WT:FILM, rather than forum-shopping it here. --John (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Incidentally, the "mass reverting" referred to was 20 edits, all (except one) which were slugged as "formatting". I checked a handful of them first, and they were all the unnecessary edits, so I assumed (my error) that all edits marked "formatting" were of that type. I skipped over edits that said "formatting, etc." or mentioned MOS in an efort to keep the reverting focused -- apparently that wasn't suifficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit is a bit problematic, on reflection. --John (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

John, respectfully, you don't know what you're talking about. WP:MOSFILM prohbits year in film piped links. Beyond My Ken went ahead and restored them anyway. Hence, ignorant and disruptive editing. What more need be said? I've no idea what kind of "assistance" he expects me to give him; it's his responsibility to learn how to format properly. Please see his behavior at A Fish in the Bathtub, edit warring with me over formatting even after I explained that he'd done it wrongly. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This edit is a specific example of Beyond My Ken violating style guidelines in the process of mindlessly mass reverting me. Same story with this edit, re-linking dates and restoring trivia as well. Please explain how violating the guidelines is OK - and note that he reverted me despite explaining in my edit summary that dates should usually be delinked in film articles. Totally clueless behavior. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverting edits simply because the have no effect on the rendering of a page is a nonsense argument. There are innumerable improvements that can be made to an article's wikitext that can greatly improve things without any change to the appearance of the page; Some examples: Diff of 1907 Tiflis bank robbery, Diff of Neville Chamberlain. Alarbus (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Alarbus, I don't disagree with you, but the edits I complained to PoC about were the ones where he deleted a blank line between the end of the infobox and the beginning of the article text. Such a blank line does not effect the rendered text, but it does make it much easier to pick up where the lede starts when scrolling quickly down the top of an article. His deletion of those links was therefore not only unnecessary, but, in a very small way, made editing just a little harder. I let a few of these go by before I contacted him about it in what I thought was a neutral tone, one experienced editor to another [140], and got a response that accused me of patronizing him, and invited me to undo the edits. [141] That's what I attempted to do, and did so in a less than clean manner. That part is my fault – I should have taken more care in my reverts – but the escalation of an extremely minor dispute to an AN/I report, that's not on my head. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Having edited thousands of articles, I can safely say that the formatting issue BMK mentions makes no difference whatsoever to how difficult editing an article is. At least it makes no difference at all to me - I am interested to learn that others might find it makes a difference. Whether anyone else agrees with BMK on this issue, or whether it's just his personal idiosyncrasy, I'd be interested to find out - it would effect how I went about editing. The stupid mistakes BMK made in mass reverting me just go to show why mass reverting someone is generally a bad idea. His creating the appearance that he was reverting me vindictively makes editing much more difficult than minor formatting details could ever do. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ok, I prefer a blank line after infoboxes... but it's not the sort of thing that need "warnings" and reversions. Outta here. Alarbus (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm siding with BMK on this, though I'd like to see him take care and view each edit prior to reverting. It's time consuming, but the results of failing to do so are predictable. Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. If I have taken the time and effort to insure that every edit I made was reverting only the thing I wanted to undo, I would have spent a little more than then but saved the larger amount of time I'm wasting now. That's my lesson for the day. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about BMK adding whitespace or other style to articles, despite all MOS guides against it, and then edit warring to replace it when removed.... this has been going on for years. BMK has his own style guide that only he follows. Whitespace, image sizes, how to place footnotes and unreferenced headers, etc. He's been asked to knock it off countless times by numerous users. The only excuse ever given is that he likes it better that way and he's following WP:IAR. Really, it should stop. It's ridiculous and fairly minor, but his stubbornness on this has driven away good editors. He's been invited to discuss it at MOS pages relevant to what he's doing, but he's never done so. That's totally not the way a collegial project works. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(edit conflict) Both PoC and BMK make some valid points about different edits/reverts, but (1) this whole topic is trivial and (2) PoC has a bad attitude and should lose it. The stuff about "mass reverting", "vindictively", "stupid mistakes", etc., are unsupported and uncalled for. As an aside on the trivial aspect, I agree with BMK that the blank line makes it easier to edit, but I wouldn't have bothered reverting it. Can't we close this as much ado about nothing?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

With a recommendation that BMK take up his style choices at relevant MOS guidelines and not continue on his own lone crusade? His behavior is correctable and belongs at ANI even if the underlying issue is trivial. If the underlying issue about style is indeed trivial, then close it with a demand he take it up on MOS talk pages and not stubbornly cling to his own preferences. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• I looked at MOSFILM twice now, but cannot find where "year in film" piped links are forbidden. Enlighten me, please. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Near the bottom of the page in the Clean-up section is the line: "Following WP:EGG, dates should be linked only to articles about the linked date, and they should be linked only when the date's article provides important information or context specifically related to the film." I also found this discussion from March 2010 that touches on the subject. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 03:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I never understood the idea that linking, say "1954" in a film article to the article "1954 in film" was an "Easter Egg", and unwanted "surprise" to the reader. To me, it seemed like precisely the thing we would work towards having, which is context-sensitive links -- but that discussion is over and done, and I routinely unlink dates in film articles, per consensus. If I did that in one of PoC's edits, it was purely by accident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I saw that--I guess I didn't realize that its intent was so restrictive as to make the link completely dependent on the content of the thus-linked article. I've linked that way (maybe never in film, which I rarely edit, but in poetry) thinking that it would lead to broader context, which may (or not, of course) add to the reading of the original article. I find this overly restrictive. What if the linked article happens to be vandalized, or a work in progress? What if a movie is, say, a decent success--then the linked article may give an overview of the most successful films, which would contextualize without even naming the movie one started with? Or, am I to believe that the editor who's duking it out with BMK clicked on every single one of those to make sure that there is no "important information or context specifically related to the film"? I didn't see them making any such claim. I'll look at that discussion link, but this strikes me as a bad guideline for style since "important information or context" is a very malleable concept. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I read it and I'm none the wiser. Let me say this, germane (defined in the 2010 discussion linked above) to the topic: I do not see know, prima facie, BMK's addition of "year in film" links is contrary to MOSFILM and other conventions unless it be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the linked article ("year x in film") contains no content at all that is "provides important information or context specifically related to the film". Rationale: 1. such was never proven here in the first place for each of BMK's edits; and 2. "important information or context" is a malleable concept, and the linked article need not even mention the film to give "provides important information or context specifically related to the film" on it. Now, when it comes to blank lines between the infobox and the text, I don't believe the MOS forbids it, and I don't see how that can count as disruption. Is there anything else to the complaint? Now, can someone who cares about film (which is probably all y'all) consider rephrasing the all-too vague guidelines, preferably (IMHO) by scrapping it altogether? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it poorly written? It seems fairly straightforward to me. Basically the guideline is saying that as per WP:EGG you shouldn't be linking 2010 to 2010 in film, because readers would expect to be taken to an article about the year i.e. [2010]. 2010 in film should only be linked to when it is specifically clear from the context of the link that by clicking the link, you will be taken to the article that covers film related topics of that year. Linking "Toy Story is a 2010 American film" is an EGG link, however "Toy Story is the highest-grossing film of 2010" is not, because you expect to be taken to an article that covers the highest grossing films of 2010. Technically we don't even need the MOS guideline because WP:EGG covers it, but if people are editing film articles and check the Film MOS then it is useful to re-iterate the guideline on what is a common MOS problem. Betty Logan (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

To Bbb23: the topic isn't trivial if BMK is reverting edits for no reason other than that I've made them, and intends to go on doing so - that's a serious behavior issue (though I grant that his giving the appearance of behaving that way may well be just ineptness or incompetence on his part, not malice). I've no apology whatever for calling BMK's relinking dates and restoring trivia to articles stupid - that's exactly what it was.

To Drmies, whose comments I don't quite grasp, I think the safest response is that delinking dates in film articles is, in general, uncontroversial. I haven't delinked absolutely all dates I've found in film articles - I'm not a robot, and a few of the linked dates could seem appropriate. I have done it in the large majority of cases, however. BMK is perhaps one of a handful of holdouts on the issue, and his reverting me to relink dates was quite inappropriate. Many of BMK's other reverts appear to conflict with WP:LAYOUT, at least as I read it. Drmies misunderstands me if he thinks I was suggesting that adding lines between the infobox and text is disruption, however; I didn't say that. My point was that reverting me just for the sake of reverting me is disruption. BMK has just made a weird post on my talk page, telling me that he doesn't wish to interact with me in future - in principle, that would be just fine, but if he does plan to go on reverting me because he doesn't like my formatting....well, it's clear what will happen. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

PoC, I don't believe you've presented good evidence of calling BMK malicious or incompetent, whereas I think there's evidence here in this topic (as well as in some diffs) of your misbehavior. And, although it may be mildly interesting, I think the discussion of WP:MOSFILM belongs on that guideline's Talk page, not at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What's not to grasp? Sorry, but if one cannot see that "important information or context specifically related to the film" is not simple at all and open to widely divergent interpretations, then one needs to start reading beyond the level of a manual that tells you how to install an electrical outlet. But I'll stop--it's clear that I'm in the minority here. Good thing I don't work on film articles; this EGG business is a bit silly. Bbb: it is directly relevant: BMK here is indicted for not following MOSFILM. I'm saying that MOSFILM is vague enough, and I am saying that the complaint does not provide specific evidence that the EGG guideline was broken, since MOSFILM does not say "do not link." Simple.

One other thing is clear: this is not gaining any traction. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, the MOSFILM issue is a subissue of why PoC opened up this topic. PoC goes much further in his statements about BMK's edits and his motives. It's not that MOSFILM isn't relevant per se, but it's of marginal relevance to ANI. Actually, I happen to agree with you about the vagueness of the guideline, and I actually do watch and edit quite a few film and film-related articles (it ain't easy). Obviously, I agree with you about closing this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23: see the revision history of A Fish in the Bathtub. I made a perfectly correct, uncontroversial formatting change. BMK comes along and reverts me. I revert back, explaining that he was wrong. BMK reverts me...again. Is that malicious and/or incompetent behavior on his part? Yes. I'm quite prepared to believe that it could be incompetence rather than simply malice, but it does look exactly like the kind of thing someone might do to make a point of some kind. Chances are, BMK didn't like the "attitude" with which I explained that he was wrong. He can dislike the attitude if he wishes, but that doesn't give him an excuse for restoring formatting errors deliberately; that's vandalism.

To Drmies: The only dates BMK relinked were "year in film" piped links. It's completely uncontroversial on the film project to delink these, and also quite uncontroversial to delink other dates in most cases. Now, I have listened to what other editors have to say about formatting changes in general, and the feedback is helpful, thank you. But I'm only persuaded to make some quite minor changes about how I go about things. I plan to continue making most of the same kinds of edits to film articles, and if BMK intends to continue reverting them, then there will be a continuing problem. His desire to avoid interaction with me is not a problem in itself, but he cannot have things both ways - systematically reverting me guarantees that we will interact, in one way and another. I am not calling for BMK to be sanctioned or blocked or anything of that kind, but some kind of statement from him about his future intentions is required here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

PoC, I gotta admit that the example you give makes BMK's reversions (twice) look pretty silly. BTW, the guideline you were referring to in your edit summary is WP:CITEFOOT. I still wouldn't call it vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In the end, people have to use their judgment about what is vandalism and what isn't. BMK's first revert at A Fish in the Bathtub is certainly not something I'd call vandalism - it could be just laziness or unfamiliarity with formatting guidelines. But reverting me twice, after the explanation? BMK has been active on Wikipedia for several years, so this kind of formatting detail is something he should be familiar with; that's why restoring the error the second time looks like vandalism. Even if it's not blatant vandalism, it's borderline behavior that amounts to arguable vandalism. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Right to exist

I invite neutral intervention, particularly this section on "Pakistan", which, I believe, has been deliberately skewed by Pakistani nationalist editors, User:TopGun [142],USer:Mar4d[143],and the sock of indefbanned user USer:Nangparbat ([144]) into promoting non-neutral anti-Indian sentiments. In particular these statements are reproduced from partisan Pakistani blogs and presented as fact:

"It is essential that Indians deeply and meaningfully recognize Pakistan’s right to exist as a nation independent from India. Indians cannot let their nostalgia for the past–which is, in fact, the national pain over the Partition in 1947 which led to the creation of Pakistan – blind them to the reality of Pakistan as a sovereign state." [145]

In addition, the remark "By refusing to accept the 1947 partition of the British Indian empire, India even challenged Pakistan's right to exist." is Original Research, since India officially only rejects the Two Nation Theory, not Pakistan's sovereignity as such. Furthermore, the cited source here indicates the opposite of what this article claims i.e. it is Pakistan that denies India's right to exist[146].

Furthermore, I was compelled to come to this and the RFC board rather than use the rfc template because the Pakistani militant editors kept removing it from the article talk page[147].Underhumor (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not deal with content disputes here ... have you tried opening an WP:RFC or third opinion request on the article talkpage? We go by WP:CONSENSUS, and consensus is reached on article talkpages, or follow dispute resolution (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

He tried an RFC, it was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The opening user (I assume is the IP editor) who repeatedly removing sourced content without any edit summaries and was non responsive to warnings until recently. His RFC was not neutrally written and was full of personal comments instead of content related comments so I refactored it per WP:RFC I have no objection of he starts it again given that a neutral editor phrases the summary. Check out his IP contributions btw, vandalizing a range of articles and then socking allegations with some unknown editor. Also there was zero discussion on talk page before he started his attack RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: his IP just got a block by Materialscientist [148]... the account should get the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It really is offensive that you continually ask for blocks everywhere. Indeed, as has already been noted, your personal combative nature is causing you needless trips to ANI, AN3 and elsewhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? I asked to block a blocked editor... I would really need an explanation for how that is combative? --lTopGunl (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It was statement on your overall behaviour on the project that has been brought up with you again, and again (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you've made that on those occasions... there's no point in repeating that on unrelated matters where actually a vandal (now blocked) is bringing the matter here. And no, you specifically mentioned me asking for blocks. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, you're always asking for blocks. Barely a day goes by without you showing up here like a footballer waving an imaginary card in the air. Also, it's a bad idea to go around calling people vandals simply because they disagree with your point of view. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Read my reply to Bwilkins above... if you don't want to assume good faith I do atleast deserve the benefit of doubt even though it is very clear that I asked for the block after his IP was blocked for vandalism (not my disagreement). It is just as bad an idea commenting on something that did not happen in this case. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• On a related note, what does one do when an IP reverts WP:OR and unreliable sources into an article?[149] Darkness Shines (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We follow WP:DR, possibly request page protection ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have requested page protection, however the unreliable sources are already back in. C'est la vie Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why it's WP:BRD not WP:BRRRRRRRR ... whether IP's or not. The editor then created an account that was not evading a block (based on timing) - possibly intended to give more credence to their edits. These aren't WP:BLP's and it's not vandalism - it's up to consensus to determine the appropriateness of the sources, or the WP:RSN. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

86.174.145.151

The IP address 86.174.145.151 posted on my talk page "Fuck off you nasty vandal" for no reason whatsoever. I would appreciate it if this user could be taken care of. Nicholas (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a drive-by. If he reverts again, you could take him to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I did leave a warning on the talk page, possibly poking him a little, but hey. AIV will do for any re-offences, unless this is block evasion/socking of someone you recognise? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Heheh, I just got piss off from him reverting my warning. What a pleasant mother's little darling he must be! Oh wells, I see no point prodding him any more they don't seem worth the effort. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This user is a banned editor (User:CharlieJS13), just block him for a few days. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For those editors (me at least) who need more information, how do you know?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've take a look at previous edits by a host of the user's socky IPs and they do seem to copy similar areas. Changing genres and info on music pages, song pages, chart pages, and leaving offensive talk page messages on every editor who reverts ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.141.44.187 a good example). Tbhotch seems to have involvement with the user since at least July last year. I've put a 72h block on there but happy for it to be reviewed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For further information about this user (because he'll return) and you can detected as soon as I can, is that all of his IPs start with the number 86.xxx. Charlie lives in London, thus his IPs are given by IP Pools or BT public. The second thing that he does is to change genres with no sources or consensus to suit his POVs. The third thing he does is to attack users on either, user pages or edit summaries, death/block/ban threats, racist comments, etc. I'm watching "Flashdance" and "Scheiße", two pages he edited in the past. And this is how I knew the IP belongs to him. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for the explanation - very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Help on BLP issue

Resolved

 – Dreadstar has removed the BLP-offending content from the article and talk page following my taking up his offer to assist. EdChem (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi... over 18 hours ago I posted to the BLP noticeboard requesting advice, but have yet to receive a response. I have come across a living person's biography article that has in its history revisions claiming (without evidence) that this TV star has previously performed in pornography. Without investigating, I am 99+ % sure that the claim is untrue. The article's talk page still refers to these claims. I am unsure if this calls for rev-del or oversight or what. I am not indicating the article here because I am seeking advice; if emailing oversight or similar is appropriate then I will. Or, am I over-reacting given the claims were removed long ago? Even though mentioning them on the talk page means allegations are still visible? Please, someone give me some advice. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As you apparently don't want to name the subject, your best bet might be to send an email to your most trusted admin, and spell out the details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I responded on BLP/N to offer help. Dreadstar ☥ 04:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, it is appreciated. EdChem (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Arrogant User

User:137.120.238.48 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/137.120.238.48 I know this is probably in the wrong place, but I don't have the faintest idea where to report this guy or get administrator intervention. A quick look at his history [150], especially in the editing of Street Fighter X Tekken, reveals he simply doesn't understand the idea of WP:NOR or WP:V. He also comes across as extremely arrogant whenever I try to explain to him why what he is doing is wrong [151] [152] and he simply refuses to listen to advice from me. [153]. He only seems to post once a month, which I can understand would prevent him from getting banned, but if he's simply refusing to listen to me, then could I at least request that an admin speak to him, and try to get him down a peg or two? Or at the very least tell me which page I SHOULD be reporting this to? 88.109.28.100 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing you should have done, as the instructions say, is to notify the user of this topic. I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as I said, I've not had the slightest idea where to go in an attempt to get it through to him that he can't make claims like that. He just won't listen to me. 85.210.188.66 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything needs to be done unless the situation escalates. So far, 137 has made only three edits to one article, the last of which was a month ago. The remainder of their edits are to Talk pages. It's true they shouldn't call editors "clueless", but it sounds like they just don't like the way Wikipedia operates. If 137's comments get bad enough, it might be reportable, depending on the nature of their comments. Similarly, if their article editing becomes persistent and in violation of policy, it might be reportable. Seems too low-level and premature at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really asking you to ban him per-say, it's more a case of trying to explain to him the rules of Wikipedia. Since he's not listening to me, I thought an admin talking to them might help get the message through. 84.12.137.145 (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just that experience has taught us that intervention after such a period of time has very little effect and can lead to side arguments about why now. If it happens again, please let us know. It is true that some people around here say such things and worse but that should not be license for all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Strange CSD clogging up the system

There is at time of writing a whole bunch of user pages at CAT:SD which apparently stems from their having the motto of the day on them. But I searched both Template:Motd and Template:Motd banner and can't find a {{db}}. I suppose it must be buried deep somewhere – but it's being transcluded onto a lot of pages and messing up the look of a lot of stuff. Can anyone have a look for me? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I could see a CSD red tag on Template:Motd, but nothing in the code, so I purged the page and it went away. Does that help, or is it unrelated? Begoon ^talk 14:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was from Wikipedia:Motto of the day/January 22, 2012, User:Happy-melon found it and fixed it so the speedy tag isn't transcluded with the rest of it--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I half guessed it was someone fixing it at the same time, rather than the purge :-) Begoon ^talk 14:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

IP user(s) at the Illustration Workshop

Several IPs - who, I feel it safe to assume, are the same user, given the similarity in the content of their requests and the way in which they all make the same bizarre mistake when posting them - have made posts that are broken, unsourced and often out-of-scope and of a nationalistic or separatist nature. Our proviso at the lab is that we will happily create illustrations if they are to be used in a Wikipedia article, but few of their requests fall into this category. Here are some of the more recent ones (I can find more if necessary, although almost all of the IP edits in recent weeks are of this nature): [154] [155] [156] [157] [158]

Attempts have been made by me ([159], [160]), and others at the lab ([161] [162] [163]) to provide sources or desist from posting out-of-scope and broken requests at the lab, but for whatever reason, the user(s) refuses to acknowledge or take on board any of the advice or our concerns. I am not sure how to proceed, so am raising the matter here. Any help would be appreciated, as this is causing a headache for us, and is souring the experience for me, if not for others, too.

