Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757

Sweeping sockpuppetry accusations

User:FactStraight reverted an edit I made, and accused me in the edit summary of being a sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles. I went to his talk page to tell him that I'm not a sock, and that he shouldn't call me one, and noticed that the last message left on his talk page was over the exact same issue. I looked through his edit history, and ~50% of his edit summaries seem to be "reverting sock of louisphillipecharles". It looks like he's using this edit summary as shorthand for "reverted IP editor I disagree with", and to avoid giving any rationale for his edits. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

FS has already apologized. Nobody Ent 09:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

FS does use that term "sock" a great deal in his edit summaries. Pulling up his last 500 contribs shows the word used 226 times, which is an extraordinary number. Since being called a "sock" is a pretty strong charge, might this be a bit excessive? Or maybe obsessive? I wonder what his track record is, which isn't easy to just pull up without doing a lot of homework, but that the sheer percentage of summaries that use the term is worrisome at the least. It might be fine, but a closer look might be a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I know he already apologised. This isn't about defending my personal honour against being called a sock, it's about the fact that he's accusing editors of being socks left right and centre. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I decided to start by going to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles/Archive to review that history and FactStraight's involvement. LPC is indeed a major sockmaster who seems to edit in at least one of FS's areas of interest. Many of his block-evading socks have in fact been successfully reported by FS. The impression I'm getting is that FS is starting to get suspicious of any IP that edits in LPC's target area, especially IPs that begin with an 81, 85, 86, 89, or 90, and is seeing more ducks than there are. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that 89.100.207.51 has decided to escalate a dispute we are having on an un-related article to this forum, as evidenced by the fact that his initial charge against me failed to mention my prompt apology for reverting him as a sock of LouisPhilippeCharles -- clearly indicating good faith. The elephant in this room is the attempt to evaluate my behavior in isolation, without examining the focus of the edits to which the objections are being raised: LouisPhilippeCharless vandalism has not merely been persistent, but massive, resulting in his being blocked globally and indefinitely since 2010. Thereafter, I noticed that the exact same kinds of edits did not decrease, only they were done under different account names -- some brand new, others revived after months or years of dormancy -- or, most often, under anonymous IPs. I reported these frequently, in detail, and most were blocked. LouisPhilippeCharles is a vandal, not an idiot: he figured out that he could increase the likelihood of his edits sticking by doing them massively, using numerous anons and socks, making innocuous corrections that others would defend, and by varying them enough to make detection difficult for those unfamiliar with his edit pattern. Nonetheless, I continue to take some responsibility for reverting his edits when they appear on my watchlist. Yes, most of those reverts are based on the DUCK principle, which is a widely used criterion -- perhaps the most widely used -- for identifying socks and removing their vandalism. It isn't about content I dislike: often LouisPhilippeCharles's edits are innocuous or corrections (I know some disagree with Wikipedia's policy that "good" edits made by blocked editors shouldn't be reverted, but I don't know how else "blocking" makes sense). I largely revert based, not on the edit, but on whether the topic and the editor's past history of edits to such topics resembles that of LouisPhilippeCharles. The contention that my judgement is clouded or I'm "obsessive" because I make occasional errors is unfair and unreasonable: there is no fool-proof test for detecting sockpuppetry and perfection in attempts to revert it is not and cannot be Wikipedia's required standard. Nor is there any such infraction as "stalking" a blocked editor who is evading the block. Other admins and editors who know of him have acknowledged how prolific the vandalism of LouisPhilippeCharles is. He himself recently complained (in the guise of what he admitted was a sock, HammyDoo) that half of his edits are being reverted. I'm doing most. And by his own admission, I am failing by half! So given that kind of volume, wouldn't some errors in correction be expected? As soon as a reverted editor expresses an objection I re-examine the edit and desist if the behavior or our dialogue is distinguishable from that of LouisPhilippeCharles (remember: Wikipedia places the burden of proof for unsourced additions on the editor). If the community wants me to exercise more restraint to reduce my error count I am willing to do that, altho I think that's an over-reaction. But if the charge here is stalking and imperfection -- that there is something inherently vindictive, suspicious or inappropriate in my doing a lot of reverts of an indefinitely and globally blocked vandal, with occasional errors that are corrected when noted -- yet there is a refusal to look at whether or not the vandalism is, in fact, occurring in high volume (225+ page moves & 1,000+ edits by dozens of identified anons & socks) and whether I am mostly, honestly taking that on, I must object: that would be an attempt to punish those who uphold Wikipedia policy in favor of those who flout it. By far the biggest beneficiary will be the vandal, and the loss will be to Wikipedia article quality. FactStraight (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you do incredibly good work, and you can and should take on LPC and his army of socks. Please keep that work up. Secondly, none of us advocate anything more complicated than "don't call someone a sock until you've filed the SPI." That's it. If you suspect someone is a sock of LPC, revert them and report them, but it's uncivil to call someone a sock if they aren't, and this way you avoid accidentally biting any newcomers on false positives. The other thing that has been suggested is that the community keep an eye on your SPI reports, and caution you if your false positive rate gets too high. Would you be willing to accept that as a solution? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that what I am doing, overwhelmingly, is de-vandalizing Wikipedia. Still I find two difficulties with your recommendation. The first is pragmatic in dealing with a sock (whom we must assume is reading this right along with us): I have filed a large number of SPIs on LouisPhilippeCharles, but they aren't even a tiny fraction of the number of times I or others have actually reverted his vandalism. Based just on the number of LPC sock edits reported in SPIs which were upheld and led to blocks, plus the recent estimate of 225 page moves mentioned in the pending ANI case to permanently ban him, to file an SPI for every illicit LPC edit would have required me to file hundreds more SPIs. Maybe you guys need to review his blocks and SPIs: LPC is massively prolific -- he edits Wikipedia in several languages hundreds of times daily. The only hope of getting him to stop is for him to realize that his edits won't stick. While I'm not alone: PBS, Favonian, Yopie, among others, also revert his vandalism), I do the great bulk of it. LPC realizes and takes advantage of the obvious: it is very quick and easy to create an anon with which to vandalize. It is complicated and time-consuming to file an SPI and adduce the required diffs in evidence to get socks blocked: indeed, by the time the SPI yields a block, LPC has usually moved on to new anons). You're telling me, "Keep fighting that vandalism -- while we bind both your legs and arms, and blindfold you." Second, your remedy would drastically curtail my freedom to edit the articles which most interest me: everyone else is free to edit (including to revert) changes which add or alter facts at will, except when the addition is substantiated by a RS. It is unreasonable for me to forfeit a universal right because I have made a few errors while enforcing WP policy. I propose this compromise: I will not call an editor a sock in edit summary without filing an SPI -- which will eliminate "false accusations" of socking in public (a criticism I think is valid and had not adequately considered before). I will refrain from reverting innocuous edits which do not add to or alter factual information (i.e. typos, layout, etc -- although much of what LouisPhilippeCharles illicitly does consists in such edits). Nor will I revert properly sourced edits, even when I am certain they are done by LouisPhilippeCharles, without filing an SPI. I reserve the same right to revert unsourced changes and to challenge edits with which I disagree that any anon freely exercises. As for scrutiny of my SPIs, I invite it (btw, that's why I have never blanked or archived my talk page and have, heretofore, laboriously identified my reverts by reference to LPC's socks -- precisely so that others could review my actions. Apparently it is that commitment to transparency that has gotten me into trouble here). FactStraight (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sometime ago this guy was blanking entire articles to put redirects on them, and when I revert his edits he started accusing me of being a sock of LPC. It's incredible how someone can attack another's reputation and nothing's happen.-Ilhador- (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind providing at least one diff of each of those (a blank, your revert, and his accusation)? I'm curious to see what's going on with FS. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's here [1] and here [2], then when I posted a warning on his talk page he replied calling me a sock and made a formal accusation on that LPC thread.-Ilhador- (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, considering I can tell just by looking at your contribs that your primary area of interest is probably the Thirty Years War or the Protestant Reformation, not the House of Bourbon, I'd say my initial assessment is correct. FactStraight seems to be exhibiting a certain level of paranoia - they're accusing a lot of people who make edits in an area LPC might frequent, if that person makes an edit they disagree with. I think they need to take a step back, as their WP:DUCK senses are picking up geese, swans, and herons as well and calling them all ducks. My suggestion is that FS should be required to not accuse anyone of being an LPC sock, in or out of SPI, unless they first get a second opinion as to whether there's a reasonable DUCK suspicion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

4 of his 6 edits so far today have been summarised as "rv sock of indefinitely blocked LouisPhilippeCharles". That's is a bit ridulous. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

FS does a lot of good work, but I think the use of "sock" is a bit obsessive. I'm not worried about a second opinion, but as a rule of thumb: If you aren't willing to put your own neck on the line and file an SPI, then you shouldn't use the term "sock" in describing another editor. That way, if we get too many false positives at SPI, we can deal with it there (or bring it here). Otherwise, it is just a free pass to revert on sight. And he does file a lot at SPI, but I'm not sure if he is filing all of these. I had hoped FS would have come here and at least given us some insight, confirm if he is or isn't reporting all his claims or not, but he has only made 6 edits since this report was filed. And yes, 3 were claiming reverts of socks. I don't doubt that he is right most of the time, but his is one area where you need to be right virtually all the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does FS think this is an edit of LPC? Nobody Ent 14:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Cjdude12

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.

---

A brand new user account tagging various articles with {{stub}} which are already categorized into appropriate stub categories and removing speedy deletion templates. I find it odd that a brand new user would begin his/her editing career thusly but the editing continues despite lots of chatter on talk page about bad editing. Would someone convince him/her to mend his/her ways or do the needful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you at least try to converse with the user before bringing this here? --MuZemike 05:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but at the bottom of the pages your create I see that Wikipedia says its a stub. I may have a new account, but that doesn't mean I'm not experienced. Before I created this account, I used an ip for a year. Now I don't use the ip anymore. Please seriously consider what your are starting here. Cjdude12 (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipeida says it's a stub because it's already tagged as such... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's was automated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdude12 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Cjdude12 - I've left a message on your talk page which I hope will explain the problem to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page, Beyond My Ken. Cjdude12 (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I see your response, but you are seriously not getting it, so I suggest you explain here why you are adding the plain vanilla "stub" tags to articles that already have "xxxxx-stub" on them, and why you are not understanding the good faith efforts of other editors to point this out to you as a mistake. This is either a WP:IDHT problem or a WP:CIR one, and your explanation here may be the factor that prevents you from getting blocked for disruptive editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Given this response to the explanation of what he was doing wrong I'm struggling for reasons not to go ahead and block per WP:CIR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User has only added stub tags to pages without them since. Dru of Id (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

...and he wants confirmed status, and doesn't want a welcome message. I have declined the first, and provided the second as he's a little clueless here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And cluelessness continues. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Ha ha ha very funny." does seem to be extraordinarily clueless. Not sure if this is CIR or carefully crafted trolling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Drop a CIR and troll bomb on them. They're clearly cruisin' for a bruisin'. Blackmane (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This user popped onto my talk page today to inform me that because I apparently created a page which I actually deleted I am therefore a sockpuppet [3]--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm teetering on giving an indef for CIR as we speak. The only thing holding me back is a lot of experienced admins are also involved here, and I would defer to their wisdom should they think it not a good idea, but this editor appears to lack the sufficient clue to avoid being an ongoing disruption. Perhaps they are just a kid and not sufficiently mature, perhaps they are not and have the same problem, but regardless of why, the problem seems clear. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban would be better. I agree with Dennis that the user is clearly both clueless AND ignorant, which is a problem. I am just not sure it's so severe to warrant an indef. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban for what, though? Adding stub tags? That seems to be sorted out, but overall I don't see the required WP:COMPETENCE. Dennis, feel free from my end to block away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the editor. Perhaps at some time in the future, they will be capable of being a contributing member of the community, but it is obvious to me that this isn't possible now, if ever. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 24 June 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.

request block review of WilliamJE

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

---

I have blocked WilliamJE (talk · contribs) for edit warring, violating the spirit of WP:3RR, and not resolving the dispute at {{Criminal due process‎‎}} in good faith. I welcome comments, insight, suggestions, and even other admins rescinding the block if it seems appropriate. —EncMstr (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone reviewed this? The user has requested unblocking. —EncMstr (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

He actually has not requested unblocking ... although I have given him some advice if he does wish to amend it. Can you explain if you, the blocking admin, have actually been WP:INVOLVED with the article as per his claim? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good block, not only edit warring, but showed a combative attitude and not listening when it suits him. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see—he flubbed the template.

Yes, I did comment on the talk page. There are two (edit summaries as diff links): WP:REDNOT: not just navigation; +2 good examples of navtemplates with redlinks, and WP:REDNOT: not OSE, but see WP:REDLINK, MOS:DAB, and WP:SETINDEX. —EncMstr (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty borderline involved. EncMstr made a couple of comments, but I wouldn't really consider it as being a full blown dispute like WilliamJE had with Savidan. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr, I can't really see that level of assistance as being involved. As per my decline of his unblock, I think it was also the right call (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the extra eyes and minds. —EncMstr (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. The "I agree with..." language might have been a bit unfortunate, but that's what it is - simple agreement, not WP:INVOLVEment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Not good, per involved. If you felt a 3rr violation occurred should have filed at 3rr. Nobody Ent 00:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Except he wasn't involved. And there was no 3RR violation, but there was edit warring. Sometimes it seems that admins can't win - if you made so much as a peep in the subject before, you're "involved"; if you didn't, you're a "drive-by admin". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (Emphasis mine.) 3rr says: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. Nobody Ent 01:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, although not necessarily for 3RR. WilliamJE seems to have a battlefield mindset here, especially with the reversions against consensus on the REDNOT discussion. I did not see EncMstr as being involved. GregJackP Boomer! 02:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As outlined above, EncMstr is clearly involved per WP policy as currently written. Given that policy pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive, if it is the community consensus that the fact pattern in this case does not constitute involved then the policy page should be updated to reflect that consensus. Nobody Ent 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As the admin has recently stated support for the opposing position as the user he blocked it is marginally involved yes - but he brought it here and it is marginally - and there is support for the block here - I don't think community support is against wp:involved so that it needs changing just there are limited occasions when minor involvement such as this level might occur - It should perhaps better be discussed on the policy talkpage - but I don't think there would be consensus in a RFC that this level of involvement would be allowed or written into policy as acceptable. Youreallycan 14:17, 23 June 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.

TopGun and DarknessShines

The thread got archived so, fyi, I'm going to close it there. Will be away from Wikipedia for a bit so if anyone objects and wants to undo it (with good reason!), go ahead. --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't object to closing but don't think it should be done on archived thread, so I've unarchived it (below). Nobody Ent 22:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll notify both editors as well. --regentspark (comment) 17:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible outing and certain personal attacks on an AfD

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.

---

PeterPiperPickles (talk · contribs)

The above user posted a rather bizarre screed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kali Bowyer. I'm not quite sure who they're addressing, but it smells strongly of WP:OUTING to me - can others take a look at it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks somewhere between that, a legal threat, or an actual threat to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Borderline outing threat, watching. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Editor has retracted their remarks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin comment - This user came into IRC earlier. Xe claimed to be dyslexic, and accused all of the editors who had commented before of being socks of the same user. The conversation was a little confusing, to be honest, but the whole "they're after me" mentality of this user stood out clear. I wish I had logs, but I never log #wikipedia-en-help ^connect. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Dyslexia is a disorder related to recognition of written characters and can cause people to read more slowly, but doesn't affect intelligence, mood, or behaviour. Blaming threatening behaviour or general craziness on dyslexia is no more valid than blaming it on tennis elbow or an ingrown toenail. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:41, 23 June 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.

Constant Harassment from Hong Kong IP Addresses

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 constantly being belittled and bashed on by Hong Kong IP addresses. The newest one is 220.246.155.179 and I have severe confidence that this is an editor possibly on this site attempting to go against WP:PERSONAL on me after an AN/I investigation I opened. I'm tired of being harassed by this changing IP and certain people on this site. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I see one post to your talkpage recently, but nothing else ... can you provide links? I was willing to protect your talkpage, but with such little IP activity, it was hard to justify (and would have normally gone to WP:RFPP) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

They've done it beyond my talk page. They did it last time to my last AN/I thread and did nothing but bash me and belittle me. And do it on others talk pages. I'm tired of coming on here and having editors/IPs tell me what a horrible person and editor I am. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Sorta part of the game. What little harassment you've experienced is... nothing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I find that as unfair, especially when they suffered zero consequence last time. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody claimed it was fair. IPs get to harass you all they want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't ever become an admin then. IP's and registered userid's get to bash, belittle, and tell you how horrible of an editor AND admin you are :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That reminds me, BWilkins! You're a horrible editor AND admin. Now hold still while I hit you with a braid of wet noodles... – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Musicfreak7676, don't worry too much about comments like that. Even the best-behaved and diplomatic editors here end up ruffling someone's feathers. Chalk it up as vandalism by someone too cowardly to use their registered account, start a counter of 'number of times my talk page has been vandalised' and wear it like a trophy ;) – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have proof that all of these IP addresses come from the same person? Farine (talk) 06:26, 23 June 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:Ultimatedriver

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

---

This user has made many inappropriate articles after I gave him/her a final warning. See User talk:Ultimatedriver the plethora of warnings this user has received.
Diffs:
[4]-1st inappr. page after final warning
[5]-2nd inappr. page after final warning
[6]-3rd inappr. page after final warning

I think this justifies an immediate block. I will notify in a second Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I loathe when people come here and say "you should give him an immediate block", there have been so many inappropriate articles created by this editor, even after multiple warnings, I've given them an "it's about time you pay attention here" block. I'm AGF'ing that they are trying, but simply missing the definition of "notable" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty preachy about giving final warnings before you block someone when possible, but this is one of those cases where it does make sense, even if an "offlabel" block. Warnings don't cure deafness, and actions without negative consequences tend to get repeated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:13, 23 June 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.

Restoration or "rollback" of material in The Beatles

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.

---

Sorry to bother busy admins, however I need some outside input. I may well be wrong, overreacting, or both, however I am having an issue with User:DocKino at The Beatles. IMO, said user is inappropriately "rolling-back" sections of the article to one of their preferred versions, here or maybe here, without any prior discussion at the talk page or regard for the hours of work that had been put into the material since the last incarnation they endorsed. Disclosure: During my extensive copyedit of the article, I did in fact make many undiscussed deletions, however, to my knowledge no one ever reverted any of them of any substance, objected to or even discussed anything in that regard with me while I was devoting numerous hours copyediting the article. Indeed I have over 11,000 edits to my credit, over 1,000 at the Beatles article, and in 2.5 years only 47 total deleted edits. I would have been more than willing to discuss any of my edits, as they were occuring, however I do not think rolling them back months later, without any discussion is appropriate. Are these "restorations" of content or the use of "rollbacks" in a content dispute?

Examples:

• a sub rosa "rollback"
• another "rollback", with a potentially misleading edit summary
• another rollback, with a possibly deceptive edit summary
• rollback
• edit summary says restore, but seems more like a rollback to me
• a rollback with no edit summary
• rollback
• rollback
• rollback

I've omitted several examples that if taken alone, look like perfectly good content work, however, if you study the edits carefully, in their totality, you'll notice that 80-90% or more of the restored material is included nearly verbatim in either the FA version from nearly three years ago or this version from November 2011.

I've made numerous attempts to resolve issues with them at Talk:The Beatles, as well as at DocKino's talk page, to which I received no reply. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why this content dispute belongs here. WP:ROLLBACK is a technical term at Wikipedia, and none of these changes is a rollback in that sense. In fact, DocKino doesn't have rollback rights. In the list of diffs above, the first two are dupes. Many of the first ones are quite old (some going back to April). There is a discussion on the Beatles Talk page. Continue it, and if it doesn't resolve to your satisfaction, proceed to the next steps (WP:DR). DocKino doesn't have to respond to you on his Talk page if he doesn't wish to, particularly in the case of article content where the Talk page is generally a better venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 23 June 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.

Request for a user to be blocked from editing African American page

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

---

Look at recent edits by the user "B-Machine". He strikes me as a person trying to push an agenda although due to the flying boomerang I am reluctant to use the word "racist" as I have in the past. Am I allowed to state that, as a person of European and Hispanic descent, I personally feel some of his comments to be racist and offensive, and that he seems to have a strongly anti-Hispanic, anti-European agenda? Just a small selection of his comments I have come across:

• He rants about how wikipedia shouldn't "honor white slaveowners": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=490144930

• He also rants about how "white slaveowners raped white slaves" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=489978779.

• "Africans have the most diverse DNA on the planet, which proves the black man is the original man and the black woman is the original woman." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgia_Bird&diff=454402069&oldid=454241724

• "The overwhelming majority of black people in the U.S. have no trace of Indian heritage at all. A few do, but most don't. All of that lightness is from white European men having their way with black African women. It could be a romanticization of our past, which is wrong because it attempts to rewrite our history since some Indian tribes had black slaves and treated them like shit"

• "AfricanAmericans don't really engage in interracial screwing" (even though there is huge scientific to the contrary)

• "jazz is black music, rock and roll is black music, hip-hop, blues, R & B, it's all black" (all those non-black performers of these music?).

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_hop&diff=prev&oldid=470789940. In the article it stated "Hip-Hop originated from African-American and Hispanic roots", he edits out the "Hispanic" and puts in "SOLELY African-American", under the reasoning of "Sorry but it's true"

The above points are gleaned from just looking through a tiny section of his editing history, I'm sure there is much more stuff and probably much more serious stuff.

I could be wrong but he has a history of disruptive editing, lots of ANIs about him. I don't come on Wikipedia much and I am a beginner editor, so apologies if I've done something wrong here, I just worry this kind of hatred will worm its way onto WP. At best, I find him to have a highly non-NPOV. At worst, I truthfully find him highly offensive and racist, although perhaps B-machine doesn't mean it. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Leaf Green Warrior, reading through the article talk pages and my experiences with your history at ANI makes it clear that your threshold for who and what is "racist" is quite low, as it is a term you have a habit of throwing around a bit too often and a bit too casually. You and B-machine both have quite fixed POVs, and I would suggest you simply take articles to WP:DRN. I don't see a need for a boomerang right now, but I do see two sides of the same coin with both of you often equally wrong just in different ways, which is why you need to go to dispute resolution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute. I haven't been on Wikipedia for many weeks. I dropped in and saw what I personally see as more racism from this user, hence this ANI. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I dunno, Leaf. I can understand your feathers getting ruffled by his comments, but they were on the talk page, not the article, and don't seem overtly uncivil. Just charged opinion statements, common in this type of article which require thick skin to edit. I'd suggest avoiding the term "racist", even if you believe it to be true, and use "non-NPOV" instead. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 16:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

@LGW: So you just happen to be on User talk:Georgia Bird or are you following B-machine around? I'm trying to figure out why you are here, if there is some issue between you and he, or if you are just running to tell on him or what. I'm not inclined to go spank him for simply having an opinion that others disagree with, on talk pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is unfamiliar with some of the history here, I recommend, LGW, that you spend less time at ANI and more time contributing to articles. And if there are disagreements about content, focus on the content not the editors involved, even if you think they don't and no mattter how much of an "agenda" you think they have. Your diffs above are from late April, early May, which is about the time you were at ANI before, then you take a break, and come right back to ANI. This is not a help desk.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE can we stick to the central point here. Here is the central point: I feel the comments of the above user are racist and offensive to me personally. If the admin agrees, then please can action be taken against the user. If the admin does not agree then I respect your opinion but would be saddened that you do not share my view.Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you are directly asking for Admin response, I (being a non-admin) will not comment further unless asked, other than to say that I think you are missing the point here. No one, admin or not, is in a position to agree/disagree what personally offends you. The question is what are they (admins) going to do about it? Probably nothing and close this as pointless discussion. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 17:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We are sticking to the point, just not necessarily the way you wish us to. I don't know who "the admin" is, but the consensus is that this topic doesn't belong here. Most of the stuff you complain of is back-and-forth on Talk pages and doesn't warrant sanctions. Your diff about the Hip hop article is from January 2012 and B-machine's change has long since been removed. I'll give you another opportunity to respond and then I'll close this unless someone beats me to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"the consensus is that this topic doesn't belong here" I see. Where do you suggest that I complain about this, and where can I request that this user be banned for these comments (which, in my opinion, are racist and highly offensive)? Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere. You don't have enough to propose, let alone impose, a topic ban (I can't imagine you mean a total ban). You need to continue to work on the articles and work with the editors who also work on the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how liberal Wikipedia admins are with total bans, but I would personally hope for a total ban for this user (at least for a period of time). As stated, I personally find comments made by this user to be offensive and racist, and I don't believe a total ban is out of the question. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 17:37, 23 June 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.

Request for a user to be blocked from editing African American page

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

---

Trying this again as the admin who closed my last one refused to answer why he closed it, telling me to, I quote, "go away". Politely request that the admin (Bbb23) in question stays away from this ANI as he seems unable to grasp it

Look at recent edits by the user "B-Machine". He strikes me as a person trying to push an agenda although due to the flying boomerang I am reluctant to use the word "racist" as I have in the past. Am I allowed to state that, as a person of European and Hispanic descent, I personally feel some of his comments to be racist and offensive, and that he seems to have a strongly anti-Hispanic, anti-European agenda? Just a small selection of his comments I have come across:

• He rants about how wikipedia shouldn't "honor white slaveowners": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=490144930

• He also rants about how "white slaveowners raped white slaves" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:African_American&diff=prev&oldid=489978779.

• "Africans have the most diverse DNA on the planet, which proves the black man is the original man and the black woman is the original woman." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeorgia_Bird&diff=454402069&oldid=454241724

• "The overwhelming majority of black people in the U.S. have no trace of Indian heritage at all. A few do, but most don't. All of that lightness is from white European men having their way with black African women. It could be a romanticization of our past, which is wrong because it attempts to rewrite our history since some Indian tribes had black slaves and treated them like shit"

• "AfricanAmericans don't really engage in interracial screwing" (even though there is huge scientific to the contrary)

• "jazz is black music, rock and roll is black music, hip-hop, blues, R & B, it's all black" (all those non-black performers of these music?).

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hip_hop&diff=prev&oldid=470789940. In the article it stated "Hip-Hop originated from African-American and Hispanic roots", he edits out the "Hispanic" and puts in "SOLELY African-American", under the reasoning of "Sorry but it's true"

The above points are gleaned from just looking through a tiny section of his editing history, I'm sure there is much more stuff and probably much more serious stuff.

I could be wrong but he has a history of disruptive editing, lots of ANIs about him. I don't come on Wikipedia much and I am a beginner editor, so apologies if I've done something wrong here, I just worry this kind of hatred will worm its way onto WP. At best, I find him to have a highly non-NPOV. At worst, I truthfully find him highly offensive and racist, although perhaps B-machine doesn't mean it. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I considered reverting this, but that wouldn't afford me the opportunity to request that LGW be sanctioned. Please see discussion on my Talk page. Apparently, LGW is unable/unwilling to contribute in a productive manner. BTW, LGW, I am not an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to discuss the topic then please refrain from posting in this ANI. If you have unrelated things you would like to say, then my talk page is open. Thanks Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In summary, I feel offended by this user and personally believe many of the comments he made to be racist. If an admin agrees with this then please can action be taken against the user, such as a total ban or a topic ban. If an admin disagrees with this then I respect your opinion on the matter. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the quote of Bbb23 you made is from his personal Talk page, he did, in fact, answer you above with "OP advised to spend more time contributing to articles not to ANI". This is not a flowchart where you say "this guy is racist" and someone is required to answer "yes, he is racist" or "no, he isn't". A valid response to you might be, "Why do you keep saying this guy is racist?" or "What actions have you taken leading up to this?"

Considering that you have called someone racist more times in two months than I have in 2 years, you might be well-served by a little introspection into what racist is and is not. -- Avanu (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why do you keep saying this guy is racist?" see the examples given in my original post above for reasons why I personally feel offended by these (in my opinion) racist comments. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, please stay on topic. Are the edits made by this editor racist? If so, I request sanctions be taken against him. Thank you. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 18:33, 23 June 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.

Harassment by Starkiller88

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.

---

Moved from WQA

 – Nobody Ent 18:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Following a long series of trolling/vandalism by Starkiller88, he was finally blocked and banned indefinitely. He pleaded to the administrators for another chance and was allowed to continue editing, but to abstain from certain topics. Since then, he has started a harrassment campaign on my talk page and introduced false information in my user page: [7]. His messages range from pleads to "redemption" [8], claims a compulsion to vandalize [9], and lately, blaming me for infecting his computer with a computer virus/trojan [10]. Today he escalated with personal attacks: [11], [12]. He also does edits under IP numbers starting with 115. Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved this from WQA as I believe admin action is appropriate. Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:Starkiller88 Nobody Ent 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've indef blocked him since the last indef block appears to not have been long enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• • If he really was topic banned he clearly went straight back to editing about the Russian space programme and I can't see what else he would have been topic banned from as his previous disruption was Phobos Grunt related. Secretlondon (talk) 19:05, 23 June 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.

Legal threat

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 received this [13] message on my talk regarding Abhay Kumar because I had previously reverted vandalism on that article via Huggle. But when I started looking at the talk pages of the suspected vandals, I found this threat[14] by the editor who originally requested my assistance. "I've called the police on you," sure looks like a legal threat to me. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 23 June 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.

Review of my actions at Bus monitor bullying video

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

---

I've recently revdel'd some content on this article as it revealed the names of the minor's involved and ask that someone double checks my actions seeing as how it;s been questioned on the talk page. As I stated at my RfA I'm not very strong on BLP and only come across this as the article due to it being mentioned at Greece Athena High School, an article I had watchlisted for copyright reasons.

I also suspect that this article may generally need more eyes. Dpmuk (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've moved this to WP:BLPN which is a better venue. That is all they do there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:44, 24 June 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 Ronnie42 - Account used solely for disruptive editing

Ronnie42 (talk · contribs) I was really on the fence on whether to use this or just go straight to the incidents/vandalism noticeboard, but for the sake of discussion I'm bringing it here. Ronnie is an incredibly difficult user - he has a long history of editing against consensus and removing the same material from one article -1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 - before, during and after 1, 2,3,4 separate discussions to reach consensus. His methodology can be summed up by this edit; he'll do what he wants until someone proves him wrong. He's been told by numerous editors to read about various wikipedia policies and that his editing is disruptive but he dismissing all of this as trolling or vandalism (see this bewildering notice he left on one of the Noticeboards). In addition to this specific issue above, the vast majority of Ronnie's edits fall into two categories - Treating talk pages as forums (and this makes up the bulk of his usage, see his full edit history for a litany of examples; he's been cautioned and had edits reverted, only to be reverted back, several times by Ronnie) - and finally, outright vandalism, vandalism and more vandalism. In fact, his entire first year was used for nothing but. Lastly, and most importantly, I can't find a single constructive edit that Ronnie has made. For five years this user has popped up every few weeks or months to soapbox, vandalize and disrupt, and I can't see any reason why we'd keep him around. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Seems more a case for both WP:DRN and WP:WQA. His calling good faith edits as vandalism and throwing around the term "troll" is problematic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll give the a shot if you think I should, but given that he's been offered help, directed to Wikipedia policy pages, cautioned and warned throughout his Wiki career, only to completely ignore what anyone (and it's not just me) has to say, I don't expect a positive outcome. If you feel I should move this anyway, please let me know. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think once you have a consensus at DRN, it becomes easier to see when someone is being disruptive by reverting against that consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and sorry for the delay. The consensus was the result of several discussions on the articles talk page; should I bring that up, or just the reverting? Also, should I just copy and paste it there?--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are usually enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I just posted it here... if you could take a look and let me know if it looks alright I'd be most appreciative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Like to point this as slander. I have already pointed facts while User:Williamsburgland constantly attacks me directly, removes facts that have been mentioned, constantly. Example is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reliability_of_Wikipedia&action=history He has been going of his way to 'WikiHounding/User space harassment'. The member has been using the talk pages to force opinions, disrupts several talk pages, have already warned this member, have been ignored frequently. This thread itself proofs what I'm talking about by saying 'Account used solely for disruptive editing' which is a lie, used to help provoke more responses. I have this account for nearly 5 years, most times I have minor comments about things that need changing, have helped with the community like mention series like south park that needed updated informtion like here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mecha-Streisand I have over the years made consistent notes on wiki talk pages of missing information. I'm clearly offended, have asked previously about support being taken against this user, have not heard anything yet. For the record Forums are for a place to talk about 'opinions', all I have stated are facts, the User:Williamsburgland has consistently ignored the facts, tried to turn pages into flamewars.The page itself is an example of the harrasement I have to put up with it, follows my recent contributions without regard aka Wikihounding --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I'd like to concur entirely with Williamsburgland's summary above, it's unfortunate but Ronnie42 is impossible to communicate with, his responses are irrational, difficult to decipher, even contradictory at times, and he appears completely intent on continuing his or her disruptive editing with no regard to anything anyone says, or to consider wikipedia policy and guidelines.Number36 (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the South Park reference is supposed to be, but anyone that clicks on the first link for the edit history of Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia can see that another user reverted Ronnie's soapboxing, which he then reverted. I simply reverted it back. Since he's done it a second time I've given up. At this point I'll likely open WQA case as well given Ronnie's tendency to throw the word 'troll' and 'slander' around.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the WQA discussion. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again I added facts on Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia which had nothing directly aimed at User:Williamsburgland. 2ndly it was User:Williamsburgland who deleted my passage while 'trolling', going out of his way to attack/provoke, forcing control over talk pages. The only person who edited on Talk:Mecha-Streisand can clearly see someone accusing me of turning the page into the talk page while I only sourced actual episodes as the source. Its similar to the Evil Dead in the Talk:List_of_zombie_films which was ignored, I already stated there was no proof whatsoever of the 'Deadites' being zombies. Even read the wiki page: The_Evil_Dead_(franchise) It clearly says 'This time the evil creatures are explicitly referred to as deadites.' I have tried to repeat several times to give evidence, even stated the fact that nowhere in the films were they known as 'zombies', all I got was opinions, unreliable sources that weren't created as a joke. Here's a link I posted 'http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/02/26/the-crazies-is-not-a-zombie-movie-and-neither-are-these-five-thrillers/' which even states very clearly 'Linda shouldn't be classified as a zombie attack, as her body has been repossessed by evil spirits', even this: wiki/Deadite clearly states that there "Deadites are creatures, most commonly people, that have become possessed by evil spirits (demons) in the Evil Dead universe". For the record I'm getting tired of user:Williamsburgland and its people like that question the reliability of Wikipedia. If something isn't done against user:Williamsburgland then I will be forced to petition against this site. I apologise if this offends but too many users like Williamsburgland forces their opinions on others, starting to sound like 'Fascism'. --Ronnie42 (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "petition against this site"? Nobody Ent 23:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie42, first of all please read WP:NPA. Secondly, please carefully read WP:NLT, as your commnent about "to petition against this site" sounds like it could be intended to cause a chilling effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie, several upon several people agree that the films in question belong on the list, it ain't just me. The references used are indeed reliable, and you've never made any argument as to why they aren't. Meanwhile, as I've already pointed out to you, the link you've used is for a blog, which is not reliable. The fact that the word 'Zombie' does not appear in the original Night of the living dead has been pointed out to and summarily ignored by you. You dismiss statements made by anyone else as opinions while insisting that every bewildering statement you make is pure fact. Take your statement on the talk page you mentioned above - you state that you agree with the statement that Wikipedia is unreliable, and then post a link that purportedly backs up your statement. I'm shouldn't even bother pointing out that I wasn't the first person to remove your statement, but I will point out that the expressed purpose of both the Wiki article and the blog article that you posted is to debate whether or not wikipedia is reliable - and it's a debate because there are no definitive facts in the matter. There aren't any debates to determine if the ocean is salty, or if water is wet, because these concern known, demonstrable facts. Even more bizarre is this statement - where you insist that I'm making stuff up, saying "Stop making stuff up. I never mentioned 'Crazies' movie." Then how exactly do you explain this statement, where you very clearly do. Now you're talking about some south park episode, and while I can't even begin to understand what that has to do with this current debate, I'm sure it somehow demonstrates (to you) that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Well I'm done with it. From our first interaction I've done my best to be patient with you, to direct you to helpful links on Wikipedia policies and to explain why the consensus is what it is. From here on out I'm done - the consensus has been demonstrated half a dozen times and I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to consider further reverts as disruptive editing from here on out. --Williamsburgland (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Dolphin51

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:Dolphin51 and I had a rather negative interaction in February over a GAN (in which he insisted I insert OR into the article to satisfy his opinions). I disengaged and walked away. He apparently has not. After inviting himself to my talkpage in March, I thought I told him he was not welcome on my talk page in no uncertain terms. The obvious implication was for him take my talkpage off of his watchlist and walk away. Apparently I was incorrect. He has since inserted his nose where it does not belong, and seems to have no intention of leaving me alone. I have no idea why he is fixated on me, but I would like it to stop. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No editor, more particularly an Admin, should not be stating that another editor "inserted his nose where it does not belong", especially when referring to a post on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor is clearly stalking me. If the argument was that he regularly volunteered at the noticeboard, that would be different, but these are his first edits there. He had no way of finding the discussion apart from my talk page, which he apparently has watchlisted. He has repeatedly ignored requests that he stay away from me. This is not an unreasonable request. Parsecboy (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy, you asked this user to stay off your talk page which they have done. this edit was not to your talk page and does not seem unreasonable - unlike your description of it as inserting his nose somewhere... Are you asking for an interaction ban, and on what grounds? I don't see what Dolphin51 is currently doing as harrassment, I must say. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

No, what I said was "I do not want any further interaction with you." Wikipedia is a big place; he doesn't need to be following me around. Instead, all I get is a glib response that might as well be "fuck you". I want him to take my talkpage off his watchlist. If an IBAN is what it will take to keep him away from me, fine. I want to be left alone. I don't understand why Dolphin finds this so hard to do. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those times where, for me, there are different rules for admins and others. I think as a class we need to grow thicker skins than other users and have a higher tolerance for nuisance. I don't regard what Dolphin is doing as particularly problematic in any case, and I'd expect you as an admin to be able to shrug this off. However, you clearly don't agree and I may be way off beam. I'll bow out here and let others chip in if they have a view. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't feel like its harassment? Isn't that great. Shucks, that makes me feel all better now.

All I want is for him to go find some other part of the project to do whatever it is that he does, and leave me in peace. There is absolutely no reason why he ever has to insinuate himself in my business. It clearly is not productive. And he obviously is unwilling to heed the simple request that he spend his time elsewhere, hence the reason for this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of requests to stay away from talk pages, but I understand they are accepted. Howver, interaction bans requested unilaterally are not permitted. And even if a mutual interaction ban is accepted, it doesn't mean that someone can be told not to post potentially relevant information on a noticeboard. (I wrote this before seeing the post above, but I concur with the thought.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me why he has to post anything? There's a difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. That Wikipedia happens in public does not mean everything on the site is your business, or that you have a right to do whatever you want, regardless of other people. If his intentions were as pure as you seem to think they are, why can't he accept a simple request to leave me alone? Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur Dolphin51 should not be inserting themselves into Parsecboy's business. However, DRN and the Tirpitz article are not "Parsecboys" business, they're Wikipedia's business, and Dolphin51 is perfectly justified in commenting on them. Nobody Ent 19:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just said? Being allowed to do something does not mean you have to do it. I have made clear that I do not want to interact with Dolphin. Why is his harassing behavior perfectly acceptable to all of you? It's this kind of ridiculous bullshit that drives content creators away from this site. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe what Parsec is trying to get at is that Dolphin is only posting to DRN, the Tirpitz article, etc. because Parsec has. I.E. WP:HOUNDING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I'm getting at. Parsecboy (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Then it seems to me the next thing to do is to ascertain whether Dolphin is actually hounding you. I don't doubt for a second that a) Dolphin is giving the superficial appearance of hounding you and b) that you are feeling hounded by Dolphin. The question is whether Dolphin is participating in the same discussions you are because you share interests, or because they are following you around. I'm making no assertion one way or the other, because I've only perused the diffs here, not gone deeper into the conflict's history. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My areas of activity are limited pretty much to warship-related articles, an area I have never seen Dolphin edit (apart from the GAN which marked our first interaction); I have no idea where he spends his time editing, nor do I really care. As far as I can tell, he has no interest in the Tirpitz dispute other than the fact that I am an involved party. As I noted above, he has never done anything at DRN previously in any capacity, which makes it seem obvious that his presence there is based solely on mine. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at Dolphin's contribs, and his area of interest seems to be airplanes, especially airplane crashes. That's not completely unrelated to your warships area of interest, although there's only limited overlap. The point about DRN is a good one. That said, I'm not sure what remedies would be appropriate. Has he been continuing the behavior since you made this report? If not, what remedy do you seek? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since this morning - I suspect he's in another time zone. Ideally, it would be nice if he would voluntarily agree to refrain from interacting with me directly. But since he seems to have no inclination to do so, perhaps the best option at this point would be a clearly-worded warning from an uninvolved admin along those same lines. In he continues to hound me after that, it will be a basis for further actions, whatever may be fit. I am more than happy to let sleeping dogs lie—something I've been trying to do since our initial encounter in February; I wish he would do the same. Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy, why don't you just stop editing? Then you will not have any interaction with said user? If Dolphin is stalking your edits and harrassing you, then Dolphin should be santioned by the community. If Dolphin is not found to be harrassing you, then it seems like you can't really say what he should and shouldn't be editing. This makes no judgement as to Dolphins actions. --Mollskman (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting I stop editing Wikipedia because he's stalking me? Parsecboy (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No. IF he is stalking you, he should be sanctioned. IF he isn't, then you need to move along. --Mollskman (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be more useful if you actually looked into a situation before you comment on it... Parsecboy (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

...Mollskman, that's really not helping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Correct me if I'm wrong, but Parsec came here for neutral editors to look into the matter, not just getting a regurgitation of policy. And "why don't you stop editing?" Really? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As a preface, I'm not neutral in this because I've collaborated with Parsec on quite a few articles. Still, I think my views will hold some merit. First, let me assure you that the area Dolphin edits in, civil air crashes, never overlaps with First World War-era warships. Military aviation in later time periods, yes, but non-military WWI aviation, no. Second, when an editor is feeling hounded by another, and there's a long-term pattern of subtle edits to anger said editor, how does that not meet WP:HOUNDING? As Nobody Ent says, Dolphin is free to comment on any DRN or the Tirpitz article, but when there's no pattern of engaging in similar discussions, that should tell you he's only there because Parsec is involved. There's my two cents, take it how you will. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Parsecboy has provided only two incidents of unsolicited contact made by Dolphin (after that initial GAN), and these were three months apart. Is that all, or were there others? I find it hard to accept a total of two contacts as a pattern of "hounding". Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, my thanks to everyone who has stopped by to read this thread and add a contribution. Your efforts are appreciated. Secondly, my apologies for the delay in responding. I have been working on several tasks today and none of them involved a computer!

It seems Parsecboy’s current issue with my behaviour is related to my participation in a request for dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wrong source usage in German battleship Tirpitz page: incorrect details. This request for dispute resolution was not raised by Parsecboy. It was raised by User:Zh.Mike, a new user with fewer than 60 edits, and for whom English is not his first language. I was moved to take an interest in Zh.Mike’s request for dispute resolution because I could see that Zh.Mike was a newby who had been poorly treated by the Military History fraternity. If you don’t know what I mean when I say Zh.Mike has been poorly treated please see Zh.Mike’s TALK page.

I have made only two edits to Zh.Mike's dispute resolution thread. See diff1 and diff2. The first was intended to pour oil on troubled waters and to acknowledge that Zh.Mike had acted appropriately by seeking dispute resolution because he had been poorly treated. That first edit mentions an edit by Parsecboy, a highly experienced editor and sysop. The second edit makes no mention of Parsecboy, either explicitly or implicitly. If I am guilty of being a serial offender, it is my first edit, the one that mentioned one of Parsecboy’s edits, that constitutes the long trail of similar offences.

If Zh.Mike takes the view that my participation in the dispute resolution thread is inappropriate or unwanted I would most likely withdraw graciously because it is Zh.Mike’s thread; he is the plaintiff. Parsecboy is the defendant so when he takes the view that I have inserted my nose where it doesn’t belong that is not a view that I can accommodate. I see nothing to indicate that Zh.Mike regards my participation as inappropriate.

In the views expressed on this thread I see some that suggest I should not participate in Zh.Mike’s request for dispute resolution because I know nothing about the Tirpitz or German naval ships. Firstly, there is nothing written anywhere on Wikipedia to suggest that a User can only participate in mediation or dispute resolution if he is an acknowledged expert on the article around which the dispute is centered. Secondly, I am not without knowledge about German naval ships. Earlier this year Parsecboy nominated two similar articles for Good Article status. I volunteered to review them, and invested a substantial amount of my time in doing so. Have a look at my work at:

• Talk:SMS Nurnberg (1916)/GA1
• Talk:German cruiser Emden/GA1

Regardless of all that has happened between Parsecboy and me, and regardless of the outcome of this thread, Parsecboy will always be welcome on my User Talk page. Dolphin (t) 14:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OOC, Parsec may be welcome on your talk page, but given your kindness above, would you agree to not interact with him so we save everyone involved from large amounts of unwanted drama? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Your observations, and your request, are reasonable. If Parsecboy was an ordinary User like me I would have no hesitation in doing as you suggest. But Parsecboy is no ordinary User - he is a sysop! Parsecboy is a sysop willing to indulge in inappropriate edits and to bite newbies, and I am a whistleblower. Don't ever imagine it will be a good solution to the problem of abuse of trust and power to silence the whistleblower - not for the Roman Catholic church and not for Wikipedia. If Parsecboy is willing to relinquish his adminship I will agree to no longer hold him to account for his actions. Dolphin (t) 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The last thing we need are more self-appointed wiki police. And you are not going to bully me into resigning the bit. If I were as abusive as you suggest, you would not be the only person to hold the opinion. But I have thus far received no complaints. I suggest you might be overreacting. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your response says more than I ever could have. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin, my problem with you is the fact that you seem to be fixated on me, not that you participated in a given discussion, per se. The Tirpitz issue is largely irrelevant in this discussion. You wouldn't even know about the Tirpitz dispute if you didn't have my talk page on your watchlist. I would not have a problem participating in a discussion with you if you had come to it out of mere coincidence. But this instance is a glaring demonstration of the fact that you seem intent on following me around. Why can you not honor the simple request to remove my talk page from your watchlist and leave me in peace?

Perhaps you intended to pour oil on troubled water, but to continue the metaphor, you poured gasoline on a fire instead. Your presence there is distracting from the actual issues and is not helpful. In any case, Zh.Mike doesn't own the thread any more or less than I or anyone else.

As for the Tirpitz issue itself, my comment on Zh.Mike's talk page came after several months of entertaining his attempts to insert what amounts to Soviet propaganda based on his own original research and faulty readings of secondary sources, and after he turned to trying to force the changes after Denniss and I abandoned the effort on the talk page.

No one said you shouldn't participate in the discussion because you don't know about German warships. I (and others) said you wouldn't have otherwise found out about the discussion based on your areas of activity. If you regularly edited articles on German warships, then you could conceivably have found out on your own. That was the point.

As an aside, I read this earlier today - you might find it interesting. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Space Invaders. I have had a quick look and I agree it is interesting. I will read it more closely tomorrow. Cheers. Dolphin (t) 12:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Parsecboy. If it is true that I am following you around it will be a simple matter to provide the diffs of my most recent edits. That will show the frequency of my interaction with you, and the nature of my comments. Just post the most recent diffs here on this thread and we can make progress from there. Best regards. Dolphin (t) 02:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you see the line about you finding the Tirpitz discussion only because you had my talk page watchlisted? QED. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just post the most recent diffs and we can make progress from there. Dolphin (t) 02:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do you think playing games is helpful? Parsecboy (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin51 writing If Parsecboy is willing to relinquish his adminship I will agree to no longer hold him to account for his actions is very telling imho. Dolphin51, it is not up to you to hold anybody accountable with unreasonable demands,ie giving up admin status. That is worst than me telling Parseboy to avoid you by not editing. The communitty is the one that reviews editors actions and passes judgement, not yourself. --Mollskman (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mollskman. You have made a good point. My choice of wording was too brief I apologize for that. I will re-state my view more comprehensively and hopefully get it right second time: I hold all Users who are sysops to a higher standard of accountability than the standard I apply to Users who are not sysops. If Parsecboy relinquishes his adminship then naturally I will no longer hold him to account to the standard I apply to sysops. Dolphin (t) 07:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Dolphin, stop WP:HOUNDING. Now. You're not the Wikipolice, and your declared intent to continue stalking Parsecboy's edits is troubling to the point that I'm wondering if a block to prevent the disruption that stalking causes is in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To all - just post the diffs and then we can make progress. Dolphin (t) 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you retract your statement If Parsecboy is willing to relinquish his adminship I will agree to no longer hold him to account for his actions, and all variations thereof, and agree that following their edits is behavior that is against the principles and spirit of Wikipedia and agree not to undertake such action? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I unreservedly retract the statement, and all variations thereof. It was meant to clarify but apparently it also offended. That was never my intention so I apologize for any distress or injury that has been caused. Dolphin (t) 11:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. As long as you don't hound Parsecboy, ie, follow his edits and show up where you have never edited before to battle him, we are good to go. I would suggest taking his talk page off your watch list, if its on there, and any other articles that might be "problems" as well. Parsecboy, if you feel like you are still be hounded, please provide differences and let the communitty act. Can this small bit of wiki drama now be ended? Thnak you. --Mollskman (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There you go, then. Mollskman makes a good suggestion to go along with that, and that should resolve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mollskman and Bushranger. I agree the life has almost expired from this thread and we are close to a satisfactory end. I feel a little like the man who is asked if he will stop beating his wife. I need to word my response carefully so it doesn’t appear that I am confessing to something to which I cannot confess.

With all honesty I can write the following:

I have never hounded Parsecboy and no-one has supplied any evidence (diffs) to support any allegation that I have. I have no intention of beginning to hound Parsecboy or anyone else in the future.

I have never stalked or harassed Parsecboy and no-one has supplied any evidence (diffs) to support any allegation that I have. I have no intention of beginning to stalk or harass Parsecboy or anyone else in the future.

Much has been written here by Parsecboy and others to link Parsecboy’s Talk page with the concept of me following him around. If Parsecboy has a genuine fear of me using his Talk page for that purpose I can assure him his fears are unfounded. He need have no anxiety about that process and I will explain why. We write very little on our own Talk pages. It is others who write things on our Talk page. Sometimes we reply, but not always. It is not possible to look at a User’s Talk page and determine where that User is editing, what he is writing, how frequently he is editing or what topics interest him. That information is simply not available on a User’s Talk page. (It is only available at that User’s Contribution List.) So it is impossible for me or anyone else to use Parsecboy’s Talk page to mount unwanted activities such as stalking him, hounding him or following him around. If Parsecboy fears his Talk page is being used for such unwanted activities by me or others he can shed those fears because they are unfounded.