Also, on a bureaucratic note, am I right to assume I should post the AN/I template on each of the IP pages individually? NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 13:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment, because I've seen a few of these now. This last one [164] was particularly lovely as it was unceremoniously "plonked" directly under the previous one which I'd just spent over 10 minutes fixing, formatting, and researching, so that I could reply. It's not unreasonable, after efforts have been made to explain, to expect a modicum of effort with requests, in my opinion. There seem to be very, very few people who find the simple posting requirements there difficult - certainly not when they have made multiple requests and been helped with the procedure if necessary. Begoon ^talk 13:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• What I would do is add a note to the top of the page, under "this specific page is..." clarifying that requests that aren't linked to an article will be/are likely to be turned down. You can then just decline any requests that don't link to an article somewhere. I presume it isn't also an issue that he's asking for maps in the illustrations section...?Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• The 'venue' is not a problem - sometimes a simple map change is easy enough and just gets done, or sometimes a request might get moved - and the requests aren't always maps anyway. The problem is three things really: a seeming unwillingness to put any effort at all into formatting requests, a lack of detail about the purpose, and a vagueness in answering questions, if any response at all. The idea about the note on the page is good, although I doubt many people read them - there are rather a lot... It would serve as something to "point at" though, if a request needed to be declined.Begoon ^talk 15:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Question: I didn't know about this project, so I apologise if I'm asking a stupid question, but, in general, do you have to deal with newbies often? I mean, if this guy is causing much disruption, it's also possible to semi-protect the page, but this would prevent all non-autoconfirmed users from posting their requests there; so, basically, I'm wondering about how serious the collateral damage would be... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This user seems motivated by some kind of nationalist agenda, claiming Yorkshire has an Independence movement (Does it? I'm pretty sure there a lot like Texans, there's hardly any Celtic Nationalism like in Cornwall in Yorkshire) - but then refuting places like Wessex (Because it's not Celtic it seems) do not (!) - clearly reeks of POV. The IP's range has a long history of randomly blanking and removing things based on WP:DONTLIKEIT and being incredibly vague in Edit summaries and so forth. Really, really annoying. --Nutthida (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yorkshire doesn't have a separatist movement, but it does have a strong identity and has campaigned to retain that in the face of various boundary changes over the years. That's the nearest it gets. We stopped raiding Lancashire for cattle some time ago. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame BSE put a stop to that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The lack of real source for that request do highlight the issue, but the main problem is with the lab. I would be wary of a semi-protect without more voice from other editors, but generally, these IPs have been the only non-established users to come to the page for some time; we normally deal with the same group of regular requesters and rarely have newbies, but I would be happy if there were a system to contact one of us at the workshop directly if they can't post it there. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 15:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would think just reverting/closing any malformed or otherwise hinky requests of this kind would be fine. At the end of the day you guys are volunteers, you don't have to fulfil his really rather rude demands. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But that's what we're already doing. I, and I believe others are, too, am personally tired of having to constantly delete or rewrite requests three or four times daily. It eats into our time a great deal, and means the workshop is slower as a result. We need something more automated or block-based, which semi-protecting would provide. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Invading his own fixed request [165] with another vague one with no reasoning behind it whatsoever. NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It pops up in a few ways, there. This is not the only user with a history of refusing to do anything to help themselves, and making exactly what you describe there: demands. One complication is that some people get annoyed by it, and won't help them - others seem able to ignore or get past the rude "sense of entitlement" and help them anyway, so they never make the effort to change their behaviour, since they don't really need to, they just want the stuff done, so what if some people think they are rude. Because requests are handled ad-hoc by many people on and off, it's hard to get any consistency in response to this kind of thing. This particular character is double-kind of rude and difficult, though. Begoon ^talk 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

While I dislike rudeness, I also expect unintended rudeness in a request, so I don't really let it bother me. As for IP requests, I don't think they should be allowed. Semi-protection would at least weed out some of the bad requests. The Haz _talk 16:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I largely agree - unintended rudeness is par for the course and not unexpected (also quite understandable on most occasions - after all, it's unintended) - I'm referring more to persistent unresponsiveness, complete disregard for attempts to help, expecting others to repeatedly "clean up" behind them, etc... after repeated requests and advice, which occasionally happens. That's probably digressing from this one incident, though. I dislike the idea of semi-protection as a long term solution, just on principle, really - but I do take your point that it would be likely that nobody with genuine requests would be inconvenienced too much. Begoon ^talk 17:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Trolling

The blocked User:LAz17 has been active on on other wikis, and apparently one some "forums" [166], canvassing both to have people lobby for his unblock, and trying to WP:CANVASS Serbian users to start conflicts here on enWiki. Note his thread War on our People" at srWiki where he talks about how the international conspiracy that supports me personally got him blocked for creating three sockpuppets. I won't copy down the whole thread here, suffices to say his posts are very insulting and derogatory ("greater-croatianists", "terrorists", "scum" etc.), and his call for users to "defend the Serb nation" by abusing others and myself here on enWiki is very public indeed. I request that the possibility of a community ban be considered.

Another reason I am posting all this is that the user's "appeals" appear to be working. User:Ganderoleg appeared out of nowhere after a one-year absence to post trolling attack-posts that mirror closely the offensive nonsense that is to be found at "War on our People". Please review the following threads the user has created a few hours ago [167] [168] [169] [170]. In this case, I would like to request that the personal attacks and "accusations", which I find all the more irritating for their complete lack of touch with reality, be removed. -- Director (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Niteshift36

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

I filed a report at WP:WQA for him refering to a request of mine at Talk:Chuck Norris as "dickish." Another editor asked for clarification on a point, I asked for a citation for a uncited section and further asked for page numbers in the citation as there were citations lacking page numbers and he proudly boasts of owning the book required) as "dickish." Did he withdraw or apologize? No... He continues to call me a dick. Is that really acceptable, especially since the request is completely reasonable? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this can stick at WQA - I don't think anyone is going to take admin action at this time. For what appear historical reasons, calling someone a dick (or at least a dick on Wikipedia isn't viewed as rude. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to call editors cunts, then? If not, that's rather sexist. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Forum shopping now? I didn't call you a dick, I said you were acting in a dickish manner. Further, as Elen has pointed out pointing out dickish behavior isn't considered rude on Wikipedia. This thread should be closed as it is simply an extension of an existing discussion at WQA. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Arthur Rubin

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

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

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

• I don't know, man. Maybe an article with an image like that should be squashed... Come on Rubin, surely there is a more glamorous photo of you. Where's Shankbone when you need him? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I suppose that if I had an article under my real name it would be annoying for it to go to AFD, but is there some inherent notability for this editor? Standards change over time, and letting the next AFD run for the standard period seems appropriate. If it gets kept, it gets kept. Why the urgency of halting the AFD? Edison (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Because number one and number two were thorough and long enough, and they established a clear consensus--I don't see any reason to suppose that Rubin's notability has lessened since then. Sometimes you run into old AfDs (often pre-2008 or so) that do not offer much in the way of discussion and investigation, with just a couple of votes, but that's not so in this case. BTW, Edison, maybe you're up next? Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• AfDs should only be started by legit editors, with legit reasons. If the nominee is questionable, the nomination is equally questionable. Time should not be wasted on trolls, socks or petty disputes, just to see how the result turns out. In this case the nominee is suspicious. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't even need to question the legitimacy of the account after looking at the first two AfDs--this is a clear keep (see links to AfDs above). I note here also that nominator asked me on my talk page to reopen the discussion, a request I declined. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• Fortheloveofbacon - creation date 11:55, 29 April 2010
• Electroshoxcure - creation date 17:56, 26 April 2010

• Bacon-lovin, indeed. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm shocked. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I note, though, that their message on my talk page is almost perfectly punctuated (except for one missing hyphen). Then again, perhaps the copy of Strunk and White that I sent for Hanukkah did in fact arrive. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

CoM's ban expired but he has not returned to use the original account. It does look odd to me, but if CoM is not currently banned or blocked and if Fortheloveofbacon is an alternate account, does this constitute abusive sockpuppetry? That's the question, I guess. Maybe someone wants to run CU. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a sockpuppet investigation on Fortheloveofbacon: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Let's see how that turns out. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If one account is stale and another account is current, would hard-blocking the stale account have the effect of also blocking the current account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if they're using the same IP address and the stale account logs in. 12.165.222.214 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So it won't block the current account. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the sock accusations regarding loveofbacon are apparently unfounded, as determined by ArbCom, is it reasonable to speedy keep an Afd that ran for less than two hours? Nobody Ent 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Raised this same point here as well. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That speedy keep did not meet any of criteria at WP:SK, even at the time it was made, because an independent, good-faith editor !voted delete. The fact that an article has been discussed before several times does not make it immune to further discussion, especially if the discussion takes place over a year since the last AfD. I have no opinion about whether the article should be kept or not, but let it run its course. Quasihuman | Talk 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to all above: in light of the concerns with this early close, I've taken the AFD to deletion review. Comments are welcome at the discussion there. Robofish (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am on an interaction ban with the no-longer-banned user who this Bacon guy was briefly alleged to be. Do I have an official ruling that I am NOT on an interaction ban with Bacon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ent, above, claims that ArbCom hisself cleared Bacon, so you should be good. If it turns out that et cetera, no one can hold that against you. But I really doubt that it's CoM, since I think he'd have the balls to just go back to his old account. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's Bugsy-speak for "10-4". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that it doesn't matter anymore, but Bacon did come into the help channel a few nights back, asking about getting the article AFD'd. I thought I dissuaded him as it wasn't nominated by the afternoon, but apparently he followed through on it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Restore deleted image

Can an admin please restore File:Alliant Seal.jpg? I am guessing that it was deleted because it was moved to Commons. But it has been deleted from Commons because it's a fair use image so it needs to be moved back here. If it needs a new or updated license template once it has been restored, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was actually deleted per CSD I5; it was fair-use and it wasn't being used in any articles. If you intend to use it in articles and its license template looks all right, I'd be happy to restore it for you. — madman 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I plan on adding it to an article. I suspect it wasn't in use because it was copied to Commons and that copy was then used. Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done — madman 02:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: WP:NPA trumps WP:DICK

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

---

It's come up that apparently, the presence of an off-site essay, WP:DICK means that its ok to say that an editor's behavior is dickish, no matter how reasonable the behavior (such as requesting a citation from someone proud to own the book for a section that is uncited).

WP:NPA is a POLICY. WP:DICK is an ESSAY, which at no point excuses personal attacks (in fact, it points out that citing the essay makes one guilty of it). Anyone who doesn't get that is dickishly being willfully ignorant. If that last statement bothers you in any way, then don't be a dick and tolerate it elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• IIRC, That "off-site essay" was originally on the English Wikipedia. It was moved to the meta site so it could be more widely used. And when an editor has always cited a page number, telling them to cite a page number is not needed. However, this is pointless since you've already been complaining at WQA and have been told that bringing the same issue here is foum shopping. Guess it hasn't sunken in yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  The essay was indeed hosted here, on the English Wikipedia, but it was contentious and eventually there was consensus to delete it. However, it was moved to meta, outside of our jurisdiction. If you read the discussion, you can see that the motivation for moving it was to get a superfluous essay couched in juvenile language out of the way, and definitely not so that it could be more widely used.  --Lambiam 22:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Still forum shopping. Just saying. It seems to be a peculiarity of college American culture that 'don't be a dick' isn't particularly rude. I'm reading my way through a load of Raymond Chandler stories at the moment, and it is really weird to hear the lead character referred to continuously as a 'dick', in company with the 'company dick', 'studio dick', 'hotel dick', 'dicks' down at the stationhouse etc. Plainly 'dick' wasn't a standard word for a penis in the US until quite recently. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to totally derail this, but you may have it backwards, actually. MSJapan (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear regarding Elen's comment to those not following MSJapan's link, "dick" in Chandler is short for "detective". And Elen has it correct regarding the use of "Don't be a dick" among under-30s in the US, although a lot depends on tone of voice and the relationship between the parties. (I'm also wondering if something similar doesn't apply to the "c-word" in certain segments of British culture, whereas I think it's still a pretty harsh remark to make in the US, and particularly insulting to women. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and staying strictly off topic - nothing in that link contradicts the idea that dick was not a standard word in the US for a penis until way more recently than the 1930s. I submit that if it had been recognisable vulgar slang, the expression 'private dick' would never have made it into print, even in a pulp magazine. The other word, on the other hand, while definitely low (as is it's northern variant of twat) has been undergoing something of a reclamation by feminists such as Germaine Greer, determined to see it returned to its position as a part of the body also used in a derogatory sense, the way dick, arse and tit are; and not a 'nurse! the screens!' totally verboten concept. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Wikipedia editors recently and exhaustively debated the use of cunt in British, Australian and US English (even unto local or classed uses) in evidence and workshop at the civility enforcement case. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Complaints of forum shopping aside, that essay expressly tells people not go around slagging each other off by pushing it in their faces. Of course NPA carries the day; it's never been otherwise. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by Posturewriter

Posturewriter (talk · contribs) seems to have "forgotten" that he's been indefinitely banned and is now posting insulting and disruptive messages as 27.33.141.67 (talk · contribs).

If anyone wants to wade through the background, the RFC/U can be found here and, since no voluntary agreement from Posturewriter to stop his soapboxing were forthcoming, ended with a request to ArbCom for involuntary sanctions. The ArbCom case was made moot here by an indefinite block being issued.

Would someone mind blocking the user's IP to stop the block evasion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done — madman 02:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

204.69.190.254

204.69.190.254 (talk · contribs) Personal attacks, harassment, legal threats - basically trolling. I took this to AIV and they said to take it elsewhere, so here it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that they were blocked once already (and unblocked, for reasons beyond me) for 24 hours, this one is 48. Apparently he didn't get the message last time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, where the heck did I make legal threats? 204.69.190.254 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't, but your comments were sufficiently disruptive that I decided to block anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the original blocking admin, but I was INVOLVED, so, at the suggestion of another user, I unblocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

An ethical unblock by Eagle, and a good reblock by Blade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Free will

Resolved

 – Blocked for 72 hr by Qwyrxian. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an IP editor, 125.255.7.10 (talk · contribs), adding gibberish to that talk page; see the section titled The Joke. The IP acknowledges being banned from Wikipedia but unfortunately does not specify the process that led to the ban. The simplest solution would be a lengthy semi-protection, but since other solutions are possible, I am raising the matter here. I will notify the IP of this section. Looie496 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't see that as necessary just yet. I reverted and gave a level-4 warning. Banned editor or not, gibberish is just vandalism. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• IP left a rant on mine and another user's talk page. I'll leave this for another admin. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In this edit, the user signs as Damir Ibrišimović, which is the same signature as indefinitely blocked editor User:Dibrisim (with added diacritics). I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for block evasion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page edits by a blocked user

Resolved

 – Revoked talk page access. Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider the promotional content added to the talk page of this blocked user and take appropriate action. [171] My76Strat (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

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

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

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

• I don't know, man. Maybe an article with an image like that should be squashed... Come on Rubin, surely there is a more glamorous photo of you. Where's Shankbone when you need him? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I suppose that if I had an article under my real name it would be annoying for it to go to AFD, but is there some inherent notability for this editor? Standards change over time, and letting the next AFD run for the standard period seems appropriate. If it gets kept, it gets kept. Why the urgency of halting the AFD? Edison (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Because number one and number two were thorough and long enough, and they established a clear consensus--I don't see any reason to suppose that Rubin's notability has lessened since then. Sometimes you run into old AfDs (often pre-2008 or so) that do not offer much in the way of discussion and investigation, with just a couple of votes, but that's not so in this case. BTW, Edison, maybe you're up next? Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• AfDs should only be started by legit editors, with legit reasons. If the nominee is questionable, the nomination is equally questionable. Time should not be wasted on trolls, socks or petty disputes, just to see how the result turns out. In this case the nominee is suspicious. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't even need to question the legitimacy of the account after looking at the first two AfDs--this is a clear keep (see links to AfDs above). I note here also that nominator asked me on my talk page to reopen the discussion, a request I declined. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• Fortheloveofbacon - creation date 11:55, 29 April 2010
• Electroshoxcure - creation date 17:56, 26 April 2010

• Bacon-lovin, indeed. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm shocked. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I note, though, that their message on my talk page is almost perfectly punctuated (except for one missing hyphen). Then again, perhaps the copy of Strunk and White that I sent for Hanukkah did in fact arrive. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

CoM's ban expired but he has not returned to use the original account. It does look odd to me, but if CoM is not currently banned or blocked and if Fortheloveofbacon is an alternate account, does this constitute abusive sockpuppetry? That's the question, I guess. Maybe someone wants to run CU. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I initiated a sockpuppet investigation on Fortheloveofbacon: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Let's see how that turns out. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If one account is stale and another account is current, would hard-blocking the stale account have the effect of also blocking the current account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if they're using the same IP address and the stale account logs in. 12.165.222.214 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So it won't block the current account. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the sock accusations regarding loveofbacon are apparently unfounded, as determined by ArbCom, is it reasonable to speedy keep an Afd that ran for less than two hours? Nobody Ent 11:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Raised this same point here as well. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That speedy keep did not meet any of criteria at WP:SK, even at the time it was made, because an independent, good-faith editor !voted delete. The fact that an article has been discussed before several times does not make it immune to further discussion, especially if the discussion takes place over a year since the last AfD. I have no opinion about whether the article should be kept or not, but let it run its course. Quasihuman | Talk 12:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to all above: in light of the concerns with this early close, I've taken the AFD to deletion review. Comments are welcome at the discussion there. Robofish (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am on an interaction ban with the no-longer-banned user who this Bacon guy was briefly alleged to be. Do I have an official ruling that I am NOT on an interaction ban with Bacon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ent, above, claims that ArbCom hisself cleared Bacon, so you should be good. If it turns out that et cetera, no one can hold that against you. But I really doubt that it's CoM, since I think he'd have the balls to just go back to his old account. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's Bugsy-speak for "10-4". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that it doesn't matter anymore, but Bacon did come into the help channel a few nights back, asking about getting the article AFD'd. I thought I dissuaded him as it wasn't nominated by the afternoon, but apparently he followed through on it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Restore deleted image

Can an admin please restore File:Alliant Seal.jpg? I am guessing that it was deleted because it was moved to Commons. But it has been deleted from Commons because it's a fair use image so it needs to be moved back here. If it needs a new or updated license template once it has been restored, please let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was actually deleted per CSD I5; it was fair-use and it wasn't being used in any articles. If you intend to use it in articles and its license template looks all right, I'd be happy to restore it for you. — madman 20:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I plan on adding it to an article. I suspect it wasn't in use because it was copied to Commons and that copy was then used. Thanks so much! ElKevbo (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done — madman 02:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: WP:NPA trumps WP:DICK

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

---

It's come up that apparently, the presence of an off-site essay, WP:DICK means that its ok to say that an editor's behavior is dickish, no matter how reasonable the behavior (such as requesting a citation from someone proud to own the book for a section that is uncited).

WP:NPA is a POLICY. WP:DICK is an ESSAY, which at no point excuses personal attacks (in fact, it points out that citing the essay makes one guilty of it). Anyone who doesn't get that is dickishly being willfully ignorant. If that last statement bothers you in any way, then don't be a dick and tolerate it elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• IIRC, That "off-site essay" was originally on the English Wikipedia. It was moved to the meta site so it could be more widely used. And when an editor has always cited a page number, telling them to cite a page number is not needed. However, this is pointless since you've already been complaining at WQA and have been told that bringing the same issue here is foum shopping. Guess it hasn't sunken in yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  The essay was indeed hosted here, on the English Wikipedia, but it was contentious and eventually there was consensus to delete it. However, it was moved to meta, outside of our jurisdiction. If you read the discussion, you can see that the motivation for moving it was to get a superfluous essay couched in juvenile language out of the way, and definitely not so that it could be more widely used.  --Lambiam 22:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Still forum shopping. Just saying. It seems to be a peculiarity of college American culture that 'don't be a dick' isn't particularly rude. I'm reading my way through a load of Raymond Chandler stories at the moment, and it is really weird to hear the lead character referred to continuously as a 'dick', in company with the 'company dick', 'studio dick', 'hotel dick', 'dicks' down at the stationhouse etc. Plainly 'dick' wasn't a standard word for a penis in the US until quite recently. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not to totally derail this, but you may have it backwards, actually. MSJapan (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear regarding Elen's comment to those not following MSJapan's link, "dick" in Chandler is short for "detective". And Elen has it correct regarding the use of "Don't be a dick" among under-30s in the US, although a lot depends on tone of voice and the relationship between the parties. (I'm also wondering if something similar doesn't apply to the "c-word" in certain segments of British culture, whereas I think it's still a pretty harsh remark to make in the US, and particularly insulting to women. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, and staying strictly off topic - nothing in that link contradicts the idea that dick was not a standard word in the US for a penis until way more recently than the 1930s. I submit that if it had been recognisable vulgar slang, the expression 'private dick' would never have made it into print, even in a pulp magazine. The other word, on the other hand, while definitely low (as is it's northern variant of twat) has been undergoing something of a reclamation by feminists such as Germaine Greer, determined to see it returned to its position as a part of the body also used in a derogatory sense, the way dick, arse and tit are; and not a 'nurse! the screens!' totally verboten concept. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Wikipedia editors recently and exhaustively debated the use of cunt in British, Australian and US English (even unto local or classed uses) in evidence and workshop at the civility enforcement case. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Complaints of forum shopping aside, that essay expressly tells people not go around slagging each other off by pushing it in their faces. Of course NPA carries the day; it's never been otherwise. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Block evasion by Posturewriter

Posturewriter (talk · contribs) seems to have "forgotten" that he's been indefinitely banned and is now posting insulting and disruptive messages as 27.33.141.67 (talk · contribs).

If anyone wants to wade through the background, the RFC/U can be found here and, since no voluntary agreement from Posturewriter to stop his soapboxing were forthcoming, ended with a request to ArbCom for involuntary sanctions. The ArbCom case was made moot here by an indefinite block being issued.

Would someone mind blocking the user's IP to stop the block evasion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done — madman 02:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

204.69.190.254

204.69.190.254 (talk · contribs) Personal attacks, harassment, legal threats - basically trolling. I took this to AIV and they said to take it elsewhere, so here it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that they were blocked once already (and unblocked, for reasons beyond me) for 24 hours, this one is 48. Apparently he didn't get the message last time. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhh, where the heck did I make legal threats? 204.69.190.254 (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't, but your comments were sufficiently disruptive that I decided to block anyways. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the original blocking admin, but I was INVOLVED, so, at the suggestion of another user, I unblocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

An ethical unblock by Eagle, and a good reblock by Blade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Disruption at Talk:Free will

Resolved

 – Blocked for 72 hr by Qwyrxian. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an IP editor, 125.255.7.10 (talk · contribs), adding gibberish to that talk page; see the section titled The Joke. The IP acknowledges being banned from Wikipedia but unfortunately does not specify the process that led to the ban. The simplest solution would be a lengthy semi-protection, but since other solutions are possible, I am raising the matter here. I will notify the IP of this section. Looie496 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, I don't see that as necessary just yet. I reverted and gave a level-4 warning. Banned editor or not, gibberish is just vandalism. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• IP left a rant on mine and another user's talk page. I'll leave this for another admin. Drmies (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In this edit, the user signs as Damir Ibrišimović, which is the same signature as indefinitely blocked editor User:Dibrisim (with added diacritics). I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for block evasion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page edits by a blocked user

Resolved

 – Revoked talk page access. Materialscientist (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please consider the promotional content added to the talk page of this blocked user and take appropriate action. [172] My76Strat (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Bedson - sock puppets and at least one hoax article

Recently an editor calling himself A Timelord has been (in my opinion, others may differ) trolling a couple of talk pages and articles. Then A Timelady showed up, obviously the same editor.[173]. I raised an SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Timelord. I didn't expect this to turn up Paul Bedson (talk · contribs) as the puppet master. I then found that 2 days ago he created Tempomania whose content is just "Tempomania is a type of mood disorder caused by staring into the time vortex for too long. It can include symptoms and treatments that are different from those of non-psychotic disorders." See also his edit summaries. I don't know what if anything should be done. We've been in friendly conflict before because some of his ideas and articles are fringe archaeolgy/history stuff so I'm clearly not the right person to do anything about this, but I would like uninvolved parties to take a look at his recent activities. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like trolling to me: it sounds like either a compromised account or a personal issue. A block seems to be appropriate - indefinite, not infinite - until the editor is in a position to contribute constructively. --NellieBly (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. --RA (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Timotheus Canens beat me to the block. I don't think it's a compromised account because of this edit and edit summary - the edit is plainly the real Paul Bedson, but the edit summary is A Timelord. He'll need to explain himself a bit better to be unblocked though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

But given his response, and the fact that it took five edits to put up six words, it looks like he's still away with the fairies/on the happy pills/celebrating the arrival of his firstborn or whatever it is that set his feet on this ruinous path. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

So do we fix his unblock request or leave it broken? His edits are a mixed bag. He's admitted in the past that he is here to publicise the (fringe) ideas of Christian O'Brien & has used DYK to push them and related fringe stuff, he's pushed other fringe stuff also but at the same time has created some decent articles although I've had serious concerns though about his use of sources at times. Hopefully that's improved but I've stayed away from him for quite a while. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it twice. It hardly helped. I agree with Elen of the Roads' take on this. The Curse of the Mummy? Mathsci (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Bunt (community)

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

---

I am having problems with an IP at Bunt (community). There was an issue related to sourcing which eventually I took to NPOVN after getting nowhere on the article talk page. The only respondent there agreed with my opinion; no IP commented, even though I did leave a note on the article talk page (when I remembered to do so, on 16 February).

I again removed the disputed content here, after leaving it for what I considered to be a reasonable time. Within the hour, an IP in the same range as the original one turns up and reverts me, complete with accusations of vandalism, canvassing etc. They wanted to know where to file a complaint. I told them, waited a bit for something to be filed, thought that it was probably bluster and removed the content again. That edit has now been reverted and I am not prepared to war any longer about it. Can someone please take a look at what has been going on. I've not handled it perfectly but I do not think that I have done anything that is wrong. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, see below. They've just reported. Might as well deal with mine in that section. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Complain against User:Sitush

I need to know is wikipedia the fiefdom of User:Sitush he constantly removes citation on Bunt (community) page from people notable enough to have a wikipedia article like Edgar Thurston saying it is npov but keeps citation of a relatively unknown person called alagodi (which was added by him) who is not even an ethnographer but some christian priest.how can wikipedia allow this to happen.user sitush is too judgemental does not assume good faith when he reverts edits by other contributors please see his edits and comments on talk page.also i think he tries to own articles he edits.look people like me have a life outside so do most editors on wikipedia,so we cannot be on constant vigil and start edit wars.but sitush seems to have got all the time on earth to edit wikipedia.so probably he has assumed that he owns wikipedia.thank god he is not an administrator on wiki.please admins look into the matter.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have specifically said that Alagodi and Thurston are separate issues. I agree that Alagodi needs to be looked into, but as far as Thurston goes, well, I've had a year of dealing with stuff by him and know what passes and what does not. You are conflating, as I have explained to you previously. - Sitush (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

who the hell are you to discredit Edgar Thurston completely.i need to believe your views on thurston just because you edit wikipedia for a year.so that means you own wikipedia.newbies can't edit !.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This should be taken to WP:RSN. Where, I expect, short shrift will be made of it given that Thurston was a scientific racist whose views, while of historical interest, cannot in general be used to establish facts for a modern encyclopedia. Not to mention that what he called research wouldn't pass for it today in terms of sample size, sample selection, or measurement. That being said, I'm well-known in some circles as a member of Sitush's cabal, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

why doesn't Qwyrxian comment on sitush's addition of alagodi's views.is he reliable,no wait who the hell is alagodi ?.i haven't even heard of him.and what the hell is this bs thurston views though of historical importance cannot be part of modern encyclopedia but some random fellow like alagodi's can be.27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because you haven't heard of them that makes them unreliable? As was suggested above, take it to WP:RSN. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

also thurston has been cited on wiki articles related to ethnicties like Iyer,Velama (caste),Paraiyar,Billava,Vadama,Koraga(which was ironically created by sitush) Vanniyar,Toda people,Kamma (caste) and the list goes on and on and on.now tell thurston can't be part of modern encyclopedia 27.4.218.66 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, when I pointed you here it was because you appeared to want to complain about me - my methods etc. As others have said, you should take this to WP:RSN if your issue is merely the sourcing. - Sitush (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

issue is you sitush and your gang.not letting others edit.27.4.218.66 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the issue is that you want to use a source that violates our guideline on reliable sources (of course, that's my opinion, and I would accept a consensus at WP:RSN that goes in an opposite direction). I know nothing about Alagodi. I do know that Sitush has told you, rightly so, that these are two totally separate issues. If you think Alagodi is bad, take that to WP:RSN as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

thurston can't be cited only on the bunt page.other wiki pages can use him as a source? what logic.27.4.218.66 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:STICK. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate venue to discuss this. Please go to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to settle the sourcing issues. AniMate 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I know this has been closed, but I have to say that I'm of a good mind to just block this IP now; I don't know how the people editing Indian articles can put up with this much crap, but having searched through the ANI archives for similar issues I've come to the conclusion that little, if any, collateral damage would be done if we blocked IPs complaining at ANI about "denigrating our caste/community" on sight. This has seriously got to stop. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't believe the IP actually said that. 99 times out of 100 you're right, but there is no need to jump the gun. If they break 3R they'll be blocked, and there's plenty of eyes on the article now. Blocking now (or, as someone might say, prematurely) is fodder for the caste warriors. Oh, to the IP, no, this is not Sitush's fiefdom. SpacemanSpiff and I actually run this joint. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been an additional revert by an IP to include this content. I requested semi protection at RPP. My76Strat (talk) 07:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits that may start edit wars

I saw a edit on Caucasian Albania [174], that can be controversial, I noticed that the page has been under the Arbitration Committee in the past so the page has alot of disputes in the past obviously. I saw this user write some information that is a big claim on the page. I had to remove it because the references are not reliable, or the reference just does not go with what was referenced. The user Azerbek also after adding that sentence, went on to the page Azerbaijan and changed information to link to the Caucasian Albania page again another quick changing edit, [175] I did not revert that change. I'm bringing this issue here so it won't escalate, basically what the user is adding is very controversial and should be discussed first, thoroughly and referenced appropriately, or other users will intervene soon enough and it will get worse. Im hoping I can receive some help, and have a administrator watch Caucasian Albania as a third party. We need these edits to be discussed thoroughly to avoid a Arbitration type conflict again on the page so I am trying my best for the user to talk it out, before adding such things. --Nocturnal781 (talk) 12:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this cautiously. I've notified Azerbek of WP:ARBAA2 and pointed them here if they wish to discuss further. I'm unlikely to be able to monitor articles personally, but I'm sure they're watched by others and any infractions will be swiftly brought to admin attention :) EyeSerene^talk 12:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response : ) I appreciate the help.--Nocturnal781 (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Crank

Anyone interested in sifting through a few years worth of edits from an editor who appears to be almost exclusively a crank? The end goal would be a community ban for wasting our time. I've reviewed his last thirty edits and most or all of them have been cranky. The complicating factor as that this editor has been editing since 2005 and has over 2,500 edits. I'll post the user name only if there's interest in pursuing the matter as I don't wish to create unnecessary drama. Rklawton (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not put it on hold until we have better guidance from Arbcom in the civility enforcement case?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe Rklawton means cranky, not cranky. 28bytes (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Both, actually. But yeah, if it was urgent, I would have posted an account and diffs. In this particular case, there's a lot of diffs to read through, though they aren't hard to find. Rklawton (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you use help from a non-admin? --NellieBly (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a long and thankless task, but it's my kind of long and thankless task. What general subject area is it? I'd be grateful if you could email me so I can run through a few contribs (I promise not to create drama). bobrayner (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll do any thankless job as long as it is agreed upon that it needs to be done. Let me know. — Moe ε 06:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I sent the username to Bobrayner who can work on it over the weekend. Unless I don't hear back from him, I don't wish to use up anyone else's time. Rklawton (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I did a review of article-space edits (since these are the best litmus-test) going back 15 months. Individually, none of the diffs is so bad as to be the kind of thing that gets swift admin action here at AN/I; however there is a lot of borderline editing which, in my opinion, seems to reframe content so that fringe views are treated slightly more like mainstream - on a variety of topics (not just one crank subject). Let's put it this way: I tried giving all recent edits a RAG status and there's only three red ones in the list but there are quite a lot of amber. I'd like to emphasise that my assessment is subjective, and these are controversial topics so somebody would surely disagree with my assessment of any one edit, but looking at them overall there's definitely a pattern.

Can review more edits if necessary. I would agree that there is a problem here, but it's not the kind of problem that wikipedia is very good at dealing with, alas. I have emailed rklawton; ball's in their court but I'd be happy to help further. bobrayner (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you recommend advising, mentoring, banning...? My own view is that people like this aren't salvageable and are more trouble than they are worth considering the constant degradation of our articles. It's not like they're a decent contributor with a simple POV problem in one narrowly defined area. This guy is just a plain crank so far as I can tell. Rklawton (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Labels like "crank" are probably likely to inflame things further! I'd agree that civil pushing of fringe views is a serious problem. If it were something really drastic then the editor would be swiftly blocked, but if an editor just pushes gently and keeps on pushing for months... en.wikipedia doesn't have very good defences against that. Not sure what the best next step is. bobrayner (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I figured it wouldn't matter so long as I left the name out, and that term pretty much sums up the problem as I see it. If you'd like to have another admin or two review this, then send along the name to them. I've seen people banned as a result of being generally bad for the project when their edits, taken as a whole, are considered. More often, though, I've seen dithering in the form of mentoring. While I'm all in favor of mentoring, this particular editor doesn't seem capable of so much as reading and following a simple page of instructions, so I'm highly skeptical that mentoring would work, though I wouldn't oppose it. Lastly, if it's your view that this case is annoying but not worth pursuing, then I'll give your recommendation full credit and let it drop - with my thanks for your time and consideration. Rklawton (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no - I probably wasn't clear before. You made good points and I agree the editing is problematic (though it's not a crisis) so we ought to try something. We just don't have many good tools in the toolbox for this kind of problem. Err, maybe start with an independent friendly word on their talkpage, or some mentoring? It's possible (but not certain) that could make everyone happy. If it fails, reach for one of the heavier tools... bobrayner (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a new thread and open the subject up for discussion and include the individual in question. The rest of this thread could be devoted to what to do in general about long-term editors who edit with a consistent conspiracy theory POV. Rklawton (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit requests

Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests (and I guess Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests too while I'm here) could do with a look if anyone has a spare few minutes, I've done a lot of them, but many of the remaining ones are less than straightforward. (I realise that the semi ones don't require an admin's attention but this seemed to be the best place to get some attention to it)--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rogue security software

Resolved

Could an admin please take a look at Talk:Rogue security software. A newcomer has created a new article in his own user spaces, and posted a comment on this article's talk page, which a number of other editors are reacting to adversely. The very first notice posted on this person's talk page was a very unfriendly spam warning. It seems to me that this person has spent a considerable amount of time creating a new article about a piece of malware, however rather than welcome him and show him the ropes, he's getting walked over. It seems I'm the only one who's AGF, so there's now an edit war on the talk page. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the report I was preparing on this same issue:

The editor User:HybridBiology posted blatantly promotional material to talk pages here and here. ("Look here! Smart Security got its own Wikipedia page!" and "Look here, lava lamp! http://www.supertobuy.com/images/ls1507.jpg It's your cousin!") They were removed by User:Drmies [176],[177] -- who also warned HybridBiology [178]. One of these promptional comments was then restored by User:Socrates2008 using the reason that removing it violated WP:TPO. [179] Socrates2008 also warned Drmies about biting newcomers. [180],[181] Because these posts were clearly and obviously promotional, with no value for improve the articles involved, and WP:TPO specifically allows for the removal of comments which are not meant to improve articles, I removed the comment again, [182], but Socrates2009 restored it once more. [183]

There is also the matter of a purely promotional "article" which was being prepared in HybridBiology's userspace, User:HybridBiology/Smart Security, wich I have blanked and tagged for speedy deletion under G11.

I have no desire to edit war, but these comments seem to me be without a doubt promotional and not placed on the talk page to help improve the article, so I would appreciate someone else looking into Socrates2008's reversion of the deletions by two diffferent editors. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing typical vandalism or promotional activitiy here. The article he created is clearly not up to std for mainspace, however I doubt that any newcomer's first postings are perfect - surely someone who's gone to the effort to draft a new article should be given the benefit of the doubt and guidance from others rather than a level 4 anti-spam template as the first notice on their talk page? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, after closer inspection, and some investigation, I've withdrawn the G11 and restored the article, as it does indeed appear to be an attempt to write a legitimate article.