@Parsecboy: If there is a hatchet above ground between us, let’s bury it. I am willing. As I have written before, you are always welcome at my Talk page. (And please notice I have eliminated all the double spaces between sentences in this statement!) Cheers. Dolphin (t) 22:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to bury said hatchet. I'm not one for grudges. If we can both behave ourselves, you're welcome at my talkpage as well. I think we can put this thread to rest.

I'm glad you liked the Slate article (it won me the argument between my wife and I). Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 25 June 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.

Syrian Civil War (2011–present)

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

---

There appears to be a dispute here with the article's title, a huge move request is on the talk page and a editor moved the article before it was closed, while some are claiming that a consensus was reached another editor is demanding that the name be changed back. In summary this needs an admin to intervene here as the article was moved before an official consensus could be reached it seems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Move back to original status A colleague has unilaterally moved the article to a civil war. This unilateral move by one individual is a matter of grave concern and contrary to all etiquette between colleagues. Very importantly, this goes contrary to general Wikipedia practice when a move is still in discussion. With widespread discussion going on, it is not the time to be BOLD. This is a very premature and ill-advised move that has been done. It should be immediately reverted until an admin closes all arguments for a concensus. I repeat that this is not a popularity contest nor an ideological agenda. We are not here to "create history ourselves" simply because we have rights to move an article according to our conception of what a situation is. Particularly when it has been subject to so much pro and con discussion, the status quo and the original title should prevail until closed by an administrator with a resume of all ideas taken into consideration. Until then, original status quo must prevail. werldwayd (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Permit the new status and close discussion: The discussion has already reached past the 7 day vote, to which 70% of the editors agreed that civil war is the correct title name. I7laseral (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide what is the concensus we have reached since you have an agenda here and bias to one side of the argument. Your edit history for one year and more is only for Syrian uprising-related matters and nearly nothing else. You have no general contributions to Wikipedia as such to decide on what a concensus we reached. You have come here with an agenda and your opinion is a very biased one. Until true concensus is reached and decided by an independent side, an admin of high ranking with an expertise in such moves, you have to limit yourself to taking part in discussion, and not behave unilaterally as is obvious from the way you have handled the page. werldwayd (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC).

In addition to it being pretty obvious that it's a civil war, sources are calling it such, more and more. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not everyone thinks so, having the page moved before the move discussion could be closed through an uninvolved admin on the talk page was a powderkeg. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that USAToday still calls it an "uprising".[15] I suppose it doesn't become a "civil war" until the other side has a reasonable chance of winning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If you truly was a vote, as I7laseral says, and the UN also believes that this civil war, in this case the new title is correct. Doncsecz^talk 08:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I just closed the discussion as "no consensus". Suppose we might as well start the review of my actions now... Dpmuk (talk) 23:18, 23 June 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.

Competition between Airbus and Boeing

User User talk:Alainmoscoso (suspected Sock Puppets User talk:70.168.134.209 and User_talk:68.100.216.166) has made repeated disruptive unsubstantiated edits and reverts to the Competition between Airbus and Boeing despite efforts by other users to persuade him/her to stop on talk pages. The user has a history of bad behaviour towards the page. WatcherZero (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that bad behavior was to help improving a page. Please refer to the sources I provided before saying it is "unsubstantiated". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 01:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I added "2011 Orders by Value" column and is being removed from the topic constantly. I already gave the sources being Airbus & Boeing own websites and proof where they mentioned those numbers and still seems not to be enough evidence. What better source than the own companies' websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 00:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No comment on your complaint, but to answer your question: company websites are usually considered primary sources, which are not preferred. A better source would be an industry trade-magazine, or an editorial reviewed media source, that contains the same info, except (hopefully) with some fact checking involved. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 02:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources; their own reports are primary self-published sources, and while almost certainly reliable in this area barring the occasional typo, do not establish the information as noteworthy that analysis be an uninvolved third party reliable source would. Kudos to you for wanting to and being even handed with both, but it really need to be externally referenced if it's going to be included. You should find those sources first, then try to develop consensus on the article's talk page. Dru of Id (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Weve had this discussion, the sources you provide dont actually support the claims you make, you keep on insisting on using original research to estimate the revenue based on aircraft list prices which are never actually paid by the airlines who often pay as little as half the list price. Neother company publically breaks down revenue by aircraft type because its a commercial secret and you even keep adding a positive revenue from the cancellation of an order. WatcherZero (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please explain me then why they talk that way when it comes to announce their orders: "Airbus had a record order intake of 1,608 (1,419 net) commercial aircraft, worth US$169 billion gross (US$140 billion net) at list prices"[16]. Yes, we've discussed this before and you still keep bringing revenue. This information has nothing to do with their revenue or the real prices they sell their airplanes for. This information is the value of their orders at their list prices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want more proof "OSLO, Norway, Jan. 25, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- Boeing (NYSE: BA) and Norwegian have announced a firm order for 100 fuel-efficient 737 MAX airplanes and 22 Next-Generation 737-800s. The total order is valued at $11.4 billion at list prices and represents the largest-ever Boeing order from a European airline".[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You say you want third party reliable sources, here you have one explaining exactly what I've been trying to explain you: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-airbuss-late-push-sees-off-boeing-again-351934/ [18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good source. I'd suggest that you link to that source on the article's talk page, and request discussion about what info from this new source should be incorporated into the article. I also think now this has become a content related issue, and can best be continued on the article's talk page. Perhaps a close is in order? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 03:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The order values calculated by Alainmoscoso are very different from the actual revenue reported by Airbus and BCA (and which is also reported by secondary sources). Attempts to discuss on the talkpage yielded no fruit but there has been a discussion on my talkpage... cut a long story short, customers don't actually pay "list price", so presenting calculations based on list prices would greatly mislead readers. Alainmoscoso calculates, using these fictitious "list prices", that Boeing took $133 Bn of orders last year. Reliable sources show that Boeing's actual revenue was $36Bn last year. Our article should reflect reality; it should say $36Bn. bobrayner (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

bobrayner you are still talking about oranges when I'm talking about apples. The $36Bn reflects the deliveries of 477 airplanes at their arranged prices between Boeing and every client they have. How much did Boeing charged them individually? We don't know and I'm not mentioning it whatsoever in this article. Obviously you either have not read all the information I already gave or you don't understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 12:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The actual values of individual orders are rarely announced. That is not a license to fill in gaps with made-up values for sales of each product. One thing we can be confident of is A and B's revenue; this is widely and accurately reported, and it contradicts the numbers that you have calculated. Can't we take this to the article talkpage? Please? bobrayner (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you talk about "made-up values" or "fictitious prices", etc., why do you still have articles like [9/11 conspiracy theories]? that's a made-up theory for most people but still you can read it and you know what you are reading because the title clearly states what it is. It is basically that same in the information I'm providing. I'm not misleading the public in any way because I'm stating very clearly what that information is about. bobrayner is exhausting dealing with you because you believe you have the absolute truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainmoscoso (talk • contribs) 14:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That article presents conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. We have articles on all kinds of hoaxes, conspiracies, and lies - as long as they're well-sourced and presented neutrally, it's fine. The content you've been adding takes a fictitious "list price" at face value. At no point does the article actually admit this problem (and there's no room to do so in a simple table). Readers will actually believe that Boeing is selling $133Bn of airliners each year but, in reality (and in reliable sources) it sells $36Bn of airliners per year. Telling readers something which isn't true is a Bad Thing. bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Websites like www.flightglobal.com shows similar information I posted in the article as well as Boeing and Airbus own websites. Are you calling them misleading sources? One thing are orders and a different thing are deliveries. Revenue comes when deliveries are completed and again, I'm not talking anything about deliveries and/or revenue and you keep bringing that up. If you read the article I put of flightglobal.com you can read at the end of the table: "Notes: * Airbus and Boeing 2010 values have been estimated by Flightglobal using average list prices to enable like-for-like comparisons. Airbus values its 2010 net orders at over $74 billion and backlog at $480 billion. Airbus and Boeing 2009 values use the same methodology. Data includes A319CJ and Boeing BBJ." Is this a misleading, unsubstantiated and/or made-up information?Alainmoscoso (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if each vendor writes its own "list prices" but doesn't actually sell planes at that price, it allows us to make totally fair like-for-like comparisons and calculations. Readers will see the $133Bn in a table and just know that, err, BCA doesn't actually sell $133Bn of airliners each year. Can't we handle this on the article's talkpage? Please? bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe we won't find a common ground. Could I create a new article? that way you tell the truth and I put "made-up" information for the people who likes this kind of topics? Alainmoscoso (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't. And this is not something for AN/I - this is a content dispute, and thus it needs to be discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What about an "Analysis of orders, deliveries and backlog" then?68.100.216.166 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like something that would attract WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

RPP backlog

There's a big backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Some requests have been sitting there for over a day. Zagalejo^^^ 07:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just made my eyes (and fingers) bleed going through about 40 overdue AFD's...I think I'll pass on the RFPP's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of my closure of Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present)#Requested move to Syrian Civil War title

Per this edit it would appear that, unsurprisingly, my closure of this move request is controversial so I'm asking it to be reviewed here. I'm aware of WP:MRV but don't think that process is mature enough yet to handle this. I will also admit to my revert of the new RM being right on the edge of involved but felt it important that my closure be properly reviewed here rather than have another WP:POINTy RM which may have quickly developed. Dpmuk (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe that in this case the administrator acted the way he did simply because he opposed personally the move and not because it was Wikipedia rules. Because there was a very big consensus (more than 70% of editors) agreeing on the move, he had to arbitrairily discount a lot of votes and opinions, under the false pretext of them not being "state of art" explanation of their opinion, voluntary ignoring the fact that at one point in a discussion with dozen of participants, it would just be repeting the same arguments than everyone else.

This decision of closing the request by "no consensus" while the consensus was so heavy seems borderline like an "I have all power and I will do how it please me" attitude, with no respect for the editors of Wikipedia.--Maldonado91 (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reads like no consensus could easily have been the way to read it, based on policies, and the fact that this is not a vote. 70% won't get to the admin bits, and 70% doesn't get an article title changed. I can also see why some passionate individuals would believe 70% would pass - but 30% of the people did not agree - that's a pretty high number (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is consensus unanimity now? Even "Dpmuk" had to randomly cancel people opinions in order to defend its view of non consensus. If 30% gets a minority block now, there it is the definitive end of moving pages that have a big number of editors.--Maldonado91 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One single well-stated, policy-based argument can override a dozen arguments of "yes, let's change it". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As I see, admins protect and support other admins even against Wikipedia rules. Not surprising.--Maldonado91 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Try to see the forest instead of just trees. The article is reachable and editable using both variations of the name. At some point in the near future, it may make more sense to change the name. Right now, the overwhelming POLICY-BASED consensus was not to. I admire your ability to count !votes, but you're in no position to determine policy-based consensus at this time. As you have already been notified, your attempted re-creation of a move discussion has been closed as pointy and disruptive, and you have been warned against repeating it (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Maldonoado 91 (nice name, btw) is reminded that Wikipedia is not a democracy. As BWilkins points out, one well-thought-out, clearly-explained, policy-based argument trumps a dozen - or even a hundred - WP:JUSTAVOTEs. Consensus does not require unanimity, a supermajority, or even a majority - it requires that an issue be found to be conformant to Wikipedia policy, or to have one heck of a good reason not to conform. Also, "consensus" is not "agreeing with me", and (also as mentioned) attempts to immediately re-start a discussion that didn't end the way you liked are considered disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Maldonado, although Dpmuk declined to take it to WP:MRV (move review), you have the option of doing so (as does anyone else). It won't become a tried-and-tested process until it's... tried and tested. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This was a good close, the type of close that can be used as an example of a good close. The majority of views in support of the move are not just outside of naming policy criteria but cut directly against policy based on an apparent politically motivated point of view. A large portion of the participants were not trying to decide what the proper name is for this article under Wikipedia's naming conventions but how to convince Wikipedia to choose a name they want or viscerally felt was more accurate, regardless of what the naming conventions say. The salient policy-based take-away is that the majority of reliable sources outside of Wikipedia do not describe this as a civil war, and of those that have used that term in conjunction, they do so in the content of saying "may become", "on the verge of becoming" "looming on a" civil war and similar phrases showing implicitly that per them, it is not yet a civil war. The nomination, unlike most of the supports, actually focused on what sources say in support of the move—it just turned out to be untrue. If the support had focused on that relevant matter, showing it was the case that most recent reliable sources call it a civil war, we would have some substance to discuss here. Instead most of the supports are based on trying to define whether the current situation in Syria meets some definition of civil war (irrelevant original research; we follow reliable sources) or pointed to single instances of sources using the term without addressing the fact that most were not using the term. There was nothing "arbitrary" about discounting such !votes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, excellent close for appropriate reasons. We can all see where this nightmare is going, but so can the rulers in Syria; they may chose not to go there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

+1. Policy and reliable sources beats counting !votes based on opinion and original research. Rd232 ^talk 18:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The decision to go back to Syrian uprising (2011–present) is well-explained and totally justifiable and I applaud Dpmuk for his methodology and decision. Titles are not a popularity contest. 70% for, 30% against, doesn't mean we change as 70% wants. The final and definitive say is to reliable outside sources who know better than the 40-50 individuals who come and comment subjectively on a page, many for ideological reasons, some just disgusted by the amount of bloodshed or disdain for a dictator like Assad. Even a 90% vote for a move doesn't satisfy me if outside reliable objective media sources overwhelmingly use a certain terminology to the unliking of the 90% voters. A certain UN official also used the term "civil war" and this became a huge basis for support to rename the page. A UN official is not the UN and its members. It is just an official. Another UN official may retract the other UN official's comments. We should rely on reports by AP, UPI, Reuters, New York Times etc, not a declarartion for day-to-day consumption. This talk page should lead to a solid rule (precedence) in which votes do not win against factual and reliable international reporting. werldwayd (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Another very grave matter that I want to put your attention to is that a long discussion was initiated. Yet one individual, a certain colleague Doncsecz bypassed all discussions and without having reached a closing of arguments by an independent and high-ranking administrator, went on to unilaterally change the title into Syrian Civil War without waiting for a decision. He just quoted a UN official that said in one of his declarations that this was a civil war, and title was changed. This infuriated colleague Tradedia who voiced his opposition and informed me of the situation and I had to intervene further, which made the task of Knowledgekid87 to establish some peace. I also do not appreciate the excessive and undue intervention of an editor like I7laseral who seemingly intervened at every comment throughout the talk with his wry method of putting down opposition just to create undue confusion based on some ideological concerns of his of seeing his way of dubbing it a "civil war". Every intervention by I7laseral was followed by more pro votes for him because of the huge amount of pro vote sentiments he aroused by his repetitive comments that show no will whatsoever of reconciliation except to have it his own way and nothing else. For the previous full year, almost all edits of this colleague have been on Syrian-uprisiong related issues and nothing else. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/I7laseral&offset=&limit=500&target=I7laseral This just proves he is here with a clear agenda, so all his comments are very biased and his edits should be more closely scrutinized everywhere regarding Syrian Uprising related articles. This sort of tactics on a talk page by very principled and ideological editors does tilt voting on talk pages and is very counter-productive and should be noted for future instances. I am requesting that opinions are not repeated continuously to create a certain change in sentiments as I7laseral has done and colleagues like Doncsecz should be severely restrained, cautioned and if need be suspended for changing titles prior to closing of discussions. His move created so much discomfort and lack of etiquette towards all of us still discussing on the talk page you cannot imagine. I can't emphasize further need to stop effecting changes unilaterally. Let us avoid such behavior in the future. werldwayd (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

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:109.145.226.227 Please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Already done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:30, 24 June 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.

Copyright infringement

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

 – Copyright status clarified, and image tagged to prevent further confusion. — Coren ^(talk) 14:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For a few days I've been having some trouble with User:Alssa1 regarding the article about Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas. He has been adding over and over pictures which aren't in public domain. I warned him about it (see the article log here) but he has ignored me (see my message to him on his talk page). Since I've done pretty much all I could do about this I came here asking for someone to deal with him. --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

All the images you seem to have an issue over are on Commons and most of them appear to be appropriately licenced (some e.g. File:Propaganda do Estado Novo (Brasil).jpg do look dodgy as they claim pd-self for old photos) so all Alssa1 is doing is linking to them. If you think the licences are incorrect then you should take that up on Commons not here. NtheP (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

They are ok to be used in Portuguese Wiki, not here. The license given to File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg is the Brazilian law 9,610 of 19 February 1998. Obviously, Brazilian laws have no strength inside U.S. or Great Britain. The link given as source ("Galeria de presidents") is dead. --Lecen (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg is used on 6 wikis including this one. On all of those the image needs to be public domain in both Brazil and the US (copyright status in the UK is irrelevant) as WP servers are in the US. If you think the image is incorrectly or inadequately licenced then the forum to discuss that is the wiki where the image is hosted not the wikis where is it being used. In this case that is Commons. NtheP (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Commons, about French, German or Spanish Wikipedia. I'm talking about the English Wikipedia. The article about Getúlio Vargas in this Wikipedia can not have non-free pictures as it's considered copyright infringement. If you're not going to tell that user to stop adding them, then you should let another editor who can be of some actual help here do something. --Lecen (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Commons has a pretty restrictive image policy: they won't take any images that aren't free. So, if the image hasn't been deleted from Commons, it stands to reason that it's free to be used on en.wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should assume that an image on Commons is necessarily free. I nominate images for deletion on Commons frequently, and, generally, they are deleted. The wonderful thing about Commons is the deletion process is intuitive, steamlined, and responsive (although they occasionally suffer from backlogs and under"staffing".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess the point I was getting at is, if there's a concern about the image, nominate it for deletion at Commons and let their processes handle it. If it passes the test there, we can use it here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it so hard to understand that a photo taken in 1940 is not free in the U.S. since the photographer certainly did not die more than 70 years ago? The license tags given are meant to be used in Portuguese wiki, where Brazilian law may be applied, but not in English Wikipedia. --Lecen (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's... not that simple. Commons has a (relatively) small fraction of files that are unambiguously free to use in some places, yet not in some others– this is most often the case when the same work has been published in two jurisdictions at different times. That said, those photographs were explicitly never copyrighted in the first place (they were in the public domain by virtue of having been published by the government under a law that stated as much), so unless the actual photographer published them independently in the United States (where they would then have acquired protection) they can be used there. There is no indication that this is the case and, given how unlikely that scenario is in the first place, I can't think of a reason why we'd assume as much. — Coren ^(talk) 13:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I can garantee you that that article would never pass a FAC with those pictures. --Lecen (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the FAC process as a reference for anything but the FAC process itself is almost certainly an error. Certainly, it gives no added information about the suitability of Wikipedia using that image on legal grounds – there is no question there: in the absence of evidence to independent publication in the United States by the photographer, those images are free for use on Wikipedia by virtue of having been released to the public domain on publication. — Coren ^(talk) 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Specifically, any work in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 is in the public domain in the United States – there are some subtleties about works whose copyright may have expired between 1923 and 1977 but they do not apply to works specifically given to the public domain as those pictures are). Copyright paranoia is very destructive; before you raise the spectre of copyright violations (which are taken very seriously here), you may want to familiarize yourself with the actual contents of the Berne Convention and the Uruguay Round Agreement Act, or at least defer to those who have. — Coren ^(talk) 14:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The image has two copyright tags - one claiming 70 years since publication for an anonomous work - which would mean that the photo wold be pd in Brazil in 1930 + 70 = 2000, and one saying that it is pd because it is a work of the Brazilian government. Where is the evidence that the photo was released to the public domain on publication - apparently as a Brazilian Government work? Because if this is untrue, and we are relying on the first tag, then the image will run foul of URAA, and will still be under copyright in the US as it would still have been under copyright in Brazil in 1996.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, both tags are true really; the work is necessarily in the public domain in Brazil because of its age, and it was automatically in the public domain anyways because it was work of the government; the relevant Brazilian law is cited on the tag itself. Unless there is reason to believe that this wasn't a publication of the Government (which would be consistent with that clearly is an official portrait), the one that's important to use here is the latter. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the original source appears dead, but if you look at page 6 of the official brochure of the Palácio do Planalto, you can clearly see that portrait hanging on the wall of the gallery of presidents (14th of the top row) so there is no question this is an official portrait from the government itself. — Coren ^(talk) 14:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Unsurprisingly) Commons had a tag for that situation; I've added it to the page there, so that should prevent this mistake from reoccurring.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:52, 24 June 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jarred Land

Re-posting in light of most recent disruptions [19], [20], [21], [22]. AfD has already been discussed here, with numerous blocks of sock or meatpuppet accounts. Puerile campaign of intimidation continuing, with harassment of editor and attempts to pressure into changing or deleting comments, accusations of libel, etc. We went through the same crap at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi Magazine. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It was due to be closed momentarily, so I have done so. The puerile socks/involved people really shot themselves in their foot (note: not feet) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Studyukraine

The user Studyukraine has been making some edits which appear to be promotional in nature. Here is an example: [23] Here is another example: [24] This user has received a number of warnings on their talk page already. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious little spammy edits are fairly routine and perhaps not worth bringing to the AN/I drama-board unless somebody keeps ploughing on through final and/or handwritten warnings. However, when I looked more closely at this one, it seems like they've had string of warnings over the last few weeks, and some edits like this and this appear to be stealthily replacing a legitimate URL with a new URL for competing organisations which they're promoting - and that's a bit worse, IMHO. bobrayner (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that this editor is not anglophone, which could explain why they keep ploughing on through warnings. Does anybody here have sufficient language skills to give them a good hard "Stop it!" in Ukrainian/Russian? bobrayner (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems this user is promoting a Ukrainian higher education company of some sort, and they are doing this by making edits on a number of college/university pages, including edits that replace URLs with a link to the company being promoted. I've tried to undo most of their work, but they don't seem to be stopping.Safehaven86 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

African National Congress - Legal threat

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 see African National Congress at this edit. The editor asserts a legal issue. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP address (for a month - it's dynamic) for WP:NLT and semi-protected the article, but I've also removed a large amount of out-of-date, unsourced and BLP-dubious material from it. If anyone with more knowledge wishes to tidy it up further, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I also left an additional note on the editor's talk page with instructions to further discuss the issue there if needed, as well as a link to WP:FEFS. I will watch that talk page and respond as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:00, 24 June 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.

Legal threat on User talk:Ben Ben

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.

---

diff "Please do not call my edits lies hen they are tue − Thi is libel. Thnks " I reverted the addition. Jim1138 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Rouoetyjsjabdb (talk · contribs) had not been warned about WP:NLT. I just left him a message—after this thread was started. Suggest no action unless threats continue, in which case he's been advised that he'll be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit summaries used and comments made don't seem to constitute a legal threat. They do however constitute serious incivility and if continued should definitely result in a block QU ^TalkQu 18:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And he is now indefinitely blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Third attempt to add - for the record now): diff "I was static a fact not threatening. Oops I mean stating. But his too is not − A threat just a statement of fact. Nevertheless you have lied libeled and slandered again." Jim1138 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those words do, in fact, qualify as a "legal threat" the way wikipedia uses the term - that is, raising the notion that the editor is in violation of some law, and thus trying to intimidate the editor. Good indef block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Now they've been deciphered I agree! QU ^TalkQu 20:13, 24 June 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.

Nangparbat

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:86.128.244.149 Please block. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Use WP:AIV to report vandalism, not WP:ANI.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 19:08, 24 June 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.

Notice of Intent to commit Sockpuppetry

Troll

Dear Administrators, I hereby notify you of my intention to use the IP range provided to me by my current ISP in its entirety, as a sockfarm in order to produce an obscene volume of sockpuppet accounts over an extended duration. You should note furthermore, that it is my intention for these sockpuppet accounts to be extremely disruptive, and to be used only for the puposes of vandalism and trolling. You should note that my accessible range covers a vast number of distinct IP addresses, and as such any range block you attempt will either be insufficient, or cause collateral damage of immense proportions. Yours sincerely, Mr N J White esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.117.100 (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

rDNS for 94.6.117.100 is 5e067564.bb.sky.com. Edit time was as per this diff. Please send all abuse reports to the usual place... -- The Anome (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered

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.

---

Alan Liefting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently removing what appear to be all instances of File:Replace this image male.svg from articles using an automated tool. He uses the edit summary "rm image per discussion. See File:Replace this image male.svg", but I can find no discussion about this. He has not reacted to what I consider a reasonable request on his talk page to stop this until it is clear whether there is a consensus for the removal of these images. Because I believe our practice is to consider undiscussed and potentially controversial automated changes to hundreds of articles disruptive, I am considering blocking Alan Liefting until he agrees to (a) stop these removals and start a structured discussion, and (b) undo the removals he already made if there is no consensus in favor of them. What do others think about this?  Sandstein  06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. From my standpoint, this sort of behaviour is becoming a recurring pattern for User:Alan Liefting. (See here, here, here for examples.) I know he is able to productively discuss things when approached because I have seen it happen. It just seems that more often than not he prefers not to stop after an editor or editors ask him to stop. There are several Wikipedia users that I know of that have lost all patience with Alan and are hoping that some sort of action is taken. I don't know what the right solution is. I blocked him on 14 May 2012 for vandalism of a reporting page and some personal attacks after he kind of lost it after being reported on an administrator's noticeboard. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A templated note on the male placeholder says:

    Note to Wikipedia editors:

    From 11 April to 23 April 2008, a centralized discussion considered the appropriateness of using "from-owner" image placeholders on biographies of living persons. A carefully structured discussion clarified the objections to this practice as well as its benefits.

    There was significant opposition to the use of images such as Replace this image female and this one. 35 editors (66%) agreed with the question, "placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles", however, only 14 editors (45%) agreed with any particular recommendation.

    66% seems quite significant to me, but then it's my opinion that the placeholders make us look totally amateur and should be deprecated. Why would 66% not be considered a consensus? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this discussion is the one the remover refers to, and it's five years old; moreover it does not seem to have resulted in consensus for actually removing the files. I don't think that a discussion that old that has since not been acted upon is now a reasonable basis for an otherwise undiscussed mass removal.  Sandstein  06:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • According to the old discussion, 66% of participants were opposed to the use of those images, and if only a smaller percentage advocated immediate removal it was because they wished to first see a discussion about developing some alternative solution as a successor system. Since evidently no such successor system has been introduced in the four years since, I find it entirely reasonable to now take that as a justification for removal. My understanding has long been that these things were thoroughly deprecated and I'm astonished to see there were still so many of them around. Most seem to have been on minor, rarely-edited bios, where they probably were simply forgotten. Plus, in most of these cases the original introduction of the placeholder image was itself done through an undiscussed mass edit back in 2008, Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A discussion involving only around 50 editors from four years ago is not a community consensus to remove this image across thousands of articles. I strongly oppose this action. A new discussion about removal should be conducted and then Alan can do his removals. But he should stop immediately until such a discussion is concluded. Silverseren^C 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
      • And how many prompted the replacement by a useable image? Dru of Id (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Probably unknowable. Even if we had statistics about how many placeholders were replaced, we would still not know in how many cases the uploaders were prompted by the presence of the placeholder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not going to comment on behavioural issues and the state of consensus, but ditching this image is an improvement. Editors were always aware that bio articles without masthead images could benefit by having such an image added. There was no reason to make the pages look untidy for readers too by adding this boilerplate.

Mind you, if this image is to go, then isn't that a 'bot task? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support the removal of these amateurish images. Commend the editor who has done the work of removing them. They should never have been added in the first place, they look terrible, and our articles are the better for their removal. --John (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Number of times in my 6+ years here that I have seen an editor actually replace one of those 'replace this image' with a proper photo? Zero. They serve no real purpose and look grim. GiantSnowman 11:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good removals, no real consensus to implement it, and it is time that this is cleared. Sometimes it is good that someone takes initiative to clear out stuff, and I think it is very inappropriate that editors then directly start considering blocks - we are, clearly, not a bureaucracy where everything that is done needs a clear pre-established consensus (unless someone can show me significant opposition against removal that is ignored). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support removals and trout slap those coming after him. How is an old consensus invalid? Unreal. Yes, consensus can change but if there's no new consensus that overrides it, it's still valid regardless of subjective ideas of "old". Plus, looking at this discussion, coming after him for not having a bot do the work? I'm getting rather disgusted with this new-think idea that a repetitive task must be done by a bot, else not be done, and therefore any editor doing a repetitive task is by default 'wrong'. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support removal Even if we decided that the removals were incorrect, a block would be completely punitive as long as he agreed to whatever consensus was established here, but it seems like consensus is moving in his direction. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support the removal, never been a fan of the File:Replace this image male.svg and File:Replace this image female.svg. If there is no photograph then there should be no image stating it, it is clear that no free-use photograph exists and there is no need to state the obvious by using File:Replace this image fe/male.svg! Bidgee (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support getting rid of those ugly and unprofessional things! Alan Liefting deserves our thanks for taking on this job. Threatening a block for this is ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and Sandstein should be admonished for starting off a discussion with a threat to block unless the party he is in dispute with complies with his demands. Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• 20-Mule-Team Support: What the hell? Since when does consensus have a sell-by date? Hell, if Silver's bizarre contention that we can safely ignore any consensus that was reached too long ago holds true, I bet there are any number of policies and guidelines we can ignore, right? Has WP:N been currently ratified by the community? Ravenswing 17:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  The issue isn't so much how old the discussion is as the point that such a fundamental change to thousands of articles should have a Wiki-wide discussion before implementing. With a watchlist notice and the like. Silverseren^C 19:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Then this should be a non-issue. There was a wiki-wide discussion, and it was duly posted at WP:CD ([25]). 2/3rds supported removal. No evidence has been provided by anyone that this consensus has been overridden by a new consensus. Given the amount of support Alan is getting here, it seems rather likely any new consensus would mirror the previous one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Plainly the age of the discussion is an issue - why else would you mention it? And, as Hammersoft points out, there WAS a notice and WAS a widespread discussion, and you know full well that a full fifty editors chiming in is quite a broad base by Wikipedia standards for such a technical discussion. If you didn't notice it at the time, that's scarcely Alan's fault, or our problem. That being said, come on: this is not a "fundamental" change. This is removing a placeholder few seem to like in favor of no image at all, a cosmetic alteration few Wikipedia users would even notice, let alone care about. If the impulse some folks have is "OMG we have to block him to STOP HIM!!!", that strikes me as much more trigger-happy than is fitting for an admin. Ravenswing 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Fine. I never said I was opposed to the idea anyways, just Alan's mass removal with no context. So long as there is still support, it's fine. I just wish he had obtained this reaffirmed support before starting. It's better to do that than to act on years old consensuses for removal without warning. Silverseren^C 19:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• There's plenty of things around here that we apply that gained consensus years and years ago. Sheer age of a consensus does not make it invalid. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about consensuses like policies or things that have been already implemented, but consensus for things that would require mass removals and haven't been implemented for years afterwards. At that point, it should be reaffirmed or at least announced that the person will be undertaking this consensus, rather than just starting to remove all of them and confusing a large number of people. An announcement of the intent to do so on AN would be the best option. Silverseren^C 20:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• The removals have been done for years. It's not the case that consensus was achieved and nothing was done about it for four years. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• 40-Mule-Team Support removal: The evidence at the time was these were not bringing in usable pictures and articles that still have them four years on is further proof of that. The rules for allowable pics are so Byzantine that it is a mistake to encourage uploading of pics that will get deleted anyway. MarnetteD | Talk 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• No strong opinion on the images, but Alan needs to communicate when his editing is questioned on his talk page. He appears to have completely ignored the first message on his talk page and only decided to stop editing at the moment the ANI thread was started, 18 hours later. This is not collaborative or cooperative behavior. Also, these edits are being done at a high rate by a semi-automated process, and clearly they're not completely uncontroversial edits. Therefore, per WP:BOTASSIST, Alan should submit a BRFA for this task. Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with what he is doing, being unresponsive during a huge run of automated or semi-automated edits (for which you don't have explicit approval) is equivalent to begging for an immediate block. -Scottywong| communicate _ 19:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• In light of my support for his actions, I do agree with Scottywong that his communication during this ordeal has been subpar. If an editor is going to make 1000's of edits and someone questions them, the editor should make sure the concern is completely addressed before continuing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I might suggest that we "beef up" WP:Fait accompli, which is a decision that came out of a ArbCom case (TTN's?) on the impact of doing a large number of similar changes. I don't think we need to make it policy or even a guideline, but I would suggest that if anyone is planning on doing a wide range of a common action in a short period of time via a non-bot mechanism (whether manual, semi-automated, or automated), that one should (but absolutely not required to) validate those actions, and more importantly, if such actions are contested while being acted on, the actions should stop immediately (and that's more a requirement than a suggestion) to allow discussion to continue. Again, I do not want to make it anywhere enforceable as problems with fait accompli can be handled through standard admin action like we're discussing here (and knowing how both the Beta and RichF. Arbcom cases closed out, what exactly is "wide range of common action in a short period of time" is a poor definition and will be so gamed by editors with grudges), but it's a piece of advice that I think we want editors to follow and that we can remind them of if they are acting in this fashion in the face of obvious resistance. --MASEM (t) 19:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Alan did have validation for his actions. He responded promptly to queries about it as well. When the actions became contested via this thread on WP:AN/I, he stopped immediately. Alan's done nothing wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I 100% agree he's done nothing actionable by AN or most other metrics (during or currently), but the only reason I point this out is that if he said, say, over at VPP that he was about to act on this past consensus, we wouldn't be here right now at ANI about it. Hence why beefing up the essay to suggest that announcing large scale non-bot efforts is highly recommended to avoid being in the line of fire later. --MASEM (t) 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• On 29 May 2012 Alan was approached about the removal on a particular article. Alan responded 13 minutes later. Alan was approached on 31 May 2012 about the removals. Just two minutes later he responded, pointing to the relevant centralized discussion that gave consensus to deprecate the use. How is that not cooperative? Because Fram, who was party to the 31 May 2012 discussion, asked him yesterday to stop and he didn't respond or stop? Alan had already responded to Fram previously. Kudos to Alan for stopping when another editor notified him of this thread. Alan's done nothing wrong here. His edits have consensus and the summary is accurate and provides a link for further understanding. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• My apologies for my earlier reply to Scottywong then, I didn't realize that Fram was part of the earlier discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I created the WP:IPH shortcut to the consensus decision supporting removal, and have suggested Alan include that shortcut in future edit summaries when he resumes removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Just in case it wasn't clear from my comment above, I support the removal of the placeholders (and generally do so myself when I come across then, which is quite infrequently these days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to allow Alan to finish

I propose that we allow Alan to finish making his improvements to the encyclopedia in relation to removing the placeholders. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. (Oppose A good point is made about automated edits below) I just hope he makes an announcement next time on AN or VPP before conducting something like this. There's been far too many ANI discussions regarding him in relation to his semi-automated edits that he really should announce things first at this point if he wants to avoid this stuff. Silverseren^C 20:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, I hope you do realise that we are 'again' here with Alan because Sandstein felt the necessity to immediately come to AN/I without talking to the editor first, where the editor was before already approached twice and already twice has shown that there was consensus for his tasks. I actually really wonder why Sandstein brought this thread here and not continued a discussion with the editor on their talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support of course. I think we already have done this above. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I felt like consensus was there, I just wanted to make it official. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose until a consensus is obtained for an automated removal of the images. The discussion from 4 years ago seems to have resulted in a consensus that the images are ugly, and something should be done about them, but there was no discussion of having an automated tool remove all of them. For instance, perhaps it would be more useful to convert the image tags to something like Category:Biography articles needing images. A brief discussion at WP:VPP is not much to ask, and could result in a better outcome than blunt removal without discussion. In my opinion, a BRFA should be filed for a task of this magnitude. -Scottywong| speak _ 00:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Cat'ing bio pages without infobox images is easy to do via the infobox template, so it could be done post-facto. And since its not a bot, BRFA is inappropriate (but that's why I bring up the idea of non-bot automated/manual repeated tasks being announced prior to the fact. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We should not be setting a precedent that it's ok to silently set up AWB to make thousands of edits based on discussions with a weak consensus that took place many years ago, which never discussed the possibility of automated action. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Knowing how editors that are affected by this demand wikilawyering-levels of resolution, this is a very bad precedent ("Oh, I disagree with this long-standing clear consensus from X years ago because consensus can change! Stop that task at once!") Is it a smart idea to check for support for a task? Heck yes. Required? Heck no, as long as you the editor doing those changes accept that if they are contested, you'd better stop, and if later found to be undesirable, work to fix it up. Refusing to do either of these with any type of mass editor (manual, AWB or something in between) is cruisin' for a block. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • The point is that there was no consensus for an automated tool to remove thousands of images. There was consensus that something needs to be done about the images, but no consensus that they all needed to be forcibly removed. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • There was no consensus against the use of automated tools either. If he was acting against that, then let's through the book at him. But we encourage bold actions when by good faith they are believed to improve the encyclopedia: he ran AWB on that assumption. I'd say we'd want to encourage giving fair warning or re-establishing consensus, but as long as there wasn't clear consensus against the action, being bold is nothing we should punish him form. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and also support the idea of creating a bot to do the work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  I would not try to do it by bot, many would go fine, but this is work that typically glitches for strange reasons. This needs to be done human-supervised with AWB, not automated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Plenty of websites use silhouette images in place of actual pictures. IMDB comes to mind immediately. Ancestry.com does too. The claim that they're "unprofessional" is funny, given the wretched quality of no small number of user-taken snapshots littering the bio's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Which is the unintended consequence of the "no fair use images for living people" policy. But regardless of where they're used otherwise, the placeholders here, at least, are some kind of ugly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ha. I had this debate with someone here, a few years ago, and when I said our multitude of snapshot-quality photos made us look amateurish - and they said it's supposed to be that way. Regardless, those silhouettes don't look any uglier than red-links to non-existent articles. And they're supposed to serve somewhat the same purpose: To maybe encourage someone to look for a picture. However, it would help if it were consistent: Either all or none, not "if we happen to think about it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Scottywong. Happy to start a more full RfC. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis that I don't see consensus against having a call to contribute images - just against the former image in terms of style (and that was marginal). James F. (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support makes articles better. Nobody Ent 02:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a small piece of text in the image slot or at the bottom of the infobox that requested images, but the placeholders are (sorry Bugs) amateurish and ugly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the eye of the beholder, I guess. This doesn't seem at all ugly and amateurish to me. The worst I would say about it is that it's mundane. I don't think it looks any worse than what IMDB uses.[26] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Sure, a matter of opinion. The IMDB star thing is marginally better than our placeholder -- but also, we're an encyclopedia (albeit a popular one) not a commercial website owned by Amazon.com. I'm a great believer in being as visually interesting and informative as possible, but those placeholder images are like nails on a blackboard to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying that what it looks like is not really a strong reason to delete it. Much better reasons include (1) that they are not consistently used, but only on a whim; (2) that they don't really serve any purpose (the fact that there's no picture is fairly obvious); and (3) that they might unwittingly encourage editors to post non-free content. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • • I think it's fair to say that no one has any clue about whether they "work" or not, where "work" means "encourage people to upload legitimate free images". I guess what I'm saying, as someone who's focused a great deal on the visual aspects of WP articles, is that an article is better off with no image whatsoever rather than the placeholders, and that the lack of an image is as useful in nudging an editor to upload an image as the placeholders are. I also agree with the implications of your last remark: veteran WP editors will see either the lack of an image or a placeholder as an encouragement to look for a free image, while tyros will basically ignore the lack of an image, and will be encouraged by the placeholder to upload non-usable non-free images, because that's what are most easily available. (Finding free images is much more difficult, and the vast majority of people don't have personal snapshots of celebrities to contribute.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This discussion is tending towards opinion ("it's ugly/unprofessional" vs. "it isn't any uglier than empty space"), which doesn't take into account whether or not they actually work – the whole point. I'm wondering if (warning, about to sound like the WMF) we should try an A/B test to determine whether the placeholders actually encourage people to upload images. Remove all that are manually inserted, build a list of BLPs without an image, use some parser magic in infoboxes to give half of these articles a placeholder image and leave the other half empty, come back in some months, and see what percentage of articles gained a picture. Has anyone suggested this before? As Bugs said, the placeholders potentially encourage users to post non-free content that they wouldn't add otherwise. We can, of course, review what's uploaded and see if this is true. — The Earwig ^(talk) 04:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, Alan is doing fine with AWB (I actually see no reason why we are !voting to have Alan continue - there is no reason he should not). Alan, please continue the removals. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• We are !voting because an admin – the otherwise esteemed and perceptive Sandstein – told Alan to stop. When someone of that repute says to do something, a community override -- if that's what is wanted -- is a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think that spurring on Alan to continue in the midst of a discussion about what he's doing, that is not providing a clear consensus for him to continue, is not showing the best judgment here. -- Despayre ^{tête-à-tête} 16:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Remove the last of these ill-considered and ugly place holders. It should have been done long ago. --John (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Semi-Support Not on the highly subjective grounds that they're "ugly", which I don't agree they are; but rather because they are at best useless and at worst might induce editors to post non-free photos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Masem - it's a bad precedent to stop an editor from work that has consensus just because the consensus is old. There appears to be sufficient support for a removal here anyway. A short comment somewhere (e.g. VPP) by Alan before starting the work would have been better, but it is not required. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Like ScottyWong said there's no consensus to use automated tools to remove these images wholesale. I also second The Earwig's suggestion -- there hasn't been any proper study as to whether these placeholder images lead to eventual improvement of the encyclopædia. ~Crazytales (talk) (edits) 15:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until a BRFA has been approved for this semi-automated task. — madman 15:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The consensus was only that the current PHs shouldn't be used, not what was to happen to them (either replacement with others or deletion). Until consensus has been reached on that issue wholesale automated deletion seems counterproductive. It also looks like most editors who have voiced disapproval of PHs seems to have done so for aesthetical reasons, and that opens up the possibility that there could be a consensus to replace them with newly designed images. I also agree with the editors suggesting that we find out if the PHs are actually having any effect before deciding to remove them completely.--Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• What is the next step then? Do we start an RfC on the status of the images? Do we have an in depth research study performed on the images and their effects? If we did, questions would need to be answered as to how many of the placeholders prompted image placements and how many placeholders prompted image placements that were later deleted. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As per reasons given by The Earwig and Saddhiyama. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per ScottyWong. I don't have any particular objection to the idea, but we need to follow the process. We have BRFA for a reason. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to remind folks that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Consensus is that the existing images are undesirable. Saying "don't remove them until we !vote" is, well, bureaucracy that isn't needed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose until automated edits are approved I guess I don't need to dig up the links to the two recent arbcom cases to demonstrate the problem: there are a significant number of good editors who are irritated by those who decide they know best and will use an automated tool to implement a change on thousands of articles. It looks like consensus is to remove the images, but there should be no precedent that getting bot approval can be skipped as too bureaucratic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  And there are a significant number of good editors who are irritated by those who decide they know best and will squelch anything that looks automated. Sorry, I stand corrected, of course when an Arbitrator himself does something like that, the thread gets squelched, those 7,500 actions (for which no previous consensus existed!!) were just allowed, and an AN(/I) thread is silenced within no time. That is exactly the precedent that bot approval can be skipped as too bureaucratic (or whatever reason why then bot approval can be skipped), it is the precedent that bot approval for such edits should be skipped. WP:AWB is for mass editing on a user account, just like HUGGLE has parts which are for doing mass edits on a users acount - and editors using AWB will almost by definition do edits on multiple pages. But this is to be expected, this is exactly the precedent that the Arbitration Committee is setting, and this is exactly why editors drop their tools and walk away and work does simply not get done.

  More seriously .. this has to be done supervised, now tell me, we have an editor doing edits had consensus, and who seem to still have consensus, using AWB, on his own account, or we introduce an extra step to ask for a BRFA to do exactly the same (although maybe on a separate account), and you think that is not bureaucratic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe the bot policy should formalize this if this is the bureaucracy that is needed for 'large scale tasks' - "Any editor wishing to perform similar actions which may involve more than 100 pages (e.g. using automated tools like WP:AWB, WP:HUGGLE or other scripts) must request for approval through a BRFA"? You are right, Johnuniq, there are two ArbCom cases which do set the precedent for that, and there are more discussions like this. That must mean that that is what the community wants. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  My goodness, such cynical and pointy commentary! Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  Criticism of automation is being used as a bludgeoning tool. That would be fine if it was used fairly, and equally in all cases where appropriate. That's very far removed from the case, and there is a huge disparity between all of us pigs, with some pigs being more equal than others. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There appears to be an impression among some that this thread is to garner consensus on whether to remove the images or not. That isn't the case. The prior consensus to remove the place holder images remains. If someone wants to see if consensus has changed on that point, please start an RfC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support ongoing removal. Endorsing the content objective. As for procedure, mass edits really ought to be vetted and approved beforehand lest we get into another Betacommand type situation. But in this case no harm was done. Here we are at AN/I, we can take care of this simply and informally, no need to run to RfC or the bot approval board. Best to continue, and a little more communication next time. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Removal. The "replace this image" placeholders look cheesy and unprofessional, serve no real purpose, and have already been deleted from the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. I delete the placeholders whenever I encounter them, which is increasingly infrequent, and I personally deleted them from over 2,000 articles on which I work. The major sports WikiProjects deleted them from athlete bios as a matter of project consensus two or more years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Another subheading added by Alan Liefting

I have decided to break my self-imposted stop in editing to respond to this whole sorry saga. I took it upon myself to carry out out the removal of the placeholder images to improve WP (yes I know, a subjective thing). It was a judgement call on my part that they are better out than in.

Replies to comments:

• Fram, it is true that there was no consensus for removal of the images, but why are you kicking up such a fuss over such a minor issue? Please look at The Big Picture.
• Sandstein, why did you threaten me with a block and start an ANI discussion without attempting to get my side of the story? I had chosen not to reply to Fram because from the gist of the comments it appeared to be impeding progress toward improving WP. That may sound like "I am right and Fram is wrong" but it is was a judgement call on my part. While I am all for discussion on contentious or difficult to fathom issues, something that is of little consequence or something that improves WP for The Reader should be able to be done without any sort of impediment. Lets not forget the alphabet soup of things that need work: NPP, POV issues, AFDs, maint backlogs, gaps in coverage etc. So here I am, hauled in for another wiki-timewaster ANI discussion.
• Andy Dingley, Scottywong, madman and others, sure a bot can do it but a human using AWB can do a better job. AWB gives prompts for work that needs doing that only a human can do (e.g. missing brackets, dead links, out of place sections etc). And it should of course be realised that if it can be done with a BFRA (more discussion!) then it automatically would be acceptable for an actual human to do it.
• Hammersoft, you are right about the removals. The male placeholder was used 38259 times in 2008. When I started removing them it was used only about 5000 times. I would be difficult to find data on how many were replace with an actual image rather than outright removal.
• The replacement of placeholders with actual proper images back in 2008 was less than one percent.
• A big thanks to all the editors who gave supportive comments. "40-Mule-Team Support removal"

A few more points:

• I regularly look at my past edits as a means of self-appraisal. Apart from the reverts by Mattlore as mentioned in the earlier thread on my talk page I have not seen any reverts to keep the placeholder.
• Why did the male placeholder have 5000 odd links and the female only has one?
• I have no intention of doing anything with the remaining 2000 odd articles using the placeholder that I have not checked until there is a clear consensus.

While I don't what to imply that there is the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy this discussion illustrates what I have often seen on WP - the war between the wiki-liberals and the wiki-conservatives. Over to you lot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fram,[...] why are you kicking up such a fuss over such a minor issue?" I have responded to one thread on your user talk page about this issue, and have started a second one three weeks later. "Kicking up such a fuss" would at least involve threats of blocking, starting discussions at other venues, and so on. I did nothing of the sort, I didn't even participate in this ANI discussion until now. I have indicated at the discussion at your talk page that if it became clear from this ANI discussion that these removals are supported and that the 2008 consensus holds despite e.g. the 2009 opposition against it (on the talk page of the file), I have no problem with you continuing your removal of these. I have no objection to such tasks being done with AWB and without bot approval, by the way.

I have also asked you to make your edit summary better by linking directly to the discussion that supported your actions, since different people had difficulties finding it or seeing which discussion exactly was the one you meant. You have not replied to this request, and hadn't made this simple change.