There's still the matter of the Lava lamp though, and the language of the other two comments, i.e. "Look here!" etc. Perhaps what I took for promotion is simply a matter of WP:COMPETENCE? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And what are we to make of this? And why was it posted to Talk:Tak and the Power of Juju? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at this from Drmies' talk page, now why on earth is this at AN/I already? We all have user talk pages, which we are expected to use, giving each other time to respond and converse. The new user is on a bad trajectory here, so Socrates, I would suggest your time is best spent on helping them out, rather than pursuing a case against established editors doing normal-course editing to protect the encyclopedia. If you think there's a general trend to biting newbies, this is not the best place to pursue it. Franamax (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that any of the edit warriors were admins. Actually, I did try to help him out, but that proved to be extremely difficult and frustrating when the message I was responding to was repeatedly deleted by others, and I was furthermore the subject of a warning myself when trying to engage with him. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Extremely difficult and frustrating" is what we should use for the site moniker, rather than "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". You can always discuss with the new editor directly on their talk page, on specific issues. Or maybe buy their lava lamp. My advice is to just focus on helping the new editor, you're never going to be able to train all the regulars. Franamax (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite normal to respond to people where they post; I didn't expect regulars to try so hard to end my conversation with him after I had already responded to him, nor for people such as yourself to start post disparaging remarks on other people's talk pages about it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, speaking of "respond to people where they post", I do disparage you for templating and talking down to another editor (Drmies) who has been here just as long as you have. I see no attempt at collegial discussion, and I see that you have still not tried to engage the new editor on their talk page, which is where new editors should be engaged when they run into difficulty. No-one would interfere if you would do that, but instead you seem more interested in doing battle. I suggest again that you'd do better to engage the new editor rather than continue here. Can we close this now? Franamax (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Case closed, as far as I'm concerned, with a note from Socrates on my talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

N.B. The user sub-page was a verbatim copy of this, I have deleted it as a G12. Franamax (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that might be the case, but I finally had to go to sleep before I could check it out thoroughly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Graffitiboy78

Resolved

 – blocked indef. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Graffitiboy78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user turned vandal recently with penis upload. Admin intervention is requested. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 17:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image deleted and user given an only warning about vandalism. May wish to take further action but editor's block list is clean. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User now been blocked also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Turned vandal? Their created article Vasilis Sotiropoulos basically exists as a homophobic piece about a subject and should have never been created; they never came here to be postive. Applying a G10 tag to that page and wondering how nobody ever caught it. Nate • (chatter) 18:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Also see it was turned down a month ago for G7 due to "wnning a prestigious award is an assertion of importance". The "National Greek Homosexual Society" (which "awarded" this person) doesn't exist except for Wiki mirrors of this same article! How did we let this linger for a month when a simple Google search would've killed this vandal a month ago? Nate • (chatter) 18:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It was an attack account before more or less. Vandalism is something else. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat from 86.24.110.239

Resolved

I'm not sure if the IP user in question was just joking, but the user's recent creation of File talk:DaVinci LastSupper high res 2 nowatmrk.jpg clearly violates WP:NLT. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by trolling. Also impossible, for at least two reasons: (1) a quick look at the article suggests Da Vinci had no known offspring; and (2) even if he did, there aren't nearly enough "greats" preceding "grandson" to put it anywhere close to Da Vinci's century. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagged the talk page for speedy. Calabe1992 20:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You deleted it so fast I wasn't able to re-count the "greats". But I'm thinking it was 7 or 8, which would only stretch back to the 1700s or so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Reaper got on it quickly. But I warned the user about the legal threat, regardless of seriousness. Calabe1992 21:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good deal. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User has now been blocked for a week by User:Orangemike. Calabe1992 21:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Drubner

Resolved

Jonathan Drubner - Could I get some more eyes on this page? The recent contribs and some of the information added suggests it may be the start of a promotional campaign by the subject or those connected to him, it reads like promotion. Thanks. Heiro 21:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well one of the users already got blocked for his obvious username. The other is likely a sock. Reporting him for username as well. Calabe1992 21:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The edits in question include an IP user:69.244.0.59, User:Jordanisbetterthandrub, and User:DrubisUgly, one now blocked as a username violation and the reported as a possible username violation, who all edited the article within about 7 minutes of each other. Heiro 21:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Calabe. I suspected sockpuppetry, but not much to go on with so few edits, but with all three of them hitting article in same 7 minute span, QUACK, lol. Heiro 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Second user blocked by Reaper. Come back if the IP starts again. Calabe1992 21:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

problematic user

Resolved

 – Boomerang. Calabe1992 21:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am reporting some acts of vandalism. Even when presented with sources, User Direktor is on purpose removing them. His edit here [184] is disrupting the article. Please note what source he adds, for it does not mention what it cites. Therefore this is extremely disruptive behavior that is negating the value of the article. (Mike085 (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)).

I've blocked you indefinitely for being a quacking sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Australian inventions and user:112.213.151.85

112.213.151.85 (talk · contribs) I've seen runs like this before, often from Australia too (when it's not Hungary or Romania). A new IP editor categorizing widely into Category:Australian inventions. No citations are added, and some of these (within my own domain of knowledge) are just plain wrong. Owing to the volume, this may need admin action. Tank [185] was odd, as they didn't cat as an Australian invention, but did link a valid see also to someone who almost invented the tank - so there is some knowledge behind this, not just chauvinist vandalism. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This editor needs slowing down; I've reverted a few of these because there doesn't seem to be any substantiation to several of the claims. Further, he hasn't responded to other editors and is currently editing which is a problem.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

is also adding to cat Sports originating in Australia, without evidence or mention in article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a German IP morph busily adding similar dubious cats for Category:American inventions too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted 89.156.108.85 for claiming Software-defined radio is an Australian invention. Glrx (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the 112 editor seems to be adding a fair number of correct categories as well. Are there instances where the editor is edit warring to keep the false categories in? The 89 IP has only made 5 edits, only one of which was to add a category, so it could well be either a simple error or simple vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Budhism

Anybody got any idea what User talk:Budhism says? It certainly doesn't look like building an encyclopedia. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be Sinhalese, if that helps. --NellieBly (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem actionable at present, until we get a translation of the page. —Dark 14:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate confirms it is in Sinhalese, but unfortunately it is not able to translate it. I have left them a note about communicating in English, it's pretty much eait and see time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 

Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine

Hi there is a problem with an editor, who keeps adding a redirect in the Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine . Its from the Battle of Jaffa (1917) to direct to the Battle of Jerusalem (1917). The editor User:RoslynSKP is well aware of the Jaffa article and has edited it. This daily change has become disruptive. The revision history for the template is here [186] Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To begin, Jim Sweeney started this problem by adding the Battle of Jaffa to this template, as a red link. As this battle is described in the Battle of Jerusalem article, I changed the link to the Jerusalem battle, so that it functioned. Then he reverted it several times back to a red link. Jim Sweeney then created the Battle of Jaffa article, by copying material from the Battle of Jerusalem article, which I think is against Wikipedia policy. This new article fails to place this subsidiary battle, within the broader context of the Battle of Jerusalem, treating it as an isolated battle. As there was fighting at this time, all along the front line from the Mediterranean coast to Jerusalem, it was not isolated as the Battle of Jerusalem (1918) article makes clear.

Further, until I edited Jim Sweeney's Battle of Jaffa article, it did not even have a link to its parent article, leave alone any acknowledgement that the vast majority of the information in the article, was copied from the GA Battle of Jerusalem article. Because of these and other serious defects of this second generation article, I have suggested to Jim Sweeney on the article's talk page that the Battle of Jaffa article be deleted.

I have been reverting the link on the template back to the Battle of Jerusalem (1918) because of the dubious quality of the Battle of Jaffa article and the likelihood that it will be deleted. --Rskp (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Han Dynasty

I just added a portal link on Han Dynasty and suddenly it's giving me a link to ANI. (I can't even view the page history now :S) Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh...fixed now. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is weird. I can't get to talk page or history without being taken back to here... But if I accessed it via your contribution history it seemed to fix itself. Very odd. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just undone your edit, though I don't really know what happened... Feel free to revert my edit as soon as you find out. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found out what happened: this template got vandalised. I've self-reverted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Why the revdel? 67.122.210.96 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gotta be WP:BEANS, my fellow IP. --64.85.221.215 (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never understood why all these pages aren't all protected. →Στc. 08:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough violates editing restriction and creates errors

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

---

User:Rich Farmbrough doesn't want me to post to his talk page anymore, so here I am. He has two Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, the first of which reads in part "Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page". I normally don't bother listing all his violations of this restriction, unless he truly makes a mess of it, which is now again the case. Apart from continued capitalization changes (like "reflist" to "Reflist", or "infobox" to "Infobox"), which have no benefit and which have had him blocked in the past, he is now using AWB in a mindless manner to add persondata templates and defaultsorts to many, many articles. Most of them are correct (because most of them follow easy rules), the human factor is needed for the more complicated cases, but seems to be missing here. Exactly the same kind of thing for which these editing restrictions were installed in the first place of course.

Blatant examples include Kelly Keen coyote attack (Persondata: name = Attack, Kelly Keen Coyote) and Right to Die? (Persondata| name = Die?, Right To). Less extreme but still problematic examples include pseudonyms (Red Ezra shouldn't be sorted under Ezra, but under Red) or Raja Debashish Roy, where Raja is not a part of the name but a title).

Considering the speed of editing (hundred articles in less than ten minutes, at least over a 1000 articles so far), and the blatant violation of the editing restriction, an immediate block seems to be needed. Fram (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The speed of editing means that he edits much faster than I or anyone can check these changes, see e.g. the brand new error Pat Quinn Gubernatorial administration (Persondata| name = Administration, Pat Quinn Gubernatorial). Fram (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

He's not creating errors — he's expanding errors that already existed in the articles, except for Red Ezra: since we make alphabetisations such as "Twain, Mark", why shouldn't we also do "Ezra, Red"? If you don't know what a raja is, you might easily make an error for Raja Debashish Roy as well. As far as the others, those appear to be the result of people erroneously including birth and death dates in articles, either in categories or (in the case of the administration) in an infobox. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"continued capitalization changes (like "reflist" to "Reflist", or "infobox" to "Infobox")" wouldn't come under that umbrella, do you have diffs of those edits? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This one is very recent, from after he replied here even, so... This changes the capitalisation of the persondata parameters from the generally accepted one to his preferred one, and changes "reflist" to "Reflist", for no apparent benefit at all.

Thanks for correcting those categories. Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

(multiple ec)And why is he expanding on these errors? Because he edits like a bot (both in speed and in result), in violating of his editing restriction. Human checking of his edits (as required by AWB) would avoid these. Please tell me how edits like this one are not a) a blatant violation of his editing restriction and b) easily avoided with some human oversight? If you run a script that bases your edits on the defaultsort, then indeed any errors in the defautlsort will result in errors in your edit as well. Of course, if you do thuis with a bot, you will get an approval process and trial first, so people will actually check what you are trying to do before you do it, and there will be at least a semblance of consensus and control of the quality and value of these edits. Avoiding a BRFA and willfully ignoring editing restrictions of course removes these checks...

And what with the cases where no defaultsort was given? Should Papa CJ really be sorted under CJ? "Mark Twain" has the smeblance of a name, so sorting it as a name is acceptable. Red Ezra is not really a name, and Wicked Rose shouldn't be sorted as "Rose, Wicked" either... Fram (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Automated editing sometimes causes problems. If there's only a couple of blatant errors amongst hundreds of improvements, isn't it worth it? I went through 5 of his latest edits, and they seemed correct and desirable. -- Luk ^talk 14:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a process for such automated editing, WP:BRFA. Rich Farmbrough has editing restrictions for ignoring these (and causing problems) in the past. Any reason he shoulsn't have followed the BRFA path here? Fram (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I read the editing restrictions, they concern cosmetic changes and creations, not metadata. I am not aware of the specifics that led to these restrictions, but they state that they apply regardless of the method. However, I agree that Rich should use a separate bot account to do these edits. -- Luk ^talk 14:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Out of the box, AWB does not change the capitalization of template calls. R.F. has added custom code to his AWB to do this. Doing so violates his editing restriction, which says he may only perform cosmetic changes when they are already performed by stock AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Luk, yes, a bot account would be better. As I understand it though, no bot task would ever be approved to do edits like this edits like this, which is why Rich is just doing them with his main as a "I'm just improving the encyclopedia" action. However, with those edit restrictions on top of the already existing WP:BOTPOL and WP:AWB#Rules of use, the community is obviously not convinced that those edits are improvements. Although Rich means well, him continuing to make those bot-like edits in spite of policy and restriction is in my eyes disruptive. Amalthea 16:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Two of the AWB rules of use are (1) Check every edit before you save it. and (2) Don't edit too quickly. It appears that R.F. is breaking both of these rules with these edits. Any reasonably careful editor previewing the edit would have noticed that this article [187] is not about a person, and so would not have added a "persondata" template to it. Given the scope of this job, R.F. needs to put in a BRFA and get bot approval, which includes careful vetting of the task, and then it should be run on a bot account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that he has started a very similar editing run, where he is adding a short description to the persondata, and at the same time chaning the persondata parameters from the uppercase format to the lowercase, despite multiple previous duiscussions about this with quite a few editors, where the consensus was to use uppercase for new ones and to leave the case in existing ones, and where Rich Farmbrough agreed to this. The changing to lowercase has no actual benefit and is purely impsing his personal preference by rapid editing, a clear violation of WP:CONSISTENCY. Fram (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation as usual. We agreed not to change it unless the template was being changed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

There we go again with the personal attacks... I thought that you had agreed to no longer change the capitalization, apparently the "only" thing that happened is that nearly everyone but you agreed that uppercase is the accepted standard for this template. I'll not scream "misrepresentation as usual", but no, we "did not" agree to change it to lowercase at anytime. Fram (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it was deliberate misrepresentation. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

It seems R.F. is still performing the disputed edits. It might be helpful for an uninvolved admin to ask him to stop until the discussion is complete. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems this is another case that should be headed for ArbCom, as I don't see the community ever agreeing on stuff like this. However, it's probably best to wait for the similar case Betacommand 3 to finish first. Right now that case seems headed for a historic impasse, where ArbCom agrees there's a problem, but can't agree on a solution. It would be pointless to make people go through Arbitration for no results whatsoever. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I will issue no block as I have been involved with his BRFAs in the past, but this appears to be a clear-cut violation of the bot policy. Assisted editing is still unacceptable if the user is not considering each edit. It's clear from these mistakes and the user's history that he is not doing so. — madman 14:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Rich: "Slow down, you move too fast/ You've got to make the edits last" or thereabouts. Else I suspect this will, indeed, head to ArbCom which is something quite akin to being renamed "Sisyphus." Collect (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I need a break. Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Rich, I would advise you to stop using AWB and perform the edits manually until the conclusion of the ANI thread. Thanks. —Dark 14:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to say that arguing over such a frivolous issue such as the use of caps in persondata seems to be awfully petty, especially considering it doesn't make a difference in the article. —Dark 15:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I don't understand why he keeps on doing this, despite objections from people like Magioladitis or Kumioko. This is not standard AWB functionality (when AWB adds Persondata, it does it in uppercase), so he has to deliberately exclude or overrule the AWB rules to get this result. Fram (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this ANI and wanted to add my comment as well. First off, as Fram mentioned I agree that we shouldn't be changing the capitalization of the Persondata template and the speed of the edits is excessive IMO. He also shouldn't be changing reflist to Reflist. Althuogh I too prefer the first letter capitalized this has been determined to be a contentious edit with some and IMO not worth arguing about one way or the other. I also think that Rich should be a bit more careful with his edits especially since he is on the skyline so much with so many editors watching his every edit waiting to block. With that said some of the edits as examples are built into the AWB Template rename page or other logic so we shouldn't be forcing the user to disable that either. Also, in the case of the example where he changed Unreferenced to Refimprove when the article had a reference that is a desireable edit and I frequently do that myself. I also think that there is only so much that can be done in the case where the article is miss categorized. If AWB adds persondata in good faith because someone has added birth and death cats incorrectly we shouldn't be talking about a block for that. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I didn't notice that the meaning of the template changed. It checked another ~10 diffs and found this one instead. Amalthea 18:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep not much I can say to justify that one. I looked at it pretty close because sometimes the changes can be hard to see but I got nothing. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

To respond to SGGH — the capitalisation issues that Fram raised are not errors: since both {{reflist}} and {{Reflist}} are equally useful, neither one is wrong. That's a matter for the editing restriction, which I'm intentionally avoiding. The only thing I was addressing was the persondata template being applied to non-biographies. I would have addressed other factual errors if I'd found them, but I didn't see any errors in the links provided at the top of this section. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am in the same boat as you Nyttend, if I understand your tone correctly. I don't really care one way or the other about the occassional editing of upper or lower case or even in most cases the removal of blank spaces. I don't really care about editing speed either as long as its not crashing the servers (unlikely) or introducing a large amount of errors. A few in a volume of edits is a certainty but large numbers of errors introduced to articles without being fixed are another story entirely. --Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Turning reflist into Reflist, or vice versa, are both errors in that they are edits that don't improve the encyclopedia. They instead make it worse by polluting the article edit histories and the recent changes stream with useless noise. Per WP:MEATBOT, disruptive high speed editing of this sort has to stop, which I guess it has, at least for now. As for the suggestion of an arb case, I'm pessimistic that it would help. Arbcom has always been conflicted and/or confused about this issue, with the current Betacommand 3 case not showing much evidence of new understanding or resolve. 67.122.210.96 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Some people questioned the number of errors in these edits. I obviously haven't checked them all, there are thousands of them, so I took a batch of 20 from somewhere in the middle, 12:08, 23 January 2012 to 12:09, 23 January 2012 (Mamadou Koulibaly to Special K (artist)). Whether this batch is representative or not is unclear. I've only included the clear errors, a number of other pages have less clear sorting rules. Special K (artist) shouldn't be sorted at K but at Special; Maeda Nagatane, Maeda Toshitaka, Maeda Toshitsugu and Fang Yanqiao have now gotten a defaultsort on their first name instead of on their family name, since the Western rules were applied instead of the correct ones (These pages all have a useful hatnote spelling this out); Stih & Schnock should not be sorted as "Schnock, Stih &"; and Richard Lefebvre des Noëttes should be sorted as "Lefebvre des Noëttes, Richard", not as "Noëttes, Richard Lefebvre des". That's 7 out of 20 that are incorrect (and 6 of which sorted correctly before he edited them), with some others like Li Meishu which may well be incorrect as well. Most of these errors were not caused by anything already in the article, but by lack of control. This is why a BRFA is needed for these edits, and this is why Rich Farmbrough has an editing restriction. Any reason why no further action is taken on this? He has stopped for now, but for how long? Fram (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• WP:RFC/U is that way. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, and ArbCom is another way, and so on. "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" We already have these sanctions (and a lot of previous blocks), consensus about the problems with his manner of editing was clear, all that is needed is some enforcement. What gives you the idea that an RfC/U would have any use in this case? "Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct."? He hasn't changed his conduct after the restrictions and blocks, he doesn't seem to care to explain it in this discussion, but an RfC/U would give a different result... how? Fram (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • So request a community indef on WP:AN. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between an edit that introduces an error and one that corrupts what was otherwise correct by replacing the correct form with the erred form. In every instance where I have seen the persondata edited, it was adding the information, and some of it did have errs. Consider our editing policy: "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained, cleaned up on the spot, or tagged" "Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented" "Even poor edits, if they can be improved, are welcome." So quit demonizing people who add information just because some of it has an error. If they add information, that would be proper for inclusion in an error free condition, that same information is welcome if even erred slightly. The spirit is the information has been added, it has value, and it can be improved. The fallacy is that the article that wasn't sorted at all is better that the one that is sorted incorrectly. And it follows that you'd sooner preclude the 100 that were pristine to prevent the few perhaps even poor. The reflist thing requires I review his restrictions before commenting. My76Strat (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• As I mentioned in my post above, he did not just introduce imperfect info, he introduced errors, by changing a correctly sorted article to an incorrectly sorted one, e.g. here. So it is not as if he only added less-than-perfect stuff, he changed correctly working articles to incorrectly sorted ones. Fram (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the situation is less urgent now that he stopped with these edits, I've moved the discussion of what, if anything, to do to WP:AN#Rich Farmbrough. Fram (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Carliitaeliza

User:Carliitaeliza was blocked and has been asking for an explanation on her talk page. She speaks very weak English. I have would help her but I don't speak Spanish. Could an admin who speaks Spanish help her? Sorry if I put this in the wrong area. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 15:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) May I suggest contacting a member from Wikipedia's Español local embassy - relevant list here. Acather96 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that she is blocked on Spanish Wikipedia; see her talk page there. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message for the user regarding the reason for the block here at en:WP; let me know if you feel I've missed something. The block on es:WP was due to the user not contributing positively, and failing to listen to advice and to follow policy, so it's not very encouraging — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, I explained her block to her in Spanish and in English at the time I placed it, here. The user is aware of why she was blocked, though explaining it again, as Frankie has, can't hurt. Bottom line is this user lacks the competence both to edit English Wikipedia and to keep herself safe while doing it. I would recommend gently declining any further unblock requests, especially given that she has promised before to stop disclosing unsafe amounts of information and then continued the behavior. This isn't so much a "you screwed up, rawr!" block as a "we cannot take the place of a parent or guardian in keeping you safe" block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Writing as a non-admin but top-1000 Wikipedian: I was glad to see that this user had been blocked. She was blocked on Spanish Wikipedia for telling lies and wasting other editors' time, and has been doing the same here. For instance, on 14-15 January she asked me and a few other editors for help with an unspecified article, and when pressed she named an article about a school, but then all that she did there was add an inappropriate photo, allegedly of her cousin, which was very crooked and had no encyclopedic value (e.g. did not show either the buildings or the uniform clearly). IMHO she has been pestering people here just as a way of evading her block on Spanish Wikipedia. To be fair she has since added an infobox and external links to a stub about a pop group (not that the links meet WP:EL). Given her marked lack of proficiency in English (about which she also lied in her Babel user boxes) I do not see any reason to encourage her to edit here. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of explanation of the block reasons on her user page, and, while edits on es:wp are to some extent irrelevant on en:wp, the story there is not encouraging. It's a valid for-her-own-good block. pablo 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You might want to also look at Special:Contributions/201.220.233.208, especially this, which suggests this IP may be the same user evading their block, and this, which was the IP's parting shot after they were blocked. They appear to have since returned as Special:Contributions/201.220.233.214. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That range of IPs is blocked, or at least was blocked after its vandalism spree a few days ago. I, too, have no idea if it's Carliitaeliza, an impostor, or just a vandal who latched onto this issue as a fun place to vandalise, but in any case it should be taken care of for the near future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, Special:Contributions/201.220.233.214 is Carliitaeliza. She told me on my talk page in December. Thank you everyone for your help with her. ReelAngelGirl If I do somthing wrong please let me know 14:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In view of this "confession", I have revoked talk page access. User and talk page have been indefinitely semi-protected due to IP vandalism and promise thereof. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