Finally, I also asked you about anothet change you made while doing these removals, i.e. changing "references/" to "reflist". As far as I know, this isn't a standard AWB fix and doesn't have policy or guideline support (the general rule being that if two methods or styles are accepted, you shouldn't be changing one for the other). You haven't replied to this either. Fram (talk) 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The lack of communication on Alan's part is as much of a problem as the semi-automated edits without consensus. Semi-automated and automated editors should not be consciously choosing to not respond to legitimate objections on their talk page. This issue would not be at ANI right now if other means of communication hadn't failed. Editors who use AWB or run bots need to be highly communicative and responsive. If that's not possible, then perhaps Alan's access to AWB should be reconsidered. -Scottywong| comment _ 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amply demonstrated in the section above that Alan has been perfectly communicative regarding his edits and that there is a long-standing consensus that these images should be removed. In these circumstances the onus would be on an editor challenging the consensus to start a new RfC, as Hammersoft says. --John (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with John. Alan was quite communicative, and very rapid in his responses. Further, it's been demonstrated several times now that he had consensus for the actions. Please stop repeating this error, now that you know it is an error. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting, thank you for your reply. I did not ask you before starting this thread because you did not reply to Fram's reasonable request. Your removals conflict with the policy WP:BOTASSIST: "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." Such clear consensus (in favor of an active, large-scale removal) is not apparent to me in either the 2008 discussion linked to on the file page, or in this thread. It is particularly important because the file is in widespread use in articles, and that use seems to be a controversial issue. I therefore advise you to start a proper 30-day RfC, to be summarized and closed by an uninvolved admin, or a WP:BOTAPPROVAL request, to obtain a clear consensus for the removals. I also strongly recommend that you revert the removals you already made until such consensus exists. Should you continue removing the image without obtaining consensus, you remain at risk of being blocked.  Sandstein  18:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sandstein, with respect, you are quite simply incorrect. Please look at the very first sentence underneath the heading at WP:IPH where it says "We also remove the placeholder images from articles where they are currently in place". That proposal achieved a 66% consensus for passing through a "proper RfC". As noted earlier in this sub-thread, the image had been removed more than 30 THOUSAND times based on that RfC's decision before Alan undertook the task of removing the remaining ~5000 uses. That RfC is not invalid, it is not unsupported, and it is not vacated due to age. There was and is absolutely clear consensus, and Alan did nothing out of line. If you wish to change that consensus, the burden is on those opposing the removals to seek such a change in consensus, not on those completing the decision (which is now about 95% complete, of which Alan did only about 8%). Threatening, once again, to block Alan is out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I can understand how one can interpret that discussion in this way, but I am not sure that the 66% in favor then constitute clear consensus. I can't find the place in the above discussion where it is established that the image has already been removed 30,000 times since then without opposition. If true, this would indeed be an argument in favor of an active consensus (as apposed to a five-year-old one) in favor of such action.  Sandstein  19:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I also note that Wikipedia:Image placeholders says "Use of these placeholders is deprecated". It seems very clear the project as a whole made a decision to stop using these placeholder images, and they have been for the most part removed from use. As to the 30,000+ removals, note above where it says "The male placeholder was used 38259 times in 2008". According to the top of this archive, as of April 2008 there were 50,789. This isn't the only placeholder that was widely used. File:Nocover.png now has only three uses. File:Image is needed female.svg has just one. Their use is deprecated, and many editors have been removing them for years now. I'll also re-iterate; the age of a consensus has nothing to do with its validity. The consensus to not allow album covers in discographies is extremely old. Is that invalid because it is old? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• There's also the fact that WP:CONSENSUS is not, nor does it require, a supermajority (or even a majority at all, since WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but that's neither here nor there). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the difficulties that ArbCom had in trying to define how to qualify automated edits for both Beta and RichF in recent cases, it's very hard to apply BOTASSIST or the idea of fait accompli as anything but essay-level advice because the line between good and bad usage is incredibly broad and attempts to narrow become filled with red tape to define specific acctions. Again, to stress the points I made in the previous section, if you are going to use an automated but non-bot (read: something like AWB) to make edits to something, you (the generic editor) are the one that is taking all responsibility by assuming the actions have consensus, you take responsibility in stopping the actions if they receive complaints, and you take responsibility in cleaning up the mess if either of these previous points were found in the wrong. As soon soon as you refuse to response to any aspect of those three areas, you can expect to have the community respond in a prohibitive manner. This makes BOTASSIST great advice: you avoid the first 2 points and through that, would never have to worry about the last, if you assure consensus first. But that can't be a requirement because otherwise we're going to have editors finding the smallest possible automated task to be a problem and requiring any such small repetitive changes to be approved first, which goes against our BOLD/IAR policies. It's merely the responsibility of using those tools properly, which is why AWB had several warnings about things you shouldn't do before you can accept the use of the tool. --MASEM (t) 19:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Work being done anyway

While we've all been sitting here haggling about whether Alan should be doing this, whether semi-automated edits should do this, should it go through BRFA, threatening to block Alan, and blah blah blah...the work has been proceeding ahead anyway. More than 1300 removals have been done since this thread began (and Alan hasn't done a single once since the thread began). In fact, there's less than 600 articles now with this image on it. I.e., it's a moot point. Like it or not, the image use is deprecated. If you think placeholder should exist (not be kept...exist...they're virtually gone now), then start an RfC to that effect. The prevailing consensus from 2008 has held, and tens of thousands of these uses have been removed. In the end, Alan's work (for which he should be thanked, not twice threatened with a block) was only a very small part of this overall effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us that our guidelines are intended to be descriptive of what actual article editors actually do and not prescriptive based on a theory about what some folks think they ought to be. That's a valauable lesson often forgotten. Too often, editors ask "Does this adhere to the rules that must be followed?" instead of "Does it improve the article and the encyclopedia?" Although it's often sneered at, that's what IAR is meant to convey, that we shouldn't get so hamstrung by our (admittedly well-meaning) regulations that we forget that we're here to make the encyclopedia better, more informative, more accurate, and easier to use for the reader, not to put our minds on autopilot and slavishly follow rules meant to help us, not to hinder us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 25 June 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.

Editor repeatedly redirecting and self-reverting article without explanation

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

---

Resolved

 – Page deleted, accounts blocked. — The Earwig ^(talk) 05:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I am seeking opinions on unusual behavior by Breezo057 (talk · contribs). I noticed through Recent Changes that a redirect of Nightclub (album) had been made to WWE. When I looked at the revision history I noticed that the same editor has been redirecting and subsequently self-reverting the same article for weeks. I asked him on his talk page [27] why he is doing this. I have not received a reply (and he has made the redirect again since I left the message [28], [29]). I also noticed on his talk page that he has written "Welcome to my official talk page, maintained by Puppy Love Entertainment" [30] at the top. So it appears the account has commercial interests: the article states in the intro [31] that the executive producer of the album and founder of Puppy Love Entertainment is Darrion Brown. Taroaldo (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've determined, being familiar with WWE, Eve Torres and the various content on the article, that the article is a hoax. The only references go back to a Facebook created by the author of the article and a generic iTunes download page with no relevant content. I'm reverting the redirect back to the WWE and tagging for speedy deletion as a hoax. — Moe ε 04:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, based on the content on his Facebook that he provided, Breezo057 (talk · contribs) is also BeanyFans (talk · contribs) who also edited the hoax article and left a similar talk page message on the "album"'s talk page. — Moe ε 04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This does appear to be an elaborate hoax. I checked around half of the references and they are all dead links or if content does open it doesn't relate to the subject or support an inkling of claim. The editors conduct appears to be nefarious of the vandal only form. A report at WP:AIV would likely already have resulted in an indefinite block. From the editors history, we have every reason to expect the erratic practice to reoccur. The entire history of edits to the users talk page consists of the template warnings the user was issued for the times they were noticed and the remaining bulk of edits fell below radar but were just as disruptive. For sure this joke has gone on long enough; in fact way too long. My76Strat (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the article and blocked BeanyFans for disruption (Materialscientist already blocked Breezo057 for abusing multiple accounts). I think we're done here. — The Earwig ^(talk) 05:31, 24 June 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:CoolKoon

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

---

There is a serious problem here, personal attacks from CoolKoon [32]

I'm sorry to say this to you Panonian, but obviously you're not only clueless, but paranoid as well. This user has received warning on their talk page.

--95.102.187.187 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks heated, but I wouldn't call that a personal attack; nevertheless, the discussion and conflict going on is not great. I've protected the page for 2 days to prevent an edit war, until a consensus can be reached. I'd encourage those involved to ignore any angry outbursts and focus on the content dispute, elevating it to the dispute resolution noticeboard if necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually my note quoted above is in response to User:PANONIAN's taunting by saying I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery". I think that such hate speech is absolutely unacceptable and incompatible with Wikipedia's goals and principles. Actually if I would've had more time earlier today I likely would've reported PANONIAN for this myself. Furthermore if you check out PANONIAN's block log you'll see that he's been blocked quite a few times already for POV pushing and revert wars.

The IP user making the report didn't come with good intentions either. Since the IP itself comes from Slovakia (unfortunately maxmind.com couldn't provide any more specific geolocation data) and the user's obviously quite knowledgeable of WP's policies, traditions and stuff (novices usually don't know of ANI let alone know the process for adding a new entry to it). This (and the lack of an edit log for this IP) leads me to believe that this user's probably an IP sock of one of the banned Slovak editors. Since I'm the subject of the report, my guess would be User:Bizovne, who's posted numerous hateful posts on my talk page (in Slovak, hence the links are my translations) and once even registered a harassment account aimed against me (CoolKoon jebe svoji matku, meaning literally "CoolKoon fucks his mother"). So please take this into account when you react to reports by anonymous Slovak IP accounts. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Two things, CoolKoon: 1. Do you have any evidence that I am "involved in revert warring here"? (I only had few original edits in several articles and after some other users reverted my edits I did not reverted further), 2. How exactly statement "to remind Slovaks about their former slavery" is example of a "hate speech"? "Hate speech" against whom exactly? I only pointed out that behavior of several Hungarian users in Wikipedia is tendentious, POV and insulting for Slovaks (Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Wikipedia?). PANONIAN 19:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to re-read my post above as I haven't said anywhere that you're "involved in revert warring here". I said that you HAVE BEEN blocked for POV pushing (something you're doing right now at the Bratislava article's talk page) and revert wars.

Once again, the statement I've quoted is I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead to "remind Slovaks about their former slavery". and this is assuming bad faith at best (and hate speech at worst). First of all it's ill faith, because you assume that the only reason one would insert the Hungarian and German version is "to remind Slovaks about their former slavery". Second it's hate speech and heavy POV push, because you assert that Slovaks have been enslaved both by Hungarians and by Germans (or one after the other). Both of these assertions deeply offend me as a(n indigenous) Hungarian resident of Bratislava, because I know that nothing could be further from truth and yet you have the nerve to say it.

I only pointed out that behavior of several Hungarian users in Wikipedia is tendentious, POV and insulting for Slovaks <-- Oh really? What made you suddenly so sympathetic with the Slovaks? And why is it that you don't refrain from insulting others (perhaps a double standard)?

Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Wikipedia? - I see. So you're protecting/supporting a banned user (a meatpuppet of User:Iaaasi and a sock master himself) who's been harassing me on a constant basis? I think that this needs no further explanation. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm seeing here is an immediate need to sanction PANONIAN (talk · contribs) under WP:ARBEE rules. Panonian's posting that sparked that debate, arguing that certain names should not be used because they "remind Slovaks about their former slavery" is not just an instance of run-of-the-mill tendentiousness of the kind we've (unfortunately) got into the habit of accepting as normal. It is a brazen-faced, undisguised demand to subject the article's editing to his own POV preferences. As such, it constitutes deliberate refusal to adhere to NPOV, an act that is ipso facto sanctionable, and which in an editor of his experience and record of disruption is really unacceptable. What makes it worse is is behaviour here, right in the posting above: citing the fact that his opponent has been subjected to racist abuse by a banned sockpuppeter as evidence showing that he, the victim, is really at fault, is simply unbelievable, and a sign of a deep-seated ideologically motivated battleground mentality that we really ought not to be tolerating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, I do not see that I made any disruption here. If you sanction me because I was free to provide analysis of behavior of certain user in certain articles that will be example of admin abuse and I will ask some higher level admins for protection. I am feed up with behavior of one sided admins that violating NPOV policy of Wikipedia and that fully supporting one side in the dispute. PANONIAN 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "higher level admins" on this project. In this instance, however, you may rest assured I won't take action on my own, because I have made a content-related comment on the dispute at the article talkpage (though I'd say it's pretty equidistant from both "parties" in the preceding discussion, and I certainly do consider myself neutral and uninvolved in Hungarian-Slovak issues in general.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That was not my point. I certainly have right to open an report about admin abuse if there is one. So, I will kindly ask you to say what exactly was my "abusive behavior" for which you accused me? Firstly, my words were pulled out of context from discussion on the mentioned talk page. Second, I did not insulted anybody, not a person or an ethnic group. This comment is nothing else but my observation why usage of these names there is POV and not in accordance with Wiki practice used in other articles and meaning of disputed sentence was that "I see no other reason why somebody would place these names there instead because of nationalism" (I used some figurative speech instead, but that was the point) - all I tried here was to support NPOV approach instead nationalist one. Please say if this is not correct, but (theoretical) spirit of Wikipedia would require that in the case of mentioned dispute, there should be some compromise solution or agreement between Slovak and Hungarian users. This article is clearly written without such agreement and fully supports POV of Hungarian users since they cooperating between themselves and since they ensured their numerical superiority over Slovak users. I am neither Slovak or Hungarian and, therefore, I represent a neutral third party in this as much as you claim you do. I also only provided an analysis of why User:CoolKoon was a "victim" of a personal insult - I did not said that I support that insult or that user who insulted him was right. Also, was there a checkuser case which concluded that user who posted that insult was a "IP sock of one of the banned Slovak editors"? To conclude: 1. I did not insulted anybody, 2. I did not supported any insults against anybody, 3. I did not supported any sock of any blocked user and there is no evidence that we dealing here with such sock. So, again: what is the nature of my disruption? PANONIAN 21:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

When you were Arbmac'd from all Serbia history topics the other day [33] somebody gave you the good advice that "brevity is a virtue, and [...] admins don't make decisions based on who has the highest word count". Maybe you should take that to heart. (CoolKoon too.) Other than that, the answers to your questions are already in my earlier posting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I'm already making some mental exercises to get my point through in as few sentences as possible (e.g. the comments above are considerably shorter than my rant at the Bratislava talk page :)

@PANONIAN This previous post of yours would be true IF it won't be obvious to everybody (obviously even Fut.Perf. took notice) that you're trying to rationalize Bizovne's behavior and try to explain it away with some sort of "just anger"/wiki rage that has swept him because I've "provoked" him into it. If you'd take your time to do your homework, you'd find that I've never assaulted/provoked Bizovne verbally or by any means. Moreover I haven't even spoken to him before his very first unlogged post about some "Prof. Cavalli's genetical research". Hence I don't find it likely that anybody would side with you on this.

This article is clearly written without such agreement and fully supports POV of Hungarian users since they cooperating between themselves and since they ensured their numerical superiority over Slovak users. - another anti-Hungarian accusation without any proof. Besides, how do you know it's so? Are you completely familiar with Bratislava's past, present and future? Do you even happen to live there? Also, if "POV of Hungarian users" is bad, why would compensating it with "Slovak POV material" be better? Why won't the NPOV be the best?

I am neither Slovak or Hungarian and, therefore, I represent a neutral third party in this as much as you claim you do. - Yeah, right, except that this isn't (by far) the first occasion you've gotten into conflict with Hungarian editors. Your neutrality is hence more than questionable.

Also, was there a checkuser case which concluded that user who posted that insult was a "IP sock of one of the banned Slovak editors" - Feel free to consult Bizovne's SPI archive for reference

To conclude: 1. I did not insulted anybody, 2. I did not supported any insults against anybody, - Yes, you did. You've asserted that Hungarians and Germans have enslaved Slovaks (yes, you LITERALLY used the "slave" word) and that Hungarian editors' point in reinstating the city's Hungarian and German name would be to remind them this (you've even provided an example by comparing this to Moscow's Tatar rule, which's absurd and an insult on its own). That single sentence is insulting to all the Hungarians (not only the ones editing Wikipedia) and probably Germans as well (especially since the area's been ruled by Austrians).

I did not supported any sock of any blocked user vs. Why else an Slovak would curse your mother if not to respond to your tendentious anti-Slovak editing in Wikipedia? - we call this an "own goal" in Hungarian. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

CoolKoon, I can give you long answer to this since it is obvious that you trashing my name and twisting my words here with a single goal to chase me away from this talk page and to ensure your Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I did not had any intention to have long term involvement in issues about that article, so you wasted your time here. And this is only a (friendly) advice: you also wasting your time in Wikipedia in general: your edits are obviously POV and there are obviously other people who do not agree with such edits and due to that, I am sure that such people will revert or delete your edits as soon as they get chance. So, the only way in which you can keep your POV here would be to fight over it for many years, but even that would not be guarantee of success: just imagine that in the near future Slovak users ensure numerical superiority in Wikipedia. Where your POV would be then? In Recycle Bin, of course. You do not have to worry about me in "your owned article" anymore since I certainly have something better to do in my life, but my concerns about POV nature of "your article" might be the smallest of your worries in not so distant future if larger number of Slovak users decide to come here. PANONIAN 09:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In the past year (since I have been on Wikipedia), I participated in some discussions in which PANONIAN also did. We frequently had different opinions, so I might not be neutral in this question, but I often found PANONIAN's statements disruptive. During our last discussion (before the talk on the Bratislava article), (s)he wrote that "Greater Hungarian nationalism is very live today and it is no less evil and aggressive than it was some 100 years ago (and contrary to Pan-Slavic movement which advocated liberation of Slavs from foreign rule, Greater Hungarian idea is and always was an idea of imposition of such foreign rule on other nations). [34] Don't take me wrong, I do not say that "Greater Hungarian nationalism" is good, either. I just find the approach that nationalists of people X are (and always were) "evil" and aim at imposing "foreign rule on other nations", while nationalists of people Y are (and were) good, since they fight (and fought) for a good cause, a bit black-and-white point of view. This may lead to a battleground mentality, but certainly does not help to resolve those ethnic/historic disputes which are so common in the articles related to East-Central Europe. Regards, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Aaaah, Pan-Slavism, my favorite WP:FRINGE theory. Say PANONIAN, why don't you ask your Croatian or Bosnian "brethren" that what do they think about it? I'm sure that (since you've killed each other during the early 1990) they wholeheartedly support it too.

Also, I'm sorry to say this, but PANONIAN's obvious bias against Hungarian editors is becoming more and more apparent from every single post he's made even at this ANI entry. In my previous comments I've mostly tried to confront him with the logic flaws in his own words. Yet he just keeps attacking me and comes up with brand new groundless accusations in every single comment (e.g. my "POV", which is purportedly "reinstated" by the "Hungarian dominance", otherwise it'd be removed - if all of this would have even a tiny bit of truth in it, then >90% of my edit log wouldn't consist of properly sourced material). This leads me to think that PANONIAN has a very strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which he'll presumably take advantage of in Hungarian history-related articles now that he's been topic banned from Serbian history articles. The previous posts also show that he's ready to defend anybody who's on "his side" in this "crusade" against Hungarians, no matter how twisted and wicked the person in question is (yes, I'm talking about Bizovne).

I did not had any intention to have long term involvement in issues about that article, so you wasted your time here. - Of course not, I can see the big picture: since you've been ousted of Serbian history topics, your long-term involvement will be aimed at history articles that deal with Hungary and former lands of Kingdom of Hungary that have been ceded to foreign nations after 1920. With the tone of your first post on the Bratislava article's talk page you've shown everybody the tone and style we can expect from you in the future.

@Fut. Perf. thanks for clearing up for me the reason PANONIAN came to stir up tensions in the Bratislava article. Up until I read your entry I didn't know the reason of its sudden appearance there. -- CoolKoon (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm kinda responsible for opening this gateway to hell, and I don't see a need for sanctioning yet. I saw Panonian removing Hungarian names from Slovak city article leads, asked for discussion, he discussed. Yes some comments in that discussion were completely unhelpful, but I think ItsZippy's advice (ignore irrelevant commentary) is best. - filelakeshoe 09:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is unbelievable how CoolKoon and KœrteFa are trying to present that I am some "Hungarian-heater", not to mention that CoolKoon obviously attempting to defend himself in this thread that was opened against him in the way to transform this thread into thread against another user (i.e. against me). So, let me elaborate my political views: I do support all existing and historical independence movements in this World and I do think that people whose aims to independence are not fulfilled are indeed enslaved. Therefore, Slovaks in former Austria-Hungary were indeed enslaved, as well as Kurds are enslaved in modern Turkey or as Uyghurs are enslaved in modern China. These are facts and one who thinks that these facts are insulting is obviously the follower of retrograde political ideas about "God-given authoritative state that is allowed to oppress whom ever it wants". I have full right to express my liberal political views here and it certainly would not be good that liberal views in Wikipedia are suppressed in order to make space for retrograde ideas of rightfulness of oppression. According to CoolKoon, if one says that Slovaks were enslaved in Austria-Hungary that is "insulting" and when one says that Austro-Hungarian rule over Slovaks was "good" or "rightful" that is not not insulting. As far as my edits are concerned, here you can see me removing category "Serbian communities in Hungary" from article about town in Hungary with Hungarian ethnic majority or here you can see me adding Hungarian name to the infobox of an article about village in Serbia with Hungarian ethnic majority. So much about accusations for my "anti-Hungarian POV". It is obvious that I only support liberal ideas and that I only oppose political and ethnic oppression anywhere. In the case of Slovakia, I did not removed Hugarian name from article about any town in Slovakia where Hungarians are in majority - I only removed these names from some articles about towns with Slovak majority where these names were obviously misused against NPOV policy of Wikipedia and against Wiki practice that was implemented in articles about towns in some other countries. PANONIAN 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Filelakeshoe Nah, don't blame yourself for this (unless you're behind User:95.102.187.187 or you've instructed PANONIAN to engage in all of this of course :P). Sometimes fecal matter hits the fan no matter how hard you're trying to avoid it.

@PANONIAN Like I've written above I would've likely opened an ANI entry for your comment without this IP sock's orchestrations either, so you won't be much better off with that either.

Slovaks in former Austria-Hungary were indeed enslaved - So does this mean that the Hungarians were enslaved too? Because they had to abide by the Habsburgs in foreign and monetary politics too. Also, this concept of Austria-Hungary being a "prison of nations" isn't new either. It's been spread by haters of Austria-Hungary ever since Trianon in order to legitimize the fact that they've been awarded territories with exclusively Hungarian population too (I can cite you dozens of sources of this too if you want).

These are facts and one who thinks that these facts are insulting is obviously the follower of retrograde political ideas about "God-given authoritative state that is allowed to oppress whom ever it wants". - you forgot to add and should burn in hell/at a stake for questioning the crusade against Hungarian "nationalists".

when one says that Austro-Hungarian rule over Slovaks was "good" or "rightful" that is not not insulting. - I've never seen anybody (Hungarian or otherwise) say that Austro-Hungarian rule over Slovaks was rightful. But saying that the Austro-Hungarian rule was "good" or "bad" is simply an opinion, whereas stating that minorities of Austria-Hungary were enslaved is an assertion that's not only offensive, but unsubstantiable with any proof either. And that's the difference between freedom of opinion and libel. Saying that "the Slovaks were enslaved" is akin to saying that "Scots/Welsh are enslaved in Great Britain up to this day". I can't be more specific than this. Yet if you still think that it's ok to say the latter, something's definitely wrong with you.

I only removed these names from some articles about towns with Slovak majority where these names were obviously misused against NPOV policy of Wikipedia - why would the presence of a Hungarian name of a town (i.e. the name that was official before 1920 and thus it's the only form that can be found in sources before 1920) consitute a "misuse of the NPOV policy"?

here you can see me adding Hungarian name to the infobox of an article about village in Serbia with Hungarian ethnic majority vs. Greater Hungarian nationalism is very live today and it is no less evil and aggressive than it was some 100 years ago - just how many more times would you like to WP:SHOT yourself in the foot? -- CoolKoon (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

After reading through that thread and looking again at the Bratislava talk page, I'm left feeling that this whole discussion and escalation to ANI is a little bit pointless. The only reason that this has erupted here, rather than been calmly discussed at the article's talk page, is that people have forgotten to assume good faith and are making very unhelpful accusations about the motives of other editors. If this is going to be resolved, we must assume that everyone who edits the article, unless blatantly vandalising, is trying to improve the article for the good of Wikipedia. As soon as we start to think that someone has some other agenda, we get nowhere. This means that only the content should be discussed: talk about the merits of the arguments, and what should and should not be in the article - keep that as the focus of discussion and do not accuse any editor of having a hidden agenda. I see that some better discussion has started on the talk page and editors have begun to focus on the content again - this is good and, if it continues, should lead to resolutions. If people get stuck on content issues - if there is an unresolvable disagreement about content - that I suggest dispute resolution. I will continue to watch the discussion unfold, and will block any users who continue to make comments about other users, rather than the content of the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:27, 25 June 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.

IP making dubious edits, accusing others of vandalism

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

---

Sino-Vietnamese conflicts 1979–1990 and Ming Dynasty are the two articles I've identified so far. The offending IP is (currently) 123.117.160.47 but he's also gone by 123.117.180.218, and probably several others. He is verging on edit warring and repeatedly accuses those who revert his edits of being vandals, for example, here and here. I have little knowledge in the relevant fields, but I believe I know a troll when I see one. Someone should look into this.

Note also that I've given him a level-4 warning for misuse of warning templates. He'll probably blank his talk page shortly (he's done this already several times), but if a block is in order, you don't need to hesitate. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The first IP had vandalized my user page twice before the second repetitively put accusing warning templates, and he/she did the same thing to Tow's. He also did vandalize about 2 articles above with misleading, wrong information. I suggest these two should be blocked indefinitely as an obvious troll. That's just my opinion, if I am wrong, tell me --Morning Sunshine (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

IP's, unfortunately, are rarely blocked indefinitely. But I support a block on these anons: their utter failure to understand what vandalism is not (reverting an edit that contravenes established policy is NOT vandalism), about original research, verification and that facts must be adequately supported by reliable sources. Their vandalism on user pages and abuse of warning templates doesn't help either. →Bmusician 04:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IPs and semi-protected the articles. Dreadstar ☥ 04:21, 25 June 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.

Kalappurackal

This was brought to my attention by another editor. Shjjose (talk · contribs) has repeatedly inserted personally identifying contact information of himself (and the answer to "what information" is "all of it") into the article; most recently just 10 minutes ago (revdel'd) after I'd given him a -labled warning not to do so 15 minutes before [35]. Frankly this seems to me to be a clear-cut WP:CIR scenario, but since I'm probably technically involved (having RevDeled 145147 edits to suppress the personally identifying information which was then sent to Oversight) I believe it might be best to send it here and have another assess it and block if necessary. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

More recent edits to the article haven't reintroduced the contact information; however the editing style still needs...grounds for improvement, however it seems he may have gotten the message re: don't put your private information on the Internet... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardware-assisted virtualization

Hi, there. There might be a case of vandalism as regards the page Hardware-assisted virtualization. As the originator ot the deletions has no name (only IP address 201.92.95.136 provided), I wasn't able to talk to him. As I am new to Wikipedia, I don't know how to properly handle this case and I would like to ask for some help. Akolyth (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Akolyth. This was garden variety blanking vandalism. You can report such obvious vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it is persistent. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user or IP's talk page (for example, relevant here, {{Uw-delete4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported here. I have warned the IP with the first template in the series, {{uw-delete1}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for he help. I'll have an eye on it. Akolyth (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Egotistical editor

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

---

I'm here to complain over a EGOTISTICAL editor who deleted my post about CVW 15 history. This page IS about control and the FOOL never served in the military.. he or she has FAKE wiki medals . this @**H*** better stay away from my posts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishprince317 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you try assuming good faith with the other editor, read his repeated messages explaining why the article was deleted, and research our guidelines on notability and reliable sources to see if you could improve the article? Just as the military has a way of doing things, so does Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Irishprince is colorfully talking about a new article he created, which was then redirected. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at your contributions, as you intrigued me because you accidentally leaked your comment into my own thread above :-) But are you talking about the editor User:OlYeller21, who did a redirect of Carrier Air Wing 15 to Carrier Air Wing? If so, I think the material wasn't deleted, but it seemed to be a listing of dates? I couldn't work out what it was talking about unfortunately :( The editor, incidentally, got what appear to be encouragement medals for editing and whatnot, which aren't "fake" in any way. Someone tell me if I'm wrong! :-) - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A listing of dates is a nice way to put it. He was lucky it wasn't deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The boomerang was quick...blocked 48 hrs for personal attacks by Bwilkins.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:01, 25 June 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.

AndyTheGrump

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.

---

Customary report to ANI regarding AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs); making a personal attack in response to a final warning is one of the silliest things you could do. As one of the targets of Andy's personal attacks, I first asked him to retract his attacks which was met by a reversion. Seeing as he is incapable of contributing to discussions without resorting to personal attacks (I, for one, was having a civil discussion with Collect (talk · contribs) before he came in and resumed the attacks), he needs at least a cluebatting, maybe even a block; I've felt somewhat uncomfortable editing because of his constant personal attacks on me (see from last month: [36][37][38][39]). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this was in response to Sceptre attempting to continue his ridiculous campaign to involuntarily 're-gender' Bradley Manning on my talk page. I suggest that given Sceptre's contempt for WP:BLP policy, and for the rights of a vulnerable individual to make his own decisions on a personal matter without being used as a convenient puppet for some bizarre campaign, it is time that Sceptre be topic-banned from any article concerning Bradley Manning, any article concerning trans-gender/transsexual issues, and any biography of any individual where gender identity is of any significance. Sceptre is clearly abusing Wikipedia facilities in an attempt to 'right a wrong' - though the only 'wrong' that is apparent is Sceptre's wrong-headed and obnoxious refusal to acknowledge Bradley Manning as an appropriate person to comment on Bradley Manning's gender identity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None of which excuses this attack in any shape or form. Is there any particular reason (apart from it being five hours old) why that shouldn't result in a block? Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• None that I can see... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is true? There are gross double standards here - I am supposed to be 'civil' to Sceptre, while he is free to use Manning (who is of course in no position to respond) as the scapegoat in some bizarre and unfathomable exercise in sexual politics. No. This is wrong. It is obnoxious. It should not be allowed to continue. If Wikipedia prefers agenda-pushing trolls to editors who actually have respect for the persons we write about, go ahead block me, and continue on the downhill path to a low grade tabloid gossip blog that some seem to desire... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers editors who have respect for the persons we write about. We also prefer editors who can follow Wikipedia's policies, and no matter what another editor, troll or not, has done, personal attacks are never acceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andy that we should fight low-grade tabloid gossip, and I appreciate his willingness to do so, but it is entirely possible to fight to uphold BLP without saying things like "fuck of and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot". Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To claim it's scapegoating is to imply that being transgender is wrong. Besides, what stake do you have in this issue that you must make personal attacks to protect Manning? I'll admit that my own stake is that, as a feminist and a member of the LGBT community, it doesn't seem ethical to refer to Manning as we do in spite of our guidelines on gender identity and the sources given. Your behaviour does look quite similar to concern trolling seen elsewhere... Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, that's completely wrong and you know it. It doesn't matter if it's your belief that it's true - whatever Sceptre is doing, if you've got an issue with another editor then there are a range of places to take that problem. What you don't do is tell them to "fuck off and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot" which is utterly out of the range of mild incivility (which I think the other diffs were). Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that it would be highly punitive? A block isn't the answer in this case. You can look into interaction bans and various other options. ANI has become wickedly punitive recently. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is the only way to get someone's attention to prevent further invicivility, is it punitive? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe attention has been obtained. What is the expectation, that AndyTheGrump is going to start following Sceptre around dishing out personal attacks? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When somebody has a history of personal attacks, and then makes an explicitly blatant one, are we supposed to just shrug and hide behind "oh, we can't do anything, it'd be punitive"? If the answer is yes we might as well nominate Wikipedia:No personal attacks for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Judging by the above diffs, he "started" doing that a while back. Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you accusing me of 'following Sceptre' to my own talk page? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Andy, the diffs above are on at least four different other pages. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The diffs in question are six weeks old, and the result of Sceptre's blatant misrepresentations in pursuit of his bizarre agenda. If Sceptre didn't like it at the time, he could have complained then - but he didn't, presumably because he expected to be told to stop what he was doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I did. I was met with the boomerang because I made one personal attack compared to the dozen or so you made back. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Andy lives quite well up to his username. I should point out that I'm only one of the editors he's attacked; he's also been making attacks on BLP/N, probably against seasoned editors too. Re Ryan: yes. He did so on WT:LGBT six weeks ago, reverting a post I made there. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that the blocking policy lists a "preventative block" as being (among others) one that "encourages a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." Do I think that this will do that? No. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yikes,I got edit conflicted all over the place. My comment: Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire, Andy. That said, can I issue a strong request that the WP:BOOMERANG pay close scrutiny to Sceptre, too? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free; I've been very careful this time around, as my last complaint about Andy's conduct got threatened with the boomerang. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I do expect you to get at least a trout for continuing this dispute (Andy probably deserves a bigger fish). Still, you've definitely gotten better than the last time. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Am I to understand that Sceptre has self confirmed that he is the writer of this off-wiki blog? Doesn't that look like a conflict of interest?--JOJ ^Hutton 21:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes that is some COI, which explains the POV pushing. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think what you will find if you examine both the dictionary and Sceptre's behaviour you'll find that Andy used an accurate description.

• Any discomfort felt as a result of reading Andy's remarks are pretty much the result of the reader continuing to refuse to address the issue of Sceptre's ongoing unacceptable behaviour. For 90% of the editors reading those remarks, they have themselves to blame for it, for the 'innocent' reader who happens upon them, the 90% who are refusing to address the Sceptre issue need to take responsibility for their own part in the mess created. This is a bit like wikileaks, don't stop people getting away with murder, just silence the paper-boy instead.

• Andy needs to get with he program and anaesthetise his intellect, so like the rest of us, he can drift through the project blissfully unaware of his surroundings, he has to turn a blind mind to what is going on, rather than be focused on reality and using appropriate words from the dictionary that threaten to burst our bubbles of delusion. I suggest he takes up lying himself, rather than calling lies 'lies' he should use soft agreeable words like 'unusual view of reality' so we can read right past it without waking up. Yeah, like that Andy,

• tell us some lies, we want to believe. Penyulap ☏ 22:02, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to believe that one can be both productive, accurate and civil is disheartening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• • I don't make any secrets that that's my blog, yes. It's no different from other Wikipedians blogging on other matters; if you'll notice, even on that blog post I deliberately backed myself up with Wikipedia policy. Re: Penyulap, I suggest you retract that comment. It's a personal attack by proxy. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

allow me to apologise for any indirectness there Sceptre, allow me to say, from me to you, fuck off and troll elsewhere. Am I being clear and direct ? Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Are you trying to get in trouble for personal attacks? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre does kind of need to drop the POV-pushing. I don't think Andy needs to be getting so grumpy, but slap the fish and move on. Bradley Manning doesn't need more negative POV stuff and I would venture to say it is more of a problem for people with personal agendas to push those into Wikipedia articles than a single immature blow up at another editor. Bradley Manning's life is not a plaything for us to decide controversial determinations of what gender someone ought to be addressed as. I can easily see how this has become very frustrating for some of the more involved editors, since they are having to push back constantly against what Sceptre sees as a personal crusade. While I can see a point of view that these underlying gender issues can inform the discussion about Bradley Manning, the sources aren't there to support Wikipedia being 'forward thinking' on this, and as such, the stick needs to be dropped because the horse is long dead. We are not here for people to push agendas, but to present articles in a thoughtful and neutral fashion. To make this person's gender choices front and center in the article is not a DUE presentation of the topic, which heavily is notable because of the Wikileaks connection (not for gender issues). -- Avanu (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• POV pushing COI users are the bane of the en project - defending living people against them is a difficult task - I do it and Andy does it too - the primary issue is with the COI POV pushing account - User:Sceptre needs topic banning from trans gender wiki content. Youreallycan 22:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - there are clearly two issues here. On the other hand, Andy seriously needs to tone down the attacks - as I said above, there are areas for dispute resolution (including POV and COI) and nothing is solved by swearing at people. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, Andy lost it there and was overly attacking, agreed - he could easily say exactly the same thing without being rude and he should start doing that asap - Youreallycan 22:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• • • • BTW, when did referring to trans women as women -- a practice backed up by the medical, academic, and journalistic communities, not to mention our own Manual of Style -- become "COI POV pushing"? Sceptre ^(talk) 22:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, in looking at the diffs presented by Sceptre, it is even more clear that Sceptre is approaching this the wrong way. Forum shopping the idea around that Bradley Manning should be addressed only as Sceptre says isn't the right approach. I agree there should be a style guide on this, but just as it is considered impolite to "out" gay people, it should probably be equally inappropriate to label someone without unequivocal evidence of their choice on the matter. If Sceptre wants to have a real discussion, then it should be about bringing sources, not just opinions. -- Avanu (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu: at risk of going off into a content dispute I'm basically agnostic on, since when did gender identity become "negative POV stuff"? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)It is about WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Among some people, Bradley Manning is reviled as a traitor already. While this might be a foreseeable consequence for leaking secret documents, it is the main reason that Bradley Manning has notability. Now comes Sceptre with the very relevant issues of gender identity. Such information is relevant because it provides the answer (in part) to why Bradley Manning might have felt isolated and willing to betray the trust of military superiors. However, to refactor the article where the gender choice of Bradley Manning becomes the central focus on the article simply is not cool UNLESS Bradley Manning makes it super super clear that this is his/her choice AND reliable sources back this up. Sceptre is continually pushing for a minority intrepretation against the greater consensus and while this is fine to a point, it could easily be perceived as disruptive if it is unceasing. I heard about this dispute several months ago and by the diffs presented above, it seems like Sceptre just isn't willing to let it be. Bradley Manning is a living person and there is no inherent disrespect or problematical editing by referring to him/her in the same manner as the preponderance of our sources. Choosing in a 'forward-thinking' way to push a POV about this person's gender, when it is not even the central theme of the article (which is about Wikileaks) just isn't good and encyclopedic editing. -- Avanu (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd have thought that involuntary gender re-assignment was self-evidently 'negative'. Or am I missing something? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Failing to sanction editors who engage personal attacks because (e.g.) "Andy is right" is a path towards altering WP:NPA so that it means "it's okay to attack someone as long as you think you're right". Is that where we're headed here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really outing by me if the content was in the article eight months before I edited it, even before Manning's Article 32 hearing which effectively "outed" her by using GID as part of her defence. All I've been arguing for for the past month is changing the pronouns to female ones. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

...Against Manning's express wishes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

When has Manning said "please don't refer to me as a woman"? You seem to be adamant that Manning has said something like that, when all she said was "ehh, Bradley's fine". Having a male name doesn't make your gender male, you know. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You've read this:

First, we should bear in mind the basis upon which some have made suppositions about Manning’s preferred gender identity. By and large, we are dealing with evidence that has not been established as fact. We can look at some Google searches found in forensic evidence, a smattering of late-night private chat logs, and potential testimony from those in whom Manning may have privately confided.

If these materials are to be believed, then it appears that Manning was questioning his gender identity. Manning’s lawyers have noted that he had sought counseling, but we don’t know if any final decision was ever made. We don’t know whether Manning wanted “Breanna” to be a primary identity, or if this was an alter ego that was never meant to be indicative of primary gender identification. We do know — from our own private conversations with friends and family members — that prior to his incarceration, Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun. [40]

Clear as daylight - Manning has not asked to be identified as female, even in private. You have no right to act otherwise, in direct contradiction to his stated wishes. This is not only wrong, but obnoxious. I've no idea why you think this is appropriate anywhere, but it certainly isn't appropriate on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to discuss sources on a talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Referring to someone who has made it entirely clear that they wish to be identified as male as "she" is a BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is this ridiculous campaign to troll and harass Manning still going on; I though we'd blocked those responsible ages ago! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It got reignited when an anon posted on Talk:Bradley Manning using my blog post as an argument. I went there to explain what I meant by it, Andy jumps in and starts the personal attacks again. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, well can you just drop the stick and leave Manning alone. Seems the most sensible resolution. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Does that imply that if he doesn't "drop the stick" Andy can continue to call him a repulsive lying bigot? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Andy should stop calling Sceptre names. That's petty. Andy stop calling him names. If Sceptre doesn't drop the stick I'll just block him for BLP or something. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not non sequitur in a thread that raises the issue of Andy's personal attacks. If Andy doesn't stop with the personal attacks, will you block him? If not, why not? Is violation of WP:NPA really "petty"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation to discuss sources on a talk page. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It can be. What is a BLP violation is a campaign to harass Manning over gender issues. You made your case, it was rejected on BLP grounds (and others). Continuing the pressure the matter is a BLP issue. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's allowed and expected that, if your argument is used in a discussion, that you should be able to clarify the argument. I have blog analytics, you know. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So are you pushing this change or not? If you are simply explaining some comment, then Andy has no basis for his frustration. But if you are picking up the horse again and pushing strongly for this change then I can imagine the frustration. Please understand, I am not excusing Andy's 'seasoned' language, but I don't think that a person poking a bear should be held entirely blameless either. -- Avanu (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I support the change, yes, but I deliberately avoided the article after the last dust-up. Either Andy has appointed himself Manning's protector-on-Wikipedia, or he's stalking my contribs, neither of which are desireable. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This is 'deliberately avoiding the article'? [41]. Really?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Magog the Ogre one week block

• - User:Magog the Ogre has blocked Andy for a week - without joining the discussion at all - there is clearly no consensus for such a lengthy editing restriction here and I support a reduction to more like a day - Youreallycan 22:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just noticed that too. Kind of feel like Magog ought to have at least given a rationale on the TP first. Maybe it is forthcoming? -- Avanu (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

He probably does need the matter pressing on him eventually. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of one week. Andy has been warned enough, by me and by others. BLP certainly does not give anyone the right to act uncivilly. Nor does being right. Period. And if you guys could just chill out for a second, then maybe you can get my explanation (which I have just provided above). And, because admins can be unblock happy when they see something they are emotionally invested in, I unfortunately must say this: please note that I will consider any unblock of Andy which is outside process to be wheel-warring per WP:BLOCK#Block reviews, and I will deal with any administrator performing an unblock without community consensus as having committed such an action by bringing the issue before the community or ArbCom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm curious as to why Penyulap wasn't blocked for similar attacks made (rather deliberately, one assumes) right here on this page. → ROUX ₪ 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I would have done so, but my phone doesn't appear to like the blocking page. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If the goal is to avoid disruption and drama, and return people to productive editing, a caution would suffice at this point, no? It's not an ongoing problem, is it? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No, it's preventative. Pointy deliberate attacks like that are not acceptable, blocked for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - the last time Andy was blocked for similar behavior was a 72 hour block. The general understanding is that blocks for the same behavior one has been blocked for before get lengthened. Therefore a week is warrented. Note that this does not in any way sustain any support for whatever POV pushing Spectre might be involved in or prejudice any action with regards to that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, that's a good point, and I had typed that, although it seems to have gotten lost in the 542 (or so) edit conflicts. Sceptre POV pushing is a serious issue and needs to be addressed, but it should be addressed separately from Andy's consistent violation of community norms through personal attacks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Andy really gave us no choice. Now ... Sceptre and their BLP-violations/WP:TE? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Magog the Ogre - You didn't discuss it at all - and your attempting to gold plate your undiscussed action when there is clear opposition to it is undue indeed - Youreallycan 23:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see any 'clear opposition' to blocks being handed out for scathing personal attacks. Andy knew precisely what he was doing when he said what he did. → ROUX ₪ 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Another fine mess"
— Laurel Hardy

Clearly AndyTheGrump is an editor who understands encyclopedic policies and works hard at maintaining content integrity. On the other hand, he unnecessarily agressive; in addition to the above, he recently unnecessarily called a departing editor trying to put POV fringe science in an article a POV-pushing loon. (Given the "unworthiness" of the target, I saw little benefit to Wikipedia in pursuing the issue at the time.) He has been involved in WQA alerts many times. Good preventative block; the lack of meaningful sanctions for intentional repeated incivil behavior sends a signal to the community that, as long as you're correct on content and pick your "targets" well civil interaction isn't actually required. Nobody Ent 23:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. This level of incivility is, unfortunately, not something we haven't seen from Andy before. Talking to him hasn't helped, previous blocks have apparently failed to convince him that civility is important, and warning him didn't help earlier today - a block is the appropriate next step here. I would also strongly support a block of Penyulap for his "me too!"-style POINTy attack. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Fluffernutter - Can you please close the pending protection RFC rather than commenting here - Youreallycan 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

    We're essentially finished with it, and we finally got input from the other admin. Closing statement is just a day or two away, it looks like. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Ah - cool - thanks for the detail Northern Lights - Youreallycan 15:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 854000)@Youreallyan - unfortunately, I worded it very poorly, and it came across as harsh and self-serving. This is a function of the fact that I made the block before I typed my reasoning, so I rushed my wording and it didn't sound the way I wanted it to. I did not mean that no unblock can be made - no sirree bob - what I waa trying to avoid was the phenomenon wherein an admin sees his friend block and gets upset and undoes it because s/he feels it isn't right - despite the fact there is consensus to the opposite and/or without bothering to look into the original reason behind the block. Unfortunately, it came out as a threat from me about committing a legitimate unblock, when really it was an admonition against wheel-warring (which, if you frequent this board, you'll know is sadly common when admins become too involved). I've struck the unfortunate language. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Excessive in view of the background of the contretemps. Suggest that one day is a reasonable act as blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive, and one week is clearly the latter. Collect (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The trouble is that the last block he got for incivility was 72 hours. Repeated blocks for the same behavior are supposed to increase, not decrease. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - This story again? Oy! Whether the block is justified on its own or not, it's important to keep in mind that BLP violation is on the list of things that could get the WMF into legal trouble, and as such it trumps editors' petty squabbles and name-calling. This stuff about Manning "identifying as female" was not supported by valid sources the last time this subject came up, hence it was a BLP violation. Has anything changed since then? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Can't really make sense of all this except that AtG was definitely not polite. However, it does seem that there is an underlying important blp issue that needs to be addressed and I hope that the block does not mean that the issue itself will go unaddressed. --regentspark (comment) 23:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Block - There's quite simply no reason to act like that (goes for Penyulap too). It's against policy, despite others calling it "small", "unimportant", or whatever. Either admins respect the policies here, or they don't. Picking and choosing, especially because "he started it" type of crap, is flat out wrong. Now deal with Sceptre's issue. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• I hate to do this but - Support Block I have worked with Andy on many engineering topics and get along well with him - I like the cut of his jib. I have on several occasions encouraged him to be more civil, and I have specifically told him that "the other fellow misbehaved worse, so it is OK for me to misbehave" is an unacceptable argument. I really hate writing this, but perhaps seeing one of his buddies supporting a limited one week ban will help convince him to be more civil. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• um, no Not that I support Andy's intemperate language, but this is basically a reward for all the POV warriors who can keep it together long enough to drive the testier people on the right side of the conflict to lose their tempers. Mangoe (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Better go nominate Wikipedia:No personal attacks for deletion then. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, ignoring Andy's vituperation, he seems to be to be entirely accurate about Sceptre's POV-grinding on this article, just as he has been about other people in other articles where there has been conflict. I'm old enough to where I wouldn't use "troll" in the way anyone else here is likely to use it, but I agree with him entirely that the attempt to re-gender Manning should have been abandoned right away, or better still never have been initiated. Also, the blog post seems to make it clear that, again modulo the lack of civility, Andy's characterization of Sceptre's part in this has been basically accurate, so the accusation of POV-pushing is to my mind justified and not a personal attack. So if people want to penalize Andy, I cannot see doing do outside a package of greater discipline against a variety of people whose contributions actually affect the content of the text, which Andy's rudeness has not. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Strongly agree. When I say that I have specifically told Andy that "the other fellow misbehaved worse, so it is OK for me to misbehave" is an unacceptable argument, I am not implying that he is factually incorrect -- in every case the other fellow really is misbehaving worse -- but rather that he should be civil no matter what the other fellow does. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. From what I have seen, this is pretty much Andy's standard MO. Regardless of whether he is (or thinks he is) right regarding Sceptre's editing, his own editing is not acceptable and the harm that he does to the project himself via his attacks should not be trivialized because of it. Resolute 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Shite block but not surprising given who gave it out. Andy may be a bit over the top at times, but at least he is honest about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Sceptre

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.

---

• • Anyone willing to brandish WP:BLPBAN and topic ban Sceptre from making edits relating to Manning? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

110% support doing so ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I too would support this. Regardless of Andy going apeshit with his keyboard, Sceptre is way out of line here too. Best if he stays away from the Manning article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

With Andy already 'dealt with', I agree with some others above that Sceptre's behaviour also needs to be addressed. How do people feel about a topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed? I'd support such a ban. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yup. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've refactored two concurrent ban discussions into a single location. Nobody Ent 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. My comment got edit-conflicted back about 10 minutes. This topic is a bit of an active one. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - without some indication from people here that they a) understand, and b) give a damn about transgender issues, and c) are able to therefore explain why exactly there is a problem with Sceptre's edits. → ROUX ₪ 23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • • Was involved in transgender issues a long time ago, and am quite familiar with Benjamin Standards etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • A long time ago that, as I mentioned on Andy's talk earlier, they haven't been known as that for several years. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • On GoogleScholar, 169 (70%) of 242 current results for "benjamin standards" refer to "harry benjamin standards". So flunking what? Since when did majority usage provide a special qualification to override WP:BLP principles protecting an individual's human rights? Support. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • But "WPATH Standards of Care", as they're now known, get 531 hits, despite that being the newer name for them. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • And the trans community still has many using that term (I suspect I am substantially older than Sceptre)- and referring to "dysphoria" and not "disorder" as you appear to prefer contrary to preferred usage. Cheers. BTW, most prefer to be referred to by the pronoun for the gender in which they present themselves at the time - which, in the case of Manning, absolutely is male in the present instance. Collect (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
              • "most prefer to be referred to by the pronoun for the gender in which they present themselves at the time" - patently untrue. → ROUX ₪ 15:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
                • • Oh? I suggest you talk to some then. Your "patently untrue" comment is totally non-utile. Cheers. (and your inisistence that only those who know exactly what you WP:KNOR about trans people is not valid in any case). Collect (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• See my statement below. I do give a damn, and this is something we shouldn't be putting on Wikipedia BLPs without solid sourcing. I fully support referring to by the gender assignment they align with, but not from something with as flimsy a source as this case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support this is an ongoing problem to be sure. Collect (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fruit of the poisonous tree. An editor should be able to make a legit ANI posting regarding personal attacks. Nobody Ent 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Person A makes unacceptable POV edits, which are opposed by person B. Person A manages to goad Person B into a thermonuclear rage. Person B is blocked for personal attacks. Person A's edits are thereby condoned. Sorry, but that is a load of crap. See also WP:BOOMERANG. Reyk _YO! 23:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Person B is responsible for person's B actions. Not persons A, C, D, F or X. Nobody Ent 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Certainly, but when both people involved have behaved badly it's not appropriate to punish just one of them and reward the other for being first to come running to ANI. Reyk _YO! 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support- Reyk _YO! 23:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I haven't looked deeply enough into this issue to be as 100% sure as I'd like to be, but my spidey senses are going regarding Sceptre's language. He is referring to Manning's alleged sexuality in a way which entirely ignores that, for right or wrong, many people would be offended to be named in the transgender group - just as many would be offended to be listed among other not-necessarily bad groups (e.g., religions, political preferences). I am very worried about the us vs. them type of thinking he's showing above, which is reminiscent of those with an agenda to uphold The Truth. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • First, this has nothing to do with Manning's sexuality; this is about Manning's gender identity, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Conflating the two indicates to me that you simply do not have the experience or information necessary to even comment on the issue (as I, for example, don't know enough about the difference between e.g. koalas and kangaroos to comment on marsupialism). Second, it is far more offensive to refer to a transgendered person by their biological gender than to 'offend' someone by including them in a non-offensive group. → ROUX ₪ 23:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • What an odd statement to make for someone insisting that others be well-versed in transgender issues before commenting. That you would state with objective certainty that one action is universally 'more offensive' than another suggests to me that you're clearly not well-versed enough in the counterview to make a truly objective assessment of the situation. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 23:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Odd? Hardly. Manning has publicly indicated that GID is a factor. If Manning has chosen to identify as female, it is not only grossly insulting but also grossly depersonalizing to refer to Manning by any gender other than the one they prefer, in much the same way that if someone of African descent prefers the term African-American over black, it is grossly insulting to call them the latter. The difference that I think you don't understand here is that when someone has chosen to be identified in a certain way, referring to them by the opposite is a deliberate insult. → ROUX ₪ 00:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • If Manning had clearly chosen to identify as female, then you could potentially argue that the likelihood of offense being taken is high (not necessarily higher than the opposite). But based on all the sources I've read, he has made conflicting gender identifications. The mere fact that a biological male is experiencing GID and bouncing between identities doesn't mean the outcome will automatically be for him to settle on female identity. Manning hasn't settled on a particular gender identity yet, and it's not our place to decide for him. It's entirely possible he'll settle on male identity and then be embarrassed that he'd considered the alternative. The point is, we don't know yet what his actual choice of identity is, and until strong evidence appears to support one or the other, we have dominant usage in reliable sources in favour of male identification. – NULL ‹talk›
          ‹edits› 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for it, I'll voluntarily stay away. The only reason that I edited the talk page a few days ago in the first place was because I noticed it in my blog analytics. That said, I'm uncomfortable with how these discussions about the Manning article seem to have very few LGBT project editors, and those that do seem more willing to agree with my argument than those that don't. Perhaps because they agree that it's not me harassing Manning in any way; it's just ensuring that a living person (as Manning is) is referred to as people with gender identity disorder ethically should be. Roux seems to put it more succintly than I can. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, the fact that you and Roux insist that someone has to be part of the LGBT project to have a valid opinion is highly troubling. I understand the topics at hand, but have no interest in joining projects. That does not negate my ability to rationally discuss the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support You don't need to demonstrate particular appreciation of transgender issue to determine that you cannot reinterpret someone's gender identity based on subjective interpretations highly equivocal cues. Wikipedia does not redefine someone's identity until reliable sources clearly indicate that that is warranted, and anyone who pushes an agenda to do so is a liability to the project and should be restricted. And for what its worth - I don't think sceptre has demonstrated any appreciation of the possible nuances of the situation either.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Gross BLP violation. Manning is notable solely for one thing, that being allegations of espionage. Unless the tabloid stuff somehow comes up at his trial, it's irrelevant and an invasion of privacy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just so you know, it did come up at the Article 32 hearing. [42]. That's the angle that I've been discussing it from the past day or so. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Manning's gender identity has been widely reported on, and unless my memory is deceiving me, gender identity plays a role in Manning's publicized defence. → ROUX ₪ 23:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed that Manning's struggle with GID is relevant to the case and article, but I haven't seen any strong evidence indicating he has settled on either his male or female identity. There's a difference between mentioning GID in the article and recasting the article to female gender in the encyclopedic voice. In the absence of strong evidence, Wikipedia's standard behaviour is to fall back to usage in the majority of reliable sources, which at the moment is certainly male. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits› 23:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • • And those sources are, if Manning has self-identified as female, wrong in the way that mainstream media so often is. Thought experiment: if the preponderance of sources referred to Barack Obama as a nigger, would we be compelled to use the same nomenclature? Of course not, because it is inherently denigratory to do so. Just as it is inherently wrong to refer to someone by the gender they do not prefer to be known as. → ROUX ₪ 00:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, actually, although that's a pretty gross example, if Time and Newsweek routinely used that term instead of "African-American", and were considered valid sources, we might be kind of stuck. Regardless, it is not wikipedia's purpose to "right great wrongs". If the valid sources start referring to Manning routinely as "she", that will be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Yes, it's a gross example. What you don't seem to understand is that for trans people, being referred to by their cis-gender is equally gross. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Actually, the comparison with your example would be if the media called him a "she-male". Regardless, we go by valid sourcing, not by what we suppose someone might by offended at. If the sources say "he", then that's the way it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If there are valid sources that bring that subject up in connection with the trial, then that fact would be fair game. But if the preponderance of sources call the subject "he", then it is "he", and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose as unnecessary and appearing vindictive. Tit-for-tat administrative sanctions aren't cool, and a bad direction to take WP:BOOMERANG. There's no indication of any ongoing trouble from Sceptre. His (her? their?) nonconsensus edits to the article on May 5 2012 went beyond WP:BOLD, particularly edit warring the page move and regendering (to 1RR), but that was well over a month ago and Sceptre hasn't edited the article since. Starting a conversation on the talk page, as they did today, is what they're supposed to do when they have a content point. As far as I can tell their proposal has very little to no chance of success, but making perennial proposals only merits a topic ban in the most extreme circumstances where it becomes disruptive. Here the disruption was entirely caused by ATG, a better response to the proposal would be to simply say that this has been discussed before, there isn't enough sourcing for it, and there's very little chance of it being adopted, and then after a day or so proposing to close it as no reasonable likelihood of reaching consensus (assuming there is none). Regarding the accusations of COI and POV pushing for taking one side of a dispute regarding gender pronouns ("homosexual agenda", anyone?), if it is a POV to call Manning a she, then it must be POV to call Manning a he. In other words, if you see it as a POV issue and you're taking the other side, you're POV too. It's a lot more appropriate to simply note whatever our sourcing standards and manual of style have to say, and calmly decide whether or not that burden has been met. Sceptre has agreed to stay away at this point (which is unnecessary), and could easily be warned and blocked if they try to regender or move the page again without consensus. We're at least five steps premature from ordering Scepre not to bring it up again on the talk page, something we would do rarely as chilling discussion is not a good thing. Those steps would be to establish strong consensus, note it, summarily deal with further attempts to bring it up again, and finally, give authoritative warning not to bring it up again. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just to clarify a point: an anon used my argument to argue for it, and I replied to explain what I meant by the argument. I didn't seek to re-open the debate this soon; I was waiting for the full court-martial. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban for the exact same length of time as AtG's block. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 23:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Two different issues. The BLP violations are seperate from the PAs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - Manning clearly prefers to identify as he by the sources, but it seems there hasn't been any recent actual pushing of 'she', has there? Just discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons Wikidemon has outlined: it's currently unnecessary. Sceptre has agreed to not edit the article voluntarily. Give them a chance to live to that. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctantly oppose. In my view Sceptre should have been topic banned when this whole thing exploded before, but to do it now on the basis of what recently happened seems unfair. I do think it would be wise of Sceptre to stay away from the Manning article and the Manning Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: really outrageous. This should never have happened. Sceptre didn't have the sources, didn't have consensus on talk, even had a COI, and wouldn't drop the stick. Andy was definitely out of line and rightly blocked, but can anyone honestly say that he wasn't baited... even a little bit? It appears Sceptre is so emotionally involved they can't help themself. Topic ban them and let's move on. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Egregious BLP violation and POV pushing, has no business editing in these fields. Heiro 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sceptre's been around the block enough times that he should know better by now. Jtrainor (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary currently. Sceptre has not edited the article since 5 May. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Andy, which is indeed saying something. I've been observing the going-ons at the Bradley Manning article for a while now and it is quite clear that Sceptre cannot properly be involved in the subject, as he has far too strong of a POV in regards to the trans-gender issue. His actions in this regard have also been inexcusable and i'm quite surprised a topic ban wasn't enacted ages ago. Silverseren^C 09:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Editors should not be sanctioned for their personal POV but rather how this affects their editing. Sincere talk page discussions do not constitute disruptive editing, regardless of how objectionable a view is being expressed, and the article in question has not been touched for a while. Ankh.Morpork 11:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Editors can and will be sanctioned for disrupting wikipedia. Per WP:DISRUPT, edits at talk pages can be disruptive, particularly when there is a case of WP:IDHT. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment How about a (Voluntary?) topic ban on Manning and Gender narrowly construed, unless there are multiple high quality sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL (and there is agreement from an admin that this is the case) before bringing it to the talk page? The continual repeating discussion of the issue is a case of WP:IDHT and is disruptive though. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I'm not seeing any behavior that justifies a topic ban at this point. I don't agree that that we should be referring to B. Manning as a female at this time (most evidence of their preference points the opposite way at the moment from what I can tell), but I don't have a problem with someone civilly pushing for the change as it's not utterly unreasonable. If someone can provide diffs of Sceptre being over the top on this topic in the recent past, I'm willing to change. But I'm not seeing anything in my 10 minute search. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The issue is way more complicated than Sceptre makes it out to be. This is not about an article about a trans person who clearly identified as such. This is about a person who, in a private(!) chat, said they want to be identified as one gender, and then later through their lawyers said they want to be identified as another.[43] This is a complicated issue, and saying that it is blindingly obvious one way or the other is what is the problem here. And that's what would warrant a topic ban. --Conti|✉ 16:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Sceptre's entire thrust is that we can infer Manning's gender from leaked private documents. That's just so far out of line with BLP, I'm shocked something hasn't been done yet. It is not our place to decide if Manning is transgender or not based on this one source. If Manning or their representative made a statement confirming this, we should add it. Until then, it's far too contentious to be in a BLP, much less a high profile one like this. Sceptre has shown a willingness to dig in and spend weeks to add this in, despite legitimate objections. A topic ban is the best way to let the discussion get back on-track, and let us wait for reliable sources one way or the other. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support That was some pretty ridiculous drama the editor caused and they clearly need a break, as do we all. --John (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support The off-wiki blog would be enough to support a Conflict-of-Interest topic ban, but the fact that Sceptre continues to subtly POV push under whatever guise he sees fit, is probably the clincher. Especially when there is Bias and BLP issues. I read that posted blog and it seems that Sceptre should be topic banned from any and all LGBT articles and issues because it looked obvious to me that Sceptre's goals are agenda based, and he is not at all interested in building an encyclopedia, but trying to push a POV, despite the absence of reliable sources. --JOJ ^Hutton 20:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the best way to avoid future disruptions regarding this issue. I would also suggest blacklisting his blog because the latest episode seems designed to divert traffic there. This seems a publicity stunt.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Wikidemon. Sceptre hasn't edited the article in quite a while and has even said they will voluntarily stay away. A topic ban at this time is more punishment than it is anything else. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly a POV warrior on the matter, which puts Sceptre into the position of BLP violation. Essential to topic ban to end disruption. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's not punishment to formalize an arrangement that Sceptre currently wants. I have seen earlier discussions on the issue, and they were totally unproductive and inappropriate needling and POV pushing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Carrite and Johnuniq. Though Sceptre has promised to stay away, this will remove the temptation to again reply to any visitor directed to the article by Sceptre's blog. Kanguole 13:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed. Arcandam (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Sceptre for the Bradley Manning topic. The edits have been against consensus and gone on too long. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:41, 24 June 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.

Comment

ANI is not a WP:SOAPbox, nor a place to continue arguing the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an extremely poor showing. If I had made disruptive edits to the article itself since the last dust-up, then sure, the topic ban would've been justified, but this only serves to shut down discussion. In a sane world, we would discuss the sources and then make a judgement on that: for example, whether the ethical thing to do is to rely on the Lamo chat logs at all as a source. But here, we're disregarding the sources by pretending that Manning never had issues with their gender identity. For example, the one source that has been brought up in favour of using male pronouns has been the Washington Blade column, specifically the quote "We do know [...] Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". It's not the same as "We do know [...] Manning had asked people not to refer to him with a female pronoun". One's someone who hasn't come out as trans (which is hard if you're in the army); the other's someone who doesn't idetify as female at all. The pronoun issue is a digression from the identity issue anyway; did Laura Jane Grace specifically ask people to refer to her by female pronouns? Roux's question was a very salient one and I'm dismayed that it was shut down. People really do need to know what they're talking about before contributing to sensitive areas. Would we be even discussing a topic ban if I, on Talk:Evolution, had been as adamant on the statement that "Evolution is a fact" from people who don't know the meaning of "scientific theory" and were saying it's "just a theory"? No, we wouldn't. Worse still is that it sets a precedent that we can determine someone's gender identity by a consensus of people who don't even think about gender identity at all. That's a very dangerous path to go down. The discussion should be "Manning identified as female before being arrested, how should we treat that?" instead of "Does Manning identify as male or female?". Oh, and on my blog? I made that post hours before the whole dust-up started last month. It was effectively a first-draft of the BLP/N post I made. I didn't do it for the fucking publicity; even I don't know what posts of mine will be popular or not (hell, I once got linked from Pharyngula, which was very surprising). All that happened is that en.wikipedia.org turned up in the referrer stats. It doesn't take that many hits to do that, and I haven't had an appreciable rise in hits at all. In any case, I'll respect the topic ban and leave it be for the meanwhile, even though I disagree with both the topic ban (as it only serves to shut down discussion) and why it was applied (as a sense of victor's justice). However, I do hope that this'll lead to a serious discussion on how we handle transgender issues, because, from what I've seen, that's a discussion that really needs to happen. This'll be my last comment on the matter, as I don't want to waste any more energy on this issue. Sceptre (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC) While I don't see eye-to-eye with you on your perspective about the Manning article (I prefer strict adherence to a preponderance of sources for a change like this), I do agree that this Topic Ban is a bit untimely and ill-conceived, and should be a time-limited topic ban, not a perpetual one. I am also very disappointed to see it implemented by Sarek-of-Vulcan of all people, who really doesn't strike me as a person who needs to be intervening in this at all. (Honestly needs to be de-admin-ed really.) The community did seemingly vote in favor of the topic ban, so to that extent, there should be a message that you should be careful in how you approach these topics, but considering that the last edit to the Manning article was weeks ago, a topic ban now seems heavy-handed, compared with the 'topic probation' idea that was also proposed. My only suggestion is to approach the board after some time for a reconsideration of the ban or its length. -- Avanu (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC) User:SarekOfVulcan/Recall criteria -- file a recall, or strike the comment above, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Why? There's no personal attack; Avanu expressed an opinion. You don't like it, but that's hardly surprising. → ROUX ₪ 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Sarek never said there was a personal attack. What Avanu said was equivalent to accusing someone of being a sock puppet rather than filing a report at WP:SPI. If Avanu thinks an admin should be desysopped, he should follow the appropriate process, not drop it here like a poisoned balloon.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC) You know, Sceptre, there are much better ways to argue against a topic ban than to blatantly violate it as you did above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I really hope you're not implying that meta-discussion falls under the topic ban. Regardless of my behaviour, there are several issues that do need to be addressed, namely the implication that you don't need an understanding of the issues before discussing such a sensitive topic, or that this topic ban is less about preventing disruption and more about using power to end a content dispute. Sceptre (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC) See paragraph 2 of your first post -- that's not meta-discussion, that's continuing the argument that got you topic banned in the first place.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Kind of proving my point for me, Sarek. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A question for everyone involved in this discussion

Seriously, this isn't helping at all. Please stick to the discussion at hand. Blackmane (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How many of you actually know, let alone are friends/relatives/lovers of trans people? → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC) How is this relevant?--Atlan (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Because it is blindingly obvious that the overwhelming majority of people in this discussion have no fucking clue about trans issues in general, let alone how incredibly fucking dehumanizing and insulting it is to refer to trans people by their cisgender when they have made it clear what their gender is. → ROUX ₪ 14:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) It is irrelevant who people know. The reliable sources just don't exist to do such a bold move (as is shown in the numerous archived discussions at BLPN and the manning article). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC) It's hardly irrelevant to require that people have even a modicum of knowledge about a given subject before commenting on it. I am fucking sick and tired of cis/hetero privilege around here. → ROUX ₪ 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Please assume good faith and remain civil. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I don't think it's hugely relevant but I've worked with two TG folks, one closely (she was my boss when she changed how she identified). I think the question is of reliable sourcing. If there are reliable sources for the subject identifying as female and not male, that's one thing. I've not followed the issue for a while, but at last check the sources were extremely thin. I'll look it over again... Hobit (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Who gives a shit? WP:V who people know means nothing. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) What people know, however, means everything. WP:V isn't enough; one must be able to evaluate the sources. If you don't know what you're talking about (as you, and many others here, clearly do not) then you are unable to do so. → ROUX ₪ 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC) What a load of bollocks, we use what the sources say. This is not a platform for political or any other form of beliefs. It is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a platform to push a point of view. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC) And if you don't have enough knowledge to evaluate whether what the sources say is accurate or not, you are the one spouting the load of bollocks here. → ROUX ₪ 16:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC) First of all, Roux, your lack of good faith is disturbing. Secondly, "who" you know is irrelevant. If there are reliable sources that explicitly state that Manning does not want to be referred to as "she", that are not contraindicated by more recent reliable sources that indicate a change on that, to continue to do so is a BLP violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal: Topic probation for Sceptre

All in all, it seems to me that Sceptre has not done anything recently to merit a topic ban. As User:Wikidemon said above, Sceptre's involvement since the previous AN/I dispute has been minimal until today. That said, when Sceptre has veen involved in this area, their involvement has been, overall, highly questionable. So place Sceptre on probation: if Sceptre's future behavior in the area of Bradley Manning, broadly construed, becomes inappropriate, they shall receive a topic ban. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This probation idea seems to be one of the more reasonable suggestions. After all, any of us can get passionate about a topic and carry a crusade for a bit. Sceptre said that this was dropped and I will assume that is correct. On the idea of not being empathetic enough on the transgender issues, i.e. "give a damn about transgender issues", we don't need to know anything about an issue to know whether someone is following sources and provide a reasonable analysis of whether those sources are being faithful to their subject matter. Bradley Manning's reputation is already under attack for being an accused purveyor of secrets, it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to be forward-thinking ahead of sources to re-classify a person's gender, who could then be attacked for that as well. This may be personally important to Bradley Manning, but that has not been made unequivocally clear in our sources. To move forward on this without that clarity is irresponsible to the truth as well as a launch beyond where our sources take us. While it also may be a personal issue to many of our editors, we are responsible for creating articles that reflect our subjects in a manner that is faithful more to the sources and subject of our article, not something that reflects our personal sensibilities. -- Avanu (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're on to it. He's too emotionally invested, and needs to stay miles away from that article for a lengthy period of time - during which, the issue might even be settled one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sceptre needs to be topic-banned to the moon on anything remotely with 20 miles of Bradley Manning or transexuality and interaction banned from AtG. Andy probably needs some sort of Wiki-whack for not being clever enough to get rid of a clear POV warrior (minimum interpretation) without resorting to personal attacks after being admonished previously for the same damned thing. Hello?!?! This is not so hard to understand, is it??? Carrite (talk) 01:57, 24 June 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 editing by Morgan Katarn

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

---

I've been casually monitoring the behavior of Morgan Katarn (talk · contribs) and I feel that his attitude as an editor is so disruptive he is a major detriment to the encyclopedia. He appears to lack basic competence as an editor - he is a native German speaker, and in English repeatedly makes serious grammatical errors [44] [45] (and often edit wars to maintain them [46] ). Other common editing patterns include adding trivial or non-notable information to articles [47] , original research [48] [49] , etc. He seems to have a fundemental misunderstanding of things like sourcing [50].

He has a significant pattern of edit warrings to maintain his poor-quality edits. You can just search his contributions for the word "reverted", but here is a recent example [51] .

He has a habit of threatening other users who try to revert his poor quality edits, and even inappropriately report them as vandals [52] . He also commits personal attacks [53] [54].

In general, I would say that the majority of Morgan Katarn's edits to articles are reverted, and in many cases this leads to edit warring. If more than half of his edits are counterproductive, he is a net detriment to the encyclopedia, and may not deserve editing privileges.

As a side note, he has indicated he was banned from the German Wikipedia, though he claims this was for no reason. Some guy (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So what does it mean? Do you want me to get banned from the English Wikipedia too?! The German Wikipedia sucks because almost none of the German Wikipedia admins will follow the rules and they ban without warnings. But ok, the last time when I reported a user, I was simply not the one who was edit warring. That Mad-man guy continued adding deletion tags to a worked out article called Roland Düringer. I really don't see a specific reason why I'm always that guy who gets pissed off, whatever happens, I'm always guilty! M0RG@N (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sir, you are missing the point. You are clearly not following both English grammatical rules and official Wikipedia policies. It doesn't even look like your following good faith. I believe the hammer must come down. But, since he claims to be banned for "no reason", I propose a ban and the community will vote. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you actually an administrator? Some guy (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No I am not. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm "That Mad-man guy" Morgan Katarn refers to. From my experience with Morgan he seems unable to admit when he's wrong, often threatening to have people banned when he doesn't get his own way. Case in point, the edit warring Morgan mentions above. He continually removed the proposed deletion I added to the unsourced BLP mentioned above, claiming that since the article has existed for a few months that it should be allowed to remain despite Wikipedia's policies. I pointed out that he fell afoul of the three-revert rule but he claims that as I was adding the proposed deletion the rule applied to me not him. I was willing to continue discussing the issue on my talk page but Morgan instead reported me on the vandalism noticeboard. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban Proposal

• Support As proposer. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Not yet. The documented behavior by Morgan Katarn is clearly against WP policies (personal attacks, inappropriate AIV posts, edit warring). If they agree here and now not to:

• revert gramaticral corrections by other editors -- discussing on appropriate article talk page, instead
• immediately cease all negative characterizations of other editors (personal attacks)
• describing anything other than obvious malicious editing as vandalism

I think it would be appropriate to close this as a final warning. If they are brought back to ANI after closing having repeated the any of the above behaviors I'd advocate indef blocking. Does that should reasonable to all parties? Nobody Ent 23:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal is both reasonable and appropriate. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Nobody Ent. This is a final warning situation. Make sure they're aware that final is final and this is their absolute last chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I agree too but I won't agree with an indefinite block because I never really vandalized articles and if I make errors in future please give me several warnings before you'll ban me absolutely and I regret my personal attacks against any users. So please cooperate. M0RG@N (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the block isn't relevant. Wikipedia is a privately run website and the Wikimedia Foundation has delegated to individual sub communities the responsibility to self manage. If the consensus here is that you've not shown suitability for editing English Wikipedia than we're authorized to implement that. While I have no personal authority I don't see any editors expressing any support for anything other than a last chance as I've outlined above or ban (indefinitely blocking) you now. You've already received input from multiple editors and a block, so you can't expect to be entitled to more warnings. Nobody Ent 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but if I've never seen their name here or at RFC/U before, good chance I'll never !vote them off the island (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I must admit that my reaction to the first few diffs was "subtle troll...", but nevertheless it's not hammertime just yet. Jumping the gun to ban straight away; the editor just needs a stern talking to and a block if the disruption continues. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support I was originally going to oppose per the three reasonable conditions listed above. Then I looked a little further and could see that his behavior has been consistently disruptive and uncivil. This [55] is an example of removing a BLP Prod tag. Later, he introduces the subject's own website as a "reliable" source and then reacts with hostility when it is removed [56]. An old revision of his talk page at sections June 2012 and June 2012 (2), shows: several recent warnings (disruptive behavior, personal attacks, and edit warring), a recent block, and one of his responses where he refers to another editor as a "retard". This seems to be a purely disruptive account. Taroaldo (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bans are very long time disruptive editors. Don't see along time pattern here. Disruptive in some cases, but not a long time pattern that would require a ban.--JOJ ^Hutton 01:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind competency is also crucial and a major issue here. Some guy (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Were we all competent when we first started out? I don't think incompetence is an underlying threat to the sanity that is Wikipedia. We should reserve "bans" for the truly disruptive. People who for one reason or another have no business editing because their stated purpose is not to improve the site, but to disrupt it in their own way. I believe that the editor has good "intentions", but is just not going about it the same way. A block for disruption would be within the guidelines, but not a ban at this point.--JOJ ^Hutton 12:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban. This guy is continuing to edit-war to insert his incorrect changes after I explained why they were wrong, and is continuing to make incorrect grammatical changes even while this ANI report is in progress. I have indef blocked him to stop the disruption - it is just not possible to make progress by talking to someone as stubborn as this who simply will not listen. Continuing the way he is going counts as willful disruption in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal I oppose an indef site ban because of the comments above and lack of warning to the user, instead of this I:

• Propose a ban from undoing or reverting any other user's edits whether obvious vandalism or not, as this is primarily where the problem is, for 12 months.
• Support a final and only warning for disruptive editing, which makes it clear that any further disruptive edits will result in a block.
• Propose a warning about civility to other users which makes it clear that further incivility may result in a block. Callanecc (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As a note, he has been in almost constant discussion with other editors trying in vain to explain how his behavior and edits in general are bad for weeks and doesn't seem to understand. He's been warned many times and had a 24 hour block recently. Some guy (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Further propose (in response to that Some guy's comment) that User:Morgan Katarn be adopted by an experienced and willing editor (preferably an administrator) who has the time to help with an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. Primarily, who can talk Morgan through a discussion. Although this would be good, I don't think it as important (or will be as effective) as my above proposals. Callanecc (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support mentorship here - I've added detailed explanations of some of the problems with recent edits at User talk:Morgan Katarn#Your edits, and I think these are the things a mentor should be watching for - and I also note that the most recent of these problematic edits happened while this ANI discussion is in progress. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Will comment above, in support of ban -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Standard offer. I do not think a site ban is necessary, but I also do not think this user has at present the competence to make a useful contribution, partly because of temperament and maturity (I guess he is quite young) and partly from language problems. I have declined his unblock request but made the WP:Standard offer and suggested that he come back in six months, preferably showing a record of constructive editing and a clear block log at :de, where he is not blocked but has few edits. I will not object if another admin is prepared to unblock on the basis of mentoring and edit restrictions, but my judgment is that we would just be back here in a week or two. JohnCD (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yep, that sounds good to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me aswell. Callanecc (talk) 10:50, 25 June 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.

Meta-discussion

• Comment What happened to the convention that ban proposals belong on AN, not ANI? If they now belong here, someone should edit the headers that say otherwise.SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Now there's a good question without a clear answer. First, the header at ANI says nothing about bans belonging here or not belonging here. Second, the header at AN has weasely language that says that ban proposals "could" be appropriate at AN. Third, WP:BAN says, "Community banning discussions generally take place at the [AN] or a subpage thereof." However, WP:BU says, "Community bans may arise from consensus at the administrators' noticeboards (WP:AN, WP:ANI), the former community sanctions noticeboard (WP:CSN), or elsewhere." Maybe we need to be a wee bit clearer?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  I think that there is a sense that AN is more a place to inform admins, to request help not covered on an AN subpage - like help with backlogs, and to get 3PO.

  So since a ban discussion would seem to be in response to particular incidents (and I think a ban discussion is a bit more than a question of 3PO), I think AN/I is probably the better place for this. - jc37 18:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. But how do we go about getting a consensus and then changing the various WP pages and instructions in conformance with that consensus? At the moment, there are several strands that conflict, not to mention Sphilbrick's sense that AN is the "convention" (and I don't think he's alone on that).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard-and-fast rule (as with most of Wikipedia), but convention has been that general bans (ie. not pertaining to a current ANI report) take place on AN. It's not required though.

As a side note, this meta-discussion probably should've been on ANI's Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Footnote: to nobody's great surprise, it turns out that Morgan Katarn was a block-evading sock. JohnCD (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm being attacked

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive146 § Removing warnings squabble, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive288 § Newington College and edit warring

Could somebody please help Hello I've finally found time to create a User Page. I hope it changes my life in a positive fashion. has been harassing me by accusing me of being two other users that he seem to have a vendetta against. (No wonder why they left) and reverting my talk page multiple times after being asked not to and being asked to leave me alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ 60.242.91.165 (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And he/she has just done it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.91.165 (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I see that someone with your IP address has posted several taunts to Castlemate's talk page. -- Frotz(talk) 09:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the IP has been taunting, Castlemate has been reinserting material on the IP's talk page which the IP is within their rights to remove. I have warned Castlemate not to carry on with this - which may be the cause, rather than the effect, of the IP's taunts. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Good grief! Is this exact same Newington College nonsense still going on with the same names and the same squabbles after six years? Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Gordon Brown archiving

Resolved

 – Talk page entries rearchived, per Talk:Gordon Brown#Archiving JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• - notified User:ThunderingNerd

• - Contributions/ThunderingNerd

• - Talk:Gordon_Brown&action=history

I archived all discussion that is over eight months old -diff and its being repeatedly reverted - its normal to archive such discussion - can an Admin comment - assist in the archiving please - Youreallycan 20:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Also - can we do a checkuser on the address to connect it with its main account please - Youreallycan 20:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza started a discussion and I agree.--v/r - TP 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A link to the opened talkpage discussion thread - Talk:Gordon Brown#Archiving - Youreallycan 21:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope we'll hear from the two editors (one brand new) who reverted the archiving. There's no hurry, but so far, consensus supports policy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, that second page you linked to isn't a policy. Some might consider it a common practice, or a instructional guide though.--Rockfang (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon

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

---

This AfD discussion was instituted by a gang of IPs who are angry at the subject over something she posted on her blog. The IP demands for deletion were converted into an AfD discussion in good faith by an uninvolved editor. The deletion demands apparently came from an off-wiki lynch mob, which can be seen here, organizing with the avowed intent of "googlebombing the living shit out of her" and "getting her Wikipedia page deleted." They have now descended on Wikipedia as dozens of IP accounts, attempting to overwhelm the deletion discussion. I am not commenting on the subject's notability or not, or her fitness or not for a Wikipedia article. But I am recommending that the current deletion discussion be shut down as hopelessly compromised, and then reopened with semi-protection, so that we can discuss this as Wikipedians instead of as the vehicle for an attack posse. --MelanieN (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Although your frustration is understandable, the problem is that a semi-protected AfD does not permit legitimate comments by non-auto-confirmed users, particularly IPs who may have edited extensively at Wikipedia but simply never registered, as is their right. Although the AfD is, uh, lively, I have confidence that the closer will be able to see through what is going on and give no weight to many of the delete !votes. You've also made a similar comment at the AfD itself, which will assist the closer.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Even a fully protected AfD would 'permit legitimate comments by non-auto-confirmed users, particularly IPs who may have edited extensively at Wikipedia but simply never registered' - on the talk page for the AfD, any salient points being transfered to the discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And who would decide which points should be transferred? Is there any guideline, policy, or even precedent for protecting an AfD?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 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.

Bad case of multiple-editor ownership

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.

---

Just a few hours ago, the Rihanna article was a mess with reams of indiscriminate information leading to violations of WP:SIZE and, more importantly, WP:BLP. I therefore took the WP:BOLD decision of selectively merging the article's "Other ventures" and "Philanthropy" sections into the main "Biography" section, removing trivial information and making grammatical changes in the process. Among the information that was removed were things like "On April 2, 2009, Rihanna visited the NYU Medical Center to help look for another bone marrow donor for a young girl named Jasmina Anema" (inconsequential, irrelevant and WP:TABLOID) and lines and lines about the chart records that each of her singles had broken (WP:NOT#STATS and largely belonging in the singles' respective articles anyway). This is what it looked like beforehand and this is what it looked like after my changes. I started a discussion on the article's talk page, thoroughly stating my intentions.

Despite this, the changes were reverted by User:Tomica, whose edit summary claimed that "I agree the article should cut, but not in this way" [57]. I reverted the edit, informing Tomica of the talk page discussion, but this was in turn reverted by User:Status, who said that "you are supposed to discuss HUGE changes BEFORE doing them... If a user disagrees, you comply"[58]. I again reverted and cited the talk page discussion in my edit summary; Tomica marked this as vandalism [59].

As you can see on the discussion, phrases like "You can't... without notifying single thing of what are you planning to do with Calvin and me (the biggest contributors to the project)" and "that's pretty annoying" seem to come straight from WP:OWN and illustrate that my edits were reverted through pure ownership rather than through editorial fault. Thus far, only one of the pair (Tomica) had highlighted a specific issue with my edits; it involves the inclusion of an image and the removal of a source within one paragraph. SplashScreen (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have now reinstated my edits with the following edit summary [60]; "Reverted; the talk page discussion has not brought up any significant reasons why my edits, at large, should not be included". SplashScreen (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop reverting. You are edit warring, and even if your version of the article is best, that doesn't change the fact that edit warring can get you blocked. Tomica should not have tagged one of the reverts as vandalism. Until I, or someone else, has time to look into this further, you should all stop revert-warring. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 01:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Even with the play by play at AN/I, what you are doing can be construed as edit warring. You've described 3 reverts on your part. Be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've not checked over all the edits included in your clean-up of the article, but I have read the article talk page and...well, everyone's a bit at fault in some ways. Tomica's insistence that you inform them or another of the article's contributors doesn't hold any weight with me, and implying that you did wrong by not engaging with the connected Wikiproject is flat-out wrong. Some editors find Wikiprojects useful for collaboration, other editors never use them and get along fine. You stated your intentions on the talk, which is fine, but reverting their reversions of your edits wasn't the best way to go. The best thing to do, I think, after the first complaint, would have been to discuss more rather than hitting the revert button. You and the other involved editors should work through each edit and find a compromise or consensus for the changes (not always easy, I know, but edit warring is frankly useless).
• I'm not sure about the WP:OWN accusations. Tomica's last response is evading the direct question of which specific edits they find fault with. Saying that removing a certain amount of kb is "annoying" isn't exactly helpful. But, like I said, no one is clearly in the wrong here. It's a content dispute that no one has handled very well. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 01:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I totally understand and appreciate these concerns, but there are clearly wider issues to deal with here. And, if you look at the edit summaries of the article, it is clear that I made a conscious effort to get the two users to participate in a talk page discussion instead of edit warring (which I actually name-checked)[61]. SplashScreen (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you are involving me in this. I have barely even edited the page, so I'd like to know how I am showing ownership of the article. I made one revert. Your edits were disagreed upon, instead of reverting and saying "discuss on the talk page", your edits should be discussed on the talk page. That's as simple as it is. Statυs (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to note that everyone involved in this edit-war (and it is one) has either ignored or not been aware of WP:BRD. SplashScreen made a bold edit, and attempted to initiate discussion. Tomica reverted it. So far, so good. But Tomica should then have proceeded to engage in discussion. Tomica should not have demanded that SplashScreen should have discussed it prior to making a WP:BOLD edit, but should instead have engaged in discussion after reverting. After this, what actually happened is that SplashScreen re-reverted while pointing Tomica to the talk-page discussion they started. SplashScreen acted incorrectly in re-reversion, and perfectly correctly in the direction to the discussion. Status should probably not have re-re-reverted, but if they insisted on doing so, a better rationale would have been "returning article to status quo while discussion of proposed changes still underway," or something similar. SplashScreen, regardless of that, you should absolutely NOT have reverted Status. You should have brought it to a content dispute resolution board and/or here, without reverting. In conclusion, SplashScreen and Tomica engaged in edit-warring. Tomica engaged in WP:OWN behavior. Status, with good intentions, escalated the edit-war. No one followed the advice of WP:BRD, which would have prevented the entire mess. As such, I propose the following:

• SplashScreen is warned not to engage in edit-warring, and is warned that continuing to do so may result in a block.
• Tomica is warned not to engage in edit-warring, is reminded that no editor has ownership of an article, and is warned that continuing to edit-war or claim ownership may result in a block.
• Status is given a WP:TROUT for escalating the situation, albeit with the best of intentions.
• All editors are encouraged to read WP:BRD, and to consider applying it when relevant.

- Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This sounds entirely reasonable and was exactly where the situation was headed. Edit-warring to keep your preferred version of an article accomplishes exactly nothing. Might I also add a point or two: Tomica should be reminded that when reverting and questioning the edits of another, being concise when explaining the problem of the other's edits is necessary. SplashScreen was completely accountable for their part in the ensuing edit war, but if Tomica provided a detailed explanation for why they reverted 13 edits, it might have gone a little further in discussion. Statements like, "Some of your edits are good" are too vague to be of any use to SplashScreen, or anyone else trying to reach a compromise. Communication is the key here. And, to SplashScreen, edit summaries are mostly intended for you to describe your edit, not to communicate during an edit-war. It makes no difference if you linked the talk page discussion while repeatedly reverting. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 04:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My two cents (even I am involved here)) ... The user came and just cut out like 50kb of an article that was built for 7 years, just notifying its talk page that the article was too big and should be cut. Sorry, but I have made significant edits to the article and I feel that I should kept its form. As I already told, he removed some good sourced material, without actually discussing it, he just cut the material and made some WP:POV to it. Anyway before something is cut or its changing a lot, should be discussed first, not just removed and then written that he "polished" the article. — Tomica (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tomica but you are completely wrong, no editor is required to discuss their edits before making them, with you or anyone else. To imply otherwise goes against the very soul of WP:BOLD. That said, he shouldn't have carried on reverting after the discussion began. I understand that you feel a connection to the article after spending a lot of time on it but try to assume good faith, SplashScreen simply did what he felt was best for the article. Remember that everyone is just as entitled to make changes to the article, however major, as you are. Try discussing the changes he made at the talk page to decide which ones can stay? He's probably right that the article could do with this kind of clean up. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Tomica, the one thing that SplashScreen did that wasn't wrong in this situation was making the major change before discussing. The one thing you did that wasn't wrong was reverting the change and demanding discussion - it's just that discussion takes place after it's been shown that consensus has not been reached. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Tomica just | re-added the disputed content back in . "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 16:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert him. I just added back a whole section that contains 17 kb of the article that the user deleted for no reason. Nearly all the artists articles contain sections about philanthropy or charity stuff. I can't understand why he completely removed it. — Tomica (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on this issue at Talk:Rihanna#Tomica.27s_re-addition_of_content; I'd appreciate it if admins and other users could wage in on it as it contains concerns about WP:NOT#TABLOID, WP:BLP, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:NPF, WP:BLPNAME and others that Tomica previously suggested I ignore. It's a shame that Tomica has ignored previous discussions here and at the article talk page and has continued to edit war. SplashScreen (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war is when you are reverting some user with his edits. I think that you violated the three-time revert rule without discussing first. I just re-added the content on which I will now add an under construction banner. I will c/e the section and left just the non trivial information. 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:EDITWAR says that an "edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion". This is exactly what you are doing, especially as you've just commented "I will not comment on here further" on the article's talk page [62].SplashScreen (talk) 18:28, 26 June 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.

Bot issues

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

---

The Un-authorized use of a Bot in the Latvian Wikipedia by User in the Chinese Wikipedia, being also an authoized Bot-owner in the English Wikipedia, or, an (a possibly) un-authorized Global-Bot.

• Justincheng12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Justincheng12345-bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99801155KC9TV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Copied from the Wikipedia:BON.

• https://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/sulinfo/Justincheng12345-bot
• https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/zh:User_talk:Justincheng12345#Latvian_Wiki

(Originally from the BON : — ) Copied verbatim from the Chinese, in English.

"Hi, I just noticed your bot is running in the Latvian Wikipedia without a required bot flag. According to the policy a request must be made for every bot before actually running them. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and best regards," -- zh:User:Edgars2007 (User:Edgars2007; lv:User:Edgars2007)（zh:User_talk:Edgars2007 (User talk:Edgars2007; lv:User_talk:Edgars2007)） 2012年6月25日 (一) 07:17 (UTC)

— KC9TV 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a bot being run on the English Wikipedia? Is it unauthorized? Every language project has their own rules, their own admins, etc. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is; even on the title, I said so, and I was merely giving a "heads-up", so to speak, especially to himself. This is not a vindictive report (and I am too sickly to do any such thing at the moment, anyway). — KC9TV 22:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If his English bot is approved and not causing problems, then this report is simply being a "tattle-tale" ... it's moot for this project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• The point is, the English language is not his first language, and he is probably not very good at it either, and he might in fact had mistaken the "local" English approval for a "global" one, — a global approval; and these, at [63] and at [64], appear to suggest that it is so. Perhaps you, Sir, care to brush up your Chinese by informing him of this (which is anyway perhaps best done by an administrator)?
• However, is this really a matter for Meta instead? Well, I don't know, and I am sorry if that is the correct avenue instead. — KC9TV 01:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why have you brought this here? If the bot is authorized here, then it is authorized. If it is unauthorized on other Wikipedias, then they can deal with it. Do you have any evidence of poor editing by this bot? Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should leave a note at meta:Talk:Steward requests/Bot status. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No. No, Sir, not at all, other than these, at nl:User_talk:Justincheng12345 and at nl:User talk:Justincheng12345-bot. Would YOU, Sir, care to clarify this to him by yourself? Anyhow, I thank you. — KC9TV 03:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Note left [65]. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why in (insert deity name here)'s name did the OP simply copy/paste the discussion at BON over here? It kinda makes it like I've actually participated in this discussion.

Anyway, now that I'm awake sorta, I think my original replies were bang on and I have no more to say :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for late respond.

First, I don't know why this discussion should be written here, as the bot is authorized, here.

Second, for the nl: it is just a minor mistake, it edits user pages, and it's fixed.

Third, As there are some wikis allow running a bot without approval, or require to edits before a BRFA, I don't think it is needed to apply for a global bot, at least for now.

Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 15:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As a reminder, I had applied for lv.wikpedia BRFA.

I also get a user talk page link in my bot user pages,which I think some one, should find me at there, instead of here.Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 15:31, 26 June 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.

Proposed restrictions on User:Tmaromeo

This is a user who almost entirely edits Arslan family subjects inserting Emir and Prince in the titles. The accounts he repeatedly is involved in are Emir Talal Arslan, Emir Majid Arslan II, Emir Faysal Arslan, Princess Zeina Talal Arslan, Prince Majid Talal Arslan, Shakib Arslan as well as Lakhmids and Arslan family. After countless reverts applying our policy not to use honorific titles for those who do not have actual governing emirates and principalities, this user comes back repeatedly and reverts them just hours later against all Wikipedia policies in this regard. This desruptive behavior is done repeatedly and many times over while putting ludicrous explanations as to why he does the edits.

It is very clear this is a "related party" to the Arslans and bound by allegiance to them or respects them so much he insists that all Wikipedia rules are bypassed just for his related Arslans to be glorified. As a matter of principal, all edits by related parties are subject to higher scrutiny than independent editors. One look at this user's edit history will show how excessively he abuses this while almost clearly being a "related party" and "insider" to the Arslan family. So far User:Tmaromeo has failed to take part in any discussions and will only have his way as if he has hegemony over these pages and will apply his "family doctrines" on Wikipedia at all costs. But even more seriously, he has removed our notes on relevant talk pages requesting a move and deletes talk page content bypassing all courtesy and rules about this and thinks by this action he will bypass our specific requests to discuss his behavior. See for example my request here and his deletion of my talk comment here. Another grave example of this is my comment on talk page for Prince Majid Talal Arslan here and his removal of my comment here. I have kept that page fully empty to demonstarte his callous intervention against all courtesy between fellow editors.

As for overriding amendments with total disregard of reasons See User:Al Ameer son's move here and Tmaromeo's reversal here. Then the action to revert here putting protection and also here and yet again Tmaromeo's reversal here. On certain pages this has been done four times now. On others at least once if not more. No Arslan page is spared from his undue intervention. This is just a specimen and this has been done on all other mentioned pages as well and repeatedly. A brief study of his edit history will make this even clearer.

This has become tedious for us and this individual goes against all Wikipedia rules as far as Arslan family pages go. The pages are just fait accompli "shrines" with dubious addressing of the subjects even within text. One edit that I reverted showed Talal Arslan as "the" ruler of the Druze which is ludicrous even within the Druze community in Lebanon let alone in Syria and Israel and internationally and the influence of the Jumblats in that community and the fact that many Druze and most Lebanese have no regard to Emirs and Princes of whatever community (although some usage is common for some bourgeousie classes and just burocratic purposes).

There is an ongoing discussion about how appropriate using of Emir and Prince titles for people who are clearly not although commonly used within their own clans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emir_Talal_Arslan We are ready to abide by what comes out of that discussion.

But meanwhile owing to his repeated intervention on reversing all our edits in this regard and owing to his intentional deletion of talk materials to prohibit even proper discussion of this matter, I propose a topic ban on this individual User:Tmaromeo regarding all Arslan family pages, i.e. Emir Talal Arslan, Emir Majid Arslan II, Emir Faysal Arslan, Princess Zeina Talal Arslan, Prince Majid Talal Arslan, Shakib Arslan as well as Lakhmids and Arslan family and all other related pages I have missed or future Emir XXX Arslan or Prince YYY Arslan pages that he/she might create.

I propose initially a cooling off period of no Arslan-related edits by Tmaromeo, meaning a "topic ban" for a period of one month. If there is a return to repeated vandalism action after the imposition of topic ban, then I suggest extending "topic ban" to a year and for more serious repeated action an indefinit ban. Of course if he refrains from any further intervention waiting for a concensus or if he actively takes part in discussions and can convince us, then the topic ban may be reconsidered based on future good will displayed by this user. werldwayd (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Paragraphs. For the love of god, paragraphs. --Golbez (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

My eyes are used to seeing giant screeds of text, but this is way unmanageable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

Thank you for paragraphing. --Golbez (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still pretty harsh :-) However, what I see is WP:RFC/U material, as it's a pattern of behaviour being shown (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

High Profile Page hacked, needs fixing ASAP

HATting per a reasonable WP:BEANS concern. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. WP:RD2'd by AniMate SÆdontalk 10:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Look at this diff from Barack Obama, 4 November 2008. This needs to be fixed asap! ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC) What am I missing here? To me, it just looks like four-year-old vandalism that was quickly reverted and is now buried in the edit history. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue, either. Would you mind spelling it out? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Scroll down to the part where Obama entered Harvard, don't you see the offensive red lettering? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, I noticed that. It's ancient and not really worth worrying about. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Okay, wow, yeah, I missed that somehow. I guess a sysop could suppress it, but it may be 3.5 years too late for anyone to care enough to do so. Wow. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC) People can post that link on external sites and say "look what WP is hosting." Makes the site look bad and not worth keeping. Delete under WP:RD2.SÆdontalk 09:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I agree Saedon, and I disagree Bongwarrior and Evan, we hide malicious edit summaries all the time, why should this racist remark remain for all to see for all eternity? Really? Are you guys serious? This edit should be made as though it never existed, period. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I would support deletion. I don't believe I said anything to the contrary; but I would be surprised if that actually happened at this point, three years on. I say get rid of it, for whatever my input may be worth. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Facepalm How did you even find that? It's from freakin' 2008! Where's the hack? Was it re-introduced recently or something? Doc talk 09:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC) @Doc, I found it because I was curious what Obama's page looked like on election day. I doubt I am the only person who looks at the past history of pages. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, but... 2008! If we started revdeleting all the idiotic edits that ever were, we'd find ourselves going down a slippery slope of concealment that has no place in an open editing environment. Doc talk 09:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The only real problem is this ANI thread making people look at an old, well hidden racist edit. It is not generally a good idea to revdel all simple vandalism. Offensive racist vandalism is fairly common on WP, and keeping the edits allows everybody to understand why users were blocked. Transparency is better here IMO than pretending there are no racist edits. —Kusma (t·c) 09:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It should be hidden from all but admins then Kusma. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC) That is not transparency. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Society shouldnt try to hide evidence of racism. We dont sweep unpleasant parts of our history under the rug so future generations dont understand the context. 'This edit should be made as though it never existed' - Would you apply that to everything in life? Leave it alone. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Yet, if I said the right words in my edit summary for this post, it would indeed be suppressed, immediately, and forever so only admins could see it. Hypocrisy? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC) What about WP:BLP, we are slandering a living person are we not? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC) WP is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're an encyclopedia and shouldn't host content like that QED. @Kusma The user who made that edit was a vandalism only account that was blocked after 15 edits years ago. It's highly unlikely that your point regarding understanding why users were blocked applies here as we'll likely never hear about this user again so long as this edit is revdel'd. There's no reason to get philosophical here, it's just a normal WP:RD2 case, textbook really. SÆdontalk 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict x3) I think that (Wikipedia vs. society at large) is a silly comparison to make. There's a clear difference between white-washing the past, and not allowing trolls and vandals to have the last word. Given the fact that it's the biography of arguably the most high-profile living person on the planet, and archived on a date where it's reasonable to assume more people than just Gabe might be looking in the future, it's not unreasonable to nuke that edit into non-existence. Wikipedia's servers don't need to be used to cater to nonsense like that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It's really not that complicated IMO. Anyone who looks at the first version of his page for election day 2008 will see a racist banner, that should be fixed, that I even have to argue this is very disappointing to me. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC) This is a strange thread. Vandalism is a daily part of life here. Horrible, racist vandalism. On BLP's, too! To dig back into the realm of years, and to expect that an editor would walk away thinking we(!) are slandering a living person from that antiquated version... ah, just revdelete it, I guess. Doc talk 10:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Taken care of. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I went ahead and rev-deleted it per WP:BLP. I too think it's odd someone brought this up now, but its clearly an unacceptable edit. AniMate 10:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Why is it odd that someone might look at a president's article at the earliest edit on election day? ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The edit has been deleted. Just let this go and get back to editing productively. AniMate 10:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Concur entirely with the RevDel - was in the process of doing it myself when I noted it was already done. Although I don't think it will happen very often the importance of this date means I doubt GabeMc will be the only person to look at what the page was like on that day. Dpmuk (talk) 10:14, 26 June 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. Just few days ago.[66] Make sure to revdelete that one too, as it's certainly not something we would want to advocate. It's not racist per se, or terribly old. But reverting and ignoring vandalism isn't good enough: it must all be revdeleted. Slippery slope? There's a ton of revdeleting to do. Doc talk 10:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC) You're being pointy. There is at least one immediate line - BLP. Defamatory vandalism to BLP articles is far more likely to need a revdel than any other form of vandalism. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It's the same article. Woosh! Doc talk 13:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I know that. I suppose I wasn't clear that I was actually making two separate statements. Statement a) you're being Pointy. Statement b) An obvious line to draw, to me, is that defamatory vandalism to a BLP article is clearly far more in need of a revdel than, say, vandalism of the sort that inserts "OMGELEVENTY!1!ONe!" into the lede of Game theory. I would now also add a statement c) Like many other things on Wikipedia, things like this should be fixed as they are discovered. If no one brings up an instance of defamatory vandalism to a BLP on AN/I or AN, but just reverts it, how will the ones that should be revdeled get revdeled? If someone brings something like this up, even a four-year-old buried vandal-version should be considered. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Agree with the Doc - this is overkill. GiantSnowman 16:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC) It'd be overkill to go hunting for things like this, I agree. But there's no real reason why this particular case shouldn't have been revdeled, and a couple of reasons why it should (although no pressing ones). So although it's overkill to go after these, I don't see any harm in the revdel as a fix for a BLP issue that would be major if it weren't so old. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC) IMHO, this fell under WP:BEANS mixed with the Striesand effect - yeah, nasty vandalism, but ancient; the best thing to do when coming across something like that is either to ignore it or email a trusted admin if something truly must be done; plastering it over AN/I just brought attention to the thing (which is, I'm sure, exactly what the troll who did the thing wanted). - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrator EncMstr

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.

---

EncMstr (talk · contribs)

First off EncMstr blocked me giving one of his reasons as 'violating the spirit of WP:3RR' when the record[67] and the comments of administrators herer and here at least said no 3RR occurred.

EncMstr came to this board after he placed his block on me not before hand.

Now as for the violation of WP:INVOLVED. EncMstr made two contributions to the thread I am accused of edit warring over, one of which can't be called anything less than substantial. Only 5 editors were involved in the thread prior to my block[68], one of the five for just one edit, including EncMstr.

WP:INVOLVED reads 'In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.'

Read those bold words.Construed very broadly. Not broadly but Very Broadly. With his contributions being nothing less than substantial to the thread, he is involved.

One administrator concurred on that.[69] Many more didn't. 3RR is very clear cut, this editor and I were on opposite sides of the discussion, and he should known Involved too and he blocked before coming to a board.