URGENT

Resolved

 – Oversight action taken, offending edits removed, operative pages protected. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

202.138.6.105 (talk · contribs)

Someone, please put a stop to that stalker's activities by (re-)semi-protecting his target talk pages, which are BLP violations. Blocking the IP is insufficient, as he's an IP-hopper. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, on one of his talk page entries he posted a Facebook URL for the girl who's the target of his obsession. That URL is now blacklisted. But should something be done to notify her of the stalker? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That would actually be on several revisions, and it seems that this IP has had a fixation since 2008, from the edits. This could potentially be a law enforcement issue of some type from several perspectives, either the person mentioned or the Nazi flags and Jew comments. Oversight, maybe? MSJapan (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked an oversighter to take a look. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems to me that some of his other IP's might have hit another article or two, but I can't recall what they were. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

210.50.42.209 (talk · contribs)<>202.67.108.115 (talk · contribs)

That's a couple more of them to watch for. There may be others. This goes back to at least late November. It's worth pointing out that an edit filter was applied early this month, and the guy worked around it by purposely mis-spelling the name of the girl he's stalking. In case I missed any, the user Tenebrae was closely involved in the discussion also. See his talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

58.178.158.166 (talk · contribs) and possibly some others in that range, was posting swastikas as with the 210 series. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking through 202.138.6.105's deleted edits now. I'll try to mop up with some suppressions, but if someone could email me or the OS address a list of the problematic diffs from that IP and his alternates, that would be a great help in case I miss some. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  Ok, between me and Courcelles I *think* we've got them all. If anyone finds more, or some we missed, please let me or the oversight email address know. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Angmayakda

User:Angmayakda is a Filipino speaking editor who has been posting some unusual material around Wikipedia. [188] and [189] are the latest postings. The immediately previous one was [190], a distinctly confrontational posting to their talk page. [191] and [192] were mostly Filipino language, and Google Translate shows them as irrelevant to their articles. I don't think they are an intentional vandal, but I'm having a hard time making sense of anything they've posted and it's all been problematic material.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Intentional vandal or someone with a personal issue of some kind doesn't really matter. I'm not seeing someone here to better the encyclopedia. You might want to take this to WP:AIV, since this really is disruptive. --NellieBly (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No need, I've blocked them indefinitely. They had a final warning yesterday, there's no evidence this editor is here to be constructive, even the stuff they've written in their own language comes over as gibberish. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Revert of Template:infobox character

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

It was a bit ago so excuse me for the late notice (I was gone for the holiday's that weekend and my watchlist page had gotten backed up so I didn't notice it until an edit on the talk page), but User:Edokter reverted a FPP page without discussion based on his commentary with the reason of being bold. While normally that is okay, that template is fully protected so no one who isn't an admin can do anything about his reversion. He used his own judgement without consulting with the community to edit that page.∞陣内Jinnai 00:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I outlined my reasons on the talk page. I really did not pay any regard to the protection, as these high visibility templates are routinely protected against vandalism, not because of some edit war or content dispute, in which case Jinnai would have a point. I also did it after reviewing the entire discussion, basically overturning an earlier decision. — Edokter (talk) — 01:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If there objections to the edit they can be discussed on the talk page, no need for fire and pitchforks. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is no one can undo the edit when you came and reverted it, especially with while good intendioned, what seems to be somewhat faulty logic. The notice on the talk page appears to just be related only to a personal opinion on the matter; it doesn't show that you reviewed it not was anyone warned beforehand. Whether or not it was the intent, it has the appearance of a drive-by personal revert of a protected space by an admin who was being bold.∞陣内Jinnai 20:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Malformed AfDs

User:Ksanthosh89 has nominated a slew of articles for WP:AFD today, using incorrect reasons ("there is nothing in the article" for clearly labelled disambiguation pages) or no rationale at all ("is this an article?" for a stub). I have left messages on his talkpage, but he persists in creating these malformed AfDs, all of which are almost certainly going to be speedily kept and closed. Please could a passing admin drop him a warning, and perhaps a temporary topic ban on nominating articles, at least until he's read WP:DP. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that he is now going through my created articles and nominating all of them for deletion, giving no rationale whatsover. Rather than a topic ban, I now recommend a block for hounding and violation of WP:POINT. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yunshui. This has turned from a competency issue to just plain vandalism. Singularity42 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing lastest one Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Henry_Blackwell, concur. Article is sourced and no reason given for deletion. Nobody Ent 12:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the latest one - all of them. GiantSnowman 12:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days by MuZemike. Any objection against mass reversion/deletion of his nominations? I don't think that they worth keeping open or proper closure, just nuke 'em. Max Semenik (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

They are being nuked and reverted. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Blatant bad faith and disruptive string of nominations with the sole intent to stalk and harass. User has been blocked 3 days as such, all AFD pages have been deleted, and all nominated articles hence reverted. --MuZemike 12:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have given him a week, he should be thankful - oh, I see his 2nd unblock request reason was 'thank you'. His first was "I will also give 2 line articles. Which I have nominated for deletion are two line articles. First confirm me that two line articles can be created without ref." and I've made it clear if he actually does this he might be blocked for a violation of WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

A big thank you to MuZemike for sorting that out. Much obliged. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that it would excuse the behavior (and it may not make a difference), but is there any possibility that this is a compromised account? I notice that there a three-month gap in edits: previous to that gap, the user was working on an article and adding refs, and after the gap is a mass AfD. The user also has his email listed right on his user page. MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with Ruđer Bošković discussion! [[193]]

We need a careful administrator which could solve the problem. He needs to carefully read discussion between users Ljuboni [194] and me, decide who is right and take the right action, because this constant edits are useless. Philosopher12 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins don't settle content disputes. I have blocked the IP 72 hours for edit warring - if anyone thinks he is one of the regulars editing while logged out, please tell me and I'll block the account too. Meanwhile, if you can't agree, I recommend one of the steps in Dispute Resolution. Page is locked for 72 hours, if you guys restart your edit war when the protection expires, I'll block the lot of you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, could you recommend us a neutral "Third opinion" Wikipedian? Philosopher12 (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:30 Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Target for Today and category churning

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

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

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

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

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

► What does Category:1995 in the Cold War have to do with Target for Today, as an entirely different user (User:Hugo999) created that category], which is in a valid tree that predates (00:45, 26 December 2007‎) Target for Today's first edit by years. Target for Today (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I meant Category:1974 in the Cold War. Or was it Category:1947 in the Cold War? Category:1951 in the Cold War? You get the idea... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

►Splitting hairs? -- not in the least as the places are all very different. It appears you are mistaking Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and Adams County, Pennsylvania, with the Gettysburg Battlefield--all three are different geographical areas and have different categories with names that match. That's why there are three sets of categories for subtopics, e.g.;

Category:Buildings and structures in Adams County, Pennsylvania

Category:Gettysburg Battlefield buildings and structures

Category:Buildings and structures in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

which are clearly not the same category. For the same reason it is not the same to have Category:Geography of… orCategory:People of,,, categories for each of the 3 different parent categories. To claim they are the same category (or are the same category as any other category) is not true in any way. And of course (despite the false rationalization against) both

Category:People of Adams County, Pennsylvania, in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

are by-definition valid subcategories of the trees with the parents

Category:People of Pennsylvania in the American Civil War

Category:Geography of Pennsylvania by city

that will have full populations when all the existing and future articles have been categorized to them. Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Sorry, but I find all this AN/I "ban him now" behaviour quite intolerable. YES, there is an issue here, but it's not highly disruptive. NO, a topic ban is not the answer, and would be excessive. This "ban now, problem gone" attitude really doesn't do anyone any good, and is pretty immature IMO. I think at most a week or two is needed to restrict this editor from making new categories whilst someone mentors him in the basics. I do accept there is a minor problem, and that something needs to be done soon. I don't accept any form of ban, which is more punitive than anything, as a reasonable solution, without trying other things first and seeing if the editor can adapt. Wiki is supposed to be a community, so where he hell is the community spirit to help educate or advance editors working in good faith, who are apparently knowledgeable about a subject, which has been noted above, instead the typical over-reactive polemic shit that goes on here on AN/I way too much, just to satisfy a few egos but achieves nothing supportive for the editor in question? Who do we place first, the interests of Wiki, or the interests of people making complaints? In this case, I strongly believe this editor was trying work in the interests of Wiki and a topic they are clearly very enthusiastic about. I see no controversy here that poses a threat, I see nothing that can't be tidied up. All he needs is a helping a hand, a couple of weeks tuition, from experienced editors in categorisation methods and on what the standards are. I don't know what they are, sure I know the difference between a trivial and major category, but that's about it. Perhaps he doesn't. Clearly this editor needs similar knowledge to get him on the right track. So perhaps the good people here who are looking for a solution might do better by offering the editor some much needed guidance, before going like a pack of wolves after him. My 2c. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Speaking of "typical over-reactive polemic shit," one such good faith effort by admin Mike Selinker was met with a stream of vitriolic responses and personal attacks at XfD. There's a longer history here with Target for Today than one can glean from this discussion section here, Marcus. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, now we're getting the full story? It helps to know these things from the tee, some of us don't want to go digging through an editor's entire history looking for background. Can you provide diffs on this? Although it sounds like reference to uncivil comments, which bears no relation to category creation, to me, unless there's material suggesting COI or similar. We need to see it to know, though, please. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the behaviour has been highly disruptive is somewhat of a judgment call. For those who work heavily in the categorization system, I can appreciate the view that it has been highly disruptive. I know it has been fairly disruptive at CFD, what with the repeated discussions over the same things over and over again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Tricky to say. Categories are really just a wrapper for articles. Creating them isn't really disruptive. It's the process of discussing whether to keep/delete them that takes time. But then, who to blame, the creator of those categories, or the editor who nominates them for deletion. We can't say that it's highly disruptive, because nothing has been damaged, really. Only the extra work is disruptive, but if the editor really feels they are creating them in good faith, and not anticipating deletion noms, then it is unfair to be dismissive. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I disagree and think that creating categories can indeed be disruptive. Maybe it's not disruptive to you as an editor, but it certainly can be disruptive to WP in general. For instance, User:Pastorwayne was initially banned indefinitely from category creation essentially for disruptive creation of categories. Same story for other editors—it's not a unique phenomenon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just a thought: Is Target for Today even aware they have a personal talk page? Since November 2010 they don't appear to have ever responded to anything on it. Seems odd, does it not? Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, this is one odd character. Marcus, to respond to your request for diffs: you'd be particularly forgiven for not finding them yourself because the comments I'm referring to were made during a brief period when Target stopped editing under his ID and launched a series of personal attacks at XfDs for his creation using an IP. or so I believe. There's a clear pattern of Mike trying to reason with him and being met by personal attacks and incivility here here, here, often embedding personal attacks in the edit summary as well, when all Mike (who I have a lot of respect for) was trying to do was work the issue out. (Mike was so taken aback he opened an SPI that was declined, but a checkuserwould not have matched the IP to Target's account anyway.) I for one believe User:69.46.35.69 was clearly Target, or a meat or sock puppet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I find it kind of difficult to buy that the user would not have figured out his own user talk page yet, especially since the user has participated in CFDs, AFDs, sockpuppet investigations, "Wikipedia talk" space, and another user's talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed. And again, my !vote above was for a block on category creation only, for CfD-related reasons only, just as Good olfactory discusses. I simply don't see this editor as someone open to tutoring in the way Marcus suggests, but if he proves to be, and Marcus or someone might wish to take that on, with positive results, great. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, as I said, I don't work categories myself to know what to teach. Nor would I have the time or patience. Given the lack of SPI matching this IP to TfT, I won't comment on whether I think this is him or his behaviour, that would best be left to an admin. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 00:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've checked his contributions, and there are a few, a very talk messages from him, so one has to assume that he knows about doing that. Of course, unless there's some setting that prevents it, he should be getting notifications of the fifty-odd updates to his own talk page each time he views a Wikipedia page while he's logged in. It's hard not to conclude that he has decided not to bother with that. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion as to whether a topic ban is appropriate for such a string of ill-conceived categories. I would very much like to see Target for Today's (and, if any of the other accounts are his sockpuppets, those accounts') personal attacks on me cease. As far as I can tell, they have ceased for the time being. I have found his behavior and those of the other accounts to be chilling on my desire to close the nominations of the Gettysburg categories, because getting a constant stream of vitriol and accusations doesn't make me want to participate. That said, I probably will still do so, since I try not to let personal feelings get in the way of continuing to help out on CfD.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support a ban on all edits in category space. I have thought for some years that some extra sign of competence should be displayed before people are allowed to create categories. I can create a plausible but useless category in a few seconds and the cfd process takes weeks to uproot it. Eg Target created 8 new categories on 16 Jan and 6 are already at cfd. This is just a waste of time. Oculi (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • This history is older. There are problems as far back as November at least. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• (ec)Yea, I got a notice on my talk page since I have nominated a few of this users category creations. While some categories that I have looked at appear to be OK, the vast majority seem to be ill conceived. So I would be inclined to support a creation ban of some kind. While the current uproar is over categories, has anyone looked at the article creation record? From my browsing of the history, I suspect that a few of these articles will also be suspect. Category creation is very fast and simple. Category deletion/merging/renaming is time consuming and requires an administrators time. Given the backlogs at CfD and other places, adding more work for admins should be discouraged. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I have looked over the articles somewhat. There's been a lot of AfDs for his Gettysburg geo or structure stubs, most of which seem to be getting merged into larger articles. (A merge tag or just boldly going ahead with it would be my preferred course, if possible.) For example, 11th Mississippi Infantry Monument is an article about a block with a plaque, for heaven's sake. Imagine how much more useful it would be for readers if this were integrated into, say, High-water mark of the Confederacy. That's the biggest knock against Target with articles imo: he applies his knowledge to spinning off a myriad of stubs on every ridge, brook, tree, etc. in Gettysburg, it seems, instead of offering readers an integral picture. As with categories, one gets the sense that he is not really considering the best interests of the encyclopaedia or its readers, but rather, some private fascination with his own ordering of things.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I disagree, somewhat. I get the feeling he is using categories more like an "index", expecting readers to view articles in a logical order based on how they are sectioned. The logic makes sense, in a detailed book you would expect to find an index, chapters, sections, headings, but it is not how Wiki works. As I said earlier, the fact that he can create articles quickly but it takes weeks to remove them is not necessarily his fault, but that of the red-tape which Wiki operates behind. I still think you're looking to point fault at the editor here, and it comes across as demeaning rather than AGF. There have been plenty of chances for editors to be WP:BOLD and to merge stubs, request speedy deletion of superfluous categories, etc. A will also note that in some of the CfDs people have voted "keep", so I should caution that the comments made here on AN/I are not entirely supported by everyone. Also, until he responds here, assuming he does (I have left a somewhat frank comment on his talkpage), people should not be speculation too much in his "motivations". Again, AGF, he has done nothing that warrants being shamed, and just because the excess of categories has upset a few editors, we don't make pointy accusations or pre-judgements. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That's good advice and I'll remember it. So let me just say, less dramatically: no, I don't think any action is required for the stub articles, all of which can and should be dealt with easily via Template:Merge or just boldly doing it; AfD has been overused in this case, imo. His categories -- which are often duplicates, empty or nearly so, recreated against community consensus, and time consuming to repeatedly remove -- are a different matter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• I think we are starting to exhaust the possibilities of discussion here, absent contribution from the subject of the report. And that's really where I'm coming from. If he's willing to talk to us, to take direction, to at least communicate, we can work with that. He hasn't been on in several days, so it's also possible he has gone off in a huff. The thing is that if he returns, and ignores all this, and starts recreating this stuff, or picks another subject for the same treatment, we are going to go around this all again; I think at this point he has some obligation to explain himself, get direction, something before he resumes editing. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes.. before we accuse someone of "going off in a huff", let's read [195] where he states "I use Waypoint at a coffee shop where I'm at now and I get here once or twice every week or so (I don't have home internet access)". The problem I see is that he does not respond to his talkpage messages, despite a large number of notifications about things, so he could just as easily ignore the AN/I one, not bother to search the archives for it, if he doesn't login for days, and continue as before, ignorant of the concerns raised (whether intentional or not) which he has made clear he is aware of "Shouldn't someone have posted a notice for me? I didn't get informed of this allegation at my talk page", in the SPI comment [196]. That would mean a block is in order, but again, given his random e-café access, we could block him for, say 24–72 hours and he could totally miss it by not visiting the e-café during the block period. Any longer block would be questionable, and I don't think we do a "you're blocked until you read and respond to this AN/I discussion" hostage-style block. Which makes this editor very hard to communicate with. He doesn't appear to have made "email me" available either, so that someone might try to gain his attention. Hard work, this one. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 18:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocks are meant to do one thing, to prevent disruption. If a block is unlikely to affect an editor then it is of insufficient length. If (for example) an editor seems to edit once a week, then it isn't out of line to block an editor for a week for a first offense after sufficient warnings. We aren't restricted to a rule for a set block length for particular offenses, and administrators are given leave to use their judgement when determining what is an appropriate block length. So I don't think it should be considered out of line to block someone longer than usual because a shorter block won't even be noticed. -- Atama頭 19:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you seem to have missed the point. I'm not saying we need to block him for disruption, because I don't feel he has been that disruptive. I'm saying, we need him to respond to the concerns and engage with people, here or on his talk page. If he continues to ignore the notifications being left, I see no other way of getting him to respond, except by imposing a block and making his talk page the only place he can discuss this problem. But I also see a problem in blocking an editor simply to gain and hold his attention.. seems a bit dramatic. You get my point? The issue was the category creation, now the issue is getting him to acknowledge it and accept that he is not doing things agreeably, and needs to change his approach. I don't see need to topic ban anyone if they can accept they were at fault and refrain from doing it again. The discussion above requests a topic ban as though this guy has done something wrong. But given his lack of response, we can only assume he isn't aware that he is going over the top. What are we really going to do.. topic ban a guy for being enthusiastic? Seems rather draconian. We need him to speak to us, and see if he's willing to back off from over-categorising. If he persists after that, then we have a problem. Editing is like having a driving licence – you get points for speeding before you get a ban, unless it's severe. This is not that severe, and he has not had his say. So it's really just a 1-sided issue from those after his neck. People need to calm down and play fair, it's just a fricking website and a few extra categories aren't going to kill anyone or fry Wiki's servers. Patience is a virtue, sometimes. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 22:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, Marcus, I've never seen you at CfD, and I don't think you have any idea of how much otherwise productive time and energy is wasted by editors who serially create pointless categorization schemes. The are editors on this page, like me, who have done the clean up work. And I have spent many weeks, even months, working with these other editors to get bad categorization schemes cleared up. So on this one point, I disagree strongly with what you're saying. You haven't done the work; you don't know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I think you're over-complicating the matter, and I doubt it's that complex. I see no point in claiming that his contribs make your job harder, when the truth is that the CfD process itself is at fault. I think there has been ample room for merges, speedy deletions, and such if someone had been bold enough to do the merges, flag the empty cats, and be done with it, and not bother with all these nominations. No point blaming an editor working in what they believe is good faith for an inhibiting process they didn't develop. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
            • You can't merge categories without the whole time-consuming CfD process. It doesn't work that way. There is no speedy shortcut. I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm not going to continue this exchange, sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Facepalm I know exactly what I'm taking about, clearly you don't, or I was unclear. I didn't say "merge categories", did I? I was referring to boldly merging the list of trivial stubs that Wild Wolf listed on AfD into the main articles on Gettysburg's battle/battlefield then redirecting them to those parent articles to make them searchable. That would have effectively rendered the categories on insignificant trees and rivers, etc in those stubs redundant, and probably empty if excluded from the main article. Empty categories can be speedy deleted under C1 Unpopulated categories. That would have left relatively few for CfD to worry about. So say again, who doesn't know what they're talking about? The fact remains, this whole clean up process has been handled quite poorly, with a lack of bold initiative, and now people are looking to point blame out of all proportion. It's contemptible. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 03:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Removing articles from categories rendering them empty is not in accordance with due process. There is no quick bold officially sanctioned way of deleting a category. In any case redirects can and should still be categorised: a redirect to a section about a bridge should be categorised as a bridge. Oculi (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages begins, "Most redirects should not be categorized" and stipulates a few exceptions. In the case of these Gettysburg articles those don't apply, as many of the stubs are neither "well known" nor "alternative names", they are simply very trivial mentions of things and redirecting/uncategorising them as such is unlikely to prove as troublesome as CfD. Seems well within the guidelines to me, and any bold editor would have made sense to me if they'd done it that way. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 16:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, instituting a block may be the only way to start a discussion with him. I have been watching this unfold and I haven't seen Target for Today replying to any of the messages on his talk page or on any of the deletion discussions. A temporary bloc might get his attention. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• MarcusBritish, this admin certainly does "blocked until you get your ass over to your talkpage" blocks - communication is key to this project. Also, creating duff categories is hugely disruptive, I had enough of it with a certain previous user that ended up indef blocked. It's like putting library books back on the wrong shelves. He hasn't edited since the 16th, and he has one of Marcus's helpful comments on the page as well as the deletion notices etc, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt - he may be at his sister's wedding or in bed with the flu. However, if he edits anywhere again without responding to the issue at hand, give me a shout and I will block him.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's fair enough. His categories are not "duff" or "misplaced", by the way, that would be an unfair analysis. These are more like a bunch of flimsy pamphlets being shelved between major volumes. He's not creating hoaxes or forks, just over-doing it somewhat. Perhaps he isn't aware that it's not a welcome method, yet. So let's drop any idle speculation and wait and see.. even I'm not hazarding a guess here, as I think his level of interest could prove valuable to American Civil War topics for Military History, if and when he learns to follow the guidelines more closely. Too many keen editors are driven off for making simple mistakes, and too many simple mistakes are blown out of proportion on AN/I. Topic bans are for belligerent or unashamedly disruptive editors, we'll just have to see if he is one of those when he responds. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 01:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I should note that I have been working my way through all of this editor's category creations. While most recommendations to delete or merge are gaining consensus, there are are few exceptions. I'm not bothered if there is consensus to keep something I'm recommending for deletion or merging. But bringing these to a discussion is resulting in some being kept with help from the community to fix the issues that I see. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed, I recommended keeping one category, but in doing so I actually looked through some of the links in the article and found other buildings of the same ilk. But they weren't in Gettysburg, so apparently it wasn't worth the trouble or some other such reason that he didn't categorize them. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Some of Target's category creations are perfectly OK. A majority are both duff and misplaced, as can be seen from User talk:Target for Today which sparkles with red-linked categories. All but a couple which have been at cfd since Oct 2011 are now red-linked and I expect a lot more will be red when open cfds are closed. (Deleted category creations do not appear in an editor's contributions.) Target has been creating categories since 2010 - this is not a novice making naive blunders but an editor paying no attention over a long period to consensus and policy (not to mention a failure to review existing categories, eg creating Category:Armories on 24/01/2001 when there was already Category:Armouries created Dec 09). Moreover it looks to me as if their first ever edit was the creation of Category:World War II air force films (misplaced as there is no Category:Air force films as opposed to Category:Aviation films) promptly renamed at cfd in Nov 2011. A new editor does not begin with a category creation, so Target is quite a veteran. Oculi (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