This administrator has shown he doesn't know policy, and every administrator whether of 10 days experience or 10 years. The only other alternative is that lost objectivity and to shut me up, used his powers as an administrator to do so. Two mistakes on the same block even if its innocent call into question his ability as an administrator....William 01:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#request_block_review_of_WilliamJE, and note that I am not an administrator. Nobody Ent 01:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've rolled off a very hasty close tag. Why doesn't the community address the editors' concerns and explain why they're incorrect rather than reactively respond with close tags and talks of boomerangs? Thus far all I've seen is argument by assertion: EncMstr wasn't involved because he wasn't involved. If no one wants to comment, no worries, ClueBot will take care of archiving. Nobody Ent 01:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page of the editor, you will see much discussion on the matter, and the conditions that he was unblocked under. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried reading the user's talk page, but struggled when they started comparing their block to rape. Someone might want to tell this editor that creating large amounts of unnecessary drama can also lead to blocks, and comparing a block to, um, rape counts as creating large amounts of unnecessary drama. It's also highly offensive. In terms of WP:INVOLVED, it has been suggested that William doesn't understand that particular policy very well. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 02:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1 has removed a great deal of the offensive material from his talk page, as well as soapboxing off of his user page, the history will have to be used if someone needs a better understanding of the current situation. I had previously notified BWilkins, since he had issued the conditional unblocking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• William, contributing to the thread to explain what the policy being discussed actually means does not make one involved. You do not have to revert more than three times to be edit warring. You were in the wrong on the policy you were vehemently arguing about and refused to listen when told that you were. And with your actions after the block you should be counting yourself fortunate that the block was not lengthened. I'd strongly suggest for the good of everybody here, including yourself, that you drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with The Bushranger - I understand your frustration and the feeling that you have to continue to press your point, but from my own personal experience on Wiki, I would encourage you to drop the matter. If you continue down this path, you will get blocked. Even if you are totally correct in your assessments, Wiki is guided by consensus, and if you are on the short side of the stick of the discussion, the best thing to do is tell yourself that this is not worth getting blocked over. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think I can add much more than I already did on the OP's talkpage. We don't expand or contract the meaning of WP:INVOLVED - we can ask for clarification. The blocking admin DID ask, and was found to have not contravened that policy. Point final. I don't think I've ever worked alongside the blocking admin, so this is certainly not a circling of the wagons. Drop the stick, back away from the ground-to-a-bloody-pulp carcass, and go and be a good editor. When you get valid interpretation of a policy from third party neutral people, accept it (even if you don't agree with it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• (Non admin comment) EncMstr quite rightly came to ANI after they blocked you for a admnin action review because they might have acted incorrectly per WP:INVOLVED. A number of editors, including myself, examined the circumstances leading up to the block and 'per that consensus, EncMstr was determined not to have used their admin privileges in a dispute. EncMstr made an WP:IAR judgement call and the consensus was that they acted correctly to prevent your edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody has explained why if 'construed very broadly' then why it isn't here. What is the threshhold for being involved?
• EncMstr came here, but he never disclosed he was part of the conversation. At least one of you up above has that wrong.
• EncMstr said I did violate 3RR when I didn't but The Bushranger dances around it. People rapped across the knuckles here or more for saying somebody's post was vandalism but the board disagrees.
• EncMstr also violated this policy 'You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.' He didn't do that.
• A circling of wagons is being done. A threat of WP:BOOMERANG was made clearly by GregJack above and can be reasonably implied by the writings of at least one other. You write everything off EncMster did and do nothing. Why do you think I've said repeatedly that this board is a joke....William 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you ever grasping at straws. This was your ANI notification (not a blockable offence anyway), so he did notify you. Note that WP:INVOLVED says "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" ... there's the threshold. He ONLY acted in an administrative role to advise you that the other editor was editing according to policy, and you were not. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope he wasn't replying as an administrator. To quote 'I agree with Savidan. Navigation templates serve several purposes: navigation, categorization, organization, context, binding like articles, and highlighting articles needing to be written.' Read those words 'I agree'. He was not there in an admninstrative capacity but as an editor taking part in a debate. As for the redlinks policy, ask The Bushranger what the policy is so far as redlinks go in aviation accidents and incidents templates. He'll tell you like I will, they are a no-no.(Bushranger has deleted those redlinks and I have too) Different wikipedia projects, different policies, but someone come up with where in the Law or Supreme Court project where it says redlinks are fine. So far as I know its never been discussed and if so therefore no policy in those projects. Remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I even pointed that out to EncMstr. Added comment- A search of the Law projects archives[70] provides absolutely nothing so far as the project's policy on redlinks goes....William 13:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record: I only remove redlinks from templates when the redlinks are deleted articles (and yes, I know this is closed now, but my power was out for 25 hours so I didn't get a chance to respond until now). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

@William: I had hoped you would divert the energy expended contesting redlinks in the nav template and protesting being blocked instead to good use—preferably in improving the encyclopedia or improving your personal life.

You were blocked for disruptive editing. In this case you were causing more work for others than you were contributing—a net reduction in progress of the project. Note that discouraging other editors to contribute is sufficient grounds for blocking. Since you have been mostly getting in the faces of administrators, you have been granted leeway—which is seems you are likely to hang yourself with.

Wrong. When did I get in the face of an administrator prior to my blocking? Ok you, but then I didn't know you were an admin. at the time and the only thing I said to you was 'WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument.' That's getting in an administrator's face? The facts if someone would let them, would hang you right there not me....William 13:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly told that your interpretation of WP:COI, WP:INVOLVE, WP:3RR, and WP:REDNOT are not in agreement with consensus. What is your reaction? To repeatedly quote the same chapter and verse

Wrong. More than one person said your mention of 3RR was wrong. Here for example.[71] Here is another example.[72]

The chapters and verses I have been citing, are WP's own policies, not the viewpoints of those who are supposed to be administering them. If what it says in WP:REDNOT and WP:INVOLVED aren't to be enforced, they shouldn't be up there.

Now you have made three patently false statements:

• EncMstr ... never disclosed he was part of the conversation. False: I fully disclosed my comments on my second edit here.

• • Wrong. It was your third[73] and not your second edit[74]. And even then when you did admit there could be a WP:INVOLVED issue it came after another editor(not me) had brought that issue up.[75]...William 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• EncMstr said I did violate 3RR: False: I said you violated the spirit of 3RR.

Semantics. If you weren't using 3RR as a reason to block me, you shouldn't have cited it. Spirit isn't a reason for blocking. If you did think I did violate 3rr, as several editors have pointed out, you're wrong.

• EncMstr also violated [the] policy 'You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.' . False: I notified you soon after requesting block review. While not instant notification, during the three hours' delay no discussion occurred, and I was unaware that an ANI block review discussion must notify the user. It took me several minutes to determine proper use of {{ANI-notice}}. (I tried to improve that, but it was reverted.) —EncMstr (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong By your own admission you failed to do it for over three hours. The first thing I did after starting this discussion[76] was notify you.[77] That took two minutes Worse you sought rubberstamping of what you did without laying out all the facts at first and notify the offending party.

Right at the top of the page when you enter a new section it says in yellow and bold. 'You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice} to do so'.

This administrator has shown clearly on more than one occasion he doesn't know the policies of wp that he's been given the authority to administer. Simple policies like 3RR or can't miss notification requirements are apparently beyond his comprehension. He also accuses me of making false statements when even the so called proof of what he is saying I'm doing that says the exact reverse and backs up my accusations....William 13:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• @ William. I'm sorry if you misconstrued my comments. I am not an admin, nor do I think that admins should go after you for bringing up a concern about another admin. I was speaking from my personal experience on Wiki - I have recently been given a second chance after being indef blocked. I too have felt I was right in some cases, and continued to argue against consensus to the point of WP:BATTLEGROUND - and I paid the price. In some of the cases I still think that I was right, but it doesn't matter - the consensus of editors and admins felt differently, and I should have dropped the stick. I was merely trying to say that even if you're right, is it worth it? BTW, BWilkins tried to give me good advice at the time I kept pursuing the issue, but I ignored it to my regret - I hope that you will not make the mistake that I did. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

William, just stop. You're making an embarrassment of yourself by dragging this out. You are not going to resolve this by continually arguing the point. When everyone is telling you you're wrong, it should make you stop and consider you might be wrong. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sometimes, a person is simply mistaken. This has been handled in a previous ANI that the admin brought themselves, on your talk page, and now here. Time to drop the stick, as this is not productive, arguably unproductive, and it is best to stop before it becomes disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be a bit bold and close this before the pile on gets any more serious. Hopefully, WIlliamJE takes the hint. Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 26 June 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.

Proposed restrictions for User:Crzyclarks

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.

---

Crzyclarks (talk · contribs) has now obtained 3 blocks for edit warring across a series of articles related to sexuality and marriage - based on the latest report against them on WP:AN/3RR, they are likely about to get their fourth. They show significant ownership issues, and WP:TE on these topics as a whole.

After their last block, it was suggested that they "self-ban from any article related to marriage or sexuality, broadly construed. You should also restrict yourself to WP:1RR for a few months. If not, I highly expect your next block to be indefinite". Of course, they went right back to those topics AND edit-warring

In order to prevent the obvious indef, I propose a 6 months editing restriction as follows:

User:Crzyclarks may not edit any article related to sexuality or marriage (broadly construed) for 6 months. In addition, they are restricted to to WP:1RR on all Wikipedia pages for the same 6 months. Any violations will lead to an indefinite block

• Support as proposer (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per [78] --~Knowz ^(Talk) 16:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually I honestly wonder if even 6 months is enough considering how the user in question acts. >_> --~Knowz ^(Talk) 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the only way the editor is not going to end up indef blocked, which is where my finger has been hovering for much of today - the two further warnings on their talk page have been ignored. Black Kite (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support as one last chance for an editor who refuses to listen - though I expect it will only delay their indef block by 6 months. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Am I allowed to do that lol? If it wasn't for the lack of neutrality in some of the edits I was reverting, I wouldn't be editing these articles as I have no interest in them. I think it would be best to look at the content of my edits and decide if I am biased when it comes to these articles. I was reverting one editor that caused this block discussion which doesn't seem right. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well in that case, if you don't have any interest in those topics, a ban from them won't be a problem for you. Black Kite (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If the topics had more neutral editors it wouldn't be a problem. Again, if you compare what I was reverting or adding, I think it's pretty obvious. Crzyclarks (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Your comments show a fundamental misunderstanding about policy. Edit-warring is not permitted. Therefore, your content justifications, even if true, are of no assistance to you. Just out of curiosity, which would you prefer, an indefinite block or the proposed topic ban? Your three blocks for edit-warring have been of increasing durations (24h, 48h, one week), which is normal, and as BWilkins stated above, you're headed for an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well my main defence is that this block discussion is a result of 3 reverts against a single editor, which was justified based on content. He's not facing an edit warring discussion, even though neither of us broke the 3RR and were only reverting each other. Topic ban would be better. Crzyclarks (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• There are two ways for being blocked per 3RR, one is to literally breach it by doing 4 reverts in 24 hours, and the other is to edit-war but without a technical breach based on number. In addition, once you've been blocked for edit-warring, if you come back and resume your activity, even without a breach, you'll probably be blocked (you didn't learn your lesson the first time). I looked at the June 14 marriage block, and you did more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, so that block was a technical breach.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• You appear to have forgotten that you have also been edit-warring today at Homosexual recruitment. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• So far, three reverts of the same material despite being reverted by two different editors. And over something really small. You have made about 250 edits to article space since your first edit in March of this year. Perhaps you should be editing less controversial articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Re "my main defence is that this block discussion is a result of 3 reverts against a single editor, which was justified based on content." - "My content version is right" is never a valid justification for edit-warring over a content dispute, and if you keep insisting that it is despite being told otherwise by a number of people and having been blocked 3 times for edit warring, then one way or another you will not be editing here. It really is that simple. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per proposer and stated preference of Crzyclarks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I propose adding to the ban the following language: "Crzyclarks shall maintain the text of the ban and a link to the discussion at the top of his user page until the ban has expired." We did that in a recent ban (I suggested it) because we don't do a good job keeping track of bans. This makes it clear to any other editor what's going on.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I was working on some common restrictions-notification templates at one time ... I've always forced agree-to restrictions to be posted at the top of their talkpage (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure what you mean by "agree-to restrictions" - I assume you mean a voluntary ban? If so, I don't see why it should be so limited. In any event, it'd be great if you resurrected your template work so we could have something standardized. I prefer posting it on the editor's user page, but I can see arguments in favor of the Talk page (maybe both?). Best would be a technical implementation to track bans, but that's a bigger change. I have it on my list to propose it, but I haven't gotten to it yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• We'll take it offline, but there is a simple solution, and it has to do with creating a fully-protected page called User:WhateverName/Restrictions, and adding categories such as "Users under imposed restrictions" or "Users under voluntary restrictions" where needed :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support — per Bwilkins and I recommend that Crzyclarks keep the ban notice visible, as Bbb23 suggests. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This block discussion is from my reverts against one editor, not two. The current wording is different to the edits of both of us, so not really reverting my edit. I thought I may as well add that the content is clearly valid, but it is really that the reverts were against only one editor, not just that I'm right. I haven't been edit-warring at homosexual recruitment. There was a consensus until he decided to chime in after I reverted his revert. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The number of editors you are edit warring against is irrelevant - you must not edit war against even one editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Crzyclarks does not seem to get it at all. They appear unwilling to stop the edit warring on their own so we need to stop them. GB fan 19:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why my reverts are evil, but his are perfectly justified. His edit was the one that changed content from the stable version. I reverted that, then he reverted me, so I left the content in that he wanted, but also added another sourced statistic. He decided to revert...etc, and now we're here. Crzyclarks (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yours are worse because it is quite apparent that your previous blocks haven't taught you to stop edit warring. Regardless of the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of others' actions, would you say that your recent behavior constitutes edit warring? CityOfSilver 19:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. His edit warring is not OK either - but the reason you are here facing a ban and he isn't is because he is not the one who has had three blocks for edit warring and come back from each one to immediately resume edit warring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Ban as proposed (though I would prefer indef) and notice as proposed by Bbb23. Severe case of IDHT and DEADHORSE despite three blocks and numerous warnings indicates that Crzyclarks is unable to constructively collaborate with other editors in this subject area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call this edit warring, as it was with just one editor and I stuck to the 3RR. But the reason why it's at this level and the other editor's reverts doesn't seem to matter is because of the previous blocks. The first block doesn't seem valid, as I was reverting OR, specifically synthesising sources. The second block, yes. The third block, no. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As was stated earlier, the number of editors that are on the other side does not matter it is still edit warring whther it it is one or three. Reverting OR is not one of the the exceptions to edit warring in policy. GB fan 21:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The basic concepts is bold, revert, discuss not bold, revert, revert, revert, revert... You're simply being held to that requirement. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, for this conflict that I'm being held into account for, the other person did the bold and I did the revert, then he just did a revert. Crzyclarks (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but if you're not going to actually read the policy on edit-warring, then you're probably better off just shutting the fuck up, as you're not helping yourself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that so many editors at ANI insist on shooting themselves in the foot? Instead of repeatedly trying to avoid responsibility and shift the blame onto others, why not just accept responsibility for your actions? You're not going to avoid a topic ban at this point, but you might avoid convincing us that Dominus Vodisdu is correct and that you should be blocked indefinitely now.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - the editor's continuing WP:IDHT just makes the need for this all the more pressing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because you brought up bold, revert, discuss. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"the other person did the bold and I did the revert, then he just did a revert" - that does not entitle you to yet another revert. Two wrongs don't make a right; it's not BRRRD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change my position to support. I can't wait and deal with POV pushers on the discussion page for each biased edit; and there are a lot of those on this topic. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand what your second sentence means. That said, can someone please impose the ban and close this?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think he's saying that he is not prepared to follow Wikipedia's requirement that he discuss disputed content on the talk page and wait for consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that I can't edit these articles if I get banned for every two reverts I do. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you can't edit them if you keep edit-warring over them - that's the whole point! If you don't like that - you don't edit them! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Even a quick look at the editor's talk page indicates change is unlikely. Taroaldo (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the pages part of the topic from my watchlist and I won't edit them anymore. Crzyclarks (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• (note to closing admin: please don't forget to log the community-placed restrictions here) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: This is a new editor who is having obvious difficulty navigating the labyrinth of WP policies. He has stepped on a few landmines in trying to understand 3RR and EW. And now the Draconian injustice of ANI is about to fall on his neck. To mistreat yet another newbie does nothing for editor retention. The issues identified here could be easily remedied by guidance from an experienced editor--not a kick in the ass--but it is much easier to crucify him than to invest time in developing them. This editor should be offered mentorship instead of onerous oppression. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Then you'll be quite welcome to mentor him during the 6 months :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. To classify this activist as a confused newbie, needing time to learn to navigate the wiki better, is to ignore his non-neutral approach to Wikipedia—his effort to promote one viewpoint and push down any other. We do not need this kind of editor, ever. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like you to provide some examples in which I haven't been neutral in my editing. Crzyclarks (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this matters, but I'd like to extend that offer to everybody else. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this edit, Crzyclarks inserts content from Family Research Council website, which suggests that "many homosexuals have hundreds of lifetime partners". Content was simply copied from FRC website.--В и к и T 13:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I already explained that on the talk page and you know it. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This user has made it clear that they refuse to accept consensus and would rather impose their POV onto articles to balance them. You know, this user reminds quite a bit of the way NYyankees51 edited controversial subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.75.125.136 (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support six month topic ban or indefinite block. Prompted by "This just in" below, I tried to get an overview and quickly saw that the user is one of those who cannot collaborate: if they cannot see a written rule that explicitly prohibits something they want to do, they do it and repeat it because they are right. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 27 June 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.

This just in

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.

---

Update Just to top off the ridiculousness of it all ... Crzyclarks been on a path of disruption all morning on articles he's about to be topic-banned from. He's returned to edit-warring, and launched a swath of RFC's. I have indeffed for disruption at this point in time. Here's the question: do we finish of these restrictions, which would apply should they be ever be permitted to edit Wikipedia again? Do we continue with the indef and let this discussion drop? Do we switch gears to a site ban discussion? ✉→ BWilkins ←✎ 18:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would be best to cash in our chips and have the topic ban finalized, perhaps with a request to the closing admistrator to extend it to indefinite in light of the user's last minute disruptive spree. It's pretty apparent that this user will never "get it". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's not put the cart before the equine. We don't know if the topic ban will garner enough support.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't know what?? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, with the exception of you and Crzyclarks, the support was unanimous. I note that the editor is now avoiding the block on his talk page by posting there as an IP. The guy can't stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 26 June 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.

Disruption at user:Leontopodium alpinum

I say there are IP's trolling at Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs). What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing disruptive with the edit. I felt that to remove it was not for you to do...so I restored it. Thank you. 2605:AC00:F000:102:206:4FFF:FE61:92B5 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We'll let the admins decide what to do, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

My guess is the IP's trolling of personal attacks on another editor are a result of that editor's own talk page being semi-protected. Edelweiss, meanwhile, has been inactive for almost a week, so removing IPs' trolling from his page seemed courteous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Your canvassing isn't helping, please let the matter be resolved here. 2605:AC00:F000:102:206:4FFF:FE61:92B5 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I reported your other IP at AIV first, then you started disrupting things. So I reported y'all here as well, and meanwhile asked for protection of Edelweiss' page, to prevent you and the the other IP from trying to rekindle an argument from a week ago. Various admins patrol those various pages, so whichever runs across this first will hopefully semi-protect the page, and maybe put your IP's on ice as a bonus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The IPs very civil, but pointy, pleas for help regarding assistance need to stop. At some some point it will take on the appearance of harrasment. The matter has already been brought up here. It may not have been addressed to your satisfaction and that's a shame, but there you have it. Tiderolls 21:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• The IP is trying to restart an argument from a week ago. That qualifies as trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have restored a comment to a user page, which I think was the correct thing to do. I did not see anything "Trolling" about it. I have also tried to talk with Baseball Bugs about it, but he keeps jumping from page to page with his complaint. This is confusing, I will watch only comments here for now. 2605:AC00:F000:102:206:4FFF:FE61:92B5 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments are pretty obviously trolling, bringing up a long-dead argument and filing frivolous admin board claims. And 2605, Bugs removed the talk page comment, then came to ANI as he should have done. Your accusations he's "jumping from page to page" are not correct. 74.192.253.69 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that the IP in question is being patently dishonest in his commentary. I got pinged by him here, and you'll note the comment includes "...reverting valid, sourced information..." (emphasis added) in his civil but pointy (good term, Tide) comments. But let's go look at the diffs in question. If there's a source in there, my Magic Eye can't find it... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Technical question: I have to figure those two IP's are the same guy. How does one jump for a "classic" IP style to the new style? Or is that even possible? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Different ISPs is my uneducated guess. Tiderolls 22:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

For example one may have an IPV6 IP on your desktop, and a "standard" IP when you pick up your smartphone. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One seems to be in Poland and one in Canada according to whois - this suggests it may not be the same person.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And there appears to be a difference in level of knowledge of English. It's just odd that the IPv6 jumped into this as if he had some personal interest in it. Dave1185 and I kind of watch out for each other. No telling where the IPv6 guy figures into this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, do we know that this editor is male? It seems common around here to assume that other editors are male. Where gender is not certain, "they" is a perfectly good pronoun. bobrayner (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

LOTA dislikes your puny pronouns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

My goodness, that's just like a young Tuetun! Dreadstar ☥ 04:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"They" can unintentionally connotate sock puppetry or meat puppetry. Male pronouns tend to be used for simplicity's sake, given the statistical likelihood an unidentified editor will be male. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I learned "traditional" grammar rules, and I still typically use "he" as a default (as per your explanation) unless there is evidence to the contrary. I sometimes use "they" when there seems to be some doubt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate to not bring up old ANI stuff, but please don't remove comments from my talk page. The IP editor made a civil comment in any case. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And please don't semi-protect my talk page. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It might surprise you to know that registered editors will watch out for each other - even ones they have disagreements with. As regards the IP's comment - no, it was not civil; it was nothing but trolling, an attempt at baiting; and in case you hadn't noticed, that IP has since been put on ice for the next 3 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see the history of this user before I made my comment. Still I would prefer not to be semi-protected and to not have comments removed from my page, but I see you had a positive intent in cleaning up my talk space now. Thanks for the look-out. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

They had already denied my request for page protection - and even if they had granted it, you could easily have had it rescinded. In any case, you're currently unprotected. And if the skeeters start to get to you, or if the IP's continue to try to provoke an edit war on your page, you can always go to WP:RFPP and ask for protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Vettakkorumakansnehi

This user is constantly flooding talk pages of articles with requests for comments on minor issues - one example on Talk:Nair, about a simple matter of adding a cn template to the article lead. I have received a complaint on my talk page, complaining of what they saw as unacceptable behaviour [[79]] from User:Sitush. I have found an example from the latter user before the latest clash [80] . There are several other diffs which the user has posted on my talk page detailing what they see as 'inappropriate behavior' from Sitush [81],[82]. Vettakkorumakansnehi has been warned of sanctions [83], and has received a topic ban of 6 months [84]. Sitush has also highlited this edit on the articles talk page -[85]. Mdann52 (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I placed a 6 month article ban to resolve that. I suspect I'll be imposing an indefinite one in 6 months 2 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problems spread from Talk:Nair (several sections) to Talk:Iyengar, where my frustration with WP:IDHT behaviour came to the boil, especially since at that point User:Vettakkorumakansnehi was also trying to impose exactly the same sort of discussions on various user talk pages. I backed off somewhat after that, imposing on myself a "one or two responses a day" rule in order to slow things down and keep things more calm. As it turns out, that was just a relative calmness.

They are intelligent and they can be pleasant to deal with (eg: this thread is ok), but they really do not seem to be getting a grasp of how we operate, despite seeming to have a wide knowledge of our policies for one who has made so few contributions. My suspicion is that they will just move on to another caste article and start over with the same sort of thing but I do hope that the article ban gives them pause for thought. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate User Sitush and his contributions to many India related topics, however during content discussion he exibits constant ad hominem, belittling and filibustering - Assuming good faith several of these were overlooked, A few examples are see here, here and here. The above said user repeatedly engaged in evading the core-issue of topic and misrepresentation and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT See here, here. The user:Qwyrxian (QW) jumps in to make unwarranted comment here. It was pointed to User:QW that these comments are unwarranted as I have no history of edit wars. Meanwhile user Sitush goes ahead and makes an edit to the article although I had expressed my disagreement to it, see here. Further I also expressed my fear based on the long history of how discussions go in Nair talk page consensus has always come to mean UerQW-User:Sitush POV. Further , this “we” behaviour by UserQW-User:Sitush also spilled over to other articles, see here. Finally, this inappropriate behaviour was pointed out to which a veiled threat of discretionary sanctions was made, see here and the post of User:Sitush on my talk page. I decided to get help on how to handle this (so placed a help me template), but instead of receiving a suggestion I was given a topic ban for 6 months (what I perceive as unwarranted) , see [86] counter-alleging WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT  !!!. I believe that although the intention of User:Sitush is good (to prevent disruptive editing by caste warrior), however the behaviour has become akin to WP:OWN, WP:GAMES and WP:GANG in Nair article. I kindly request that my topic ban of 6 months be lifted and that the veracity of my observations ( on inappropriate behaviour of user:Sitush), be reviewed. Thanking you in advance. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In case my rationale is not already completely clear, I imposed the topic ban on Vettakorumakansnehi because he flooded Talk:Nair with stream of consciousness screeds on minor issues, and when it was pointed out why the changes he was looking for were problematic continued to post walls of near-impenetrable text. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) It rather seems more than coincidence to me that the ban for alleged-flooding comes minutes after i point something in the direction of UserQW-User:Sitush and also within few minutes that User:Sitush makes a vieled threat on discretionary sanctions !!. Moreover it also appears strange that this comes from another english wiki editor with Japanese-connection (just like User:QW) (2) What you percieve as "flooding-talk" -talk page was a resultant-filibustering because Users:Sitush-UserQW were engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repeatedly avoiding core-issues during consensus-building through ad hominem - it takes two hands to clap - meaning both parties (including me) has the onus if something goes wrong (3) Although prima-facie the discussion may look trivial. We are talking about an issue of an Indian-caste-article lead sentence giving a colonial-POV and the change being resisted by a User from UK through ad hominem and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT !!!. Anyways in the larger interest and assuming good faith I am willing to overlook what i see as "more than coincidences" . The real issue of this thread is (a) The checking the veracity of ad hominems that were perpetrated against me by User:Sitush and if inappropriate co-operation behavior does exist between UserSitush-User:QW (B) is the topic ban (percieved as disproportionate and unwarranted) a justified response to a "help template" to take guidance against being victimized by inappropriate behavior. This topic ban needs to be independently reviewed in the context of the whole scenario. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban was not because of the help template. That has been explained to you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I do respect your opinion on ban-help me correlation..if that may be the final decision on the ANI. However, a review of whether the behavior of User:Sitush was appropriate or inappropriate ? (after-all that is the core-issue of this ANI thread that requires redressal :-) ). Do kindly review my diffs provided on 12:59, 26 June 2012 and let me know of the ANI decision accordingly VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the talk page debates. You are quite verbose, but you either do not understand, or do not wish to comply with, en.Wikipedia's rules. I suggest you take the 6 months to read our rules and work on some non-India articles. (Note: I am not an admin, but this seems rather straightforward.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained above about the "more than coincidence" reagrding "The Blade of the Northern Lights". That apart, the focus of my grievience-plea here is the review of inappropriate behavior of User:Sitush based on the diffs provided by me. I will wait for further inputs from independent other admins for their evaluation of User:Sitush's behavior (ad hominem, WP:OWN behavior and WP:GANG behavior). Until that may be investigated, i am afraid WP:ANI issue is not resolved. VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I have been following the Iyengar article for some time, and have tried to mediate where possible. It has been a source of contention for some time, and it certainly does not not seem fair (nor constructive) to single out one particular user for the current state of affairs. I will remind you that earlier controversies have been settled in a constructive, collaborative manner, and hope the same can be accomplished this time around. Some of the issues regarding the validity of sources should be relatively easy to solve, given the elaborate Wikipedia guidelines. And again, I urge all of the parties, including administrators, to cooperate as best they can and to abstain from any attempt at WP:Ownership of articles. Asav | Talk (Member of the OTRS Volunteer Response Team) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ASAV VSVettakkorumakansnehi (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Prachursharma's not-so-subtle antisemitic page

Resolved

 – editor blocked indef, article deleted as G10. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Earlier today, Prachursharma (talk · contribs) created a page titled Religious affiliations of the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve of the United States. While such a topic isn't necessarily intended to be antisemitic (and, if you know anything about the rampant antisemitism related to the Fed, even that is a bit of a stretch,) he included links to wordpress.com and http://zionistjewfedreserve.com/photo.html zionistjewfedreserve.com.

I submitted the page for speedy delete, but I think this issue must be addressed with the page's creator. I haven't yet gone through his/her other edits, but given how egregious this page was, I would be surprised if there weren't more inappropriate additions made by this editor in the past. JoelWhy? talk 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The obviously anti-Semitic links have been removed, but can still be seen in the edit history here. CSD was declined (a move I disagree with) but I am submitting for AfD based on lack on notability. (Although, I'm sure we could establish notability by using about 1,000 different neo-Nazi websites...) JoelWhy? talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD seems the appropriate venue - is there any other admin activity you're asking for other than that? (I don't think you can expect to ask other people to go fishing for you - if you think there might be other problems with this editor's work, please do go and investigate yourself, and then come and ask for action if you find anything) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(expanded -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC))

• Actually, having said that, I've done a bit of fishing and I found Sharia in the United States, which seems like a very POV advocacy piece - I've taken that to AfD too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious? LadyofShalott 00:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone is pretending to be me, editing Wikipedia in my name.

Courtesy hatted.

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 keep getting notifications that I have "new messages." Wikipedia repeatedly thanks me for "your contributions;" this is a link to what are supposedly edits that I have made. My only experience with Wikipedia is to read it; I have no idea how to edit it. It seems that ALL of the edits were done to the Church of the Subgenius Wikipedia page. Since I have had a public falling-out with the administration of the Church of the Subgenius, it may very well be that this is a purposeful use of my name to make edits so that other members of the Church of the Subgenius or users of Wikipedia will think the edits are being made by me. My computer literacy is so low that even the directions for submitting links and edits, including the instructions for how to use this Help page, are gibberish to me. Please assist me so that the Church of the Subgenius is not able to use Wikipedia to libel me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.100.63 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not entirely clear on who you're referring to, but I did fix some vandalism that managed to slip through the cracks for over a week. Can you tell us who you're talking about? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Your IP is not your name, and this [87] looks like someone using your IP did edit that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Hi there. Because you don't have a registered account, anything done with your IP address will be counted as 'yours', even if you did not do it yourself. This means that, if you IP address changes, or if you share a computer/network, other people will be able to edit under your IP address. You can stop this by registering an account; if you do not want to, you can ignore the messages if you know they are not for you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC) hmm..."I have no idea how to edit...My computer literacy is so low", yet he is able to access the article's edit history (not to mention track down AN/I) and is able to identify his IP number (which if, as typical, is dynamic or shared and fluctuates and most people don't know anyway). Something smells piscatorial.... DeCausa (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) IPs are based on the Internet Service Provider as well. So if you live in say Podunktown, Kentucky and it has 50 residents and you all have Time Warner Cable, it's very possible that the IP you are currently using was used by someone you know yesterday. You would receive their messages simply because the randomness of computer networks assigned the IP address to you today and Wikipedia's software doesn't know any different than what it can see: the IP address.--v/r - TP 19:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Now read the article in question. Hoaxer. DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I have no idea who it is that's doing these things. I do know that some time ago, someone (I have no idea who) created an account in my name (Jessica Darling), and made an edit to the Church of the Subgenius page, which caused a lot of readers of the page to contact me and yell at me and insult me for making the change. I may very well be incorrect, but I thought your IP address was your specific computer? I live alone and don't share my computer with anybody, although it is an old refurbished computer that someone else bought for me. I'm sorry, but when you say "this looks like someone using your IP did edit that article," I click the link, and it brings me to a page that I just don't understand. Are you saying that someone could be using my network, if not my computer, and show as the same IP address? You also mention that I can stop this by creating an account; however, as I said, someone already created an account with my name and has used it to make edits to the Church of the Subgenius Wikipedia page. I'm not worried about the messages; I'm not worried about being thanked for my contributions; I AM worried about other people accusing me of making edits that I did not make. I'm not fishing for anything (nice use of vocabulary there); I'm just following links and trying to decipher this mess. Pardon me for being a quick learner. Also, I'm female. And I DO live in a tiny town, and I DO use Time Warner Cable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.100.63 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC) The account User:Jessica Darling was in fact created and later blocked for being a vandalism only account. The blocking statement did say that it was created to imitate you; however, edits can no longer be made under that account. Can the account be renamed so the edit is no longer associated with Jessica Darling? In addition, is it possible to create a new Jessica Darling account, noindexed with a message not to usurp? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC) While you are connected to the internet, your IP address does belong to your specific computer. But when you are no online, it goes back into the swimming pool and anyone else can pick it out and use it. They don't specifically get to chose which IP they get, that's assigned to them by their ISP, but the point is that the IP doesn't stay with your computer forever.--v/r - TP 20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Easy solution. Don't shut down your computer.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC) A few comments about the typical duration of home dynamic IPs: IPs refresh from the DHCP server when the Data circuit-terminating equipment (e.g., router, cable modem) is reset, not when the attached (directly or via LAN) end-user equipment (e.q., PCs) are reset. Getting a new IP address is dependent upon the the configuration of the ISP. Cable providers tend to provide "sticky" IPs that do not change very often, even when the DCE is reset. Road Runner (a TW service) is one of these providers. DSL providers tend to provide IPs that change when the DCE is reset. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) While the editor did reference comments to the IP address, I think the more pertinent concern is the account that was created in the user's name. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Re Joe: I was dumbing it down for the Anon IP. They arn't going to understand what DHCP is or why there is a difference between shuting down their PC or their modem. Ever work at a helpdesk?--v/r - TP 22:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Something I'm unclear about: The OP says a bogus account was made under her name and people with an interest in the Church of the Subgenius contacted her as a result. Is "Jessica Darling" her real life name (or the user name she commonly uses elsewhere)? For that matter, was the contact made solely on Wikipedia, or elsewhere on the Internet? Were the comments she received threatening? Basically, my concern is that if this person was effectively "outed" by an imitator, causing people to seek her out using her real life info, then that is pretty egregious harassment, and should probably be taken very seriously. In a worse case scenario, I, in the same situation, could see possibly contacting my local authorities (if the contact was threatening). But, that all being said, if it is just some clown on Wikipedia screwing around, I think the imitation account should remain blocked, she should be reassured that it's OK to simply ignore the shared IP pages (and encouraged to creatie a new account if she wants to contribute here regularly), and a considerate admin or two should volunteer to be a point of contact for her if the imitation/harassment continues or escalates, b/c really this kind of thing is probably better off handled out of the public view so as not to encourage the culprits. Just my 2 cents. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 02:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC) That'a the claim made by the blocking admin [88] [89]. Specifically there is a Jessica Darling associated with the church, who was harassed because of the edit. The existing connection helps clarify the situation as there only appears to be one contrib, and Jessica Darling appears to be a common name. So without the existing connection it would seem strange for any particular person to be connected with the account. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps the IP has a wireless router or modem that is insecure? Even if they are plugged in directly. And a bad neighbor? That would explain the name and the edit. Other things would also explain it, however... But the blocked name needs to stay a blocked name. Anyway, I'm pretty sure only a 'crat could change that if they were so inclined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC) About the username issue, my impression supported by Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations is that usurpations are normally only given if the person requesting has an established account here with a decent editing record. (The username being usurped also has to have no significant contribs which seems to apply here since the only undeleted? contrib is a unexplained removal which was quickly reverted.) Therefore, it's unlikely an usurpation will be granted. It's possible an exception will be made if harassment or impersonation was involved, it may be best to seek clarification in the usurpation page. The alternative is to create an account under another name, e.g. 'The real Jessica Darling' and request usurpation in the future. I think it will also be helpful to identify what harassment you're referring to. If someone is using your IP to edit the article on something you're associated with to cause disruption in a possible attempt to impersonate you, as people have mentioned this suggests there may be some security problems which you should look in to. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC) My comment on usurpation was intended to mean that the blocked account should be moved to dklajfd89u323jr238 or something of the like. That way, the edits would no longer be associated with Jessica Darling. In the off chance that Jessica Darling was the owner of the previous account, we can recognize this as the user's right to vanish. Then, I thought we should do something to restrict the ability of somebody to create an account in the name Jessica Darling. My opinion was that we should create an account with no edits, block it, and note that it cannot be usurped. It would also be possible to add the name to a blacklist so if an account gets renamed, it automatically gets reported at UAA. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC) My experience has been that WP:RTV isn't granted to blocked editors, nor in absentia. There are other possibilities as well, such as being more than one Jessica Darling, we could be having our leg pulled, or a number of other conclusions. You can always ask a 'crat, but none of the reasons for taking action that have been put forward appear to be within policy. Literally, there isn't anything for us to do here, other than explain that they need to look at their own security. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC) The account Jessica Darling should be renamed. The IP{ says it was created as an impersonation account and as such it is a gross BLP violation. We need to stop worrying so much about who socks are and are not. What good does keeping the account at the current name do? To punish someone? The right thing to do is rename it and forget about it. The edit history remains with the new name anyway and if necessary can be tracked that way. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure why you believe we are 'worrying so much about who socks are and are not'. As I mentioned, I doubt the single edit will be a barrier, the primary barrier to usurpation appears to be that there is no established account which wants the name. AFAIK, the reason for this requirement is that since it's technically involved process, it's not something done willy nilly. (I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with 'worrying so much about who socks are and are not.) In particular, the desire is that whoever takes the name actually puts it to use (why go thru the process to give the name to someone only going to make 8 edits then disappear?) While this may seem an unfair requirement in a case of previous attempted impersonation, then again, why does this particular person get more rights to the name then any other person with the name? If the 9 month old edit is still causing problems for the real life person, it seems to me the better solution will be just to revdel the edit, perhaps even with suppression (i.e. oversight) which is clearly supported by policy and therefore doesn't require convincing someone to take somewhat unusual action per WP:IAR or whatever. The account will then have no edits so I don't see how it could cause problems for a real life person, and it also means we don't have to worry about someone else creating a new account in that name and doing the same thing again. (If anyone wants to put an account under that name to constructive use, they can then go thru the normal process of usurpation without issue.) However it's unclear to me that the 9 month old edit is really a problem for the person any more. If people continue to try to impersonate the person involved in some other fashion, it's surely better to identify how this is happening and how it can be stopped. As me and several people have mentioned, if someone is actually editing from the same IP, the person needs to look in to their security. They may also want to consider contacting the authorities. Either way, it seems more productive to direct them to fix those issues, then worrying too much about an old long blocked account with a single edit which potentially is not the problem any more. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Just revdel the edit in question hiding the username - job done. QU TalkQu 12:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC) I didn't think about oversight, but the account was moved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:50, 27 June 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.

No other problems

Small additional note

I'm not trying to revive this thread but since the issue of the IP editing which started this thread wasn't really resolved; I just want to note as per some clarification at my userpage, it appears the editing by someone using the IP was indeed by a third party but wasn't done maliciously or to attempt harassment. The problem was simply that some confusion arose but the OP has been reassured on what happened. Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Threat

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.

---

Am I sensitive or is this edit and the previous edit a not so veiled threat or invitation/incitement to assassination? Trackinfo (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to take it seriously as a threat. It's not an appropriate comment by any means, but hardly incitement sensu stricto. Antandrus has got rid of it. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Trackinfo, It's a very inappropriate comment, but it is not a threat. It does actually not advocate violent behavior. NJ Wine (talk) 02:55, 26 June 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.

Request to observe User:NJ Wine

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.

---

NJ Wine (talk · contribs) seems to be exhibiting behavior that verges on violating WP:OWN regarding Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey. Try to edit the article, he reverts. Quite frankly, I'm avoiding the article because I can't stand that type of behavior and prefer just to stay away. But, he's done this before with other editors and likely will do it again. User:NJ Wine seems to remind me of Smeagol fetishizing over his "precious." Please consider observing his contributions vis-a-vis this article. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs please? I've only taken a cursory glance, but I see NJ Wine engaging with you and other editors on the talk page. Personally, I'm a bit disappointed by your statement in NJ Wine's ANI notice "I am only advising you of this action because I am required to by the rules of WP:AIN". In fact, an editor has already commented on NJ Wine's cooperation on your talk page. "NJ Wine knows he doesn't own it and has expressed a willingness to restore some of your changes, explained his reasoning, and work with you on the rest." In fact, you NJ Wine already created an RFC for this topic in order to get a more broad community decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I left WP years ago simply because of behaviors like those of NJ Wine. I don't accept the reasons/rationale he provided. I see ownership and don't consider any superficial claim of "i'm willing to work with you" when the only response to anyone else's edits is reverting. If I didn't leave the article, it would have ended up an acrimonious edit/revert war over something insignificant. I've seen it too often. I don't assume good faith when I recognize someone with WP:OWN behaviors. It's the biggest shortcoming of contributing to WP--the pettiness of article ownership. Others want to contribute, others edit, others add good material, he reverts. He defends the article possessively. I think the article is sloppy, I tried to tighten it up. That considerable thought went into my revision and it was quickly and effortlessly reverted wasn't cool in my book. He only went to RFC after I mentioned reporting him to admins for WP:OWN issues. I don't waste my time with that kind of behavior.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This is nuts. I included 2 of your changes when I reverted the article, and in the request for comment that I opened on the talk page, I stated that I'm fine with 4 of your other changes as long as we have reliable sources. While you keep stating that the article was sloppy, and you spent a considerable about of time to clean it up, in actually, you added two statements to the article that were completely inappropriate, and took me by surprise.

(1) New Jersey's alcohol control laws and licensing requirements have permitted a healthy environment for small-scale, privately-owned microbreweries and brewpubs can survive against a global brand like Anheuser-Busch, and a regional chain of brewpubs like Iron Hill. This statement is an opinion, and should not be in a Wikipedia article unless it is part of a quote. Some brewers may not view the state's business environment as healthy.

(2) Before 1981, New Jersey had one licensed winery, Renault Winery, in Atlantic County, because Prohibition-era statutes limited the state to one winery per one million residents. This statement is very inaccurate. There was more than one winery in NJ before 1981. Tomasello Winery was founded in 1933, Balic Winery was founded in 1967, and I believe that there may have been a few others which are no longer in business.

Everyone makes mistakes, but don't keeping saying how sloppy this article was when you added erroneous and biased material. Furthermore, I am really tired of hearing that I will revert any change that anyone makes to the article. It's simply not true, and a review of the article's history will show that it is not true. If you believe that the article in its current state is sloppy or that I just revert people's changes, prove it. Give everyone examples of these supposed problems. NJ Wine (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• First off, starting off with "this is nuts" is verging on violating WP:CIVIL. I might take offense to that, so may others. Incivility is not conducive to a healthy community. Next: The quote about one winery in the state before 1981 came from the New Jersey Law Journal last year as a historical note in an article about direct shipping bill while discussed in the legislature. I recently e-mailed them for a fact-check. If there was something to repair...namely to correct...you should have corrected it in order to correct the statement, not eradicate the statement. Instead, you decapitated the patient who just needed a band-aid. The mention of it being a "healthy" environment about breweries came from a NJ Tourism Bureau press release that cited an industry trade report. So, I guess they were "inappropriate" (as you say) in publishing this too. For example (among many), I think it's irresponsible and inappropriate as you say to be claiming there are 41 wineries in NJ when there are 43 officially licensed and operating. This list also doesn't include wineries that are licensed by the TTB and State, are operating tentatively but haven't received zoning approval from their municipalities. The Pot should look in the mirror before calling the kettle black. You aren't master of facts in addition to owner of the article. I mentioned that I had the cite but didn't have it available at the time I wrote and that I would proceed to add it. Instead, you jumped the gun. Again, you're behavior exhibits ownership and an arrogant disregard that will drive other editors away. This jumping to abrupt conclusions, you revert without seeking to understand anyone's else their reasons but say "i have my reasons", you claim you're "being bold" as if it implies that the original edits weren't, and then guttersniping now are just further proof that there is a problem. Those problem drives other editors away. Those problems keep this article sloppy. Those problems undermine Wikipedia's credibility and efforts at sustaining a community of great editors.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

ColonelHenry, I apologize if I have upset you, but I do not believe that I have done anything wrong. Only on one occassion did I revert edits of yours, and I stated my reasons on the talk page -- see Talk:Wineries, breweries and distilleries of New Jersey#Reverted changes. Neither I nor anyone else "owns" this article. My edits are fully compliant with the bold, revert, discuss process. You made very extensive edits to this article yesterday, I reverted many (but not all) of your changes, and I stated my grounds on the talk page. I have included a request for comment box on the talk page so that other editors could give their opinions on the changes being discussed. NJ Wine (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still returning to work on that list. I tried WP:BOLD/WP:BRD in my revisions. Two can play that game--it ends up becoming an "is too/is not" debate. My work was unappreciated. I do not accept your reasons they smack of ownership. Others tried editing the article, you did the same thing to them. I get the point. I don't waste my time. Nonetheless, I believe you should be observed for WP:OWN issues.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That list of non-notable companies reads like advertising, and it appears that a User with the name of NJ Wine probably has a COI in creating and maintaining this article. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the present list is wholly indefensible, a gross violation of NOT DIRECTORY. (We normally also include those items with a WP article or about which it is obvious that an satisfactory WP article can be written, but there is no evidence presented here for any of them). NJWine has argued that a good percentage of them are notable. When someone write and can defend articles on them, they can be included, but not until then. I would do what I always do to such inappropriate writing, which is removed the redlinks, except that the same problem is present on such pages as List of wineries in Missouri, and I'd therefore like confirmation first. (I would nominate for AfD, except that a few items on the list are notable, so it's an editing question.) I do not think it necessary for the ed. responsible to be blocked as primarily a promotional editor--we could use their expertise. to produce proper articles on those wineries & related topics that are notable. (I note that by our current practice for articles about localities, the name of a Vineyard can be included in an article about the most specific locality as appropriate content if there is a RS: e.g., Amalthea Cellars can be mentioned in Atco, New Jersey.) DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Umm... If you care to look at an older revision, you'll see that list used to be a list of external links. For every. single. entry. Since it was converted to a list of redlinks, it now meets WP:LIST and does not violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see the problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that a certain percentage of the wineries and breweries on the list are notable even if they don't have an article yet. However, they do not all need to be notable to include them on a list. WP:LISTCOMPANY states A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. NJ Wine (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of commercial entities in a list such as this that do not have current Wikipedia is simply WP:PROMO, which is not permitted. It's trying to skirt a lack of WP:GNG by mentioning them in a list instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, I read WP:PROMO, and I don't see this article as being in violation. WP:PROMO prohibits spam, advertisements and self-promotion. If this article contained statements about the quality of the wine or beer from NJ wineries and breweries, or where you could buy it, I'd agree with you. However, the article gives a history of winemaking and brewing in the state and just lists the current producers. As I stated earlier, WP:LISTCOMPANY allows this kind of list. NJ Wine (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree with NJ Wine here, WP:LISTCOMPANY appears to allow for it. If that isn't the intent of the seciton, I believe it should be reformatted, but that is a discussion of a different sort. In any case, it doesn't seem like any action is needed through ANI, this is a content issue that should take place on the article's talk page. Shall we close this? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can close something out when there's still a difference of opinion on things because of the inherent inconsistency and lack of correspondence between WP policies. We should consider a resolution between which of these policies applies and stick to it. Then, there's still the WP:OWN issues. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any ownership issues and policy shouldn't be decided at ANI. If it is a content dispute it should stick to the article talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur - while there may or may not be a conflict between WP:PROMO and WP:LISTCOMPANY, this isn't the place to hash it out, nor is it the place to deal with a content dispute - that's what article/policy talk pages and, if needed WP:DRN are for - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer ^Talk 19:56, 26 June 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:Geoinformer

Geoinformer (talk · contribs) is adding verbatim text from several Pakistani news sources. User was warned twice regarding the addition of copyrighted material but has continued adding copyrighted material for two weeks after warnings. I will provide a duplicate detector link for several instances. The detector will use a diff from Geoinformer and a link to the original source. I thought this would be easier than giving a diff and a link to the article and making everyone else do the work to find the copying. Luckily, it seems that every time they life text from a copyrighted source, they're thorough enough to leave a reference to the source.

• [90]
• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• Social issues in Pakistan - The entire article seems to be plagarized except for the first line which is essentially a note from the author explaining what they're attempting to show. It's marked for G12 and may be deleted soon.

I can provide many more but it's lunch time and I believe this is enough to spur the help needed to deal with this issue. I haven't made many reports at ANI so please let me know if there's anything I can/need to do better. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The user has not edited since the 23rd June, which is prior to the last messages on their talk page (a notice of speedy delete of a copyvio article). I have left a final warning based on the first link provided by OlYeller21. If there are more when the user resumes editing, let me know and I will block (or return here). SpinningSpark 19:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out and let you know. I'll also start working on reverting their edits that insert copyrighted material and would welcome help. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The copyvios are very minor, usually one or two sentences. They can be remedied with a minuscule effort, which of course ought to have been exerted by Geoinformer, but still. I find this forum to be an overkill regarding addressing these transgressions. __meco (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

SPA editor disrupting closed AFD

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

 – Cattleprod1 blocked, Victoria Pynchon protected, AFD courtesy blanked. Hopefully that's enough to end this mess. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Cattleprod1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have registered just to disparage Victoria Pynchon [94], [95], [96]. They're now repeatedly editing a closed AFD [97], [98], [99] even after being told not to [100]. A final warning or block would be nice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I will have a chat with them. Would rather try to chat before jumping to a block if possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I simply disagree with what Neil is doing. My comments are valid. I would like them included on the relevant page. Neil is a twit. Cattleprod1 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here comes the WP:BOOMERANG. Cattleprod, since the AfD is closed, that means no more comments are to be made on it. If you have an issue with the page itself, the article's talk page is the way to go. Also, please Don't attack editors. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• And they are blocked. You try to be polite and steer folks in the right direction, offer them friendly advice instead of a bland template, but sometimes it doesn't help if they have their own agenda. Oh well, I tried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you put on the editor's talk page was very well written. I'm going to steal parts of it for future use if I may. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:10, 26 June 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.

Backlog at RFPP

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

---

There is a pretty significant backlog at WP:RFPP. Can a few admins swing by and take care of some of the requests? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Although this is the Admin's noticeboard, this is for incidents, not backlogs. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you want WP:AN, not AN/I. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: SHEESH! Pardon ElKevbo for going to the best place to get some attention! Sorry, Electriccatfish, but you don't have to have an opinion on everything--it won't help you on an RfA, for instance. Jorgath, ElKevbo has more than six times as many edits as the two of you together, and they are a respected editor. They know where to go, alright? Drmies (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for trying to be helpful. I don't check the contrib history of everyone I ever talk to, okay? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Consider not talking to everybody. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't usually. I'm just bored, and procrastinating on take-home work. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Handled, thanks to Materialscientist, Qwyrxian, and others. Thanks for pointing it out, Kevin. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 27 June 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 Noozgroup and formatting changes

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

---

This user has a long series of edits today that involve WP:ORDINAL changing words to numerals ("sixteen" to "16", for example). There's no consensus for the style change - and maybe the change itself isn't a big deal - but from his talk page, he's been warned several times and blocked at least once for this. It's clear he's not listening to anyone, and refuses to discuss the issue, and that's the real problem. PaulGS (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months. It was bound to happen. I'll drop User:Qwyrxian a line as well. If anyone is more tired of this nonsense than I am and wants to up to indef, that's fine with me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

My goodness. Technically some of the recent changes he made are actually acceptable. The problem lies in the fact that MOS:NUMBER says that either, e.g., "13" or "thirteen" are acceptable, but our broader MOS practice says "don't change optional formatting without a good reason". And Noozgroop never asserts a reason other than that xe believes it to be correct (in fact, xe generally doesn't even use edit summaries), and refuses to discuss the issue afterward. Noozgroop needs a new hobby on Wikipedia. I would be willing to consider an unblock request from xyr (if xe posts one) so long as xe agrees not to do any more word to number changes (or vice versa), period, ever. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I know--the broader practice has been hashed on this board a couple of times... This kind of editing behavior, combined with the earlier blocks and the complete lack of communication, has led to an indef block more than once. I agree, BTW, with such an unblock promise, but I'm not going to hold my breath for it. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 27 June 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.

A question about a possible photograph copyright violation.

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 sorry if this is being posted on the wrong help page, but I don't know where else to ask for help on this subject. I noticed that this image [101]] was uploaded by a Wikipedia editor who claims to own the copyright. However, I found the same photograph published by a New York newspaper [102] and I suspect that the newspaper owns the copyright. How is something like this handled? Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The right place is the copyright problems board. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jorgath. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Also possibly useful: WP:PUF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 27 June 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.

Users Thestapler123 and Fineuser reported by Electriccatfish2

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.

---

Thestapler123 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Fineuser (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

These 2 users are cursing at each other and are calling each other names. They also both have many recent vandalism warnings on their talk pages. They seem to be both vandalism-only, so I would suggest an indefinite block for each disruptive account. Thank you, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC).

Diffs, or a link to the dispute, please. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Both of their talk pages: User talk:Fineuser and User talk:Thestapler123. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's really very entertaining, like two 5-year-olds screaming at each other with a parent (Electric) trying to calm them down.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think an indefinite block is very harsh for this situation. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I wondered what happened to your comment. I disagree (see below). It's much more than childish bickering.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. Both of them are cursing at each other and are serving no constructive purpose here. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and thanks! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thestapler is a new account and has made only one article edit, which was pure vandalism. The rest has been fighting with Fineuser, but also leaving this message at ClueBot's page: "u r a robot. please go and die in a hole or make me an bloody admin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Fineuser has been around a smidgen longer, and I haven't reviewed his edits, but his Talk page is somewhat checkered.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Both appear to be vandalism-only. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Fineuser is just as bad as Thestapler. Nothing but uploading copyrighted pictures, creating bad articles, bad redirects, etc. Indefs are too good for both of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that both should be blocked. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still reluctant to indef a pair of relative newbies with no block logs. Propose a one month block for each of them, escalating (3 months, one year, indef). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't want to make Thestapler an admin ("Can you please make me a wikipedia admin, or at least tell me how and when I can become one? What do I have to do and how long do i have to wait?")? Maybe escalating blocks for Fineuser, although I think the writing is on the wall, but Thestapler is nothing but a vandalism-only account and we indef for that without escalating blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right, let's go for the 1 month, which can go up to indef. if they vandalize after the block is over. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. One month each, escalates to indef with no further warning. I'll support that. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• "I'm still reluctant to indef a pair of relative newbies"--well, Jorgath, you're not an admin, so I'm not so worried about that. Also, a month for a bit of shouting is ridiculous, Electriccatfish. I blocked both for a week for being idiots; hopefully that's the end of it. Now, Bbb23, who is eminently sensible usually, suggests that Thestapler is nothing but a vandal--I'm inclined to agree, but I'm a nice guy/girl tonight (made some delicious ice cream) and we'll see about that indef block perhaps in a week and five minutes. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I feel like you're not being entirely fair to me, Drmies. I know I'm not an admin. I don't particularly want to be an admin, actually. It seems like far too much completely thankless work (and BTW, thank you for your work, if you haven't been lately). I suppose my statement wasn't clear, but I thought it was obvious I meant "I'm reluctant to support an indef." As I am a member of the community in good standing, I believe I have the right to support or oppose a block or a block length, whether or not I carry the tools to impose it or modify it. That said, you're right that even one month was too long (I mostly was proposing it as an alternative to indef). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Drmies is right. I would feel if I were in either of their positions that an indef. block is unfair for calling each other names. I mainly do anti-vandalism and new page patrolling work here, but I came across them while they put a help-me to on their talk pages. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is just a question of two editors shouting at each other. That's just what stands out because it's so obvious. I think there is a mixture of serious vandalism and disruption. That said, the duration of blocks is at the discretion of the blocking admin, and being cautious (lenient, generous, whatever you want to call it) as Drmies has been can't be wrong - it may just mean some possible temporary damage and extra work later, but nothing that Drmies can't handle with some additional ice cream to fortify him. I might even have done the same thing were I an admin instead of a lowly advocate.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 27 June 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.

POV-pushing and disruptive edits by User:Dzlinker

I would like to report several issues involving the user Dzlinker, concerning several POV-pushing and disruptive editing on many articles.

• Unjustified removal of an information sourced by 7 references, of which 3 can be read on line ; this editing is clearly a nationalistic POV-pushing to eliminate the fact that "an Algerian national hero" was a "friend of France" ;
• Disruptive/POV edits on the article Evil by removing each time Hitler's picture ; remember that this user had used in the past a userbox claiming he's Pro-Nazi and Waffen-SS, that means that these edits are POV-pushing ; I also note several POV edits on the article Sephardi Jews [103] and Pied-Noir [104] ;
• Disruptive editing on the article Berber people, while getting no consensus on the Talk Page ;

Since Dzlinker doesn't seem to have the intention to contribute to Wikipedia otherwise than by imposing his POV, I'm asking for a 1RR for this user and, since he clearly claims antisemitic opinions, to forbid him to edit any Jewish-related article.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You must send an ANI notice to any user who is the subject of a discussion here. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Message sent. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Jew-related topic ban, I can see and support. But 1RR restriction? Has Dzlinker been edit-warring? You've claimed POV-pushing and other forms of disruption, but I don't see a specific claim of edit-warring which would justify 1RR. I could quite easily be missing something, though. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This user is obviously trying to impose a nationalistic personal idea by POV pushs on Abdelkader giving non verifiable references and fake quotations, i asked in the talk page to have one verifiable ressource (it wouldn't be difficult if the sayings were really true facts) but he kept on his non cooperative reverts adding more and more faked ressources (i really read every reference, searching for the words friend and ami but there are no such words), i gave him 2 days without reverting his edits hoping to have a conversation with him and nothing, what can i do with a gay like this?! He only answer to my reversions by reversions, and to my questions by mutism! (lack of arguments i guess). And his comment here ..eliminate the fact that "an Algerian national hero" was a "friend of France" divulges his real intentions and the PoV he is trying to impose with fake references.

The case of the Barbary leopards is just another episode of his unjustified revert attacks and PoV-pushings, i abandoned this case but the same thing happened i added the commons infobox picture description' as a caption of it, he just refused this caption and continued to revert it, i tried to reach a consensus by editing the caption from last barbary leopard to one of the last barbary leopard and he didn't like it as well.

Fossatum Africae is an other exemple of his disruptive nationalistic PoV based edits. This history shows his faked ressources to make the historic wall arrive from Tunisia to Marocco!!

In addition, on this user contributions page i just visited, i noticed two things:

• They are basically reverts and ramps of others contributions (notice the impressive number of reversions).
• No edits on discussion pages have been made!! knowing the important number of reverts (and then of edit-conflicts he is having on the wiki) he never discuss those conflicts! he have been warned more than once about this but he stilled the same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omar-Toons#Warning)

He also hides behind IP and proxy edits. I don't have much time to fetch them now, but there is many many of them.

For the Berber people article this user and some other user are trying to slow down the evidente ethnicities (berber) of some well known people (proofs were given on talk page but since he never read talk pages i guess he is not acknowledged) For the jews article, my claim was supported by other contributors and we renamed the cities with their antiques names.

I request a cool off block on this user so he may be more cooperative in the future.

- Dzlinker (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This [105] revert shows the randomness of his undos.

- Dzlinker (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over spam links by User:Buttress

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:Buttress had modified some external links in the articles for Avalon, New Jersey and Stone Harbor, New Jersey that were removed by User:‎Xanzzibar as advertising twice today, which Buttress reverted. I made a cursory look at the links and removed them myself and was reverted by Buttress. In conversations on my talk page, Buttress made the claim that the links, which are on the website of an area realty company, were in fact meaningful guides to these two municipalities. Thinking that I may have misread the links in question, I took another look and determined that the pages linked were rather blatant infomercials for the realtor, including clear commercial solicitations and advertising for the realtor mixed in with some generic historical content about the communities. I explained this all at User_talk:Buttress, providing descriptions of the issues at hand when I thought that there might be more of a gray area, including links to WP:EL and WP:3RR, and providing a rather clear set of examples of the spam content in the pages he has linked to. Buttress has made another set of reverts, insisting that he will fight this out and claiming that there is a vendetta against him and his links. Further reverts on my part would only escalate this edit warring by Buttress, and an independent look at this situation (with a look at the article's edit histories and the discussion at the user talk page) by an uninvolved admin may help sort this out. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that the phone number offered by the user is the number from the business' 'community guide'. Dru of Id (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Gave them a final warning for spamming, hopefully that gets the point across. If not, the indef will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Which he responded to with this rant. (and he is suppose to be a professional middle class real estate agent?) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

Tracking. MER-C 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User indeffed for spamming (&c.), articles cleaned. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:33, 27 June 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.

Two unblockrequests

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Censorship of union rorting scandal

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

---

In April 2012 the Australian Council of Trade Unions voted 1797-103 to suspend the membership of the Health Services Union for corruption, as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. I'd call a 95% vote overwhelming. That's the exact language the ABC used.[106] Earlier today Qwyrxian labelled this use of "overwhelming" as NPOV when removing two days worth of reliably sourced edits describing the reasons for the union's expulsion and the later federal court action dismissing the officers and appointing a judge as administrator. Qwryrxian also asked for time to gain some historical perspective - on an event dating from 2002 - before including it in Wikipedia. Without identifying any edit as individually problematic, and dismissing statements by the Prime Minister as "random comments by politicians", Qwryxian effectively censored an article about a major scandal. It's the Profumo Affair without Christine Keeler. It's the Lewinsky scandal without the blue dress. Content is not the issue here. I request some admin attention to this action by Qwyrxian. Perhaps, as a Japanese resident, he is unaware of the Australian notability of this affair. At the very least, I would like some guidance as to what prompted him to label factual edits supported by reliable sources as "Absoultely absurd". Looking at each diff with a fresh eye, I cannot see anything remarkably wrong with any one of them. It's a political scandal - of course there are going to be scandalous elements.--Pete (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing actionable, we have content noticeboards for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It is Qwyrxian's conduct I would like reviewed. He is, after all, an admin. --Pete (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's my review: this is a content dispute. Take it to WP:NPOV/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. He wasn't acting as an admin in this case. This is a content dispute. Editors (admins or otherwise) impugn the credibility of other editors' sources all the time. Sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. Regardless, there's no reason to bring the matter here. Go seek a third opinion or employ some other dispute resolution procedure. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, unless Qwyrxian used their admin tools in a content dispute, this should be closed and moved to WP:NPOVN or [[WP:DRN}}. (personally though, I'd say 95% was a pretty overwhelming majority and I'd hardly say that an official statement by the Prime Minister of the country would be mere random comments. Although given that our government spends as much time sniping with the opposition and vice versa, most comments tend to be largely dismissed by the Aussie public.) Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As happens all of the time, Skyring is misrepresenting my comments, just like he regularly misrepresents the comments of others. I should not have mentioned the "overwhlming" issue, as it is a trivial point, not the main thrust of my concern. The revert was due to the fact that Skyring is attempting to include basically any verifiable detail he can...or, perhaps I should say, every verifiable detail consistent with his POV. I do not believe this is due to ignorance of our policies, but rather, because of his knowledge of them, in that he is doing everything he can to edit within the boundaries of them while simultaneously ignoring their real substance (i.e., WP:CPUSH). I'm willing to take the content issue elsewhere, though if I had to hazard a guess, such a venue won't produce a desirable (that is, neutral and due) version until such time as an RfC/U or something of the like is run. Sadly, I don't have the time. And, yes, as others have pointed out, I have never used my admin tools with respect to that article, nor with respect to Skyring, nor would I even consider doing so. However, I accept that as an admin my "normal" editing is under greater scrutiny than that of other editors and should be held to a higher standard, so if anyone thinks my normal behavior is off, please feel free to tell me. As of right now, I believe have edited the article 3 times, only once of substance (the revert Skyring talks about), which should, I presume, lead to the discussion portion of BRD, which I am willing to undergo. But, maybe Skyring objects to my tone or my response to him on my or his talk page; others are welcome to tell me where I'm wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read through all the diffs that Qwyrxian reverted, I'd say Qwyrxian was correct to revert them all. Before the revert, there was way more information about the people involved, and their side activities, their positions, how they got there, etc, than there was on the investigation itself. If no one objects, I'm closing this as not actionable here and to be directed either to talk pages or other noticeboards. Blackmane (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

What does "rorting" mean? I don't speak Aussie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha! See Rort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 27 June 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.

Legal threat (minor?)

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.

---

143.236.34.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Extraction: "I'll sue." diff Jim1138 (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by JamesBWatson just before or just after my posting here. Jim1138 (talk) 09:07, 27 June 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.

Qizilbash

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 asking for a semi-protection of the article Qizilbash which is being falsified by an IP (80.212.244.53 (talk · contribs)). The IP is falsifying the attached source and does not react to my comment on the talkpage. --Lysozym (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to post at WP:RFPP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but NO, don't go there either: this will not be protected in its current state (yet). You have raised the matter on the talk page, but you never let the IP editor know--nor did you inform them of this discussion, which I'm about to close. I note also that you are not clear in your edit summaries: in this unexplained edit you actually revert three of their edits but you don't say so. If you want a response from them, you will have to communicate with them in the first place. And now I'm closing this: there is no admin intervention required here. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 27 June 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.

Removal of talk page messages from Jason Clare

Resolved

 – Withdrawing from this complaint. - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I added a comment to the talk page of Jason Clare, but it keeps getting removed. See here and here. I've asked for this not to be done, and added a comment as to why I think my comment is relevant to the article here, but it keeps being removed.

I would much prefer to know why this information can't be added to the article, a response would be best I'd have thought! I don't want to keep changing the version, as it might make it a bit hard to edit the talk page (though I don't think that would necessarily be a problem as the talk page doesn't seem very busy...). Anyway, I checked out where I can ask about this and this seems to be the place! I will add the notice to User:Timeshift9's talk page as it says above. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you can find multiple Reliable Sources (RS) that discuss it, it might be includable. Until then it violates Wikipedia:No original research and has been and will continue to be removed per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Dru of Id (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. It might have been nice if this had been explained on the talk page. I guess I wasn't expecting this sort of thing - I'm sort of new here! I just saw it disappeared from the talk page. - Letsbefiends (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on your contributions thus far, I question "I just saw it disappeared from the talk page"... Timeshift (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I saw it go missing from the talk page, so I checked the revision history. It's not rocket science you know. As I say, I'm new here - so far, I've worked out how to create a talk page, make some minor corrections to articles and participate in some discussions (well, sort of - you removed my comments with no real explanation). It was very nice to see that I got welcomed after this though. I have been reading through the policies and guidelines pages, and I notice that there is an assumption of good faith on Wikipedia, is this not the case? - Letsbefiends (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds about right for someone who's new to wikis in general but is pretty computer-literate, in my opinion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you :-) - Letsbefiends (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on unblocking policy

A request has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:40, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, these announcements usually go on WP:AN, where they will get left longer. (Though now that I have edited this thread, I guess it'll be good here for another couple of days. :-)) Bishonen | talk 15:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

User:71.72.151.150

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

---

I'm sure he's just mouthing off, but I suspect we don't want editors like 71.72.151.150 (talk · contribs) going around making threats of violence. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that their talk page access has been disabled by MaxSem. Not much else to do really, as we know from WP:RIGHTS that IPs cannot send emails. Minima© (talk) 07:38, 28 June 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.

Mass recreation of previously CSD'd articles

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236 § Tobias Conradi: Still community banned?, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tobias Conradi

By User:AlanM1 (talk) (contribs). They're all articles on obscure time zone classifications, as far as I can tell, and the user may or may not be a sock of a previously blocked user. I don't know what's up, but someone should look into it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

————————————————————

I wouldn't call 14 articles "mass recreation", nor are they obscure to people that use them because they live in or deal with data from those zones. They are names of various time zone identifiers from the tz database – probably the most accurate, widely available and used source of time zone info. The individual articles currently contain mostly reformatted data from the database (which is still easier to browse/read than its native form), but are meant to eventually contain maps, history (from the notes in the database), DST rule history, etc.

That is, if everyone would stop freaking out and deleting them.

As far as I saw, they were deleted simply because of G5, with no discussion. The one article that was actually discussed (one of the Time in... ones) failed to get whatever it needed to be deleted. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: That article, BTW, was Time in Illinois. The discussion about deleting it is here. It took all of another 13 days for someone to mark it for G5 deletion and another admin to completely ignore the previous discussion and delete it anyway :( —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock, meat, or any other kind of puppet, and I'll try not to resent the implication. A look at my edit history and writing should make that clear, though I am getting increasingly tired of the time I'm spending on things other than editing, and not necessarily being very nice about it.

I'm simply trying to pick up where TC left off. It will take a while, and there will occasionally be some things that don't work right or be incomplete during that time. Please just take a breath and wait and I'll be glad to discuss it when the collection is, at least, functional as it was apparently intended. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

————————————————————

Agreed. They may be "obscure" from your perspective, but that doesn't make them not notable. Time zones are basic information of international importance, used every day in numerous countries and recorded in multiple reliable sources, and these articles complete a set of highly notable items, even if some are now only of historic importance. Given that, I don't believe that CSD is appropriate here. -- The Anome (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

————————————————————

Also note there was a mass-deletion followed by re-consideration and restore of some of these articles here: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Time_articles and another mass deletion here that broke all the individual zone articles: User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury#Time_articles, for which I'm hoping for a similar resolution. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I specified, "may or may not be", and the only reason I made the statement was because of the statement made by User:JamesBWatson here. The articles look plenty notable enough to me, and I wouldn't support CSD or any other kind of deletion procedure for them. On further review, I see no evidence of any puppetry here, either. Carry on. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The articles which I deleted all qualified under G5 criterion, being created by a banned user and have no meaningful additions made except by the creating user or by editors identified and blocked as his socks. This {{speedy}} criterion does not, as you are doubtless aware, require any consideration as to whether the article is otherwise a valid article. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have at no time accused AlanM1 of sock or meat puppetry.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

AlanM1 is someone who volunteered to clean up after Tobias Conradi. If you're looking for Conradi's latest sockpuppet, as far as I can tell its Indiana State (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt this, and I have at no time criticised Alan, or indeed anyone else in this thread. But the fact remains that the articles I deleted are, IMHO, clear examples of a G5 deletion. If community consensus decrees otherwise I have no argument to make; this has not so far happened. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree that your deletions were valid under G5. That said, the recreation is also valid as long as there is no evidence of a connection between AlanM1 and TC (or any other banned user). There does not seem to be any such evidence, except that Alan did take on the task of re-creating some legit G5s because Alan felt that the articles were worthy even if the contributor wasn't. Absent any other evidence, Alan's behavior deserves a cookie and a "good job," not an AN/I discussion. Still, Evan's concerns have enough validity that Evan doesn't deserve any sort of fish for this. So Alan, have a cookie. Evan, thanks for checking, but there doesn't seem to be a problem, so carry on. Anthony, thank you for clarifying. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to trade my cookie, and borrow two more, to trade for the 4 templates that I asked to be recovered so I don't have to reverse-engineer them, since they are transcluded by 40 other articles/templates of value:

• Template:Tz/utc-meridian-central
• Template:Tz/utc-meridian-east
• Template:Tz/utc-meridian-west
• Template:Tz/utc-hue4map-color

"Because policy says so" is not an appropriate response, nor sufficient compensation for my knowledge, time, and effort, is it? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Otherwise the "a banned editor did it" reason is itself disruptive. If anyone objects, this is where I feel WP:IAR is legit. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my agreement with Jorgath, and apologize to anyone and everyone for any misunderstanding I may have caused. The G5 criterion itself is a little silly, in my opinion, but my involvement with this bit ends here. Bye, all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support y'all. Please also see #AlanM1_TiI for more disruption, contrary to community agreement. Please add Time in Illinois to the list of articles to be restored. Again, how can we keep this from continuing to happen? Is there a required-reading newsletter for admins? A hat-note that only someone trying to admin (e.g., propose for deletion, move, delete, etc.) an article would see? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• G5 is one of the most worthless of the CSD criteria, possibly only trumped by A7. However, per Wikipedia:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting, Alan is perfectly allowed to reinstate articles by a banned user, since that means he's taking responsibility for them. What i'm getting out of this discussion is that Alan recreated or undeleted articles that had previously been made by a now banned user, correct? If yes, then no, G5 is not proper at all, because Alan was taking responsibility for the content, meaning that the articles should essentially be treated as being made by him now. Silverseren^C 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite. My understanding is that Alan protested the G5 deletion of these articles. Once they were deleted, he re-created them himself under the portion of WP:BAN you quoted. Evan wanted to make sure Alan wasn't doing so in bad faith. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have, as I hope everyone accepts, absolutely no intentio n of being difficult. I have re-checked the deleted articles in question, and it is not obvious that Alan has re-created them. Had that been obvious then clearly i would not have delted them. An edit on the talk page, or in the text of the article itself, might have made the situation clearer.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, so how do I get the above-bulleted templates (here), and Time in Illinois un-deleted (or moved to my user space, or whatever)? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have restored them to Special:Prefixindex/User:AlanM1/utc. I don't see any reason why they can't be restored to Template namespace once reviewed, but I am unfamiliar with the topic area. Orderinchaos 21:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. You may have my cookie. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please keep an eye out on Bradford Bulls

Bradford Bulls are an English Rugby League team. They (or to be more accurate their holding company) entered administration yesterday. There's already been an instance by an IP of a "defunct" added to the article's infobox, and an IP changing tenses ("are a team" to "were a team", etc.) Both sets of edits looked like good-faith jumping the gun. Fact is, they've entered administration (which is correctly cited in the article) but not yet liquidation, so aren't (yet) defunct. Could admins interested in Rugby League (or insolvency law) in the UK add Bradford Bulls to their watchlists and revert overly-eager reports of the club's demise? If things get messy some page protection may become necessary, but hopefully not. Thanks, Tonywalton ^Talk 00:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'm a very active editor and I know something about RL, so I have added the page to my watchlist.  Tigerboy1966  13:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User AB9715

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

 – sock block

AB9715 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sock of Bowei Huang 2 (talk · contribs). There's already an SPI underway. What's needed, once his latest incarnation is blocked, is to undo the mess he's created with article moves. Some of those articles are favorite targets, and maybe should be move-protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Now indef'd, but someone with the magic and the know-how needs to correct Bowei's tomfoolery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any page moves in Ab9715's history--just a bunch of redirect creations, the majority of which seem at least a little bit plausible to me. Is there something else we should be seeing? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess it's not a problem. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 29 June 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 for move warring

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

---

I have blocked Bidgee (talk · contribs) and Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) for move warring/3rr at Australian wood duck/Australian Wood Duck. Please take a look; admins, please feel free to undo if I'm out of line here. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 15:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Good block. As neither editor has any actual 'priors', I think the length (3 hours) was correct as well. Jenks24 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

+ 1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocks are defensible, although it would have been better if this could have been resolved another way if possible. Bidgee is obviously very unhappy about the situation, per his talkpage and its history. Could someone who has interacted with him before please reach out to him? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is a distinction in that one of the users blocked was an administrator who (frankly) did not act appropriately by contributing to the warring. The other was an editor. Although I note that EricHaugen provided a warning in advance about approaching 3RR to both users, and the length of his blocks on both users are not really 'excessive', I think there are plenty of admins who were active and uninvolved who could have made the block (if necessary). If EricHaugen had the best of intentions when he chose to involve himself, he should reconsider whether it was really helpful in the end (I do think this should have been resolved in some other way). If an administrator imposes a block for move-warring and proceeds to move the article in question himself (as has happened here: [107]), that admin should make an effort to address the resulting legitimate concern about his use of tools, rather than leaving it to another admin (SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)) who provides a similarly unhelpful decline reason in the unblock request ([108]) which inflames the situation further ([109]). It also seems to have opened an unnecessary opportunity for trolling of the blocked editor too ([110]). Also, merely leaving it in the hands of a Community review ([111]) is not really going to be sufficient to fulfil your expectations as an administrator either. Overall, this is a highly unsatisfactory situation, and I would strongly suggest ErikHaugen urgently contact both users and get them to agree to avoid the warring, and lift the block himself before further ill-effects are felt by the situation. That would be more ideal than a block review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  Good point, I should have been more communicative with Bidgee; I will try to amend that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock Bidgee (talk · contribs) as soon as possible - move protect the disputed articles so as there will be no return to the warring, if they are not already. Its unfair the admin has been unblocked. Was there misuse of his tools? Youreallycan 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any misuse of Jimfbleak's tools, no. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone semi Bidgee's page, please? Doc talk 16:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I semi'd. I think the block on both users was appropriate, however, I extended the same condition to Bidgee that Jimfbleak received.--v/r - TP 16:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Bidgee has pointed out that the edit warring administrator Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) user his advanced administrator permissions during the war - diff - Youreallycan 17:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

"Admins whom are part of the Bird project" - are any of the admins here involved in the bird project? - All? Youreallycan 17:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer this or the curious note below about how I'm a bird lover. I think you could say that Jimfbleak is "involved" in the bird project—afaik he's a "regular". I also am involved to some extent—the project page is on my watchlist, anyway. I guess I like birds, sure. The picture I uploaded was more about plants than birds, though—the point of it is showing how the seeds get dispersed. What does this have to do with anything here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Tch - can one of you just unblock him and move him to discussion - clearly now punitive with WP:INVOLVED issues - Youreallycan 17:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How was the tool use related to the warring? I'm not seeing the connect? Are you saying that if I am in a dispute with the user on the article about F-22s that I cannot use my tools on any aircraft articles?--v/r - TP 17:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That move looks connected to similar issue and to the same user - diff ? Looks like its all part of the same content/issue/style format war to me.Youreallycan 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it all appears to be part of the same episode. The problem with that move, in my opinion, was that there was no edit summary. Don't revert non-vandalism without an edit summary, please! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I only see a single revert by Jimfbleak on Tooth-billed Bowerbird. That seems like a legitimate BRD revert, not an edit war. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Leave him blocked He wants to stir drama rather than deal with his clear move warring. This diff seals the deal for me. Let him walk. I'm done. --v/r - TP 17:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice - let him walk - not nice - he will be unblocked soon anyways - but someone should do the right thing and just unblock him now - Youreallycan 17:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The guy clearly has an axe to grind. He got caught red handed behaving inappropriately, and now he is too proud to admit it and intends to strike at anyone who threatens his pride. That's where drama originates from. He didn't need to ask me to stay away in his edit summary, I'd already committed to leaving by that point. I'd support an indefinite block until he comes to terms with the fact that move warring is wrong even if you think you have the truth on your side.--v/r - TP 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yea - go on then indef him - do your worst - Youreallycan 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd never happen. No one is going to put forward a motion for a indefinite block. I'm just pissed off and stirring my own drama.--v/r - TP 17:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

When admins get pissed off, of course, they are permitted to threaten to indef-block users, because that's what WP:ADMIN says, right? Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish it were, I'd have threatened you a long time ago. On a serious note, since this will be taken completely out of context by you anyway, I gave my opinion in a discussion. I haven't threatened the user nor have I put forward such a motion so...there.--v/r - TP 17:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well just go away then - walk away from your internet connection - stop getting involved in such as this dispute resolution - Youreallycan 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Going...--v/r - TP 17:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a travesty - Jimfbleak abused the revert button, and probably his admin tools in deleting something that was, in fact, controvercial, and ErikHaugen dramatically abused his admin tools by blocking both parties in an edit war and then reverting to the version one of them preferred as opposed to the version that was the status quo ante, or the version that had consensus, or even a random version. I get that admins can do no wrong, but how much wrong can they do before they've actually done wrong? Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be admin abuse if you weren't here. Open up a recall or RFC/U if you feel so passionately. I dont know how the deletion relates, but I'm going to call it bogus that it is related unless someone can make it more clear. As far as the move war, Jimfbleak admitted he shouldnt have done it and said he would stop. He got unblocked. The other user is being stubborn.--v/r - TP 17:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And ErikHaugen who blocked both parties, and reverted to the version one of them preferred? Yeah, that's the abuse. Hipocrite (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like EricHaugen correctly reverted to the status quo ante version which had consensus, per your comment. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin , User:ErikHaugen (a bird lover - member of the bird project Erik? - here is one of his lovely bird related uploads - Sooty_tern_and_sticky_Boerhavia_fruit.jpg) did not link to this consensus for his revert and what happened to WP:The wrong version - and "alleged previous consensus" is not as I understand it a good reason to revert - this thread is one of the worst cases of administration I have ever seen in over three years editing here- Youreallycan 18:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is longstanding consensus to capitalize the names of birds. WP:LOWERCASE within WP:COMMONNAME recognizes the capitalization convention for birds, i.e., "See also the special rules on capitalization in bird naming. For more guidance, see Naming conventions (capitalization)." And as far as I can tell, the article title has been stable with caps for years. That stable name supported by explicit consensus (the WP:COMMONNAME exception) and implicit consensus (the stable title for years) was the correct version to restore after the edit war, regardless of whether one of the edit war participants preferred it, and regardless of any links in the edit summary. That is also the version that would have been in effect had WP:BRD been properly followed, pending discussion. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The article had been at the capitalised version (which is the correct one per convention and IOC naming) for years (and hence Erik Haugen was correct to move it back to there). Bidgee moved it, it was moved back, and instead of discussing per WP:BRD he started edit-warring. Whilst Jimfbleak shouldn't have continued the edit-war (and shouldn't have used the rollback button), Bidgee started it and continued it. A 3 hour block for each was reasonable; I can't see Bidgee's problem here (except that he didn't get his own way). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever else may be said about me here, I can assure you I did not move the article(s) back because I want them there. Them moving back to uppercase was simply inevitable; I was seeking to avoid any further drama or hassle. I realize this may have backfired and my moving them so soon probably contributed to Bidgee's sense of frustration, and I regret that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot's being made out of nothing here. I'm not sure I see the need for accusations of admin abuse when the blocks were clearly justified: User:Bidgee and User:Jimfbleak were move-warring. WP:WRONGVERSION doesn't apply as the page has not been protected. Bidgee is throwing a tantrum over being blocked (including now taking his ball and going home), Jimfbleak has yet to edit since his block expired, and User:Youreallycan is trying to turn it into a witch-hunt (which is getting quite old) (struck per misunderstanding). No action needed here, provided Jimfbleak doesn't do it again (though an explanation/affirmation that he will not do so in the future would be appreciated). -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:37, 29 June 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 2001:558:6026:97:44AF:E2BF:9B1E:3DD9's personal attacks

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

---

2001:558:6026:97:44AF:E2BF:9B1E:3DD9 (talk · contribs) has a history of personal attacks. The user routinely removes warnings on their talk page, and continues attacking other editors in edit summaries and on their user pages. The user also edits under the IP 76.116.65.4 (talk · contribs). Eik Corell (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please report this to WP:AIV next time. IP is temporarily blocked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:52, 28 June 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.

Erased and Stalked

Resolved

 – A prox upon thee

This dude keeps following me around and reverting someone else's edits. When I tried to explain to him that I'm not the man, he gets confused and calls me a liar. Just sayin. 218.247.129.7 (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

[112] - 218.247.129.7's little brother did it. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:01, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:BOOMERANG time. The above IP address made a personal attack on an editor, and tried to troll another. He then claims that his internet was broken and then that it was his little brother. Per WP:BRO, those claims are moot. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that this IP is rather aware of WP jargon (used WP as initials for Wikipedia instead of the colloquial "wiki", knew to indent and how to, knew to come here and leave a message on my page after doing so). Quack quack, folks, this IP is being used by a sockpuppeteering troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are being LOLZed. The ip knows s/he is being absurd and just looking for laughs. The IP is using some Chinese proxy and probably can't be traced back to any regular user. Best idea is to ignore and block if ip keeps it up despite being ignored. IP is definitely a regular user, probably one that hangs around 4Chan. Dave Dial (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is completely bogus! I don't even know anyone that's Chinese. The point is that the dude above shouldn't be messing with the mans edits, then blaming me when there is no way that I could have done it, the internet has been broke and he knows it. 218.247.129.7 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"The internet is broke"? That's a new twist to the Little Brother Defense. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, it's broke. They've run out of money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Better start draining -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Leontopodium alpinum talk page again

Resolved

OK, I've seen about enough of this kind of stuff on Leontopodium alpinum (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Even though he doesn't want it semi'd, I think it should be, to fend off 174.231.134.170 (talk · contribs), 174.255.98.236 (talk · contribs) and other such ilk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen, there is a clear edit war going on, and, while I am not an administrator, I believe the page has already been a battleground, and will get much worse if action is not taken. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked XXX.170 temporarily for having a potty mouth and trolling. But really, this is just weird. Then again, if it's a personal attack, it's of a very moderate kind, and this is hardly a BLP violation on the front page. Why not just DENY? Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the page would be an effective "denial". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, I do appreciate that your effort to watch my page exists, but I do not want to semi-protect. The better way would be to simply let the edit stand and ignore the IP editors. The original edit is a bit trollish but not really the personal attack. Always reverting this stuff is just what the IP wants. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edelweiss' insistence on keeping that harassment of Dave1185 on his talk page is starting to raise suspicions that Edelweiss himself is behind this stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My name isn't Edelweiss, and I have to think that you keep referring to me this way in order to troll. You should not accuse users to being a sock puppet just because one doesn't want to prevent IPs from commenting on his page and hopes to limit this obnoxious back and forth by leaving comments alone. Don't make bad assumptions Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Think again. And I'm not assuming anything, I'm merely raising the question. Your unwillingness to remove harassment of another user from your talk page, naturally raises suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I know what my name means. But I don't go by "Edelweiss" and I don't like that you keep calling me that. Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 04:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember your real username. But I can remember "Edelweiss". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's also kind of odd that Leon will be gone for several days, and then magically appear to defend the IP's, right after those IP's start messing around with his page again. Must be psychic or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, you don't get emails when someone edits your talk page? I do. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I get enough spam as it is. And I don't really care when some troll attacks me on my page. But when a troll attacks someone else on my page, I won't let it stand. And Leon shouldn't either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there's yet another troll on that range, 174.253.19.71 (talk · contribs). If Edelweiss won't allow semi-protection, maybe a range block of that IP series is in order? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the latest IP sock says, "...take heed that you are nearly violating 3RR", which is funny since he's already at 3 reverts. I'd like to see LA demonstrate some good faith by removing that harassment of Dave from his own page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"take heed..." is a uniquely Dave1185 idiom. The Chicago IP is obviously very familiar with his speech patterns, not just a drive by participating in a revert war. It would be safe to say that Chicago is a sock of one of those involved in last week's drama. 123.30.181.137 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that the above IP is now glued with e-proxy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the troll said most recently was bad enough to trigger semi-protection. So dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Varlaam and the Hedd Wyn article

• Varlaam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hedd Wyn (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We seem to have a problem here, and a long term one at that. It's previously been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#And now for the aftermath and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive656#Varlaam's recent edits, the latter resulting in a two week block for what he's doing right now. Edit summaries from back then included "Enough with the anti-English Welsh racism", "Rule, Britannia. Britannia rules the waves. Britons (including the Welsh) never, never, never shall be slaves.", and "Wow, you are really, really racist. You are probably in gaol."

Despite the 2 week block in December 2010, he tried changing it again on 17 May 2011, then 21 January 2012, again on 21 January 2012, 23 January 2012 (edit summary of "You are a pathetic embarrassment to dispassionate, disinterested scholarship"), 24 June and 25 June (edit summary of "Your irrational, one-issue POV pushing is a sad, sad embarrassment to all concerned. Why don't you try making a genuine contribution to anything anywhere?").

There's a discussion about it on Talk:Hedd Wyn (film) that Varlaam has never once taken part in. So sporadic long term edit warring, failing to take part in the relevant discussion, abusive edit summaries. It seems little has been learnt since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive187#User:‎Varlaam reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: 60 hours) which was just two weeks ago.

Any ideas on a solution? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Simple solution. Indef block for sustained disruption, general incivility, tendentious editing, slow edit warring, editing against consensus, personal attacks. Did I miss anything? Blackmane (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have to echo ONiH here. I was involved in the dispute that resulted in his most recent block, and it seems the same behaviour is continuing. Edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, attacks on other editors, there certainly seems to be a problem in need of addressing. Mo ainm~Talk 23:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add my vigorous and full-throated support of an indefinite block for Varlaam. He's been allowed to engage in his out of control behavior for far too long, with far too few sanctions. Varlaam is a profuse editor who feels himself an expert, and the final word, on any topic where he chooses to edit. If only incivility and edit warring were only the problems! His standard mode of response to being reverted is edit warring coupled with spates of personal attacks. Unfortunately, the numbers of personal attacks appear fewer than they actually are because they are spread out among the sheet numbers of small edits he makes, making them appear less frequent than is actually the case.

I had the misfortune to cross Varlaam's path on the various season articles for ER (TV series), where he was attempting to add a. long lists of "notable" guest cast without any discernible criteria for notability, and b. OR interpretations of individual episode titles. His response to reverts wass to immediately become disproportionately angry and abusive in an effort to browbeat what he appears to view as an opponent into recognizing his superior knowledge and allowing him to do as he wishes. He takes tremendous pride in the sheer volume of edits he makes both here and on the IMDB, and his talk page is a collection of revelatory "how much/how many" lists that go a long way to explain his attitude to editing and being reverted. Quality simply doesn't concern him; it's all about the numbers of edits and having others stay out of his way as he does as he wishes. Moreover, he sees nothing wrong with judging or demeaning other editors' contributions or editorial style, always viewing his own approach to contributing to the project as superior.

My most recent encounter with him was in February, when he attempted to add a bit of non-notable trivia to an article related to the TV series Rizzoli and Isles. When I reverted it he responded with what was without question the vilest comment on a talk page I've ever had the misfortune to see an editor make, followed by an attempt to bully me into putting in his edit. This is an editor who sees himself as above Wikipedia policies and practices, sees nothing wrong with what he does, sees the other editor as to blame for whatever behavior is called into question, and is prepared to be as combative as it takes to get his way. Worse, he carries grudges endlessly, one major reason the problem on the Hedd Wyn article persists. He's been allowed to get away with his abusive behavior for far too long, and it's past time he was indefinitely blocked from editing. --Drmargi (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So......anyone? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get an admin comment - even if it just to tell us why you don't want to respond to this. Considering the drama that we went through over alleged slights to socks who had shown that they did not have the communities best interests at heart it would be nice to know why this abuse of long time and productive editors can continue without action or even comment. MarnetteD | Talk 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, MarnetteD. It's troubling that a discussion this high up the list has been left without comment while new ones get immediate attention, particularly given the long-term problem the editor addressed has been. --Drmargi (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here's the thing. (With apologies for the delay, on behalf of the entire admin corps.) If you look at the diffs given above, for the film and for that 3RR case, it seems obvious: an indef block is the way to go. But this editor has 62,000 edits (probably not enough on talk pages), and their block log isn't necessarily that long. I know, any block is bad, but they've had one since 2010, and that makes me hesitant about an indef block. And since the disruption of the film article is so sporadic, a block would only be punitive.

  I'll make you a deal: I'll give the editor one last warning--the next revert on Hedd Wyn (film) will lead to an indefinite block, since it's time to listen. Now, another admin may decide to indef anyway if more edit-warring and incivility occurs on other articles, of course, but this is what I'm willing to do right now. I'll leave them a note pointing to this conversation. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I'm honest, that will keep him away from the noted article for a little while, which is a good thing for that article and the editors trying to improve it, but in time, he'll head back when he thinks no one will notice and start again. However, it will have no effect on the larger problem of his confrontational, uncivil interactions, his failure to respect consensus-building processes and his repeated slow edit warring the minute he enters into the process of editing where collaboration with other editors is concerned. Yes, he has 62,000 edits; sheer numbers are the name of the game for him, as I noted above. But a scan down his list of contributions is revealing: when you separate the voluminous small copy edits from the edits where he must interact with other editors, the glaring pattern of problem unregulated behavior is clear; his appallingly short block history simply means no one has taken action in response. And that is why he is emboldened to liken me to to Josef Mengele simply because I challenged his adding trivia to an episode description. --Drmargi (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That prediction of yours may be accurate but that's in part because this board is not necessarily the right forum. That this user hasn't been blocked more often may have many different reasons: a. he didn't deserve more blocks; b. he wasn't reported enough (you just reverted the Mengele comment; I saw no warning on their talk page); c. he's mixing up enough positive edits to stay out of VOA territory. It is possible that an RfC/U is the better way to go with this type of editor; ANI works best for incidents, less well for series of individual, relatively minor incidents that take place over extended periods of time. That they're uncommunicative, well, other admins have blocked people to force them to respond, but I don't make a habit out of that. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all this in the abstract, but it doesn't help much in application. Every so often, it's hard not to get pretty fed up when IP editors get away with all sorts of nonsense and editors like Varlaam who teflon around important policies such as WP:CIVIL by burying tendentious to confrontational editing in a sea of minor edits, while we average editors who at least try to play by the rules get the short end of the stick. Why would I put a warning on his talk page after the experiences I had with him? It would have no effect but to accelerate the abusive behavior directed toward me. And frankly, I must take issue with being likened to a Nazi war criminal and mass murderer over reverting trivia as a "minor incident". --Drmargi (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Animemidatlantic and article Anime Mid-Atlantic

The following relates to User:Animemidatlantic and article Anime Mid-Atlantic about the user's company.

The user appears to have been editing the article as a Single Purpose Account for 24 edits over 5 years. The user was directed to WP:COI five years ago, 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC). Editing continued without much incident.

21:03, 21 June 2012‎ (UTC) The user changed "*Attendance Numbers basedon turnstile not unique registration" to "*Attendance Numbers basedactual attendance* If anyone changes the numbers again without authorization. Legal Action will ensue. We know who you are*" and was reverted and warned by Tiptoety with "uw-talkinarticle", including in the Edit Summary of the reversion "Please address on the talk page".

03:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC) The user removed "3,000
(est)<ref name="hr2012"><</ref>" (39 bytes) and the next minute added five attendance numbers, with no explanation.

03:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I reverted and notified with "uw-coi-username".

03:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I warned with "Uw-delete4".

03:54,22 June 2012 (UTC) The user removed the same 39 bytes of text, again with no explanation. Tiptoety reverted and included in Edit Summary "Please stop removing sourced content".

04:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Tiptoety blocked the user for 24 hours for disruptive editing at Anime Mid-Atlantic, and changed a setting a minute later.

15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 76.104.61.168 (evidently the user logged out) removed the same 39 bytes of text, again with no explanation. I believe this to be the same user logged out, as it is also an SPA only interested in that article. Tiptoety reverted.

16:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Tiptoety blocked 76.104.61.168 for 24 hours for block evasion. Tiptoety appears to agree with me that it is the same user logged out.

19:45, 23 Jun 2012 (UTC) The user (undoubtedly the person responsible for http://www.animemidatlantic.com/ given the "About / Contact Us" link) used Special:EmailUser to email me the following message (in which I have only obscured my email address and eliminated the end matter boilerplate):

Email received by User:Jeff G.
(Email content removed per WP:EMAILABUSE; no authorization given to reproduce.) --64.85.214.21 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I was advised to post the preceding here by an Administrator.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Given that you aren't Wikipedia's legal counsel, I'm not sure what (person's name redacted by User:Jorgath) hopes to gain informing you that he will file a lawsuit. Having read the site policies though, wouldn't this be a violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats? However, I've also read Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats, so perhaps the content is wrong? If so, can we just correct this? - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at the article, and actually this seems to be a storm in a teacup. Firstly, making legal threats is very foolish and won't get the editor very far. However, there are actually two sets of attendance figures, so while the figures we have listed are accurate, they aren't the full story. May I suggest that folks take it to the talk page - I've started a discussion. I'm sure that a compromise can be made - it seems a little silly to be battling over this matter! - Letsbefiends (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

While an Admin advised you to post it here, you probably should have redacted the real-life name of the person who sent it to you as well, per WP:OUTING. Not your fault; you were advised to do this by an admin. Could someone oversight that? I've redacted the name for now, but that won't help in the edit summary. As for them, they should be reported at WP:COI and also possibly banned for the legal threat. That said, if Letsbefiends (or anyone) can figure out the proper answer to the problem raised, good. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor who made the original legal threat should be directed to Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject), and almost certainly should be blocked from editing until the matter is resolved. If it were me, I would also send the email (with all headers) to info-en-q@wikimedia.org, including a link this ANI. The talk page discussion will handle things from a content end. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: - User:Ironholds blocked the editor who made the orginal legal threat. I have added a note on the editor's talk page explaining the block. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, but are there any sources other than SPS and local passing news for this article? Also, although we should not ignore a threat, does it make sense that a reputable organisation is using a free @(domain redacted by User:Jorgath) email? Anyway, back to the matter at hand... --Tgeairn (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense re: the e-mail. As someone who's been to - (and once helped to organize) - sci-fi/fantasy, gaming, and anime conventions, I can assure you that only the larger ones (and 3,000ish per con is sort of medium) will bother with getting their own e-mail server. Most will get a domain name for their website, but will just link a perfectly normal business yahoo or gmail account from the website. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have much experience in the convention field. --Tgeairn (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the content of the email per WP:EMAILABUSE, which states "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows). This is partly due to copyright concerns, given that Wikipedia pages are able to be re-used by anyone." I saw no authorization given by the sender to reproduce the email here, so I removed it. Since some personal info was included in the original post, some info may need to be oversighted. If I am in error, please feel free to revert. --64.85.214.21 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You were and were not correct at the same time. Reproducing the e-mail exactly is counter to WP:EMAILABUSE, as you said. However, the sender should have no expectation of general privacy of the e-mail unless they specifically ask for and are promised confidentiality. In this case, what there should be is a summary of the e-mail's contents, which may include limited quotation, but not the actual full text of the e-mail itself (nor any really significant portion of it).