►Wait a minute--I couldn't create articles prior to creating my Target for Today account, and all my prior edits were without an account! Two years ago I simply saw that the WWII film categories were overpopulated with air force films and saw that there was a category Category:World War II navy films--which still exists! So to create Category:World War II air force films which was a valid sibling, I thought it would be a good opportunity to try my hand at finally creating a page using the navy code. But when I copied the code from Category:World War II navy films and adjusted it for "air force", I couldn't then paste it to a new page until I created an account. So of course it was my first edit as I didn't have any experience creating pages -- I couldn't because I didn't have an account to use!!! Target for Today (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• He's back editing, including category creation. On a related note, he's reverted my edit here, with Target insisting that his administration category Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg be categorized as part of the content tree. Contrary to WP:PROJCATS, I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• [197] Refusing to take notice of the views of other reasonable editors is pretty much always disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Target for Today claims that creating seperate categories for the geographies of Gettysburg, Gettysburg Battlefield, and Adams County is not splitting hairs, which I would dispute. Gettysburg IS part of Adams County, and considering that there are only two articles in the Gettysburg cat and eight in the Adams County cat, having ten articles in a single category can't be that unwiedly. Wild Wolf (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As long as he's discussing it, not dashing out and creating ten more categories that are just going to be deleted. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

He is dashing out and creating more that will be deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Really, this has got to stop. He's creating a bunch more categories, very similar to the type already created that have been deleted. The user either needs to slow down and discuss this or we need some sort of ban on category creation. Can we resolve this? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The article creation is out of hand too. It is easy to find "sources" for almost anything about any Gettysburg facility, monument, creek, crossroads, anything, since the various newspapers in the area, for whatever reason, are all available on-line back well into the 1800s. So for instance (and there are many of these, this was just one created today) we now have Springs Hotel and Horse Railroad created entirely from old newspaper columns; the references are close to the size of the article text. Keeping up with all these— are they notable, can they be combined with some other article, are they being used as the basis for another outburst of category creation— is eating up a lot of time; I am clearly not the only person who is going over his contributions. And the madness is spreading to other subject areas, as he has created a bunch of separate articles on Nike Hercules installations (even though they are all essentially identical) and creating whole "Cold War" category structures on top of that. It's obvious that he can create a decent article, but he really needs to take some direction from other people in using his powers for good. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right, it is getting bad. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. So everyone who has commented save one user has been in favour of something being done to either temporarily or indefinitely stop the user from creating new content. This shouldn't have to drag on much longer, so can someone less involved close this discussion with some sort of resolution? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – despite my having laid down a lot of AFG and fighting off the mob here to await TTTs response, I'm very disappointed. TTT seems to have come online, pissed about with categories for 3 hours, then responded to AN/I without really giving the matter or concerns any direct consideration. Despite a big orange "you have messages" banner, and notices all over his talk page, I don't think we can take this "I'll get round to you in my time" attitude, when this AN/I thread has spend days discussing this. Motion for admin to give TTT a severe warning to TTT advising that he discuss the category creation concerns, not past trivialities. If that fails, go for the topic ban until he does play ball. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 02:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel that TTT already has been warned, many times, about this; giving him yet another warning may or may not do much good. At any rate, I'd say something also has to be done about the dozens of articles he has been creating about the Gettysburg Battlefield, most of which are little more than notices that the place exists (see for example Spangler's Spring, Willoughby Run, and Blocher's Run), while other places which are marginally more informative, like Wheatfield Road, fail to explain why this battlefield feature deserves to have its own article. He has also forked the attacks of individual divisions from the Battle of Gettysburg, Second Day. Lately, he seems to be creating articles on each of the monuments on the battlefield (see Category:Gettysburg Battlefield memorials and monuments). This looks to me like an attempt to cover every possible detail about the battlefield.

I (and others) have alreadly nominated several of his articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cope Truss, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Bryan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excelsior Field, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blocher's Run, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anderson's assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McLaws' Assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnson's assault, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawford's charge). I am asking anyone who agrees with me on this to please vote and/or comment on these pages. I am planning to nominate the articles in the memorials and monuments category for deletion on Tuesday morning; if anyone thinks additional articles from the Category:Gettysburg Battlefield should be deleted as well, perhaps we could nominate these articles as a group.

One last thing: as a consequence of this, perhaps we should establish some notability guidelines for places (similar to the guidelins found here), which hopefully will help solve some of these problems in the future. Wild Wolf (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wild Wolf, see the top of Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) as to why they don't exist at the moment. Consensus, or lack of, doesn't always go against editors, but against safeguarding Wiki too, and results in dragging people down due to lack of guidelines/policy. Where there are much needed missing policies, and consensus failed to provide a solution, there is a lack of sense and we have no one to blame but the detrimental people who made it impossible for a consensus to be formed at the time, whether that's fair or not. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 13:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wild Wolf, you may wish to review WP:CANVASS; exhorting "anyone who agrees with me on this" to go to debates and !vote a particular way is bad form, and likely a violation of policy. State how you feel all you like, but the instant you try to get editors to participate (and do so only for a subset that feels a certain way), it's a problem. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Very, very sorry about the canvassing. My intention was to encourage other editors to get involved in the process. This was a poor choice of words on my part. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• For my part, I dropped in when I saw that Category:Article Rescue Squadron/Wikipedia deletion sorting/Gettysburg was part of Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation), a tracking category for AFD debates (and not categories, articles, or the like). The same category was also placed on an article and its associated Deletion Debate (here for the article and here for the debate). Now you'll also note here that he's essentially using a hardcoded version of the recently deleted {{rescue}}, which may or may not be problematic. I don't know that a block is warranted, if he's discussing matters - but he absolutely needs to stop creating categories and engage in discussion about these issues. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• If they are commenting here but ignoring the issues raised, is that really discussing? Does that merit taking a community block off the table? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a very clear consensus here for a block, and as such I have blocked Target for Today indefinitely. Note that I very intentionally mean indefinite, and very much do not mean infinite. If Target for Today would simply start talking instead of barreling ahead, and actually address the concerns of people here and at CSD, there is a reasonable chance that this editor could remain a part of the community. But since the editor showed us today that they are fully aware of the discussion yet are not only choosing to ignore the substance of it but also to go ahead with the disputed creation anyway, I don't see any way other than a block to stop the drain on community resources caused by the disruptive category creation. I'm not going to close this section myself, as I'm willing to hear the input of other editors (or trouts, if you prefer). Additionally, people may wish to propose unblock conditions, though it may simply be easier to wait and see if some other response is forthcoming. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible limit to category creation block?

CfD seemed to me to be the primary concern of most commenters, here, so I'm a bit surprised to see that the block includes article creation, too. I thank Qwyrxian and everyone for their participation, but I must ask, at the risk of exhausting people's patience, if there's significant support for limiting this block to category creation? While TfT seems to be equally non-responsive to discussing his articles, those articles, in themselves, aren't problematic in the way the categories have been, seems to me. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would have originally agreed with you on this, but especially given activity over the past weekend and a look at some of the larger categories he's created, it seems to me that there is also a problem with him fragmenting articles (e.g. the urge to make a separate article on every little movement/attack in the larger Battle of Gettysburg, most of which require the context of the battle as a whole to be understood). I think he needs to talk to others about this too. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, and the lack of any comments in support of my own suggests that the community agrees with you, and is satisfied with the action taken, at least for now. If that remains so, this lengthy discussion should probably be marked as resolved and archived, imho. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My thinking was that before we can consider any editing restrictions like a topic ban, first the user has to show that they're capable of and willing to listen and collaborate. Should xe give such assurances, I think that discussing lighter approaches is fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I find that typically when I or other users find themselves in this type of situation, we just want the problem to go away. We try to come up with the fairest way of fixing the problem, but if it goes away because of some more extreme action that is taken, we are just as happy. Most users are probably just happy the category creation by TfT has stopped. They may not realize he was indefinitely blocked. I'm happy the problem has been dealt with, but I am wondering if an indefinite block is too much. I can support what was done, so long as the block is lifted relatively easily once TfT expresses some desire to work with others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary and questionable sources

I find myself engaged in somewhat of an slow-motion edit war with user Wee Curry Monster talk at Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. There are severe problems with the edit he tries to impose, which is:

"The American consul protested violently against the seizure of American ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his claim against the US Government for compensation (rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885) Luis Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo, where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers."

While it adds more detail to the article, compared to current version, it presents the disagreement based on WP:PRIMARY sources, as rightly noted by Senra (Talk) (and agreed by Nev1 (talk)) in this talk page section.

I take a pause here to state that I've learned a while ago to not to respond to WCM's personal attacks. He calls me "a disruptive editor", so he usually focus on me instead of the issue. And I've learned that going that way (commenting about editors) is fruitless and poisoning.

As a result from Senra's advice, we started gathering secondary sources at the end of that section. While it was easy to find secondary sources stating that looting and destruction of private buildings occurred (one of them even explicitly saying "There seems to be no substantial controversy over the basic facts of the intervention, although President Jackson transformed them substantially in his Annual Message to Congress"), sources presented by WCM are questionable because:

[I'm not going into this discussion because it's not relevant at this point]

Even if he would have succeed in providing secondary, reliable sources explicitly stating that the civilians were not affected by the incursion, he is still pushing for his original text, which presents the primary sources' versions. I've reverted him three times now, in the last 30 days, and he seems to neglect the concerns raised about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources. What I'd wish from this petition here is that WCM acknowledges that article content cannot be based on primary sources (specially in contentious matters), and desists from introducing the text above. I apologize beforehand if this is not the place to seek for help, as I'm (relatively speaking) new to Wikipedia and this kind of conflicts. --Langus (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty basic: between a primary source and a secondary source covering that primary, always prefer the secondary. Contrasting a primary against a secondary is essentially OR, unless there's a secondary detailing the differences between the primary and other secondaries. Otherwise, the contrast has to be made and argued by the editor. We can't do that. It's like the police report says one thing, and we see something else in the evidence. Unfortunately, we're not the detectives, so nothing we can say is admissible to the court. To stretch a metaphor. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Several years ago, I noticed this was a serious problem with many GA and even FA-class articles. If someone wants to put together an investigative committee to look into this problem, I might be interested in helping out. Although I can't remember the name of it at this time, there was a FA-class anime-related article that was written from primary sources with little guidance from the secondary. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Talk:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

As stated by the OP, around two months ago I did indeed attempt to mediate this long running content dispute by pointing out to the primary editors the difficulties of using primary sources. I thought the issues had settled down. It seems they are continuing. I note that Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has come up again; I recommend that this source should be taken to the WP:RSN to obtain a consensus on its reliability. I also note that Mabuska (talk · contribs) is a recent editor of the article who has not been informed of this incident post; I have taken the liberty of doing so --Senra (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Tatham's dictionary of Falklands Biography has been at WP:RSN in this thread. Reading that thread now, the RS nature of that source does seem to have been obfuscated and it was not the primary reason for that RSN post. I recommend it is taken there again --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know why i am mentioned at all in regards to this. I've only made one edit to the article (and none in the talk) and that was a good faith edit in regards to the use of a non-English language name in brackets in an article where it seems totally out of place considering this is the English Wikipedia and the place name in use is officially in English. Please don't drag uninvolved editors into this source discussion. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Mabuska: I only included you for completeness as you have edited recently and thought you might be interested. No matter and sorry to bother you --Senra (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not so much a content dispute as Langus trying to game the system to remove some content he doesn't like. As part of Argentina's claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, it claims that in 1831, the USS Lexington destroyed the settlement formed by Luis Vernet at Port Louis. The sources actually conflict on this, Vernet claims the entire settlement was destroyed, the US record from the log of the Lexington states that guns were spiked and a powder store destroyed. Langus wishes to remove the latter from the article substituting it with additional content from sources backing up the Argentine version of events. WP:NPOV requires we represent all significant viewpoints in the article. I'm sorry to bring content to ANI but its only by explaining the facts around content does it become clear that there is a POV agenda here. The material is sourced, the sources are not questionable, the sources used are not being used to source controversial or disputed material. These are red herrings to cover up a POV agenda. The source he is disputing was written by Professor John B Hattendof D Phil FRHist S., at the time of publication the Ernest J King Professor of Maritime history, US Naval War College. He is claiming this is unreliable and questionable. Tatham is not being used to cite a controversial or dispited fact. The text is in fact lifted from another wikipedia article - Falkland Islands.

Langus is disruptive, this is the second time he has dragged me to WP:ANI over a content dispute [198], he see WP:DR as a means to filibuster discussions till he gets the exact content he desires and his content proposals favour Argentina's sovereignty claim over the islands. [199] you'll note that he has changed the article to his favoured version and the information from the log of the Lexington removed, the article totally favouring the Argentine version of events. So he reverts then comes to ANI trying to game the system into keeping his preferred text. You'll also note my last edit was nearly two weeks ago, this was a stale issue. Langus has not commented in talk since 26 November 2011.

Its not as if this is the only article he has behaved disruptively on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands,Luis Vernet,Falklands War,ARA General Belgrano,Falkland Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute . As I note here [200] the contribution history is odd, with an account registered in 2007 making no substantive contribution till 2011. I think this is a sleeper account for the blocked disruptive editor User:Alex79818, who co-incidentally decided to restart his disruptive IP edits on Falklands topics this weekend. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the use of primary sources; it's in interpreting primary sources, or using them for value judgements ("best", "greatest", etc.) that we run into trouble. In this case, where Argentinean sources, which are secondary sources, state one thing, and American, primary sources, another, removing the primary sources "because they're not secondary sources" reduces the article to a non-neutral state. That said, I'd presume there'd have to be some sort of secondary source mentioning the Lexington's account of the affair, doesn't there? But until it's found there's no reason to remove the information from the article "just because it's a primary source". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bushranger. The bolded sentence above seems to be a fairly simple statement of facts, is there any particular interpretation of it that WCM is making Langus? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Bushranger. If there is not a secondary claiming the information in the primary, how would one judge the reliability of the primary, or its importance in a POV? Surely there's a secondary. Also agree with Chimpmunkdavis that it is a fairly simple statement of facts, and want to know Langus' problem with the statement more specifically. That he hasn't commented in the talk page of that article is distressing. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Comment below makes a better point. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• The use of primary sources in historical articles does not fly, see WP:HISTRS, and the repeated rejection of primaries for historical articles at WP:RS/N Fifelfoo (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And again WCM has slung accusations all over the place, effectively shifting the focus of this matter to a person (me). I'll say this again: if I'm really the 'monster' you say I am, then what are you waiting for to open a RfC on me?? Or maybe a new SPI? Anyone can see that verbose Alex79818 and me have two very different writing styles, yet you still insist with this.

I brought this here because, as I said, there's a slow edit war going on. Bushranger, have you read the talk page? These are not "Argentinean sources": Barry M. Gough,[201] Lowell S. Gustafson,[202] Harold F. Peterson,[203] etc.; every source I could find (secondary sources) adhere to Vernet's version, which is that the settlement was pillaged. The only secondary source presented by WCM that depicts the Lexington 's version is former governor of the Falklands David Tatham, in his Dictionary of Falklands Biography which was already taken to WP:RSN and its use was discouraged in contentious matters. Chipmunkdavis, if we present a disagreement of primary sources, when secondary sources largely agree that only one of them is true, then we're giving too much WP:WEIGHT to a WP:FRINGE theory, effectively failing WP:NPOV guidelines. Please note that I'm not saying that there is no support for the Lexington version, but so far WCM hasn't presented evidence of this. That he previously included that text in another WP article (Falkland Islands) is no reason to automatically spread it across the whole site.