My attempt to summarize this: The source e-mail address that I saw before it was removed, which I will not go into too much detail on, was unmistakably linked to the user and article in question and was hosted on a free-registration e-mail site. I think that's enough detail about the address without revealing too much private info. The content consisted of a legal threat, unambiguously, against WMF/en.wikipedia. The sender appeared to believe, for some reason, that Jeff G. was a person of authority in those bodies. The sender was upset that a) someone (Jeff, in his supposed role with WMF and/or en.wikipedia) had not responded to an urgent e-mail, and b) that "Wikipedia" (again, in the person of Jeff) was insisting on including information in the aforementioned article that was in some way detrimental, financially, to the business of the convention. The sender demanded that something be done, and that they get a response, or else unspecified legal processes would take place. The sender signed the e-mail with their real name and job title, claiming a position of significant authority with the convention organization (Assistant Chairman of something-or-other, I don't remember). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 08:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The part where you say the sender has no expectation of privacy may be true under normal situations, but by reposing it on WP our licensing opens up the email to endless re-posting via CC-BY-SA. Since the sender did not agree to those terms when they sent it (I don't think they did–I've never sent an email using WP), re-posting it here is not the same as re-posting it on a typical website. Just saying, NBD. I know this is straying off-topic, but seeing as the sender has been blocked and a summary of the email has been provided, I guess this is resolved (unless oversight/revdel of the email is necessary). Rgrds. --64.85.214.21 (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The sender has an expectation of copyright with regards to their e-mail, and doesn't freely release it. However, precedent on WP seems to indicate that a summary of such an e-mail, rather than the e-mail itself, is fair use. Furthermore, as I understand it (and IANAL), the sender has no expectation of confidentiality - if you say something to me, I'm free to say that you said it unless it would break a policy (like WP:OUTING) to do so. It's just that the actual e-mail text should not be posted under CC-BY-SA without the sender's permission, and so should not be in Wikipedia. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 09:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have had the following text on my userpage for years:

"I do not accept any messages sent via PM, IM, or Email. If any such message is received, the sender acknowledges that: the message (including its source IP Address) will not be considered confidential or proprietary; I and my affiliates are under no obligation to keep it confidential; and I will have an unrestricted, irrevocable, world-wide, royalty free right to use, communicate, reproduce, publish, display, distribute, exploit, post, report, and/or ridicule it in any manner I choose. "

I hope that puts the outing issue to rest.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but what you have there is called "implied consent." The implied consent is that if someone is sending you an email, it is implied that they consent to it's release based on your message. However, many US states (and I an not sure about other countries) require explicit consent. The user has to say, or even sign, that they explicitly waive their right and expectation of privacy. So on a personal level, I'd just recommend you not expect such a statement to hold too much weight if you get into any trouble.--v/r - TP 13:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If Stephenie Meyer were to email you the next installation of Twilight, do you think your disclaimer buried in your confusing meandering userpage that someone dosen't even need to look at to email you would be enough to imply consent for you to release the novel under CC-BY-SA? Given that the answer to that is obviously "no," why do you feel it's enough to imply consent to something else? Given that the page they got to when they emailed you stated "Unless the matter is confidential, it is usually better to leave a message on the user's talk page," do you not think there's an implied confidence there? Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say yes and no. I am not a lawyer either. I'd venture that your disclaimer does in fact give you the right to re-use e-mails without the sender having an expectation of confidentiality, at least without them asking to opt-in to confidentiality. However, that doesn't mean that WP:OUTING wouldn't still apply, in the sense that private information e-mailed to you is not automatically considered to have been self-disclosed on-wiki. What it means is that you can't shouldn't get in trouble for forwarding an e-mail, and you probably could post that entire e-mail under CC-BY-SA. But if you post it on en.wikipedia, you still would need to redact personal info (name, address, e-mail, IP address, phone number, etc.) from that posted e-mail, unless it had previously been disclosed by that user on-wiki. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe WMF System administrators (formerly referred to as developers) have access to logs that can confirm said viewing (that the offender viewed my userpage prior to emailing me) in the case of an actual lawsuit. Also, I did not release the email as if it were my own work, I quoted it and criticized its sender's behavior under fair use. In addition, the sender's email address was already plainly visible on his organization's website, and he had already made a legal threat on-wiki, so I believed he was just forum-shopping and had no expectation of the privacy of his email address or his threatening stance. Furthermore, I did email info-en-q@wikimedia.org per Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) on the user's behalf and to protect English Wikipedia, the WMF, and myself; [Ticket#2012062410003829] was assigned and as a result, Dougweller (talk · contribs) asked me to take the original email to ANI in these two posts. I am willing to add to the statement "make derivative works, use in a commercial manner, " if that will help.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, if you are in, they are in, or the state of Florida is a 'explicit consent' state, it's not going to matter diddly squat what you have on your userpage or what can be proven in the HTTP Access logs. What is going to matter is if they explicitly said 'I consent'.--v/r - TP 14:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The sender is in the Commonwealth of Virginia, is that an 'explicit consent' jurisdiction, and do you have a ref for the applicable statute?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The hell if I know. I'm just giving you a heads up. Not everyone in the future who sends you an email is going to be in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I'm just expressing to you what I've been told in the course of developing instructional videos and audio. What I am saying could be a load of crap. I'm just suggesting you not be surprised if you find out that your disclaimer really isnt worth shit in law.--v/r - TP 14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The sender's name and the first half of his position are mentioned in the article's second reference (I stopped looking when I found that).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Jeff, you keep pointing out who the sender was and equating that off-wiki person with an editor here. That information has been redacted in this thread twice already. You were right to bring this here, and I don't think anyone is looking to slap you over the Outing, but probably best to leave the two personalities (onWiki v offWiki) separate. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Private e-mails are not to be published on-wiki, whether sent through the Wikimedia e-mail system or otherwise. Disclaimers on talkpages or the like do not change this rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've always heard that e-mails, in this kind of circumstance, are considered copyrighted, so there is no "implied consent". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think there's one exception: that if I sent an e-mail to someone else, I would have the right to post my e-mail here. But not their response. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Mayumashu

User:Mayumashu has been going around removing the ", Nova Scotia" from the titles of Nova Scotia community articles. While WP:CANSTYLE does allow this, this mass move of articles, without any explanation, makes me doubt this user is going through the care and attention a move needs. I have reverted the obvious violations, but I wonder if all moves this user has made in the past couple of weeks should be reverted. 117Avenue (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANSTYLE does allow for these moves, so how have any been "violations"? ", Nova Scotia" is a disambiguate that is not necessary for the renames I've done, when the place name in question is unique to WP articles. Where the disambiguate has been necessary, I've not renamed of course. Mayumashu (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It's busywork that accomplishes nothing useful for the readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If the current title is fine then it is probably best to leave it. However, things like this are not correct as per CANSTYLE and should be reverted. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANSTYLE#Places #2, "smaller settlements must have unique place names to qualify for a page move," as well as further criteria listed there. Unique names like Hantsport and Tatamagouche can be moved, but your mass moves makes me doubt you made sure all passed all the criteria, the names may also refer to a person, a stream, or lake. 117Avenue (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If we don't have any other articles with such names, the ", Nova Scotia" is not needed as a disambiguator, so what's the problem? bobrayner (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Creeks, lakes, the problem is Mayumashu is moving these. 117Avenue (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Erm, creeks and lakes should not have ", State/Provincename" as a disambiguator. They should use the (standard disambiguation format). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Small communities should as well use the standard disambiguation. 117Avenue (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Communities of all sizes, that aren't large enough (i.e. Miami) to stand alone, use the "City, State/Province" format, the same as if you were addressing an envelope, per WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Questions on missing page history and moving a list into an article

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

---

Resolved

 – List and history restored - Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that List of Museums and Cultural Institutions in Chicago was recently moved into the Tourism in Chicago article. Where is the edit history of the now redirected list? Also, there is no discussion on the talk page. Are there guidelines for such moves, it seems we have lists and articles for different reasons? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The merge was done by Thomas Paine1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but it seems he did not comply with several of the steps mandated by WP:MERGE. There's no move proposal or discussion, no mandatory edit summary (which means the merged article is a copyvio), nor appropriate use of the {{Copied}} tag on both articles' talk pages. I'll inform Thomas Paine1776 of this discussion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 12:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps when he appears, he can also explain the thinking behind renaming an article about an organization (The Convention Bureau) into a generalized topic on Tourism? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be a content discussion best held on the appropriate talk pages, or through the relevant dispute resolution pages if that fails. The matter of copyvio-creating merges is, however, appropriate for WP:ANI. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK just wanted to get the full history out, so that any dispute (or no dispute) would be streamlined, as it could possibly effect the proper procedures on article arrangements for getting done whatever he wanted to get done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The information in the list was placed in the tourism article, since there is no need to have a list that is part of the same subject, unless the list is so exhaustive as to makes the tourism article too long. Tourism articles generally contain lists of sites including museums. There is no history to speak of for the List of Museums article, only a couple of lines. Not opposed to having a separate list per se. Incorporating it helps improve the article. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Re the history of the list. That cannot be right, as I've previously seen a much longer history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The are dozens of edits by a number of users to List of museums and cultural institutions in Chicago, not "no history to speak of". By merging without proper attribution, as mandated by WP:MERGE, the merged article is not properly licenced. Complying with Wikipedia's copyright policies is not optional. You need to fix this right now. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the list of Museums history [113] to which I was referring (I see someone moved it once before). A public information list probably cannot even be copyrighted, so not sure what is being discussed about that. The editing notice says, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here, etc. . . ". Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Organization of a list is copyrightable. And proper procedure for merge still have to be followed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, any text written is subject to the copyright of the author. That is the position under English law, at least, and I would think US law is pretty similar. But the point made on copyright is puzzling given that editors release their text for free use per the licence. Could you expand on "By merging without proper attribution, as mandated by WP:MERGE, the merged article is not properly licenced." I've not seen that point made before, and I can't see it in WP:MERGE. Out of interest, could you point to the source for that. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're parsing what I wrote differently to how I'd intended. I mean: to comply with the copyright attribution requirements of CC-by-SA and GFDL, when merging one must add the appropriate "merged from" info to the merged article, so someone can know who owns the copyright of the merged article by looking at its history. Without doing that, the merged article contains unattributed content, and so that merged article doesn't comply with CC-by-SA or GFDL. I wasn't saying that WP:MERGE creates copyvios, I was saying that ignoring it does. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Paine1776, where did this content come from? -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the content is summarized from the main page. Regarding the prior history isn't it accomplished by a link on the tourism article discussion page? Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't sufficient. WP:MERGE tells you what to do. What you're doing, large chunks of text appear, seemingly from nowhere, with no edit summary and no explanation on the receiving talk page, which makes for an impossible papertrail. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chicago of this discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we need Admin tools here. Can the status quo ante be restored? The only time I was involved with something like this there was an admin merge of the histories. I take it this article was created by moving the article about the Convention and Tourism Bureau, an organization, and adding the list of Museums and Cultural Institutions to it. It seems, it would be better organized by creating an article on tourism (if that is what is wanted) and linking to the separate organization article and the separate list. The organization has a separate existence, and the list is not just for tourism or tourists. At least it would be simpler to approach incrementally and it avoids the copyright problem. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the content in the current article is a prose article followed by a list article. The list article should be separated. Based on the discussion above, I think that is how it use to be. I am in favor of restoration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tony on this. The list article and the prose article should be separate. If the goal of the project is to make Chicago-related articles more organized and readable, this is counterproductive as it is not an improvement over what was in place before. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Have restored the List of museums and cultural institutions since there seems to be interest in keeping a separate list.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience and good faith work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Request If some Admin who understands the technical aspects can make sure the history of the List is properly back in place that would be appreciated before this is closed.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The history of the list is not affected, its still there.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 00:34, 29 June 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.

vandalism

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

---

Please block http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.207.212.95 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.100.245.178 for BLP vandalism, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.57.28 (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks 192.203.57.28 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 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.

Nangparbat

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.

---

Another IP sock of Nangparbat Special:Contributions/109.145.243.63 has appeared after the last one was blocked. Please take care. --DBigXray 14:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note this edit, which looked like section blanking to me. --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked already --DBigXray 14:50, 29 June 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.

Received email boasting "We wrote the article on Wikipedia"

I am no editor, I do not even have an account, but I received a mass email from a consulting group saying they wrote Inventory optimization on Wikipedia. The announcement included Wikipedia's "globe" logo, implying that there was an official connection.

Sure enough, the article was not begun until June 4 with the uploading of +10,855 characters. The "editors" are employed by the consultancy who sent the email, and EVERY news reference for the article just happens to mention their name or one of their customers. Frankly I do not know why the article is necessary as it is really Supply chain optimization they are talking about.

Is this kosher? I'll watch this board, I am happy to forward the email I received (via VerticalResponse) to Wikipedia legal, or whatever, if anyone is interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.175.28 (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was created in user space by Braedon Farr (talk · contribs) and then moved into mainspace. I've notified Braedon Farr about this ANI section. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks for reporting it! If they were claiming to be Official Wikipedia Writers or whatever, that would be quite problematic. However, it doesn't necessarily mean that the content is bad. The ever-helpful Maunus (talk · contribs) has put a COI tag on it; I'll have a closer look at some of the content too. Declaring that something was written by corporate interests is a good way to attract lots of skeptical eyes. If it's skewed towards a particular vendor, that should be straightforward to fix. bobrayner (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the name of the consulting group in question? Who are the clients you mention? We need details. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not too many details though. Company names yes, people names only if strictly necessary. (I want to avoid WP:OUTING concerns). I realize that sounds like I'm saying something bad about Orangemike and/or 72.202.175.28, but all I'm saying is that the IP, being a newer editor, might unknowingly give us too much info in response to Mike's eminently reasonable request. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The article was titled Manhattan Associates when Braedon Farr created it in his user space; he renamed it to Inventory optimization after moving it into mainspace. He also asked Drmies to look at the article after moving and renaming it, and got semi-positive comments in response. All of this is readily apparent from a glance at his contribs. Looie496 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Orange Mike has now redirected the article to Supply chain optimization. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems slightly problematic that the Supply chain optimization article is unsourced whereas the Inventory optimization article at least had some sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot fathom the reasoning behind getting rid of sourced content and redirecting it to an unsourced page on a related but subtly-different topic. What was so wrong with the content that it had to be replaced with stuff like this? bobrayner (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on sourced versus unsourced. However, the sources in that article all reference the consultancy/author and/or their customer exclusively, not exactly a NPOV and perhaps stands to help their SEO, who knows? Then they put out a mass email boasting about it. However you slice it, allowing it would set a dangerous precedent. I sent orangemike the details provided I got the addy correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.175.28 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the article in question has a direct download on the page to their site I guess it should be no secret. Why does the article start with Colgate-Palmolive, Delphi and Luxottica? Colgate-Palmolive, Delphi and Luxottica are their clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.175.28 (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't accept all your inferences, but I have to say that that part of the article needs work. While the sleuths get on the COI and the abuse, I'm going to edit this stuff out via the normal process, with no guarantees that I'll tackle all the problems or produce a readable result. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, this is not (unless I'm missing something) what was started as Manhattan Associates--that article still exists. If this article, which I've re-redirected, so to speak, is indeed "the same as" Supply chain optimization, then it will need to be handled differently than with a simple redirect. I don't know anything about COI and marketing and what-not, and have nothing to add on Braedon Farr, who struck me as a friendly enough new editor. Barring any evidence of foul play (e.g., that Farr sent the email?) I don't see the need for ANI here--I do see a need for knowledgeable editors to put the articles side by side and possibly merge them to something sensible and verified. Drmies (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• One more thing: I find no discussion on the talk page to validate the COI tag or the reliable sources tag. For the first, apparently we have an email by an IP editor as cause, and for the second, what's wrong with McKinsey Quarterly and Computerworld? Drmies (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  There is nothing wrong with McKinsey Quarterly or Computerworld but that isn't parallel. Those organizations should not be the exclusive authors of Technology journalism or Business journalism and then publicize it under the wikipedia logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.175.28 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Inventory optimization is the better article. The two ought to be merged but that's a content discussion for the talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  Alright everyone, calm down. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Libellous vandalism

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

---

I'm not a fan if either individual, but the following two edits by Milkshake6789 (talk · contribs) are libellous vandalism from a user who has a dubious edit history, as evidenced by their talk page:

• George Osborne article
• Ricky Gervais article

Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, but in future WP:AIV is the best place to go for this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• User is no longer active, I see. Thanks for reporting this--they are now blocked for a whole bunch of things including, really, incompetence. If you're wondering about the indef, take a look at their block log: there is a natural progression here. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to AIV—and sorry to have posted in the wrong place, but at least he's got what he deserved after being a pain recently! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:06, 29 June 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.

Tendentious IP

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

---

12.129.87.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is out of control, edit warring across multiple articles, accusing others of vandalism, being "a Mormon hack that thinks Mitt Romney will win", "radical republicans", etc. It seems pretty likely that it's a regular editor who's lost their cool, but who knows? They've ignored multiple warnings, and are reinserting personal attacks on editors' talk pages.[114] I left a warning but it seems pointless, they're just here to troll. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 48 hours. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 29 June 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.

Complaint About Editors' Behavior In Victoria Pynchon Deletion Discussion

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

---

I wish to complain about the behavior of editors MelanieN and Dondegroovily in the discussion about deleting the page of Victoria Pynchon. The discussion is now hidden, but it appears here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victoria_Pynchon.

In brief, the discussion shows Donde resorting to profanity, and MelanieN repeatedly making personal insults and attacks upon Pynchon's detractors.

Donde's remarks also suggest that it no longer matters whether a non-notable person has a Wikipedia article about her, because she was the object of a coordinated attack. In other words, the motives of the persons who raised the issue matter more than the issue itself; namely, whether Pynchon is notable. I find it difficult to believe that this is Wikipedia policy.

My suggestions are as follows:

1. Donde and MelanieN should have their editing and administrative privileges temporarily suspended until they receive training in professional behavior, and they should have no further involvement in the Pynchon matter. Their objectivity is now every bit as compromised as the AutoAdmit group's.

2. Responsible administrators should promptly decide the issue of Pynchon's notability, and they should strictly limit their criteria to that issue. AutoAdmit's puerile behavior should be a non-factor in both the decision and in the speed with which that decision is reached.

My complete comments appear in the Talk section of the Pynchon article.Pernoctus (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What I see is two experienced WP editors trying to explain WP policy on deletion, notability and BLPs to a group of editors hellbent on attacking the subject of the article proposed for deletion. I see nothing wrong in the language they used or the way they approached the discussion. In fact I think they should be commended for coming to the defense of Wikipedia and its standards. QU ^TalkQu 21:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not interested in debating the matter with QU or anyone. I simply wish to bring the matter to more responsible editors' attention. If using "God damn" in replies, and calling others "clueless" meets QU's standard of civil discourse and professional behavior for Wikipedia editors, then we see the world very differently, and little could be gained from further dialogue.Pernoctus (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What is your definition of a "more responsible editor"? I have no involvement with this incident and I've been editing for six years so I feel qualified to comment. Just because I don't agree with your complaint doesn't make me irresponsible. I'll leave you to the administrators to judge if any action is needed then.QU ^TalkQu 21:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel I should also point out to the reviewing administrator(s) that writing that two fellow editors are "...disgracefully hypocritical and unprofessional" as you did here should also be taken into account when considering the general standard of civility during this issue. QU ^TalkQu 21:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think MelanieN did a fine job under trying circumstances. Dondegroovily let the trolls get to him/her, which is unfortunate, but deserves, at most, an admonition to keep cool, and step back when provoked. I see nothing deserving sanctions, except for the wilding by some IPs, who aren't worth the trouble to slap.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Pernoctus I see that you are new. Neither MelanieN nor Dondegroovily are admins. The determination of notability is not an administrative function. It is decided by consensus; admins are tasked with reviewing the arguments on both sides, and determining what the consensus concludes (Non-admins can close AfD nominations, although none should be attempting to close this one.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree we commend MelanieN and Dondegroovily for their calmness and equanimity in dealing with this situation; if they wish to become admins they have gone a long way to showing their fitness for it. . In the circumstances, the language used by them was quite forgivable--and perhaps even appropriate; if I were going to pick a descriptor it might be a stronger one than "clueless." I agree it's not worth blocking the ips, but we should certainly block any account persisting in the support of the activities of the site that has concerned itself in this. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• DDG is correct - given the circumstances a bit of finger-waggling for language might well be called for, but nothing more. And perhaps this should be closed, both with no action needed and to avoid any potential WP:BOOMERANGs? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• I imagined this would happen were Pernoctus actually to take his complaint to ANI. But, in fact, he is not "new" - the account was registered four years ago, however much he has only a handful of edits in that time, and we ought not do him the disservice of treating him with the kid gloves we would a newbie. (It's particularly peachy that he calls for a block on Donde, who brought the AfD at the IPs' request and voted to Delete.)

  That being said, I could think of a lot harsher terms for the altogether-too-typical hordes of disruptive anon IPs at AfD than "Goddamn," and any editor willing to stand up to such barbarian hordes is fine in my books. Ravenswing 23:48, 29 June 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.

Controversial move

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

---

Could an admin have a look at the move made here [115] apart from being highly controversial they have messed it up. Mo ainm~Talk 22:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversial or not that is a horrible mess of double / triple redirects... it should be returned to the starting point by someone with a delete button. QU ^TalkQu 22:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not horrible. I just made a simple typo. Flag of the Republic of Irelan should of course be deleted. Please be more careful when consider something 'controversial'.--Wester (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial move which should never have been done without a) informing WikiProject Ireland or b) starting a discussion on the talk page. Please don't hide behind WP:BRD, a simple perusal of the talk page gives an idea of the controversy involved. Also, the user made a complete mess of the move, can it please be restored to the original version? Snappy (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a move clearly against the previous consensus at Talk:Flag of Ireland/Archive 1#2nd Requested move (succeeded). Wester is also removing the {{db-move}} template I added in order to reverse this disruptive move (Wester earlier edited the redirect to prevent the move being reversed without admin tools), so could someone please restore the status quo please? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The new title is more accurate since the article is about the flag of the republic of Ireland, not the island Ireland. Secondly it's you that messed up. The two articles were redirecting to each other. I restored it.

Also, when looking at that discussion page. It's clear there is no consensus to move to Flag of Ireland. Flag of Ireland is POV by Irish nationalists.--Wester (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Mo ainm: At which point did you engage Wester (talk · contribs) on their talk page about it?--v/r - TP 22:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Engage them about the mess they made that couldn't be rectified without admin intervention?? Mo ainm~Talk 22:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Without even checking to see if it is, in fact a mess, you should approach them first. Even if it requires and admin, it isn't an emergency, and you can summon an admin with a help template. This is supposed to be for issues that cannot be resolved between the parties, or emergencies requiring immediate action.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And how can it be resolved by the parties if it needs admin intervention to fix the mess made? Mo ainm~Talk 22:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There actually wasn't very much "consensus" on the link ONiH posted at all. A narrow majority at best. — JonC^ॐ 22:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The closing admin doesn't agree with your unique interpretation. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

admins are no saints. One can see that there is no consensus at that page.--Wester (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, so hopefully you'll refrain from moving it again without consensus to do so, since you know about consensus. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit a haven't seen that discussion. I moved it because Ireland is an ambiguous term and the article is about the flag of the Republic, not the island. But now that I have seen that discussion. I do think the page should not have been moved in the first place.--Wester (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What has happened now? The actions of Anthony Bradbury caused that the page is gone now. Flag of Ireland is a redirect to Flag of the Republic of Ireland and Flag of the Republic of Ireland is a redirect to Flag of Ireland.--Wester (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wester, please don't take it upon yourself to override consensus in a controversial area. Your opinion is valid but is not shared by others, so we have to discuss the issue (in great detail!), before reaching a consensus. If you still feel that this article should be renamed, then open a discussion on the talk page. Snappy (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

But where is the consensus? And BTW: I did not realise this was a controversial move.--Wester (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be the discussion on the talk page (already linked) whose outcome was a move to the current article title. It's not up to you or any other editor to re-interpret this consensus, years later, no matter how narrow it was alleged to be. Consensus can and does change, so the best way to go about that is to start a discussion. You have been bold, your change has been reverted, now if you still feel strongly start a discussion. Snappy (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

We have a guideline called WP:BEBOLD. If Wester was unaware of another consensus, then he appropriately followed WP:BEBOLD but made a mistake. This should've been discussed with him before dragging him here. An admin could've been contacted on their talk page to fix any problems or a {{db-move}} could've been used. There are so many other solutions before dragging someone to WP:ANI. User:Mo ainm, in the future, use the others avenues.--v/r - TP 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Restore page history please

Could someone restore the page history (and presumably content) of Flag of Ireland please, it seems to have gone AWOL during the moves and deletions and restorations. I did drop a note on the admin's talk page, but no response as yet. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Number 57 22:50, 29 June 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.

The Aquabats

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

---

I'm asking for some help with The Aquabats. Recently an editor—first editing from IPs and now from the account Jars1 (talk · contribs)—has been trying to force the inclusion of several unverifiable past members, listing their tenures in the band as "1994–unknown". The only source given to support these changes was this, which (A) is thoroughly unreliable and (B) appears to just be a copy of an old version of the Wikipedia article. I reverted based on the unreliability of the source and have been met with flat-out refusal to engage in discussion and threats that this editor's "200 helpful techno friends outside" will help them continually edit-war to retain their preferred version. Here are some of the wonderful edit summaries:

• Heh, not happening. Don't give me any take it to the talk page and don't get into a war with me on this one. I have techno friends outside.
• Check the source. Do not get into a pissing match with me. you'll never win. over 200 helpful friends outside
• 200, buddy, 200!
• Oh, I cited a source. Props on flagging my articles. This account may be done, but you underestimated me. I will win. Starting tomorrow, you will see the big guns.)

If it had remained as IPs I would have asked for semi-protection, but since the edits are now coming from the Jars1 account, which has edits going back to 2009, semi probably won't stop it. I'm going out of town for the weekend and will be off-wiki, so I'm asking for some help keeping an eye on the article and taking whatever measures are necessary to curb this issue. Given the threats, I think blocking the account and semi-ing the article may be in order. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:34, 30 June 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.

Disruption at consciousness

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.

---

Editor 217.12.195.77 (talk · contribs) has thrice added a bunch of gibberish to the article, without explanation or response to warnings. The IP geolocates to Ukraine, and the material has the appearance of something you might get by applying Google Translate to something written in Russian, so I won't call it vandalism, but it is obviously hopeless, as one glance at a diff will show. I am bringing the matter here because I think that is probably the most direct path to a solution. I will notify the IP of this section. Looie496 (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've left a final warning. If this continues, report to WP:AIV for blocking. No further admin action needed at this point.  Sandstein  06:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it did continue a minute after my warning, so I've blocked the IP for 72 h.  Sandstein  06:41, 30 June 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:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre

Acadēmica_Orientālis has a history as an SPA pushing a pov that has it that certain races are biologically inferior than others regarding intelligence and propensity to commit crimes. Following an editing restriction he expanded his scope to articles generally related to question of biological influence on criminal behavior and intelligence. In the past month or so I have looked at his contributions to three different articles (two had him as main contributor) in which it has been painfully clear that he is not working neutrally but selectively choosing those sources that argue in favor of the the viewpoint that social behavior is determined by biology - completely ignoring opposing viewpoints (of which there are always many as the nature/nurture question is generally contentious, and particularly in the case of crime and psychopathology). The articles are Racism, Biology and political orientation, Biosocial criminology (also note the relative weightinh og "environmental" and biological/genetic in the other article he has recently worked on Psychopathy) (see also his past contributions to Race and crime, Correlates of crime, Imprinted brain theory and the related talkpages). I am not arguing that this bio-centric viewpoint should not be represented in wikipedia, because it obviously should. But I don't think it is in the interest of wikipedia to allow Academic Orientalis to repeatedly create lopsided biased content related to this topic. I would like to assume good faith, for example assuming that Academica Orientalis is not familiar with the fact that the literature he repeatedly inserts into articles is only one side of a large debate, but unfortunately at this point this would not make sense since he has been told multiple times, and even sanctioned for tendentious editing. I think the only sensible course of action is to restrict him from editing in nature/nurture related articles broadly construed (his other recent interest is science and technology in China - I haven't heard of problems with his editing there). In my mind the issue is comparable to the time when a user had the unfortunate habit of writing articles about antisemitic canards without being able to write those articles neutrally. He was stopped from doing that and he was encouraged to start editing in other areas and has since been a useful contributor. I have hope that the same could be the same for Acadēmica_Orientālis if he is restricted from writing about the particular topic regarding which he is clearly incapable of giving a balanced coverage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Maunus's argument is rather unclear. But I have repeatedly stated that I will avoid race and intelligence articles except some occasional talk page comments and so I have for many months. Maunus's strangely takes up a few not objectionable talk page comments on the racism page a long time ago as evidence for something. What is unclear. The question of nature/nuture in various other articles I have contributed significantly to is a content dispute where Maunus has a strong personal POV. It is unfortunate that Maunus tries to "win" his content dispute with me this way. No evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever has been presented by Maunus. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to "win a content dispute" - I am trying to avoid having to follow you around balancing your articles in the future, in effect preempting future content disputes, except its not really a dispute since you usually don't try to resist your articles becoming neutral you just don't help doing it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What you are describing are content disputes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

First, talk pages count. Second, what about this edit, which actually succeeded a tug of war with others about your previous edits?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. My talk page comments contained nothing objectionable. I have avoided editing R&I article contents for more than half a year now. Your diff is about a content dispute unrelated to R&I. The content dispute is currently discussed on the talk page and elsewhere. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The problems were summarised fairly well a year ago by EdJohnston [116] and by Aprock here at WP:AE. Not much seems to have changed. The problems are not specifically with R&I. Mathsci (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

When accused of violating the ban, there appears to be a refrain (then and now) by AC that the material he is editing is not related to R&I. His response that Talk pages are irrelevant is similarly ban-evasive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not under any topic ban. As stated I do not want to participate anymore in the R&I dispute with Maunus, Mathsci, and other, and have voluntarily avoided these articles for more than half a year except some occasional talk page comments. Mathsci's links are almost a year old. I repeat that no evidence of any wrongdoing has been presented. This is an attempt to use ANI to win a content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether you are currently under a ban is only relevant in terms of the sanctions that may be imposed on you through this discussion. Your arguments are evasive and sly and don't really address the issues. If I, without any previous knowledge of you, can see that, you can imagine what others more familiar with your history will think. If you want to help yourself, I suggest you try a different approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EdJohnston wrote, "Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Wikipedia is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing." Nothing to do with R&I, just WP:DE. Mathsci (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are linking to one person's view which is almost one year old. I have not wish to be further involved in the R&I dispute with you and Mathsci which is why I have voluntarily avoided the topic. I will do so also in the future. I have instead contributed to many other articles for which I have received praise. I repeat. No evidence of wrongdoing has been presented. This is a content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I am not accusing Academica Orientalis of evading a ban, I don't think he is currently under one. I am accusing him of tendentious editing, which is very difficult to support with difs. But I have demonstrated on the talkpages of Racism, Biosocial criminology and Biology and political orientation that Academica Orientalis repeatedly selects only sources representeing a single viewpoint, frequently twists sources, and sometimes uses weasel phrasing to avoid describing critical views ("there has been criticism of this viewpoint" without describing the criticism or who made it). It really means that it is a huge job for other editors to supply the other half of the argument and rewrite articles to reflect all of the available scholarship. Civil tendentious editing is a huge time drain for other editors, especially when confronted with repetitive IDHT type arguments and total unwillngness to address the problems.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You have not shown that. I cite sources accurately and include opposing views when I find them including describing the criticisms. You on the other hand have admitted claiming there are problems by citing sources you have not even read! [117]. You have not produced any diff showing wrongdoing. Please do not use ANI for content disputes. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs

• In this edit Academica Orientalis includes a statement that "Other see twin studies as reliable.". The context is that AO based the heritability section of the article on a single article by Alford, Funk and Hibbing that used twin studies to determine heritability of political orientation. He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used. There is in fact a large body of literature criticizing twin studies as a source of heritability estimates. I included several sources arguing specifically that Alford et al's conclusions were untenable because of methdological problems - two of them stating unequivocally that twin studies have been abandonded as a source of heritability estimates. When I looked in the article provided by AO in support of twin studies as a source of heritability estimates it said this: "Twin studies of heritability are suggestive of genetic factors in social and political attitudes, but they do not specify the biological or psychological mechanisms that could give rise to ideological differences. Recently, researchers have turned to molecular genetics approaches, which involve sampling subjects’ DNA from blood or saliva, and identifying individual differences, or polymorphisms, in a particular gene (Canli 2009)". Here the authors say the opposite of what AO make them say - they state that twin studies may be suggestive of genetic differences but that they are no longer used by serious researchers to provide heritability estimates. This shows two kinds of problematic behavior by AO 1. failure to attempt to provide a balanced view of the topic he writes about (he cannot claim that he didn't know of the problems with twin studies, or that he didn't know it had been criticized - he knows this very well from his time in R&I) (in essence cherry picking) 2. misrepresentation of sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A complicated content dispute. Regarding heritability and twin studies in general I linked to the heritability article which discusses the subject in great detail. To replicate all the arguments for and against in every article mentioning heritability is of course not possible. I added a secondary literature review to the section. I agreed on the talk page that some researchers argued twin studies are not accurate for exact numbers but they do have been important for showing that genetics play a role. My source started with "The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies." I therefore subsequently changed my text to reflect this which you do not mention.[118] See also this review article for a different view on the subject: Nature Reviews Genetics: [119]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is not the issue of content - the point is that: 1. you were aware that the study was controversial and did not state so untill someone made you. 2. you misrepresented the source you did present. If this was a single standing incident it would not be a problem, and i would assume that you would have learned that you ned to include also the opposing view in a major scholarly dispute like this, but unfortunately it isn't. It is a persistent pattern over several years. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated what I was aware of. Regarding the heritability source, see what I wrote previously. Your unsourced claim of persistent pattern is incorrect. I could just as well claim that you have a persistent pattern of being biased in your editing on these subjects. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you need to be more aware. Especially since people have been making you aware of literature that disagrees with the basic viewpoint expressed in the source for the past several years. I don't buy that excuse -but if I were to assume good faith it would still be an issue of basic WP:COMPETENCE. A wikipedia editor needs to be able to have the mind to realize when a viewpoint is controversial nad requires a balanced treatment. Especially one who has spent so much effort editing controversial topics as you have.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a link the Heritability article discussing the arguments for and against in great detail. To replicate this in every article mentioning heritability is not possible. Regarding competence, how about you actually reading the sources you claim contain important information supporting you. Which you have admitted not doing: [120]]. That would seem to be a minimum requirement. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop lying about those two sources. I have not claimed they support me. I have not cited them. I have suggested you read them since they might provide you with a more nuanced view of the fact, and might enable you to actually cite some of the criticism that your source mentions, but apparently doesn't cite.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You were listing sources that supposedly should provide information that was supposedly missing in my source without actually having read your own sources! Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was providing you a service since you apparently suffer from some kind of handicap when it comes to finding sources that contain information you may disagree with. And I would do it again.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice tactic. So if you disagree with an article you will start filling the talk page with sources which you yourself have not read and demand that the other side must read them since there is a possibility that there may be something in the sources you have not read that will support your views? Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You refused to provide citations for the criticisms that your own article mentioned, I found articles that are clearly critical of biosocial criminology (indeed the title of one of them is "a critique of biosocial criminology"). But yes, if I happen to know that an article is leaving out significant viewpoints then I will at times provide sources that I believe express those missing viewpoints on the talkpage so that other editors may use them to improve the article, if I don't have time myself. That's not "a tactic" that is called writing a collaborative encyclopedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have certainly stated which review source I have used for my statements. You personally "think" that there are missing criticisms and you "think" that these missing criticisms may be in some sources you have actually not read. Since you do not have the "time" yourself to control your speculations, you demand that someone else should do the work for you. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The source you used apparently states there is criticisms, it is not just something I "think" - yet those criticisms are given no shrift at all in the article. That is the problem, and that is why I had to use google to findout what they might be after you refused to provide the sources that i am sure the review source cites. Very collaborative of you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• In this edit AO adds a mention of the fact that "has sometimes been criticized for ignoring environmental influences". This is of course correct and it would be very useful for the reader to know who made this criticism and where, and based on what arguments. Instead of giving this basic information AO writes: "Biosocial argues that this is incorrect but that on the other hand many sociologically influenced criminological approaches completely ignores the potential role of genetic which means that the results is likely confounded by genetic factors." That is the criticism is only mentioned so that it can be debunked, without giving the reader a chance to even know who is being debunked. When I placed a tag asking for who made the criticism AO said that it was already sourced (to the source debunking the criticism that is), and he did not offer to find it for me. When I googled crtitiques of Biosocial criminology I quickly found a few studies which I presented on the talkpage so that AO could use them to improve the article. Instead he argued that because I hadn't read them my assertation that the article lacked criticism was unfounded (in spite of the fact that he himself had mentioned the existence of criticism, and refused to provide the citation of the critique)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Another content dispute. I have on the talk page given the exact quote from which the statement was made.[121] The source does not give further information than what I stated in the article. Have you not read what I wrote on the talk page? Regarding the sources you gave and claim contain relevant critical information, you yourself have admitted that you have not read them! [122]. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is not the specific content here that is the problem, but that fact that you knowlingly did not adequately represent opposing (mainstream) viewpoints. If you don't have access to mainstream sources about a topic don't edit.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I stated what the source stated on the subject. I have not "knowingly" excluded anything. I have read sources unlike you who have admitted claiming there are arguments missing by citing sources you have not even read! Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So now you are verging into plain untruths. I admitted that I had not read two sources that I added on the talkpage - I have not cited those sources anywhere. Your own source mentioned there was criticisms - that didn't motivate you to look for it. That is at best a competence issue and at worst knowingly omitting the contrary view. You have not admitted to not reading the sources you cite, but if you read the review you introduced then you certainly read it very superficially.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The diff speaks for itself. You mentioned these sources you admit not having read as supporting for your views. I have read the Biosocial Crime source I cited carefully and not stated otherwise. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is similar to the above, in that he gratuitously mentions that there has "been various criticisms", but does not mention who made these critiques orexplain what they are, but instead sources[123] the entire paragraph to an article in which the original authors of the controversial study make a rebuttal of criticisms (The study has been shown to be based on flawed data and statistical methods by Buller, David (2005). "The Emperor is Still Under-dressed". Trends in Cognitive Science 11: 508–510.) - but Ao doesn't think this is relevant for this article.

Content dispute. I did not mention any of the specific arguments either for or against since there is a very long Wikipedia article (Cinderella effect) dedicated to the subject which was linked to. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• This edit is just blatant POV peacockery.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. What the sources states. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here AO removes the only mention of the fact that the mainstream view in criminology still is that most of the causality behind crime is explained by environmental factors. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. In fact, the article starts by stating "contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories". This with a source unlike the completely unsourced material I removed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• It seems odd that the claim that noone would have contradicted this claim "Traditional sociologically oriented theories explain relatively little of the variance" which basically states that all other criminologists have got it all wrong. Where is the "traditional" view (also known as mainstyream) represented? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. This is what the given source states. There was no "traditional" view there on this that I did not include. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Writing a neutral article requires looking at sources written by...gasp... the other point of view. Basing an article on a single biase source as you routinely have done producess... biased articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If I wanted to write a POV article I would not have mentioned this criticism at all. Your are assuming that there are counter-arguments without proof. Just like you assume that sources you Google contain relevant information without reading them. If there are in fact opposing view, then state them so they can be included. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Here we're back to race again (but not IQ). Apparently religious Black people tend to vote liberal. It's probably in their genes. (Ok, this isn't really misconduct since its on a talkpage and he's actually using a maisntream source (but cherry picking a factoid out of table))·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. Secondary source. No mention of IQ. No mention of genes. Talk page comment. No cherry picking.Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Look at this article edited by AO recently. Notice how anthropology and sociology account for a paragraph each, whereas - evolutionary explanations account for something closer to three screens. One would think that social sciences would have more to say about altruism (of course they do). Ok, AO is not interested in social science and probably shouldn't be forced to write extensively about stuff he's not interested in. But then again isn't every editor responsible at least for maintaining articles in some kind of reasonable weight between viewpoints according to prominence? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute. I edited the area regarding which I have most knowledge. Your description is misleading, there is also a long section on social psychology in the article. If more social science is needed, then please add this. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I could find a lot of similar stuff if i go a few months further back. For example AO's article on Race and crime was stubbified a year ago after the consensus in an afd found the topic notable but the coverage completely lopsided. This apparently didn't deter Ao from writing a bunch of similar ones.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

See no concrete arguments here. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question "He included no critiques of the study and did not mention any problems with the method used." This is more than a solid screenful of text at ANI suggesting we should ban all newbies who don't write at FA or above ? serious ? how do these arguments about an experienced editor not also apply to every new editor that walks through the door ? Penyulap ☏ 20:50, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Because AO has been told multiple times that wikipedia requires neutral article and that what he writes rarely is neutral?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• to ANI thread from july 2011, where AO (then Miradre) got a 3 month topic ban for tendentious editing and editwarring in violation of the R&I arbitration restricitons. (This is the reason an RfC seems unwarranted). For Those who have requested diffs of old school disruption there are quite a few in that thread. Now AO has not been editwarring lately, but I don't see the fundamental change that might have been hoped for in his editing behavior after coming back from the topic ban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I get the absolute maximum of 3 months for several reverts over a long time period while the person who reported me and who did more reverts during the same extended time period gets nothing at all. See the diffs given for that by me in the link if interested. It seem Maunus have found so little to object to in my current behavior, just the content disputes above, that he must bring up edits almost one year old in a topic I a long time ago stopped editing when he is asked for something more concrete. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The previous topic ban is brought up, not as evidence of current wrongdoing, but to show that this is something that you have been made aware of before, and that an RfCU seems unwarranted given that this is not the first time by far that your editing has attracted negative scrutiny. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have avoided editing this topic for a long time. No one here has accused me of edit warring. Yet you fail to see any fundamental change? Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you have avoided the topic of R&I (to some extent - except for example your recent tedious appearance at Talk:Racism, where, contrary to sources, you argued that racism should be narrowly defined only as racial discrimination based in a belief of racial superiority (so that the belief itself is not racist unless it motivates discriminatory practices)). But clearly your entire focus on theories that argue for biological determination of human behavior is closely related to R&I (although I do think its outside of the scope) - and your choice of literature is similarly onesided. Thats a quite close correspondence in behavior, although it does seem that you haven't edit warred. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are making false and defamatory statements. I have expressly stated that I am against racial superiority beliefs theoretical or practical. You are furthermore arguing that adding evolutionary psychology perspectives to, say, evolutionary approaches to depression, imprinted brain theory, evolutionary economics, sports psychology, or evolutionary aesthetics is closely related to R&I? Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not reading what I write, I made no characterization of your beliefs. You argued for a definition of the concept of racism that tied it only to racial superiority, in spite of the fact that most sources say that such a belief is not necessary for something to constitute racism. Your proposed definition would mean that for example white supremacy would not be classified as falling under the definition of racism, unless it actually argued for discrimination(which few white supremacists do today). This is obviously not evidence for you sharing any of those views , but it is evidence of you still being involved with the topic of race in a way that is closely tied with the problematics of the R&I arbcom case. I don't think adding material on evolutionary psychology to articles is necessarily related to R&I nor necessarily problematic - it depends entirely on whether the material added promotes the view that mental abilities and characteristics is determined by biology - which I think is clearly related to R&I even when not explicitly mentioning that debate. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have never argued for any "definition of the concept of racism that tied it only to racial superiority". To clarify, believing that populations may differ in traits is not equal to beliefs in superiority or discrimination. One may believe that populations differ in alcohol tolerance or lactose tolerance without arguing for discrimination or superiority but rather simply argue that such knowledge will help the groups lacking the lactose or the alcohol tolerance. Regarding the content dispute at "Racism" you changed your own proposed definition numerous times in response to my criticisms demonstrating that it was very constructive. You are now actually arguing that all articles describing research on the genetics of mental traits should be under R&I? Thus also articles like Schizophrenia or Positive psychology should be under R&I even if they do not mention race at all? Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think that is what I am arguing. I am quite sure I am arguing that it depends on the kind of edit one does to that kind of articles - if the edit gives undue prominence to the hereditarian view then I think that does relate to the R&I dispute (I am not saying I am sure it falls under the sanctions, but the relation is clear). (your argument about lactose tolerance does not seem relevant to the issue at all since presumably no one is arguing that noticing genetic differences between populations is necessarily racist, I know I haven't.) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

• Support an indefinite topic ban of Acadēmica Orientālis from all nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed. There has been a relentless push by Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis to use Wikipedia to promote the idea that many differences between groups can be explained by the biology of certain races. The relentless WP:CPUSH based on a commitment to use sources from only one side of the debate means it is not possible to sum up the situation with a couple of diffs. One of the many examples can be seen at Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#NPOV dispute: Some opposing views removed (and following) to coatrack some R&I views into an article about a book that is only peripherally connected with hereditary effects (search for my comment dated "10:45, 23 February 2012" on that talk page for a quick overview of the book). The above was started by Miradre in July 2011, but related attempts were made by Acadēmica Orientālis in February 2012, see Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel#Criticism by Rushton removed. There are many other articles where the above is repeated. This editor is interested in only one side of a complex issue, and is damaging articles by introducing POV. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An infinite topic ban based on what? Some many months old talk page comments in one article? What exactly was objectionable except that I dared disagree with you in that discussion? Should not you also be banned since you were also involved in that talk page discussion if that is a crime? Yet another example of using ANI as a way of winning content disputes.Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I would have been biased regarding the Psychopathy article as stated by Maunus in the initial post is completely ridiculous and outright offensive. Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And no change in behavior since the criticism of your actions 23 months ago.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss that I have stated that I voluntarily avoid editing R%I articles and have not done so for many months except some talk page comments such as the above several months ago. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, based on Miradre/AO's fixed POV and attempt to foist this POV on the encyclopedia, per Johnuniq. We cannot allow such POV-pushers to warp our articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Wikipedia must be neutral, and those who continually seek to subvert that are not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support There don't seem to be any problems with his edits related to China. But his addition of content related to biological differences/evolutionary psychology in a vast range of articles (eg Honor killings) too often seems biased, unbalanced and undue. He argues interminably in circles on talk pages over these issues and that is a drain on volunteer time. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Diffs showing objectionable behaviors in recent months? Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Almost every comment in the thread[124] is an example. I explained that your single source relating to evolutionary psychology was written by somebody without academic qualifications in the subject (he is a lawyer outside academia). You responded that my statement was an ad hominem attack on the author. You exhaust editors with this kind of circular WP:IDHT argument. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting, selectively quoting, and ignoring the many different arguments I made in this talk page content dispute. Again, show the diffs showing the need for an indefinite ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are examples from threads on talk pages of multiple articles covered by or related to WP:ARBR&I (I have not picked out individual diffs):[125] [126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133] Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have not showed any diff and explained what is supposed to be objectionable with it. You are simply linking to talk page content disputes most of which are very old without explaining what is supposed to violate any policy. Again, show the diff you think show objectionable behavior violating Wikipedia policies. You seem to be arguing for a purely political ban for disagreeing with your own POV.Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The pattern of repetitive WP:IDHT edits seems clear enough, as others have written. It cannot be described by individual diffs. In the example from Honor killings, one article by a non-expert in the subject was used to produce the content. AO did not concede that there might have been a problem with the source. He. continued arguing in circles, as seems to be happening here. Mathsci (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? Regarding the content dispute with you regarding Honor killings, see the Honor killings talk page discussion. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Academica Orientalis dismisses all criticism. Not so long ago—barely a month—Roger Davies already commented that Academica Orientalis had spent a considerable amount of time vociferously supporting a blatant sock troll (Alessandra Napolitano) of a banned user.[134] Their contributions here should be viewed in the light of that. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not supported anyone I knew was sock troll. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support I became aware of the topic Biology and political orientation based on a post by another editor to WP:FTN. The editor Acadēmica Orientālis appears determined to push biased content which violates core policies (such as the section discussed here Wikipedia:RSN#Biology_and_political_orientation which is clearly based on unreliable sources, but which has not been removed Talk:Biology_and_political_orientation#Unreliable_section because the editor Academica wants the content to stay and "point out that there is controversy and refer to the main article") and to frustrate other editors into submission. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No one has produced any diffs showing any objectionable things I have done in recent months but are making accusations without backing. Seems to be a purely political topical ban for my views on a topic I have not edited for many months. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To clarify, this was stated before there were any accusatory diffs regarding recent edits)Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I can transform the above links into diff form if that is preferable. Considering I have not edited in this topic area before now, I don't see how my support could be political (I'm not sure what you mean by that). IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please show the diffs showing anything I have done in recent months showing the need for an indefinite ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I can only respond with diffs corresponding to when I observed your interaction with me and another editor You have resisted the removal of a section based on a primary study of dubious quality (there is agreement in RSN that it's not reliable) based on some dubious arguments:

Bringing in arguments that were never made: "Do you have any evidence for scientific misconduct?" [135]

Arguing that a Journal of American Political Science should be assumed to reliably discuss Genetics [136].

Arguing that newspaper coverage shows notability (I assume you mean weight) for primary sources in biology rather than coverage in secondary sources. [137]

Denial that the topic is controversial [138]

Arguing that even though acknowledging heritability methods are strongly criticized [139] the section based on the primary study using that method should still be kept: [140][141]

Arguing to have specific criticisms of heritability methods excluded: [142][143]

Still want the section kept even though there is a "large and complex controversy" [144]

Arguing that it has not in fact been discredited: [145] but followed by acknowledgement of the non-quantifiable nature of twin studies: [146][147], despite exact figures been given in the section.