@Xavexgoem: why do you say I didn't comment in the Talk page??? Don't believe everything you hear... Talk:Re-establishment_of_British_rule_on_the_Falkland_Islands#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources -> Ctrl+F -> Langus <enter>

Also note that I'm not removing content, it's WCM who wants to add it. --Langus (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it an interesting fact in itself that the Lexington's log underreported the situation. Regarding the edit war, hopefully it has now stopped with the tag. If the original version is the one without, then yes, per WP:BRD spirit it should stay there till talkpage discussion ends (now it has started). Your interpretation of the primary conflict agrees with mine. I suggest you both trout yourselves for the slow edit war without talkpage, without WP:3O, etc, and follow DR now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:BRD I should be reverting Langus for him to start the Discussion, the text was there unchallenged for 2 weeks, its been in the Falkland Islands far longer and was the subject of an RFC in June 2011, that rejected Langus' claims. He is raising the same issue, repeatedly on multiple articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Content has been there without challenge for 2 weeks, it has been on Falkland Islands for far longer. By any convention on wikipedia there is a consensus for its inclusion. This has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE or WP:WEIGHT its about WP:NPOV and an editor seeking to re-inforce an Argentine position rather than presenting all opinions in the literature. As I point out in the talk page, I have access to the sources quoted above and Langus is misleading by omission. Several of the sources quoted present both opinions, eg Gustafson, but he presents a selective quotation from that source to support only one side of events.

The Log of a US warship and a respected US historian are definitely not WP:FRINGE sources. He is removing content, he is vetoing inclusion of the US version of events.

He doesn't answer the point he has not commented in talk since 26 November; pointedly he tries to obfuscate the fact. And again he doesn't respond in the talk page. The most specious of arguments is that consensus text conforming to WP:V and WP:RS can't be moved from one article to another. He is being disruptive, one only has to look at his contribution history to see that, as he instigates conflict on every article he edits. WP:BOOMERANG is clearly in effect. The same thing that happened when he attempted to remove the same content on Falkland Islands with an RFC [204] that was unsuccessful. This is an issue that was already raised and settled. I just want to quote one comment in that RFC:

“ Langus' behavior is a bit unsettling and reverting cited edits without rationale certainly does not create an atmosphere where an RFC can function properly. I'm not privy to Falkland disputes and don't have a vested interest in the topic but reading through Curry's edits it seems his contributions are fair and meticulously sorted. Informal mediation is probably a better route to solve this dispute because an RFC will get you nowhere at this point IMO. ”

And he is raising exactly the same points again on another article, he reprises the same argument time and time again. This is the very epitomy of disruptive and tendentious editing. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

False: the text was introduced in the article for the first time almost three months ago as you can see here. Then you waited for a month and pushed for it again. Since then I've been reverting you, and if I didn't have the time to seek for help in the last 2 weeks that doesn't mean that you have 'won' consensus. It doesn't matter if the text was on another article for 1, 3 or 7 years, because that same time the original text remained unchallenged in the real article in question, which is Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands; that is the consensus to which WP:BRD refers to. And it doesn't matter because if we discover an error in an article we must be capable of correcting it, even if it sat there for years.

"He has not commented in talk since 26 November": maybe because no one else did? I'm right there now.

"This is an issue that was already raised and settled": false, this is the first time that concern has been raised about the validity of that primary source.

"And he is raising exactly the same points again on another article": which one??

You know what is disruptive? You attacking me on every page, as you do here, here and here, instead of addressing the WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR concerns raised originally by uninvolved editors. --Langus (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See Falkland Islands#History to 1982 where I copied the text from. See also Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 12#RfC: USS Lexington paragraph. It should be one of the best sentences in wikipedia with every single word being scrutinised as it has. The text was agreed in June 2011 as a result of the RFC started by Langus. He is claiming my comments are false, the written record shows they are not.

He wishes to reprise the discussion and go over every word again, with the same piece of text on Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands. Is that by the very definition of the word tendentious? Calling tendentious conduct tendentious, highlighting a failure to use WP:TALK and now he claims that "It's not enough to be present in the literature" regarding content.

As I pointed out earlier, this was a stale issue, with the article stable for nearly 2 weeks. He reverted and ran straight to ANI, this is clearly gaming the system and tendentious conduct. Its the second time I've been dragged to ANI by Langus. Could someone please close this drama fest? Wee Curry Monster talk 19:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you can have the last word. Next time I'll just request wikiquette assistance in the very moment you start the defamation process. --Langus (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hang on... if you copied the text from Falkland Islands#History to 1982, did you give proper attribution? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did but your point is? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Name-calling accusations

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

Userlinks added for admin convenience Jasper Deng (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm human, and enough is enough. I've been accused on an article Talk page, of calling two editors names, "Asshats" and "Idiots" here, which I did not do, ever, anywhere. (I would never do that.) I'm looking for some fairness here; to be falsely accused of this on a WP article Talk page, is really out of line. It seems very not right to me, abusive, even violent. Am I supposed to just absorb it? Is this Wikipedia norm? Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, can we move past this petty forum drama and focus on actually improving the Chess articles on Wikipedia? I've gone out of my way to ignore your personal attacks before. The one time I finally respond to defend myself, you immediately make 3 incendiary posts in 12 minutes on the Talk Page about it, another post on the Admin Board for Edit warring, a post on Jasper Deng's page, AND this particular topic on the Admin board about it? Come on, I don't even have anything personal against you. I had intended to just ignore your further provocations on the Talk page too, but since you've brought it here, I'm forced to respond. Congratulations. Anyways, you're correct; you never called Jasper Deng an "asshat". I apologize. You only called him a "dick", a "weasel", "insufferable", accused him of writing "B.S.", and noted he was "unable to learn anything or admit any mistake". I'm sorry that my memory for insults is not more accurate. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we have a WP:BOOMERANG here. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you know the concept even has its own theme song?[205] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Notified. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer your questions: yes and yes, respectively. Also, duck. Danger ^{High voltage!} 05:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

CPL, you're not sorry about anything – not buying it. You deliberately manufactured a scathing lie. Hello. That's slander. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding legal threats to your resume, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's the other way around here. Don't blame him or I when an admin comes to sully your (Ihardlythinkso's) clean block log. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

CPL, I would personally never fabricate a lie, as you did, against anyone. But that's me. Clearly, you blame "poor memory", but I'm not buying that, you said I used names "Asshat" and "Idiots" repeatedly. I never used them once. Where do you get off? You can make up anything and accuse? No matter how vicious and untrue? Sorry, not taking it. You crossed a bad line. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you don't stop making these comments in blatant violation of WP:AGF, WP:STICK, WP:IDHT, you, not him will be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Take a break from Wikipedia until you can agree to follow these, because otherwise the WP:BOOMERANG will hit you even harder. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, I have no problem dropping the issue, but I would like something done. Think about it: how could CPL's excuse, poor memory, account for the fact he accused me of using a name like "Asshats"?! That makes no sense; is not plausible by any stretch. Is this type of thing allowed to just coast on WP?! What expectation can I have about this? It is not a safe environment here if a user can fabricate and accuse and get away scott free. I'll stop and listen to what you have to say re expectations. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, look at your own behavior. Do you think your dispute with me at Desperado (chess) is in agreement with your comment here? Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're saying that somehow I deserve or should accpet CPL's false and fabricated accuastions of name-callng based on our interations on Desperado (chess), I wholly reject that logic. To fabricate something vicious and false is something altogther different, Jasper. Perhaps you are not objective in this case here and should recuse yourself. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, if you wanted to take some sort of action against me back at Desperado (chess), you should have done it then. To hold a grudge and let it color what's happening now, is a kind of logic that leads to, let's say, a complicated and unfair mess, unsupportable by any reasonable kind of path-plan. (What if you held grudges on everyone forever, and used them to weigh in on any current event, repeatedly, forever, as a plan of fairness? That idea is full of dysfunction and collapses on its own weight. Is that your plan?) I think you might be less objective here than you should be, overlapping past grudges onto current things happening *now*. Bad. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For crying out aloud. If you are going to exchange insults over an article, at least try to find one where it actually matters. The 'dispute' at Desperado (chess) seems to be over whether a '!' is justified for a move, or whether it deserves a '?' (or possibly a '??'). At least where I overstep WP:CIVIL I have the common decency to do it over something that actually matters. Can I suggest you read Life, and then try to get one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I decided that I was not going to open a WQA for Ihardlythinkso. I pointed it out because that's my first bad interaction with him and it shows that his attitude towards Wikipedia hasn't changed since then. My point here is that Ihardlythinkso, like you pointed out, is devoting too much of his time on the project to this dispute at the moment. Speedy close for this thread, please!. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It mattered. And you were not involved. (It is easy to render criticism from afar, when you are not involved.) Apparently, your issues have vastly more importance. Please let us know what they are, so we can make up our own minds on that, okay? It is so *easy* to insult and tell someone: "get a life". Easy and cheap. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a cesspool of a magnet (or magnet of a cesspool) dumping-ground for insults here. Anyone else like to drop a few cheap insults, to make themselves feel better? Feel welcome and okay about it, others have preceeded you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, since you asked, a few questions. Has anyone ever died as a result of a lack of chess? Has anyone ever died of a chess overdose? Has anyone ever started a war over a chess match, or stopped one to play chess? Do chess pieces have their own places in the periodic table? Is the right to play chess written into the universal declaration of human rights? Is there no God but chess, and is Bobby Fisher (or whoever) his prophet? Or is it just a game where grown men spend a great deal of time thinking about how they can defeat another grown man in an arbitrary contest which has no more significance to long-term history than tiddlywinks or bog-snorkelling? Please provide citations... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If chess was as trivial as you say, why would the USSR for over four decades make it a testament to their superiority over the West? Why would the Fischer–Spassky match be made tantamount to the fate of the Cold War? Korchnoi wrote a book titled "Chess is My Life" – go ask him about it. And watch the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" for a clue what it means that chess = Art. People can live and die, 7 billion people will die in the span on one lifetime, so what? But without art (and ethics), life (I think) is meaningless. And don't worry, there will always be wars. (Man is constantly at war, just like the ant. It is in our DNA. So what?) There can be justice on the chessboard – tell me anywhere, or any time, there is equal justice in real life, where humans rule. Your view of history is in your own valued self-defined paradigm. Apparently to you wars outline that paradigm. Whereas I think wars are boring and just a predicatable outcome of DNA programming. Zzzzzz... You're evidently not a player, so you couldn't know. Chess does not need me to defend it (did you think so?). Nice to meet you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC) p.s. Chess pieces are definitely not in the periodic table – don't be silly. (But, I think the pawn is in there somewhere; near Uranium!?)

Massive fights over trivial matters remind me of this Dilbert entry:[206] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If this were an edit war it would easily fall under WP:LAME. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you there. Maybe it should get its own special entry somewhere so Ihardlythinkso can look back on it and wonder why they raised a Hurricane Katrina in a thimble. Blackmane (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My goodness. Everyone stop typing and go get a cup of tea. Ihardlythinkso, have two cups; if you intend to behave belligerently, don't be suprised if you get some mild push-back. Everyone else, stop antagonizing Ihardlythinkso; he's clearly too worked up to handle discussion of his behavior at the moment. Perhaps a WQA is in order, but not today. Danger ^{High voltage!} 07:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. (My weakness, is that I will respond to stuff thrown at me. No matter if it brings death to me. I don't care. Ethics & Art surpass death. Baseball Buggs, is there a song about that?! Shucks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think The Archies might have recorded one with that theme. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You called people horrible names, someone responded by making a good-faith mistake (getting one of your insults wrong, and that's all it was, a good-faith mistake), and you come here talking of deliberate concoctions of lies. There is nothing "ethical or artistic" (to paraphrase you) about that. People make mistakes, they get words wrong. That's not lying; that's simple error, and it's part of human nature. We are fallible creatures, and it's folly to ascribe to malice what should be ascribed to simple human failings that we all - yes, even you - suffer from.

My suggestion to you? Stop provoking other editors. Insults like the ones in your edit history combined with this report give a strong impression of provoking people into attacking you, then crying "victim" when they do; that form of self-victimization gets up people's backs. You're not scaring away timid editors by being "blunt", you're making regular everyday editors wonder if interacting with you is worth the hassle. Honesty and politeness go very well together. (And to be honest, when someone is insulting over something as inconsequential in the long run as an edit to a Wikipedia article, my first thought is that they have something to hide and are using rudeness to try to scare me away. I'm probably not the only person with that reaction.) --NellieBly (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not call people horrible names. Please specify where I did that, so all can see. Otherwise, this is a mistaken exaggeration. Please back up what you've accused. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"someone responded by making a good-faith mistake (getting one of your insults wrong, and that's all it was, a good-faith mistake)" The fact is, CPL accused that I *repeatedly* called Jasper Deng and Elen of Roads "Asshats" and "Idiots". If he thought he knew that, that I used those names against others repeatedly, when I did not ever use those names ever, then that is quite a huge memory problem. I do not think any reasonable person would believe that it was a memory problem, as you are asserting. Especially, the uncommon weird name "Asshats", which is rather unique (I've never even heard of that name in my entire life). No reasonable person would believe his claim of memory problem, given these facts, IMO. I think it is a big stretch to defend his chosen excuse, a BIG one that you go out of your way to make. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"you come here talking of deliberate concoctions of lies. There is nothing 'ethical or artistic' (to paraphrase you) about that." I believe the excuse "memory problem" was a lie, yes, for reasons stated, and I think any reasonable person would agree. Being ethical is not the same as being infallible, I never claimed infallibility on anything. You want me to accept the unreasonable excuse on "good faith" in order to prove I am ethical?! When CPL hasn't said a word and others come rushing to defend him, no matter how unreasonable the argument? I'm sorry, that just does not square with me. It is not reasonable. (If CPL could elaborate how he came up with "Asshats" and "repeatedly", then there might be a reasonable basis to believe him. But to just throw the excuse out there, and then let others come rushing in to attack me, is not right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I know that humans are fallible. I am fallible. I do not need the lecture. What you're basically saying, is that no one ever may accuse another editor of lying, on Wikipedia. (Confirm that you believe that.) Even if any reasonable person would conclude that, given the facts. "Asshats" is a pretty unique name. Saying I used it "repeatedly" is ... what? A "memory failure"? This is not reaosnable. But I'll agree that accusations of lying, may not be supported or permitted on Wikipedia. Is that what you're saying? Because I can accept that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the implications of that standard. (What is to stop editor XYZ, from going aroud whenever he or she feels like, telling other editors: "I resent that you swore at me and said xxxxxxx to me repeatedly!" And then when the accused editor complains, the accuser blames "memory failure", and then does the same thing again later, to the same or different editors? When do you draw the line and disbelieve the "memory failure" excuse? Only when a pattern has been established? Is that the standard then – a pattern prerequisite?)

"provoking people into attacking you, then crying 'victim' when they do; that form of self-victimization gets up people's backs". I really reject that line of logic. You are basically assuming a posture of blaming the victim. ("She was raped and it was her fault because the dress she was wearing was suggestive.") The fact is, I expect the same kind of protection from abuse that any other editor expects from WP, not thing more or less. And if I am at fault for violating WP policy re attacks, then please charge me and punish me, I accept that too. But do so farily, in both directions. That is fundamental fairness, and I don't have to defend it, it is obvious in principle. It's my belief CPL fabricated a viscious accusation, I don't buy his "memory problem" excuse, but you're saying I need to accept the viciousness because I myself have been a "bad boy". Oh gosh. Then why wasn't I prosecuted for that earlier? We have a trial and no jury, just denegrading comments and taunts, in it's place, and that is okay? Wonderful. If I did something wrong, then charge me when it happens. I've done nothing outside WP policy and given no comments to others that didn't seem to me appropriate. I cannot control others hurt feelings, and you seemingly want to make me responsible for any slight someone might feel at any time in the past, without prosecution, but to assume guilt, and accept any denegration now and in future for what I "have done". It's not an acceptable formula. It's pretyt messed up, IMO. Charge me with something if I commit a violation of policy. Don't hold grudges and use them to allow bullies to spit and slander and kick and punch and throw dirt and tease and taunt and name-call and etc., and then justify it all in your mind. That lacks fundamental fairness. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"You're not scaring away timid editors by being 'blunt', you're making regular everyday editors wonder if interacting with you is worth the hassle." And that is all supposition on your part. People are adults here, and I don't go around thinking and worrying all day long, on how I might possibly be responsible how everyone around me may "feel" at every given moment, and take on that kind of self-burden/guilt-trip – which would be both irrational to do, and crazy-making. I never said I was perfect. You are attemting to make me responsible for being perfect as though I am some kind of magical god who can ensure no one has the slightest bad moment in their day. I respect adults who think independently and have some resiliancy and strength. I refuse to go around on eggshells so that perhaps someday you might not disapprove of something I might say that perhaps gave someone an uncomfortable moment because of their own psychology. Look what you're saying. "Be perfect or expect the worst." That isn't reasonable or fair, or beneficial for anyone. It's not even healthy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"when someone is insulting over something as inconsequential in the long run as an edit to a Wikipedia article, my first thought is that they have something to hide and are using rudeness to try to scare me away. I'm probably not the only person with that reaction." That's genuninely interesting; thank you for offering that! (However, it doesn't apply to my complaint in this incident. I complained about an editor deliberately fabricating mean & nasty accusations about names I called other editors, then posting it on an article Talk page. I don't see any connexion, but thank you nevertheless.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out very early on with a reference to Talk:Desperado (chess)#"Obviously, Black had better moves", you've said someone is 'insufferable' and 'insufferable, incurable' and a 'WP:WEASEL' (which doesn't make any sense, try reading what you're linking to) and a WP:DICK and said they write 'B.S.' and were 'unable to learn anything or admit any mistake' (repeated accusations of being unable to admit a mistake in fact). While not noted earlier, another accusation was some acts like a 'WP cop'.

As others have said, it seems to be true you never said someone was an 'asshat' or an 'idiot' directly, but when you've said so many insulting things about others, it's easy to imagine someone may not remember correctly what insults you have used. Even if it is true that it wasn't a genuine mistake, there's no way we're going to know that unless the person admits it themselves. (A history of accusing people incorrectly may be something we can look in to, one or a series of related instances is not.) So there's nothing else to do but accept it may have been a genuine mistake and move on constructively. Definitely accusing people of slander is a bad idea since as has been pointed out, that carries the air of a legal threat which is a real nono on wikipedia. (It also doesn't help your case when you're saying someone slandered you by 'deliberately manufactured a scathing lie', when it's easily possible the person simply misremembered what was said so you've effectively accused someone of doing something serious without clear evidence.)

AFAIK, I have little experience with either of you and I'm definitely not involved in chess articles. But having read comments from both parties here and in the other thread, relying solely on what they actually said, not what others said about them, I have little sympathy with your POV. (Which seems to be the case for most uninvolved parties here and elsewhere.) In other words, repeating what's been said, please consider whether your approach helps communication with others, or harms it. Even if you can't see it yourself, the evidence from the way others have responded should tell you.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone did call someone else an idiot or an asshat, then it's a WP:NPA, although not likely blockable (yet) - it's also directly traceable through their edit history. To accuse someone of saying something that they didn't, and is not traced through their edit history is uncivil. To accuse a random person on the internet of saying something is not slander or libel. WP:WQA is where we help peopel communicate civility. If all y'all are having trouble gaining WP:CONSENSUS on an article, incivility and personalization of the situation won't help anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

jennifer granholm

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.

The Wikipedia page about Jennifer Granholm has an in accurate claim without any citation or source. It seems to be a clear half-hearted attempt by someone to discredit a politician they do not support. It is quoted as follows

"While she was Governor, Site Selection magazine repeatedly named Michigan one of the top three states in the country for recruiting new businesses and projects. Michigan was also twice recognized by The Pew Center on the States as one of the best-managed states in the nation.[46] According to the Gallup Job Creation Index, Michigan led the country in the improvement of job market conditions between 2009 and 2010.[47] However, over this same period, Michigan also reached its highest unemployment rate ever, and was the highest unemployment rate in the entire nation.[citation needed]"

The last sentence in that portion of the article is both none-sensicle and vague, there also does not appear to be any source material to support it. How can it be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.2.241 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Excise the unsourced section, copy it to the talk page, explain why you deleted it and invite someone to restore it only if they can provide a reliable source. Manning (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Or just delete it as unreferenced and go from there. But the talk page of the article is definitely where to go with this. Doc talk 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalizm by Woe90i

The user Woe90i is vandalizing pages. He is removing information from pages with each and every edit that he makes. Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivalik_class_frigate&action=historysubmit&diff=473073729&oldid=472263015
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076710&oldid=472526203
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentine_Air_Force&action=historysubmit&diff=473071349&oldid=472973946
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076058&oldid=472886274
All his history reveals such removal of content at his whims and fancies. Why no action has been taken against this vandal?

Tonnyn (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the correct place for this in future. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For now, please read WP:VANDALISM and familiarise yourself with the definition. The diffs you have posted here are not vandalism, the editor is simply removing content he believes to be inappropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. If you don't want to see it that way, it will not. He is not simply removing it with full knowledge of what he is doing. Sourced content. Take the example of Shivalik class frigate displacement. Tonnyn (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

At initial glance at least, it appears that the complainant (Tonnyn (talk · contribs)) is a sock of Fulldisplacement (talk · contribs), who is also a sock of another user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And you failed to notify the editor, which I've done for you. Although this whole discussion should be closed. The only purpose it might serve is to counsel a new editor (the OP).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.Tonnyn (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The sockmaster is apparently Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs), who has a recurring history of edit-warring in articles about ships. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is about articles.Tonnyn (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Why Wikiepdia is so biased and racist? An issue is raised about articles being vandalized and you're discussing about something else. Can't you people address the issue?Tonnyn (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Another one, who knows only to mock. Who made you Admin? You lack the basic qualities to be one.Tonnyn (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, sockpuppets come in all races, colors, and previous conditions of servitude. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that one reason for this creation of socks itself is because of racism and prejuice within Wikipedia towards people who are not from Western nations, especially British. I have argued about Britain not being a great power and since that day I'm a a sock. So the ones who are not worthy to be inside are inside and the ones who are supposed to be inside are outside and socks. This is called racism. Pure racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI requested, others who know more specifics comment there. Calabe1992 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably should have linked. Calabe1992 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Admins neglecting the vandalism by Woe90i? Is this not bias and racism?Tonnyn (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's none of the above. Calabe1992 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. He vandalizes the pages that are not British. And write all stupid things remove info and some admins support him and vanquish who complaint. This is bias and this is racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is racism, because it's done to people who are not British. This is going on for a long long time. Need to put an end to such bias and racism in Wikiepdia.Tonnyn (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I revert people who aren't British. In fact, I'm not British. Am I a vandal? Calabe1992 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not like that. There is a british group that does such thing. They do it together. Tonnyn (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't believe you honestly think we'll buy that. Calabe1992 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is. They do protect the likes of Woe90i. It's done with high handedness. I know it very well. I experienced it. No rules are followed just remove you. That's how it works. Then that person is a sock and will not be able to complaint and his complaint is invalid. This is happening in Wikipedia.Tonnyn (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What has a ship's tonnage got to do with racism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A ton, apparently. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll never know, he's -blocked and pending CU. Calabe1992 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he's been shipped out, so any answer from him will have to come from his next load of cargo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You too? Brutus?Werestep (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, Dave, etc do indulge in such gang activities. Dave is very famous Admin.Werestep (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he got back to port in record time. Is there some way to put his underlying IP in drydock for awhile? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

God knows how many socks are out there -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Calabe1992 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a rangeblock would take out half of India. They do kinda come with a big neon light on the top saying 'sock'. Just tag 'em and bag 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it's a sock, I gave it a full on block. He can appeal through his master account (or not). Rklawton (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Kronprinsessavictoria

User is posing as "Crown Princess Victoria" (of Sweden) and has only edited articles about her and her family, adding remarkable genealogical info. I am not able to evaluate h sources, but have just done my best to clean up what I do not feel is relevant or notable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with revert

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

---

See [207]; I can't revert the vandalism on this page as clicking anywhere on the page in question results in a redirect to the Wiki image of autofellatio. Can someone take care of that? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying but haven't found the revision w/out it yet. Calabe1992 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Princess Derpy"", a few threads up, knows about this. Doc talk 03:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is behaving normally for me. I have IE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thing, but now after a series of reverts (and ultimately reverting back to the way it was before I came in), it's gone. Very odd. Calabe1992 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I went back a month in the revisions, and nothing was added that gave the impression the page would do this. Nothing that was viewable in the diffs anyways. This warrants further investigation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is very odd (and somewhat concerning). Your original link isn't even doing it anymore. Someone else reverted vandalism (that I accidentally restored), but it had nothing to do with the foul image link. Calabe1992 03:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't stuff like this generally turn out to be a template that's been vandalized? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Sounds kind of like the type of hack that the infamous Grawp would do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec2)I reverted back to a version earlier this month. Not sure what happened but if I can, I'll try and see what happened. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we do a Checkuser on users Onlyspeak, Noggin2when and Coolkidxc? I've also taken care of some vandalised templates when I found out that clicking anywhere on the Vaporware page leads to the obscene image in question. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've requested protection of the image. The vandals appear to possibly be 175.200.112.221 and 68.188.152.27, per the file's history. Calabe1992 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is happening on several pages. See this one, too. Killiondude (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(c/e) No need for checkuser. Blocked the two first accounts, the third one had nothing to do with it. Will protect templates. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From the above diff, it's showing it's inserted via some <div></div> thing. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the other accounts used the same obscene image. And another thing: could this be yet another /b/tard attack? Blake Gripling (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That or some serial vandal. I find the former more likely. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've upped all the accounts to a total Avada Kedavra if you guys know what I mean. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that they do delight in schadenfreude and obscenity. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the two IPs who removed the bad image tag just wrote something totally irrelevant on my talk page. I don't know what they're doing. Calabe1992 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone figure out which template was vandalized to insert the image link to begin with? I checked most of the ones on Tulsa. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be Template:Col-1-of-3 (1 to 3). Elockid ^(Talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Not counting the one Killiondude dealt with, {{Col-2-of-3}} and {{Col-1-of-3}}, which are redirects to another template. Hid revisions, protected templates. All good. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems like some /b/tard thing. [208] [209] If people could just monitor newbie's templatespace edits it can be handled faster. Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No template appears altered to me. They're just using a transparent pixel and making it fill the whole page, then using File's link parameter to direct to the image in question. It's just abuse of File tags. People used to do it on forums all the time, which is why BB-code replaced HTML tags on many PHP forums. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd be able to see if admin's weren't trying to cover things up. Yes, it is template vandalism. It is including HTML that injects links and images in templates that are transcluded on various pages. Killiondude (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw pre-revdel. No template was edited here. It was a redirect. You can use link= in File: to make an image link to a different image. The image being used as File: was a transparent.gif expanded to 10000px, and the link= was the porn image. It was File: abuse not an separate template altered. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to protect "File:Autofellatio5.jpg". It is still being abused. Calabe1992 04:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Been done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Vandalizm by Woe90i

The user Woe90i is vandalizing pages. He is removing information from pages with each and every edit that he makes. Examples http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivalik_class_frigate&action=historysubmit&diff=473073729&oldid=472263015
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076710&oldid=472526203
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Argentine_Air_Force&action=historysubmit&diff=473071349&oldid=472973946
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Navy&action=historysubmit&diff=473076058&oldid=472886274
All his history reveals such removal of content at his whims and fancies. Why no action has been taken against this vandal?

Tonnyn (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the correct place for this in future. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

For now, please read WP:VANDALISM and familiarise yourself with the definition. The diffs you have posted here are not vandalism, the editor is simply removing content he believes to be inappropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. If you don't want to see it that way, it will not. He is not simply removing it with full knowledge of what he is doing. Sourced content. Take the example of Shivalik class frigate displacement. Tonnyn (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

At initial glance at least, it appears that the complainant (Tonnyn (talk · contribs)) is a sock of Fulldisplacement (talk · contribs), who is also a sock of another user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And you failed to notify the editor, which I've done for you. Although this whole discussion should be closed. The only purpose it might serve is to counsel a new editor (the OP).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.Tonnyn (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The sockmaster is apparently Chanakyathegreat (talk · contribs), who has a recurring history of edit-warring in articles about ships. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is about articles.Tonnyn (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Why Wikiepdia is so biased and racist? An issue is raised about articles being vandalized and you're discussing about something else. Can't you people address the issue?Tonnyn (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Quack, quack. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Another one, who knows only to mock. Who made you Admin? You lack the basic qualities to be one.Tonnyn (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, sockpuppets come in all races, colors, and previous conditions of servitude. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that one reason for this creation of socks itself is because of racism and prejuice within Wikipedia towards people who are not from Western nations, especially British. I have argued about Britain not being a great power and since that day I'm a a sock. So the ones who are not worthy to be inside are inside and the ones who are supposed to be inside are outside and socks. This is called racism. Pure racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI requested, others who know more specifics comment there. Calabe1992 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably should have linked. Calabe1992 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Admins neglecting the vandalism by Woe90i? Is this not bias and racism?Tonnyn (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It's none of the above. Calabe1992 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is. He vandalizes the pages that are not British. And write all stupid things remove info and some admins support him and vanquish who complaint. This is bias and this is racism.Tonnyn (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is racism, because it's done to people who are not British. This is going on for a long long time. Need to put an end to such bias and racism in Wikiepdia.Tonnyn (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I revert people who aren't British. In fact, I'm not British. Am I a vandal? Calabe1992 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not like that. There is a british group that does such thing. They do it together. Tonnyn (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't believe you honestly think we'll buy that. Calabe1992 03:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There is. They do protect the likes of Woe90i. It's done with high handedness. I know it very well. I experienced it. No rules are followed just remove you. That's how it works. Then that person is a sock and will not be able to complaint and his complaint is invalid. This is happening in Wikipedia.Tonnyn (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What has a ship's tonnage got to do with racism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A ton, apparently. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll never know, he's -blocked and pending CU. Calabe1992 03:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he's been shipped out, so any answer from him will have to come from his next load of cargo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You too? Brutus?Werestep (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, Dave, etc do indulge in such gang activities. Dave is very famous Admin.Werestep (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, he got back to port in record time. Is there some way to put his underlying IP in drydock for awhile? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

God knows how many socks are out there -  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Calabe1992 03:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately a rangeblock would take out half of India. They do kinda come with a big neon light on the top saying 'sock'. Just tag 'em and bag 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it's a sock, I gave it a full on block. He can appeal through his master account (or not). Rklawton (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Kronprinsessavictoria

User is posing as "Crown Princess Victoria" (of Sweden) and has only edited articles about her and her family, adding remarkable genealogical info. I am not able to evaluate h sources, but have just done my best to clean up what I do not feel is relevant or notable. SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Need help with revert

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

---

See [210]; I can't revert the vandalism on this page as clicking anywhere on the page in question results in a redirect to the Wiki image of autofellatio. Can someone take care of that? Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying but haven't found the revision w/out it yet. Calabe1992 03:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Princess Derpy"", a few threads up, knows about this. Doc talk 03:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The page is behaving normally for me. I have IE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the same thing, but now after a series of reverts (and ultimately reverting back to the way it was before I came in), it's gone. Very odd. Calabe1992 03:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I went back a month in the revisions, and nothing was added that gave the impression the page would do this. Nothing that was viewable in the diffs anyways. This warrants further investigation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is very odd (and somewhat concerning). Your original link isn't even doing it anymore. Someone else reverted vandalism (that I accidentally restored), but it had nothing to do with the foul image link. Calabe1992 03:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't stuff like this generally turn out to be a template that's been vandalized? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Sounds kind of like the type of hack that the infamous Grawp would do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec2)I reverted back to a version earlier this month. Not sure what happened but if I can, I'll try and see what happened. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we do a Checkuser on users Onlyspeak, Noggin2when and Coolkidxc? I've also taken care of some vandalised templates when I found out that clicking anywhere on the Vaporware page leads to the obscene image in question. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've requested protection of the image. The vandals appear to possibly be 175.200.112.221 and 68.188.152.27, per the file's history. Calabe1992 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This is happening on several pages. See this one, too. Killiondude (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(c/e) No need for checkuser. Blocked the two first accounts, the third one had nothing to do with it. Will protect templates. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From the above diff, it's showing it's inserted via some <div></div> thing. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the other accounts used the same obscene image. And another thing: could this be yet another /b/tard attack? Blake Gripling (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That or some serial vandal. I find the former more likely. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've upped all the accounts to a total Avada Kedavra if you guys know what I mean. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, considering that they do delight in schadenfreude and obscenity. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the two IPs who removed the bad image tag just wrote something totally irrelevant on my talk page. I don't know what they're doing. Calabe1992 04:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone figure out which template was vandalized to insert the image link to begin with? I checked most of the ones on Tulsa. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 04:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be Template:Col-1-of-3 (1 to 3). Elockid ^(Talk) 04:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Not counting the one Killiondude dealt with, {{Col-2-of-3}} and {{Col-1-of-3}}, which are redirects to another template. Hid revisions, protected templates. All good. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems like some /b/tard thing. [211] [212] If people could just monitor newbie's templatespace edits it can be handled faster. Killiondude (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No template appears altered to me. They're just using a transparent pixel and making it fill the whole page, then using File's link parameter to direct to the image in question. It's just abuse of File tags. People used to do it on forums all the time, which is why BB-code replaced HTML tags on many PHP forums. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd be able to see if admin's weren't trying to cover things up. Yes, it is template vandalism. It is including HTML that injects links and images in templates that are transcluded on various pages. Killiondude (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw pre-revdel. No template was edited here. It was a redirect. You can use link= in File: to make an image link to a different image. The image being used as File: was a transparent.gif expanded to 10000px, and the link= was the porn image. It was File: abuse not an separate template altered. Ma®©usBritish ^[chat] 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to protect "File:Autofellatio5.jpg". It is still being abused. Calabe1992 04:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Been done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

User Wee Curry Monster

Resolved

 – All parties displaying refreshing amounts of tolerance, level headedness and willingness to AGF. Whatever next!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody please look at this?, I am tired of this sort of behavior. I have worked on this article before, I am part of the Wikiproject Empire of Brazil, yet I have to deal with this sort of disruptive behavior. Thank you Paulista01 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, WCM's request seems politely phrased and reasonable. In what way was it disruptive? Wouldn't a straightforward answering of the question ended the problem? I see no admin action being relevant here, certainly nothing block-worthy. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Politely phrased? I disagree. I am not asking anybody to block him, all I want is not to waste hours and hours in a useless discussion. He is being personal in the discussion, this is not correct. Thank you. Paulista01 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're not seeking admin action to block, then you're probably in the wrong place. This noticeboard is for incidents requiring administrative action. There is a long list of potential avenues you could try at the top of this page. But it might be better to simply drop this; as an impartial outsider I see nothing actionable here on either side. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I have been polite throughout the discussion, though rather bemused by why an article on wikipedia was moved to a minority name in the English language. User:Lecen has made several remarks about "tone" that I took to be a genuine misunderstanding and commented that was not my intention. Now Paulista is doing the same. Being Glaswegian I am not the most sensitive of souls but is there anything to answer here? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Per Kim Dent-Brown, there's nothing really requiring admin action here, and I normally wouldn't have said anything to you if I'd run across it, given the rough and tumble way things work around here, but... since you just specifically asked for feedback... You very politely asked someone to verify they didn't cheat. That's not something that should be done as casually as you did, not because it necessarily violates some rule somewhere, but because it helps make the atmosphere on that page a little worse. If I were in Paulista's shoes, I would take offense. I probably would just have ignored you, rather than bring it here, but I would have been offended. Free advice, worth every penny. (and may God forgive me for acting like this is WQA). --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - I've retired from admin duties, so my opinion may have little weight, but in a situation where someone suspects canvassing or off-wiki coordination is occurring, how else could the matter be handled? As far as I can tell WCM is being as polite as is possible, and has (what appears to be) plausible grounds. I agree such questions do nothing to help the atmosphere, but the alternative seems to be not speaking out at all, which is equally unpalatable. Manning (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But Manning, how is it plausible? The only reason for the accusation, it appears to me, is that Lecen and Paulista talk to each other on their talk pages. I see you recently had a message from Kat Walsh... if you two participate in the same discussion, how would you feel if I asked you for the same kind of verification? I'm not saying you can't ask a question like that here; I'm saying it's an accusation, and you have some kind of obligation to see if there's more to it than knowing they're friends. I've accused many people of being a sockpuppet or similar in my days here, but never casually, never without a pretty good reason to believe I'm right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well in my defence, I believe my query was based on plausible grounds as A) Paulista commented but had not partaken in the discussion B) Lecen appeared quite passionate about the name change and C) when I went to Paulista's talk page it was apparent they had collaborated often. At which point I'm on the horns of a dilemma. Either I say nothing and see the move request fail due to lack of a clear concensus or raise it politely as I can. I can see your point Floquenbeam and I thank you for your comments. However, also in my defence there has been evidence of the discussion becoming uncivil and doing my best to keep it on track. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nontheless if I have inadvertenly cause offence that was not my intention and for that I apologise sincerely. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem Wee Curry, I never questioned your integrity and now I do believe you did not do it on purpose, I accept the apology, the same on my part, if I offended or misinterpreted you, sorry. I hope we can work together next time. Best of luck to you. Thank you Kim Dent-Brown, Floquenbeam, Manning Bartlett and Wee Curry. Best Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Smoothest AN/I report ever? N^oformation ^Talk 06:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalized page - Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws

The photo is that of a pig and piglets and the caption refers to it as "Mohammed and his followers". Also, somehow the whole page has become one giant link to this image, making clicking any text links or edit history impossible. 75.37.27.141 (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Whatever vandalism caused this was quite old; I checked the history back to mid December without finding the vandal. I'm about to go to bed, but if someone wants to look further and make sure they're blocked, be my guest. The page did show up with the described image while logged out; I purged the cached version. Pakaran 06:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

See a few thread above. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Simon nelson

Simon nelson (talk · contribs) is an editor who edits extensively in BLPs, but who doesn't seen to understand WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP; he doesn't like listening to people or using edit sumamries or talking to people. A number of different editors have spoken to him multiple times about the same few issues relating to his edits, going back a number of years, and he refuses to listen or taken on board what they are saying. Examples from his talk page:

• Adding unreferenced information on BLPs, including change of playing statistics without a source or explanation why, or using sources which don't support information - August 2007, January 2008, June 2008, December 2008, March 2009, December 2009, December 2010, February 2011, March 2011, September 2011, October 2011, January 2012, January 2012
• Not using edit summaries - November 2007, January 2008, February 2008, February 2009, June 2010, January 2011, February 2011, October 2011
• Infobox formatting - December 2007, January 2008, January 2008, February 2008, March 2010
• Removing valid information, including references - May 2008, September 2008, February 2009, April 2009, July 2010
• Removing article improvement tags without dealing with the issues - September 2008

He was blocked in March 2008 for the above, but within 10 days was warned by an admin for the same kind of behaviour. In the very few times that Simon has used his talk page, he cites computer games as his source for his edits, which will obviously not do. Given all of the above, I am bringing it here for wider attention. GiantSnowman 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And the *current* problems with his editing are.....? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Continues to add unreferenced information to BLPs, will not respond to talk page comments, continues refusal to us edit summaries despite warning & comments on that matter going back over 4 years... GiantSnowman 16:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3, Diff 4... GiantSnowman 17:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No-one? GiantSnowman 10:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For the moment I've issued a warning pursuant to this ArbCom remedy; I wanted to give Simon one last chance to choose to comply with WP:V and WP:RS, before getting my banhammer out. Further edits in violation of WP:BLP will lead to sanctions, as far as I'm concerned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. I will continue to monitor. GiantSnowman 10:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to raise a question of content, but are the stats changes actually correct? Rich Farmbrough, 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC).

Most of the edit to Darren Holden is referenced in a couple of seconds to http://www.hartlepoolunited.co.uk/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10326~55534,00.html . The place of birth is hardly more difficult to find references for. None of these are especially likely to be contentious, therefore they are only required to be verifiable not to be verified.