In summary it's clear you are intent on pushing the source on to the article despite it not being reliable for the claims given. But I think reading the full discussion on the article and RSN demonstrates the point better. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are grossly misrepresenting my talk page arguments as anyone can see by reading the diffs and the whole talk page discussion. You are NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section. I have not denied that the subject is controversial but claims of a large literature of scientific opposing views needed to be backed up by sources which is what I asked for. Notable scientific controversies are not disallowed from being discussed by any policy as you seem to be arguing. Talk page disagreements on contents are not disallowed. Thanks for making it clear that you want to ban me indefinitely for disagreeing with your own POV on what is a talk page content dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is also covered in the diffs that I have shown and the link to the article, the journal article itself also mentions why it's not suitable as well (as was already pointed out to you but you appear to have ignored WP:IDHT). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You have shown no such things. You seem to think that "original paper" = "primary source". That is of course not the case. The peer-reviewed secondary literature reviews I added to the section does no primary research but is reviewing the existing literature. Thanks for again demonstrating that this is about a content dispute and not about violating any Wikipedia policies. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The review article from nature defends the concept of heritability, not the method of twin studies. In fact it mostly argues that heritability estimates should be based on genetic data even though "classical twin studies" have been useful. It is quite clear that they consider twin studies to be a pre-genomic era kind of method. So why you would include that to support twin studies is odd, and why you seem to think that you deserve praise for having added one more source in defense of the same controversial viewpoint without adding any for the opposite view is even odder.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about a completely different review article: [148] Regarding the Nature article cannot see any criticisms of twin studies. Do you have a quote? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question where is the disruption ? certainly the editor has an opinion on the topic, this is perfectly ordinary, so they discuss and promote their opinion, this is also quite normal. Where is the edit warring, where is the disruption of process, in short, why is this even at ANI, is there a problem on wikipedia now that no editor may have an opinion ? Please be kind enough to diff some disruptive behavior, so we can all get to the point please. Penyulap ☏ 13:23, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming "disruption" I am claiming persistant failure to edit neutrally. Everyone is entitled to having an opinion, but when editing we are expected to edit neutrally and balancedly, not merely promote one view on a topic (even though perhaps it is a common occurrence - which doesn't legitimize it). Ani is not just for disruption, it ios also for making decisions about how best to direct community resources, in this case a lot of community resurces will be spent patrolling AO's pages for neutrality if he is allowed to continue editing in this field. Whereas if he is allowed to edit only on other topics community reseources (including AO's efforts) will be directed at something more productive.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, promoting your own opinion is not what wikipedia is for. The disruption is evident in the links I have shown and has effected the articles in real terms, the heritability section has been kept in the article despite the study being completely unreliable and unsuitable. Also see Mathsci's link for example. The editors substantial edits, based on primary studies and newspaper coverage of the studies, pertaining to his POV [149] are clear evidence of actual damage to the encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Having an opinion is to be human, being surrounded by people with the same opinion leads to a lack of awareness that you do, indeed, have an opinion. Tolerating other people's opinions when they are civil, articulate, and following the rules is what wiki is about. Penyulap ☏ 20:39, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

No, throwing your opinions out the window and deferring to reliable sources is what wikipedia is about. This is an encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are still NOT MENTIONING THAT I ADDED A PEER-REVIEWED SECONDARY REVIEW SOURCE to the section and you are grossly distorting my talk comments. There is not policy against discussing notable scientific controversies. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You added a peer reviewed source supporting your original view after you had been shown that you had failed to include a large body of contradictory views. In short your adding the review article after the initial artciel had been challenged only continued the same biased direction that you had begun. At no point did you say "Oh, I guess its right I left out important criticism, let me correct that" what you said was "but I have a counter criticism to all those critical studies". The tendency is clear.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not leave out any important criticisms of which I was aware. I linked to heritability article which discusses the concept in great detail including arguments for and against. Replicating this long article everytime heritability is mentioned is not possible. Since the source was challenged, I added a secondary review source I had used elsewhere in the article but not in this particular section. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban. Despite the queasiness I feel in supporting an editor whose views so strongly conflict with my own, I cannot see anything in the diffs so far provided which give grounds for a ban. Civilly arguing a point, however fringe or oddball, is only disruptive when it moves into repetitive, wall 'o' text trolling which this has not. I see no evidence of unjustified edits to articles, no incivility, no vandalism. This editor may be annoying and frustrating to the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, but that's not sufficient reason for a block, in my opinion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not his views but the fact that he persistently writes biased articles that do not take into account opposite viewpoints. This kind of persistent tendentious editing is very difficult to show in diffs, but I'll be posting a collection of interpreted diffs. Also no one is talking about a block, but about a topic ban so that the fact that he is unable to edit neutrally n this topic will not create problems for the encyclopedia's coverage of this sensitive issue.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Civil POV pushing is still POV pushing. Arguing a point beyond what is reasonable, and onwards is disruptive and does effect article content (the section based on the unreliable source on heritability is still there, he reverted it back in twice without consensus, his POV push has retained it despite no editors agreeing with his edits). Only after another editor performed significant research did academica indicate there actually was a controversy with the section, his original edits mention none: [150]. All his edits to the page are of this type and will take a lot of work to try and fix, made the more difficult by the editor himself. Topics bans aren't given out just for incivility and vandalism. Civil POV pushers also face topic bans. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, as usual, lots of claims most of which are not supported by any diffs. Sweeping claims regarding all my editing based on a single edit. You are still trying to ignore the reliable secondary review source I added. Heritability is by no means dead today, see this review article in Nature Reviews Genetics: [151] Heritability is controversial, but so is also, say, other scientific debates or political views on various issues and there is no need and possibility to repeat the whole controversy every time the issue is mentioned since we have wikilinks to the main articles. Heritability, including both the general arguments for and against, are discussed in the Heritability article I linked to. Regarding claims that I would generally be biased I will repeat my earlier comments regarding the psychopathy article: Before I started my recent editing there was NO section at all on environmental factors. The article contained statements like "parents cannot be held to fault for their offspring becoming psychopaths, for no amount of good parenting can fix the basic condition, which has genetic causes"! There was no mention of the studies finding that psychopathy can spontaneously improve with age in children. Or studies finding treatment effects. Or that the claim that psychopaths get worse with treatment is likely incorrect. And so on. I urge those interested to examine the article before and after I edited it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Miradre/Academica Orientalis is sort of the canonical soup-spitter. That sort of behavior isn't obvious in a diff, or even in a single thread, so it's hardly ever deemed "disruptive" in an AN/I setting. I disagree with Kim: I think that if an editor is consistently annoying and frustrating the majority of editors on articles s/he visits, then s/he needs to stop editing those articles. This is a collaborative project, and we don't have unlimited reserves of constructive, cheerful editors to step in and replace those burnt out by dealing with this sort of behavior. I don't see a loss to Wikipedia if AO stops editing the topic in question, and I do see a benefit: namely, decreasing the burnout rate among the constructive editors dealing with him/her in that topic area. MastCell ^Talk 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So no concrete evidence can be produced and no specific policy I have violated can be named but I should still be indefinitely banned? It seems like a purely politically motivated ban. I have added a very large amount of material, sourced to secondary academic sources, to numerous evolutionary psychology related articles these past months. Without any objections except on a small minority of them. I deeply resent the claim, given without any evidence, that my editing on the whole is not constructive.Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a indefinite ban and a topic ban. Also, it's entirely possible to be a disruptive influence without breaking a single policy, guideline, law, or anything. For instance: let's say that your neighbour buys a shotgun and then sits on his front porch every day holding it, right next to your house and yard where your dog and kids play every afternoon. He hasn't broken a single law, but he's clearly creating a rather uncomfortable environment... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not holding a shotgun. Another comparison would be a dictatorship where people with opposing views are punished without any evidence of wrongdoing. If you have any concrete evidence of misdoing, then please give the diffs. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It is is a purely political ban without any supporting evidence for other wrongdoing, should not this be stated clearly in the policies? Like "genetical/neuroscience/evolutionary psychology views are not allowed regarding certain topics such as politics or crime"? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Shotgun ? could we please remain on planet Earth, this is civilized editing, not even socking or reverting, it appears more a case of someone who doesn't look like 'we' do, and, on a worldwide project, that is hardly in harmony with policy. Can anyone show me a disruptive diff, such as reverting or some such ? Penyulap ☏ 20:45, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing a civil POV pusher with someone who engages in edit wars, see a description here of the characteristics: Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing. That's why he is constantly asking for diffs, because it's hard to impossible to show civil POV pushing in a diff, you need to look at the long term behaviour. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please look at my long term behavior regarding articles such as the Psychopathy article where I have as stated above greatly reduced the genetic arguments. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I take very seriously the careful arguments against my oppose above. I completely concede the point that this editor is tendentious and uncollaborative, but manages to stay well on this side of the line of civility, edit warring etc. A good example is the set of exchanges here wherein AO stonewalls all attempts at discussion. In all the talk pages I've viewed, I don't see AO acknowledging that s/he is doing anything wrong or could in any way improve their approach. The same is true of this discussion, wherein AO characterises the whole problem as an extended content dispute. So I fully accept the facts of what folks are complaining about here. I guess my problem is with the remedy. I've had occasional brushes with similar editors and have longed for them to become abusive or start to edit war, just so we can reasonably block them. Usually they do, but what if they don't? Others here are arguing that the disruption AO causes is sufficient to merit a topic ban. I'd take the view that AO's nuisance value is the price we pay for accepting a wide diversity of views here, but if the consensus is that the price is not worth paying I will quite understand. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a very well argued deliberation, and I find your oppose on those grounds to be entirely reasonable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like that I have added a great deal of evolutionary psychology material to many articles and there have been no opposition to this except in a small minority. The Biology and Political Orientation article seems to have caused an enormous controversy considering the AfD and this ban proposal. If it would help I promise to avoid this article and concentrate on other articles where I think I have added much valuable material without opposition. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you were to admit that you have failed to give a balanced coverage of topics related to nature/nurture, and that you will take steps to remedy that in the future. And no, I see the same problems with your EP edits - EP is a similar controversial field where a large body of critical literature exists, which I have never seen you take steps to include in your writings.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping generalizations without giving evidence. I could just as well argue that you biased in your edits regarding these topics. See the Psychopathy article which I thinks is much better after my edits and which, yes, includes evolutionary psychology criticisms added by me and from which I removed much incorrect pro-biology material. Academica Orientalis (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All of the diffs above show content problems, but AO seems unable to stop adding questionable material supporting his POV, and deemphasizing material opposing his POV. or to understand what he's doing wrong. All his statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biology and political orientation show this problem, although there, the entire article represents nothing that does not support his POV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you give a diff and explain what was unacceptable? Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I couldn't find one that was acceptable, I see no need for additional diffs. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you do not produce any diffs and explain what policy is violated, then how do we know there is a problem and how do I defend myself. An absurd situation. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed trolling by sockpuppet of banned user Echigo mole
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support topic ban on all topics remotely relevant to human biology. This user has consistently supported an extreme point of view which can be usefully described as pseudo-scientific racism -- attempting to import into numerous articles material which is favorable to the view that human races exist and that there is some scientific backing for a notion of racial superiority. This point of view cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia. Ordinary editing mechanisms are not adequate to address this issue, and otherwise productive editors are exhausted by the prolific and incessant POV-pushing. One editor alone, User:Mathsci, has had to follow this user to Talk:Honor killing, Talk:Guns, Germs, and Steel, Talk:Problem of evil, Talk:Causes of autism, Talk:Cognitive bias, Talk:Cultural anthropology, Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Talk:Democracy Now!, Talk:Groupthink, Talk:Social anthropology, Talk:NPR -- think of how much useful editing he could have done instead if he had not had to battle this racist claptrap. No, there is no viable alternative to a wide-ranging topic ban, if not a complete ban from Wikipedia altogether for people who peddle this line. Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I have not edited any race articles for over half a year except some occasional talk page comments most of which were several months ago. Honor killings, Problem of evil, Causes of autism, Cognitive bias, NPR, Groupthink, and so on are not about race. You seem to be arguing for a politically based ban for editing in an area I have avoided for many months. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC) No, I'm arguing for a ban based on your continued and continuing pattern of edits, which are promoting a political point of view which is consistent with and a continuation of that older unacceptable behaviour. Of course it's politically based, in that sense, and the overwhelming consensus of opinion is that productive editors ought not to have to waste their time dealing with it. It's just that some editors are shy about admitting it. Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose screen after screen after screen of nonsense at ANI, this is why there are bright lines drawn, so this doesn't happen. The user is causing annoyance by discussing a long list of different new material and many editors are frustrated that this editor doesn't stop trying to add material to articles. It's called wikipedia, and this is what it is for, take up golf you lot, or write a book. Like many things I've seen Johnuniq come up with, this proposal is lacking in any solid foundation and is nothing beyond demagogy, I have come to expect no meat from John unique. Penyulap ☏ 21:14, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

This is not Johnuniq's proposal but mine. And the problem is not that he adds material, but that he only adds one kind of material and shows no interest in improving his editing to conform with Wp:NPOV. That is not how wikipedia is supposed to work no.

• Oppose: I do not see disruption and I for one am not going to lower the bar for a topic ban to the level of having an unpopular belief system--and the occasional expression of such on talk pages. It would send a chilling message if this becomes the standard threshold for a topic ban.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the reasoning here. Any and all kinds of beliefs or faiths are completely acceptable for editors to have and argue, but a basic requirement is that we at least demonstrate a willingness to work towards NPOV in collaboration with others. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• The topic ban was proposed not because of AO's beliefs, but because of the tactics s/he uses to promote those beliefs. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of my edits have not caused any objections. Much of the criticisms is about a single article and in particular a single section and source. Or regarding my prior editing many months ago in a topic I now avoids. That is hardly evidence for any general current pattern. Again, I urge those interested to look more broadly at other articles I have edited recently. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

@Maunus: saying that I am "misrepresenting" is tantamount to calling me a liar. As you can well imagine I take exception to that. Are you sure you want to go down that road at this venue? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I take exception to you attributing me an opinion that I have not expressed, that is what I would call misrepresenting my stated opinion, which is what you do in your comment above. That is incidentally mentioned in WP:CIVIL as an uncivil thing to do, if done on purpose. If you didn't do it on purpose then I would have expected you to change your comment so that it didn't misrepresent my views (and those of other "support"ers, none of whom have argued that AO should be banned because of his views). I think you speak English well enough to be able to understand the difference in meaning between "misrepresent" and "lie". So which road is it you want to walk down with me?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You are sorely mistaken. I have not attributed anything to you, nor to any other supporter. I am entitled to my own analysis of the facts. And what if I told you that my opinion was not based on the specific points you've raised but from other information? That would be a huge mouthful of crow for you to eat, wouldn't it? And to help further your understanding of our policies, it is one thing to disagree with another editor, it is a violation of WP:AGF to accuse an editor of misrepresenting. Hope this helps, and don't swallow the feathers--they make your poop look weird. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In my idiolect the word "misrepresent" carries no assumption of intentionality and it is fully possible to misrepresent something unintentionally. I for one never attribute to malice what can be explained by flawed reasoning. So would you mind divulging what "other information" you base your assertion that topic banning AO would lower the bar to "the level of having an unpopular belief system--and the occasional expression of such on talk pages", given the evidence of persistent POv editing in article space?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support So this is an editor, who repeatedly breaks our behavioral guidelines as noted in diffs above, against one of our core policies, has been previously sanctioned in a closely related area with a topic ban, with no apparent effect? Why shouldn't a topic ban be put in place? There would still be well over 3 million other articles for the editor to contribute to; it's about time we nudge the editor to edit in an area where they do not disrupt the building of this encyclopedia. Yobol (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Most the complaints are regarding a single source in one particular article. Aside from edits made months ago in a topic I now avoids. Would it help if promise to avoid this article in the future? No, my knowledge is regarding evolutionary psychology so I cannot contribute as well elsewhere. Most of my edits regarding this to numerous articles, adding substantial material, have received no complaints whatsoever. Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Acadēmica Orientālis/formerly Miradre arbitrary break

• Comment - I have trouble saying that I would oppose sanctions based on the actions of the editor involved, but I cannot actively make myself support one. Yes, the editor is apparently incapable of even the most basic reasoning. Yes, the editor politely engages in stonewalling. And certainly his mindless repetition of "I don't see any diffs" and other comments above are almost enough to make one want to strangle him, if that could be done over the web. But I would procedurally prefer it if an RfC on the editor's behavior, with a recommendation to cease editing all articles in the basic topic area, were filed before a topic ban is placed. Based at least on some of the comments here, it may well be possible that the editor has some sort of mental dysfunction or inability and it is impossible for him to view his own conduct rationally. That sort of thing appears a lot in race-related material. The problem seems to be that the editor has recently returned to editing material which is somewhat related recently. For all of his own vapid repetition above, I have seen no reason given by this editor why he has chosen to end his so-called self-imposed ban now. If he at least seemed to have acknowledged his own mistakes earlier, as his repetition of that comment seems to at least strongly imply, how has time made them other than mistakes in the past few months? However, having said all that, there is a precedent for "exhausting the patience of the community," and I do get the impression that AO's behavior has crossed that line. On that basis, I cannot force myself to actively oppose a topic ban either, unless a saw a clear and unambiguous statement that the editor would voluntarily remove himself from all involvement on related articles indefinitely. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason I didn't start an rFc is the fact that he has participated in an arbcom case and has been under editing restrictions for similar behavior in the past. This did motivate him to edit i other areas rather than being an SPA, and I think that it would probably be to the benefit of wikipedia if he would concentrate his editing on topics such as China-Africa relations, China-South American relations and Chinese science and technology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not ever been a SPA but edited a broad range of articles. Most of my editing and adding extensive material to numerous articles has not caused any objections at all. I would welcome a RfC so we could get a more fair overview of my recent editing which I think have been generally constructive. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you quite clearly have, and you have also once stated that you had a previous account but rgistered "Miradre" exactly to be able to edit in "a controversial area" without it reflecting on your previous identity. I can find a dif to a previous ANI thread in which there was a general consensus that your account was an SPA dedicated to R&I. I estimate that less than 5% of the edits of Miradre (talk · contribs) have been outside the general R&I topic area. You clearly are doing good edits in other areas unrelated to biology and psychology, and I would encourage you to continue with that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please present evidence when you make claims and accusations. Many of my edits in biology and psychology have arguably been constructive such as regarding the Psychopathy article as explained earlier above.Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it is of course arguable - which is why we are arguing. The point is not so much that your edits are not constructive as it is about the quality of the construction and the amount of overseeing it requires of other editors to bring it in line with policy, and the fact that you appear to adamantly resist improving.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Most the complaints are regarding a single source in one article which cannot be taken as evidence for any general editing. Contrast that to the numerous additions that have received no complaints. Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence has been provided that this takes place on a large number of articles and their talk pages. AO was not a WP:CLEANSTART: the new account was created apparently because of a hard disk failure which also resulted in the user losing their password for the account Miradre. It certainly is relevant to look at AO's prior editing as Miradre, before the accident. The EP related edits and talk page discussions did not change much. Here for example are two threads on Talk:Incest taboo. [152][153] AO unduly changed the thrust of the article by prominently adding content from poor sources. Here are similar kinds of discussions on Talk:Suicide from November 2011,[154] on Talk:War in October 2011, [155], etc, etc. Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have asked for diffs because many have made general accusations without presenting evidence. Note that at the beginning of the case there were for a time no diffs at all but people still wanted me to be banned. To then ask for evidence when I am being threatened with an indefinite ban seems justifiable. Otherwise it looks like a political ban due to my editing of a topic I now avoids. I have not ended avoiding this topic. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the diffs that have been added are about my editing many months ago in this topic. Or regarding a single article and in particular a single source and section in that article. I urge editors to look more broadly than just at my editing months ago in a topic I now avoids or regarding this single article and section/source. I have edited numerous articles and added material without any objections except in a small minority. If it helps I promise to avoid this particular article (Biology and political orientation) in the future. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I know that in the United states, where most people come from, there is no presentation of a case against the accused, for example, the president declares on TV that such and such somewhere in the world is a criminal, and that's the case closed, however, are we really so low as to deny obvious fundamental justice in this case by not providing a single recent diff or two, because I for one would like to see wikipedia hold itself just that little bit up out of the mud of mob stupidity, like a half arsed push-up by a fat slob just before he completely collapses back into the mud face down, so can somebody, for the love of god, provide a diff or two, hey, borrow something I did !!! there's an idea, call it puppetry for crying out loud, but lets see a little light shining in the basic ANI procedure department here ok ? This is not too much to ask. Penyulap ☏ 00:43, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U is an excellent suggestion, John. This issue is just not clear cut enough to decide in a thread at ANI by tally of !votes. We use the topic ban hammer far too often here. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Take this to an RFC/U. Topic ban could be a remedy sought if AO can't understand the problem then, but I'd like to see wider discussion first. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And you are taking into account that he got a 3 month topic ban for the same behavior a year ago?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

A deeply unfair claim and comparison with editing almost one year ago. I have avoided that topic for a long time and I have not been accused by anyone here of edit warring. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the editing pattern you have displayed here at ANI as well is also troublesome. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I allowed to defend myself against a proposed indefinite ban? What are you objecting to concretely? Also, all of your criticisms have been regarding a single section in one article. Would it help if I promise to avoid this article in the future? Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support When editors continually edit a small group of articles to insert bias, and argue their position on talk pages, they are hindering the improvement of those articles and wasting the time of other editors who wish to improve them or eliminate bias. There are rules related to neutrality and editors must attempt to follow them. TFD (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I have edited many pages without any controversy whatsoever. The above criticisms concern just a couple of pages. Most are regarding a single section in one article. Cannot be taken as evidence for any general pattern. This ban seems politically motivated for old editing in an area I now avoids. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support on the basis of the tendentious behavior and disregard for community feedback displayed here. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a place for defending blatant POV pushing against community consensus. aprock (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course not unexpected that you also would appear. Just to note, I received the maximum possible topic ban of 3 months for several reverts during a time period. None of these violated 3RR but I admit I should not have made as many reverts. I do think the punishment was excessive. However, Aprock did more reverts during this time period but received nothing at all! (See my 15:45, 11 July 2011 comments here: [156]) This is the systematic bias one encounters in this area. So of course I have avoided this area. Obviously this will not help. I will most likely get an indefinite ban. Many have cited the edits I did many months or years ago, in the area I have since avoided, thus making it abundantly clear that they consider I should be punished for expressing an unpoplar opinion at all in this area. The other criticisms regarding my editing concern a few pages. Most regarding a single section in one article which I have offered to never edit again. This can be compared to the numerous articles I have edited with no complaints. My expertise is regarding evolutionary psychology so I will no be able to contribute anywhere as effectively to other areas. So I will most likely retire once I get the indefinite topic ban. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a narrow view of what is "the area" which you were to avoid. I'm not sure it should be all of "evolutionary psychology", but only those parts where you have a non-standard view and are not willing to go beyond it to report on the standard view. You would know what those parts are better than I. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I cannot edit any evolutionary psychology article, any article mentioning evolutionary psychology explanations, or any article mentioning the possible role of genetics under a ban against "nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed". Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect I may have been one of the more active users regarding adding substantial new article contents with 3,200 mainspace article edits since I returned in February. I feel it unfortunately increasingly clear why the Wikipeda Community is in decline and is reducing its active contributors by 7% each year.[157] New Wikipedia editors are according to research "entering an environment that is increasingly challenging, critical, and/or hostile to their work".[158] This does not explain exactly what these new editors are accused of doing. They are according to the link not of lower quality than earlier. One may instead suspect that the Wikipedia Community, as often is the case with groups, is becoming increasingly conformist and increasingly hostile and intolerant to views other than the "correct" Wikipedia view on the world. Editors with other views than the single "correct" Wikipedia view are being driven off the project. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. User gives no indication that there will be an improvement to the clearly demonstrated non-neutral editing. The proposed topic ban is necessary for protection of the wiki, but I fear it is only an intermediate step, that the user will have to be banned indefinitely. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

See the comments above to Aprock. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on procedural grounds. There are specific fora in which editors who allegedly violate arbitration remedies have their edits examined by experienced users for recentness, relatedness, and egregiousness. ANI is no place to short-circuit this necessary dispute resolution, unless the editor in question is being outrageously or obviously disruptive. The charges against this user seem to of civil POV pushing, and such a charge is difficult for laypersons in the community to investigate - it seems that those arguing for AO's ban have been involved in editorial disputes with xem for a long time. Also, AO's claims that xe has avoided the topic area for months now seem to be, at first glance, credible. Shrigley (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor has not violated an arbcom remedy, a previous remedy was brought up to show a pattern of behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Many editors above ARE citing my earlier edits and having expressed the wrong view in the R&I dispute, a topic I have avoided, except some occasional talk page comments, for more than half a year as reason for topic banning me. Just look at Johnuniq who started the topic ban discussing. This was before anyone had given diffs regarding recent behavior they disagree with. The only links he gives are to R&I topics on which he himself have the opposite view and have argued with me. Or Mathsci, also before anyone had given diffs about recent behaviors, who is linking to R&I talk page content disputes most of which are very old without explaining what is supposed to violate any policy and in which he personally has often been involved. This seems to be arguing for a political ban for disagreeing with Mathsci's own POV. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing a point I didn't make. That's not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps while they are misrepresenting themselves in such a disingenuous way (describing discussions from February 2012 as "very old", etc), Academica Orientalis could explain what exactly they think my "point of view" is? Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At ANI, last month is old, and February is Jurassic, this belongs at IAV as much as it belongs here. Penyulap ☏ 11:43, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans are usually issued for long term problems with conduct. If you are suggesting otherwise, then your edits amount to disruptive trolling. Mathsci (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Come on, give it a rest. This topic is already long enough as it is. No need to engage in name-calling, particularly a redundant name (are there undisruptive trolls?).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Look, I apologize for getting up your nose on this one, I don't mean to, but to have a pattern at ANI, you need a few recent diffs to compliment the old stuff that you find, there may well be some pattern, but without a few decent recent additions the dots join up into a drawing of a dead end, where the editor has abandoned the behavior and moved on. Otherwise it's the wrong venue.

Incidentally I wish this sort of thing didn't get deleted, with a general like that in charge of the charge of the critics, nothing can possibly go wrong. (oh how I wish it were really about me) Penyulap ☏ 16:48, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That edit was removed after the user was checkuser blocked as a sock troll of Echigo mole, who has disrupted this thread at least three times. Are you also fighting for the rights of a community banned sock troll? Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Reviewing the history of the articles biology and political orientation and biosocial criminology, there doesn't seem to be behaviour which would warrant this extraordinary measure. This just seems to be routine difficulty with controversial topics and so ordinary dispute resolution should be used. My impression is that there has been inadequate recourse to standard processes such as RfC and third opinion and so these ought to be tried. Warden (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed trolling by CU blocked sock - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support topic ban, and indeed outright ban from the project. This user is energetically perusing an agenda that can only be described as racist across numerous articles, and multiple editors are spending much valuable time tracking and confronting his spurious contributions. No Platform for racists. (31261) 1998 EF8 (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — (31261) 1998 EF8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. |}

• Support topic ban, per discussion in this thread. I don't see many comments that AO's edits to these particular articles are not problematic. If the case is that AO really is staying away from the topic, and will continue to, then this topic ban doesn't hurt anyone, and simply formalizes AO's self-imposed restriction. Therefore, I don't find that rationale for opposing compelling. If the case is that AO edits well in other areas of the project, then a topic ban won't disrupt that activity. Therefore, I don't find that rationale for opposing compelling either. I do, however, find the pattern of disruption presented above compelling, and I see a topic ban as a good way to eliminate that disruption while allowing AO to contribute positively to the project in other areas. If AO adjusts to the project, and demonstrates a more collaborative attitude, and wants the topic ban lifted in the future, he has that option.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a basic misunderstanding here. I am voluntarily staying away from R&I topics. The proposed topic ban is against "nature/nurture related articles, broadly construed" which is a much, much broader topic. This topic ban will prevent any edits regarding evolutionary psychology which is the topic regarding which I have most knowledge. Most of my thousands of edits across numerous different articles regarding this has not met any opposition at all. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your knowledge in this area is not helpful to us if you cannot apply it to articles in a neutral and balanced manner -- that is the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban et al. Per the twisting sources to support a WP:POV being a bad thing. see Biosocial_criminology. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm, not sure exactly what you are objecting to here? The version before your recent massive edits and deletions to the article described what the sourced chapter stated accurately. You have also inserted a quote not in the sourced chapter. Your edit summary here [159] seems to indicate that you do in fact know that the sourced chapter support what you deleted. Academica Orientalis (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

DoD Acadēmica Orientālis on behaviour

The issue of a topic ban in this case is malformed for ANI, no bright lines have been crossed in the recent past, and the distant past is beyond the scope of this venue. There is little to no chance of any bright lines being crossed in the immediate future, and leaving the issue of a topic ban open in this case can only serve an ill purpose, that is, to topic ban Acadēmica Orientālis because of his obnoxious insatiable desire to answer every comment, which has nothing to do with the topic in question. (not an insult, I like the editor, I want to help the editor, it's just an observation which I can get away with because I'm on friendly terms with him, and it's what you're all thinking). The annoyance is not the issue of the topic ban, but it would assist Acadēmica Orientālis if he understood the minor issue of commenting a little better. He is too well educated and articulate to require mentoring, or, nobody can be bothered offering as it is not appropriate, and as this is not about misbehaviour no trouting could apply.

I would like to present the Donut of doom to Acadēmica Orientālis as something much less than a trout, to let him know that his commenting at ANI could use a little more restraint. I will present it as a complaint, because I think he talks too much at ANI, and I think there are other editors who feel he is somewhat verbose. Penyulap ☏ 21:51, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Your "analysis" of the factors behind the support !votes above is completely unprovable and amounts to a gigantic assumption of bad faith on your part. Since most of those editors have cited both specific and general behaviors on AO's part as the reasons behind their comments, WP:AGF requires you to accept what they say at face value, unless you have evidence to show otherwise. To make sweeping assumptions based on nothing isn't terribly helpful one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis of what most editors have cited as reasons. Despite Penyulap's admonition I do think I should make a comment here about good faith. Maunus is accusing me of acting in bad faith and deliberately being biased regarding favor of biology in social behavior. Now, I certainly admits that I have sometimes have made mistakes in my edits. I have made thousands of edits to numerous articles in a rather short term period and some of them are most likely mistakes. I know that discover mistakes such as spelling and poorly written sentences when I reread what I have written after a while. But this has not been out any malice and I have not deliberately been withholding any information I know of. I have been acting in good faith. Academica Orientalis (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Despite my objection to Penyulap's anaylsis of the reasoning behind those who have !voted against you, I do agree with one thinge he said: you'd be best advised to shut up, your replies are doing you no good, and merely dig the hole deeper. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was getting at Beyond My Ken, that is the precise undercurrent that I would like to separate and address so that the primary concern may be addressed upon it's merit alone. You do have a fair point that my computation of motives and tally of said motives is 'unprovable' that is true, but doesn't your second statement illustrate my accurate analysis ?

On a side note, after the exchange on Acadēmica Orientālis talkpage, I find he is a good sport on my candour.

I think the Donut of Doom is a good, polite way to suggest someone talks too much and it 'dooms' them. Penyulap ☏ 11:32, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

but doesn't your second statement illustrate my accurate analysis? No, not at all. Editors have given good, solid reasons for their "support" !votes, and to assume that they are, instead, a result of annoyance at AO's behavior here is, as I said above, a massive bit of ABF. These are two entirely separate issues, and, while a donut may well be an appropriate response to AO's AN/I overzealousness, his general editing behavior deserves a much more serious sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've DoD'd him. Penyulap ☏ 12:57, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

User: Logical Cowboy

Logical Cowboy (talk) has been on a constant harassment of my articles past and present, which appears to be due to a failed attempt to have this article deleted. He has been WP:HOUNDING me on several locations [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165].He has also made several snide comments,[166] at an attempt to possibly have me engage in some kind of confrontation…so as to perhaps have me blocked. Now I understand the need for spam, and vandalism control, but he has taken it to an unfair level with me. There has been no constructive input from this editor, only constant badgering nit picking, of my references, and article creation. [167] --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 02:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the addition of the "confusing" and "essay" tags as the article may be perplexing for viewers. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't look like Logical Cowboy is trying to hound or harass you. From what I can tell from his edits he means no ill will and is following good faith. Logical Cowboy may have unintentionally insulted or alarmed you, however, to the "snide" comments that he made, that was in fact you who made them, so we may all feel the bite of a WP: BOOMERANG. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Penguin. This may all be just a confusion between you and Cowboy, since I can't find clear evidences of hounding or any other notable behavioral harassment against you. Regards. —Hahc21 03:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. With regard to Jetijonez, this looks like a matter of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He just had an article deleted WP:Articles for deletion/THIS Brand Clothing because it failed WP:CORP. The sources were very weak. The next day, he created this article Thrillscape 3D which has no independent sources at all, about a company that gets no hits on Google News. ("Business Week" (sic) is a link to a social networking site, not a magazine article.) Maybe the actual problem here is with JetiJonez' sourcing, and his serial creation of articles about non-notable subjects. The other comments such as that I am upset because a speedy was denied three weeks ago or that I am trying to get another editor blocked are completely unfounded. Some of the "hounding" episodes listed above are removing a superfluous apostrophe and correcting the capitalization of a heading. I won't stop looking at sources, in addition to everything else, but there is no ill will on my part. Let's all get back to the articles. Logical Cowboy (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is quite the WP: SHOT. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Robertmossing continued disruption at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I looked in at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is an article I removed from my watchlist after a series of personal attacks from User:Robertmossing. Out of curiousity I looked in today and noted that he has continued in the same vein following a block for edit warring.

See [168] he is continuing to edit war as before.

See here, here, here, here and here, where the personal attacks are continuing.

Judging by his comments the last time, he appears to be seeking an indefinite block [169] in order to prove that his views are being "censored". I think the time has come for a warning, followed by a series of escalating blocks if his disruptive behaviour continues. Bringing it here for community discussion. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Either I'm blind or the personal attacks are masterfully camouflaged. The argument is spirited and there's a lot of back and forth. I could possibly go along with Robertmossing being a disruptive but civil POV pusher. Personally, I think you're going to have to do much better than those diffs to call him out for personal attacks. If anything, apart from the digging in of heels by Robertmossing on various points, there doesn't seem to be anything more serious than a marginally heated debate on the talk page of an article dealing with a controversial topic. Blackmane (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Concur with Blackmane. Civil disagreement is not the same as personal attacks. If there are diffs I may have missed, feel free to provide them WCM. --John (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

See also [170] where he continues edit warring on another users page. I wouldn't describe multiple headings such as "Seems to me that Binkernet deletes all opposition to the bomb." as spirited debate, they're a fairly clear attack on the individual editor accusing them of censorship. His edits are definitely disruptive, the edit warring sailing close to 3RR continuously is not making for a reasonable debate. I think it will end in tears and had hoped to nip that in the bud. I would hope someone takes a deeper look before it does. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not really edit warring, so much as apparent confusion on his part. He posts a question on the talk page, which is archived by the user without responding there, and instead the question and answer is copied to the article talk page without informing him. So he thinks it was deleted out of hand, and tries to return the question [171]. He gets a rather bitey response, [172], and then seems to accidentally add it back, before self reverting with a thankyou (but misses some of what he'd accidentally re-added). Then he gets the 3RR warning. It was a bit bitey as an exchange, but I wouldn't put too much weight on it as demonstrating any particularly bad behaviour. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Me three. Spirited debate is part of the process, and sometimes that means blunt statements. Unless I'm missing something, I see lots of opinion, and maybe a little gruffness, but mainly real discussion and an attempt to back his claims. As for "Seems to me that Binkernet deletes all opposition to the bomb.", I wouldn't consider that a personal attack, even if it is a bit pointed. He didn't use the word censor, you may be reading too much into the statement. As for 3RR, WP:AN3 is the place to go if he breaches that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Put me on the other side, then, 'cause I was taking Robertmossing's remarks as about the editors, not the content of their arguments. I also have the sense he's pushing a POV, & will continue to regardless of warnings. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

He's still making abusive comments: [173]. Robert's editing style is to add poor quality material to the article, edit war a bit to keep it there, and then accuse the other editors of bias rather than attempt to justify the stuff he wants to add. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

And he's still edit warring. Here are the diffs for the last couple of days: 08:59, 28 June 2012, 07:33, 29 June 2012, 09:07, 29 June 2012, 08:27, 30 June 2012. The discussion of this material on the talk page has attracted no support to include it in the article, but yet he keeps on edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If you see him breaking 3RR, WP:AN3 is that-a-way. Otherwise, I just see one side in a content dispute trying to get leverage by taking a user to an enforcement noticeboard. It is your contention that the user is adding material which is of "poor quality"; that contention is as close to the OP's allegation of "personal attack" as anything else I saw there. Solve the argument in article talk civilly or use WP:DR. WP:AN/I is not WP:DR. --John (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• On further reflection and after discussion at my talk, I decided to try WP:0RR on this article. There has been a long-term edit war here with several editors behaving sub-optimally. Let's see how it goes. --John (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Block review: Hla123

Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy states: "COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and also on the talk page of the related article they are editing, and to request others' views, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty...."

On June 22 a new editor User:Hla123, with apparent connection to a management company — a COI editor, a paid editor — created a piece for a client Matthew Lutton. The piece was neither speedied nor sent to PROD nor sent to AFD. Instead, the content-creator was instantly blocked by User:OrangeMike, an outspoken opponent of paid editing (diffs on request, but I will treat this as axiomatic). The following canned message was used: "Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy."

Fair enough, bad account name. There's a template for that. However, OrangeMike added the following comment as an edit summary: "HLA cannot have an account here; nor can any HLA employee use us to publicize their clients such as Matthew Lutton." There is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy which would justify either this block or this bitey language, which is clearly designed to scare off the editor from any future contributions.

I appealed this block on behalf of the probably-now-long-gone new content-creator and OrangeMike's aggressive tone and block was upheld by administrator User:jpgordon, who told me that "Perhaps the editor making this request needs to reconsider his understanding of WP:COI."

No, I understand COI Policy fine. COI edits are discouraged, not banned. COI editors are encouraged to follow best practices, not required. COI-related disruption may be cause for banning, not COI-related editing. Since this piece has not been treated as spam via speedy, PROD, or AFD, it is not spam, ergo, not disruption.

I would like this block to be reversed, for the record, and administrators OrangeMike and JPGordon admonished for attempting to formulate policy with their blocking buttons. All parties will be notified of this discussion momentarily. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

All three parties have been notified, hopefully adequately. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing in policy that states no HLA employee can have an account; however, the username is a violation and the user shouldn't be unblocked without a username change. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright everyone, calm down. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Without necessarily agreeing with the wording, I would note OM didn't actually say no HLA employee can have an account. What they said is HLA can't have an account which I think we all accept is a given. They also said no HLA employee can use us to publicise their clients which seems to be supported by the template. None of this actually says either that no HLA employee can have an account or that they can't write about their clients. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a point; however, I don't believe a new editor will understand the intricacies of the comment and our policies. Personally, I would have preferred that the user be notified that they should change their username and then told how they can modify the article so it was acceptable. Let them fix any problems they caused and teach them how to contribute constructively in the future. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If by your own admission the account name is disallowed, then I don't see how the block can be reversed. At most, a note can be made in the block log to clarify the reasons for the block. The template etc may need to be changes, but that's a different matter. Note that OM did use a template, Template:Uw-spamublock so whether or not they blocked for the right reason or the template was applied appropriately, if you have problems with the wording of the template you should take that up where appropriate. BTW I think you mean User:Hla123. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Whoops, sorry, I see now from the history that this was initially taken to PROD, apparently declined. My bad. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor should have been told to create a new account first. Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The editor should not have been told to create a new account, that would endorse circumventing a block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

If the reason for the block was an inappropriate username, then we should suggest to the editor to change the username and then block the account. Count Iblis (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think of this as "making policy". I will concede that I am of the militant tendency rather than the unconditional surrender caucus [the latter, I should make it clear, does not include Carrite] when it comes to agents and PR people shilling for their clients (if it's not already clear, HLA is the acronym for Lutton's agent and HLA123 is them, as they themselves admit), and that my summary was a little bitey. I consider myself duly chastised; but I don't think that JP should be held to blame for this failure on my part. I don't see, though, how the username block should be considered anything but canonical. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Although I agree that Orange Mike could have framed his edit summary to appear a little less abrupt, there is nothing wrong with the substance of the text in his block, or jpgordon's decline of the unblock request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  HLA stands for HLA Management and this is WP:CORPNAME and clear case of username violation hence the user was blocked.Further not sure whether the account is for a individual or for editing on behalf of HLA. Both User:OrangeMike and User:Jpgordon are right here and I do not see any policy formulation here.Note this article Matthew Lutton appears to have been deleted under A7 and the undeletion request was declined just a day before it was recreated by the same editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• This article turned up on the new article bot for WikiProject Opera. I don't know what the original version looked like, but the this one, even before I copyedited and referenced it, was pretty decent as far as COI articles go. No blatant puffery, reasonably neutral apart from some cherry-picked quotes, and no copyvio. And at least the chap passes WP:GNG. I see a lot of these from artist management agencies. My impression is that the article's creator has re-registered now with a non-company name, and from their edits seems to have taken some of my suggestions on the talk page to heart [174]. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Artist management agencies are just one more subset of COI editors, with a particularly blatant COI in making their clients look good. I am glad that you have taken this one in hand, Voce! The original version [which I did not delete] was doomed by the shamelessly cherry-picked pull quotes, I think, combined with the obvious promotional intent. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Voceditenore, based on your comment, can we assume that the person formerly editing as Hla123 is now editing Wikipedia as JeanProbert1981 (talk · contribs)? If so, that seems to address the username problem. Maybe Orange Mike can say whether this is now an acceptable user name, and if the person should be allowed to edit. The first two edits by the new account appear to be adding references at Matthew Lutton and making minor tweaks. No objection to an AfD nomination for Matthew Lutton, but it would probably be kept. There are a lot of blue links in the article text. The first Google hit for Matthew Lutton is a statement by The Australian, "Matthew Lutton may be the country's most passionate and ambitious stage director." EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the current username is unexceptionable. I'd suggest that he/she should disclose their COI on their talk page; and obviously there are more editors than usual watching the Lutton article now. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support immediate unblock This block was in direct violation of WP:CORPNAME, which states "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." The Matthew Lutton article at the time of block was a rather nice article for a new editor, clearly still a newbie article, but the editor in question was clearly adding good references to the bottom. This blocking acrtion was completely out of line and yet another in a long string of such blocks by OrangeMike in direct violation of CORPNAME. Silverseren^C 23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • accounts that purport to represent an entire group or company are not permitted no matter the name - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, which is why it is explained to them that only one person is allowed to have an account (and that they can make more if other members want to be involved) and that they need to go change their username. But immediate blocking is not the way to go and is not going to make anyone amenable to anything you ask, which is why CORPNAME says that immediate blocking should only be done if the account's edits are being clearly disruptive. Silverseren^C 04:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Just a couple of things...If the first version deleted under A7 was the same as the intitial version of the current article, then this strikes me as a misapplication of A7. Young Australian of the Year award (and others), quotes from mainline German newspapers reviewing the opera he directed and co-developed, etc. How can that possibly qualify for A7 as that guideline is currently worded? This strikes me as punishment for COI editing, which is not part of the A7 criteria.

Secondly, is that current "badge of shame" on the talk page really necessary? I prefer starting with posts like this, and would only resort to the banner if the COI editor(s) don't take it on board. I have to work with a lot of articles like this. One agency in Barcelona has created 13 articles for "their" opera singers. In my experience, after some initial tussles, the best I can hope for is that they'll edit according to the guidelines in future. I have yet to find one who has ever contributed anything else to Wikipedia. Their only interest in the project is as a PR tool. Having said that, at least it results (after much red-pencilling from other editors) in one new article on a notable subject that we didn't have before. Opera and classical music is an important area to cover. Alas, normal WP editors are not lining up in droves to contribute there. Voceditenore (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – This was exactly why I proposed Proposed blocking about 2 months ago, for the exact same incident earlier. However, that was shot down by the community, and now we have the exact same standoff we had 2 months ago over application of the policy (i.e. Do we block and then request they change username, or do we indefinitely wait until they do and, in the meantime, pretend that there is no username problem?). --MuZemike 18:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry I missed the discussion two months ago. I thought the username policy was clear. You indef the inappropriate username and unblock if the request includes a desire to register a new account which is not a violation. Nothing in this current manner should change. IMO StringdaBrokeda (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Have you even read WP:CORPNAME? I quoted the relevant section above that states that immediate blocks should only be given out if the user is editing disruptively. If they aren't, then they should be directed to WP:CHU and told to change their username, but not blocked. Silverseren^C 19:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hence we sit on that indefinitely and pretend that there is no username problem. --MuZemike 19:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. WP:CORPNAME needs to be changed; any username that designates a group or "role" account isn't something that should be here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Perhaps it may be a good idea to place a moratorium on WP:UAA until this issue is sorted out, lest we want to circle the wagons indefinitely with no progress made. --MuZemike 20:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, just throwing an idea out there: why don't we make it so that an user must be welcomed etc, but warned: if they make three or more edits after the warning is issued without completing the formalities for renaming their account, their account will be blocked? It's a bit specific, but at least this way, we can ensure the editor was actually active to see the message, and he was blocked after he was welcomed and given sufficient warning. And if there is no problematic editing from the date of the warning (or indeed any editing), there is nothing to prevent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Corporation page

This user User:WayKurat have continously deleted and vandalised this ABS-CBN page most especially the upcoming Foreign dramas section. I have given several indications that the dramas that have been listed have been confirmed by the management, and even given more links to further confirm that ABS-CBN have indeed bought the rights, but this user keeps insisting that it is not reliable, EVEN IF THE REFERENCE GIVEN HAVE BEEN POSTED OR MODERATED BY THE ABS-CBN NETWORK THEMSELVES. Can I just please request at least a 4 week ban for this user to edit this particular page? Thank you. User:Ifightback —Preceding undated comment added 00:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sure you can request that. In the meantime I have notified the editor for you, which you are required to do. You are also required to post diffs pointing to the actual edits, and you are required to use independent, reliable sources--management's Facebook page does not usually count as such. But that's all by-the-by. Now, I presume you are talking about List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN Corporation, where perhaps you edited under one or two IPs? Drmies (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• If this is your work, then I agree with WayKurat. Either way, this isn't a matter for ANI since there is a content issue here, not actionable by an administrator. The only thing that may be called for here is a suggestion to read WP:BOOMERANG. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

To answer User:Ifightback's complaint, let me point out that I have deleted the upcoming shows since they only rely on Facebook photos, Multiply and Youtube accounts of ABS-CBN and a lot of third party blogs. Also, most of the "sourced" upcoming shows rely on this YouTube video that was published on January but so far, ABS-CBN have not provided a launch date for any of the shows on that video or announce it on one of their more recent commercials. The said sources only says that ABS-CBN bought the rights of these shows but have not yet decided when to air it. I suggest that the shows should be added to the upcoming section if the schedule has been finalized or a press release from ABS-CBN have been published. -WayKurat (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Truth be told, Ifightback seems to have a pattern of filing ANIs without troubling himself to discuss the situation on the appropriate talk pages or anywhere else, or to notify the editors in question of the filing, or to pretty much do anything along the lines of proper procedure. [175][176][177]. As such, I believe a topic ban on posting on ANI would be appropriate until and unless he can convince an admin that he can work in a collaborative environment and follow the rules. Ravenswing 03:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those diffs, Ravenswing. After the first one (critique of which was countered with an injunction not to bite), they should know better. I would not be opposed to a topic ban, but I'd be happier if "Ifightback" found a less combative style of editing. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Poston Butte High School

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

---

Having a bit of a dispute with User:Azhix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who has only edited this page. He added this content to the article, which includes several images since deleted (some directly from the school district). Other text appears rather advertisement-esque in tone. I've already reverted back to my revision that makes it less crufty. What do I do? Raymie (t • c) 08:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just revert it. The images were copyright violations and the text was clearly just copied straight from the school's prospectus (and hence also a copyvio). I'll leave them a warning note. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• We are a group of community members trying to add to an article of interest to us. We thought that our items being unilaterally removed without any notations on our talk page was a form of vandalism itself. It was our impression that other editors would comment on things we added and give US an opportunity to make it right rather than just doing it themselves. We do not intend to violate any policies, but would appreciate some guidance, rather than just flippant remarks attached to revisions, like "removed the fluff". We would appreciate your removing the editing protection status. The site is not being vandalized and your concerns about copyright violations have been understood. Azhix (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC
  • I semi-protected the article because an anonymous IP user added the material back again. I note that this means you cannot edit it, as you are not autoconfirmed, but I am prepared to remove it so that you can edit the article. Of course, should the material be restored, protection may be put back. The huge chunk of unreferenced (and almost certainly copyvio) material about 1:1 Computing is irrelevant to the article and should stay out. The rest, we can work around. What I can say is that the article needs references, as currently it has none. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That is understood, it was most likely another member of our group who was trying to "fix" it. We agreed to all use one log-in to make it easier to track what's going on. The 1:1 computing aspect is central to what makes PBHS unique and we will ensure that factual, informative information is included on the topic with appropriate references. Also, no comment has been made by the editor who removed the information on the school's culinary arts center, which again, is central to what makes the school unique, as it is one of only a handful of schools in the state to have such an elaborate facility. We expected there to be more discussion on these topics. We did not expect veteran editors to just start hacking at it with a figurative sword (although we understand why one would want to rectify copyright issues as quickly as possible, copyright issues do not seem to be the only motive for some of the edits.).Azhix (talk) 23:42, 30 June 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.

So few edits, so many problems

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

F16TopGun (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Gene McVay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This editor, who has had only 80 edits in 5 years, is nothing but trouble. On the McVay article, he has repeatedly removed AfD templates and edit-warred. He has had multiple warnings, yet persists. His latest nonsense are personal attacks in all caps and accusations of sock puppetry against JFHJr and me. Diffs are not needed - just look at his Talk page for strewn comments like "JFHJr AKA Bbb23 ARE CANCERS IN WIKIPEDIA AND MUST BE BLOCKED. PLEASE SEARCH @Wikipedia on TWITTER FOR MORE INFORMATION ON JFHJr aka Bbb23." As I write this, he has again removed the AfD template from the McVay article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Report him to the vandal board -  Done - they would deal with him - he needs blocking - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_McVay&action=history - Youreallycan 15:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

He could be reported to WP:AIV or WP:3RRN, but because of the cross-disruption and personal attacks, I felt ANI was more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes - The vandal board was recommended to me for such situations - quick and quiet - there are a fair few experienced editors usually working that board - and the required action usually happens fast , with less need to type, just add the main disrupted article and wallop the ban hammer is applied - lol - regards - Youreallycan 16:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it certainly worked, YRC, but I was concerned about the length of the block if I reported only to AIV. In this instance, Future was quick and decisive, but it may not always work out that way. Also, although maybe a nit, for the sake of a complete record, I would add to the reason for the block (currently "disruptive editing") "personal harassment" or "personal attacks".--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes its true , via AIV sometimes they don't get hit hard enough - its good to add a clear comment in the additional comment box, such as (user is a long term non constructive revert/vandal) - that way the admin has a bit more reason to extend - I am sure if you want the block summary adjusted User:Future Perfect at Sunrise will consider it. The users indef'ed now anyway, if he show up with any similar edits we can request blocking them as a socks.Youreallycan 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Helpful points, YRC, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:CoolKoon (again)

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.

---

CoolKoon (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Hello, there is a serious problem here with CoolKoon (again), see first this personal attacks from CoolKoon [178] vs. Panonian

I'm sorry to say this to you Panonian, but obviously you're not only clueless, but paranoid as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#User:CoolKoon

new personal attack from coolkoon vs. Idrian You here [179]

added some sources for nationalist trollls who assert that a church consecrated to Saint Elizabeth of Hungary can't be an example of Hungarian architecture

The words "paranoid" and "nationalist trollls" are textbook examples of extreme incivility and personal attack, and generates doubt whether this user really has any constructive motive. Sorry, but I cannot see that as a good faith edit. 88.101.59.19 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC) --- — 88.101.59.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

They are obviously attacks, at least the ones you presented. I also notice that most of these arguments occur in article relating to Hungary. If the community does decide to take action, I would suggest a topic ban on Hungary articles. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not so fast. The first was already dealt with in the previous ANI discussion, I believe. The second does not appear to me to be directed at anyone in specific (a reference was added, but it didn't replace a cn tag place by a "nationalist troll", as far as I can see). Now, "nationalist troll" is of course unacceptable language, and CoolKoon has a habit of discussing things in an all-too heated and personal matter. I wouldn't block for it, personally, but it's certainly near the borderline. Or, to put it in plain English, CoolKoon, what is wrong with you that you have to resort to such language? Clean it up or you will be blocked, if you're not blocked already as a result of this linguistic buffoonnery. BTW, speaking of bad faith--funny how those charges are typically brought by IPs who don't even have the courtesy of notifying the other editor. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand why we're revisiting this issue. I don't see any personal attacks (just heated discussion). I don't understand who the OP is (only edit under that IP address is this topic). CoolKoon should have been notified and wasn't (I've done so).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe "nationalist troll" crosses the line, but, in context, I still maintain it's just heat. CoolKoon's intemperance could be improved, but doesn't just name-call, he also provides long (too long) susbtantive reasons for his opinions. I wouldn't recommend a block for this.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Thanks for the notification, Bbb, and the edit conflict (you troll!). But in my book, "nationalistic troll" isn't an acceptable part of a discussion--"troll" never is. Unless, of course, they're referring to me, haha. Hey, I have an idea. You place a warning of sorts on their talk page, maybe one with words and stuff, and I close this unless some fireworks happen soon. Unless, of course, the IP discloses what their user name is and BOOMERANGs start flying. Drmies (talk)

A lengthy block seems appropriate if he makes a habit of this and has been warned before. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Fred--you prompted me to look more carefully, and I noticed he did explain the term on his talk page--it comes with history, right above Bbb's ANI notification. I don't know if this changes matters or not, but they were certainly warned for it. His block log is clean. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that, too, and he clarified that hadn't used the word "troll" to apply to that particular editor but didn't withdraw it as applied to an IP (and he explained why). I suppose you're technically right about the word "troll", but I find other slurs far more offensive than troll. Usually, when a non-troll is called a troll, it's kind of silly and obviously wrong (I've been called a troll and it doesn't bother me because I may be many things but troll isn't one of them), so it's not the same as being called a racist or even being called brainless. Anyway, he got the warning - whether he needs a more emphatic warning, I dunno, I'll leave that to others - but a block is overkill.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What about the drive-by IP that didn't have the courage to post under his user ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of possibilities, including a banned user known to impersonate CoolKoon (see his talk page--and I'm assuming "he" since I have a friend called Koen, haha). I don't want to speculate. I still feel that a warning (another warning) should be enough. There's a certain amount of stress in that field (ahem) which explains but does not justify. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your typical user would not use an IP to report himself in hopes of getting himself blocked. Unless he's a true eccentric. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what Drmies said. He said that the IP was not a sock of CoolKoon but a banned user who impersonates CoolKoon. At least that's what I think he meant.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No question he's likely a sock. I couldn't figure out what imitating CK had to do with anything. But if appropriate action has been taken, maybe boxing this one up would be in order ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, that message from the IP does look rather hastily written. I'm surprised that I was stupid enough to fall for his phony report. Would someone please WP: Trout me? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, CoolKoon did use that language, no doubt. Fred, you're the odd one out, it seems, if you'll pardon my French. Any thoughts? I'm not going to close this until I hear from you, and depending on your comments this may not be closed at all just yet. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why would anyone want to trout a 15-year-old editor who is mature enough to acknowledge a "mistake". I know adults who would sooner die than admit they were mistaken. What I would recommend, though, considering how long you've been at Wikipedia, is stop hanging around ANI and go edit some articles. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you, those compliments mean a lot to me! I am trying to edit more articles, I see mistakes all the time and I should correct them more often! Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, rereading his post, he just seems extremely put upon. Not cool, but within bounds. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I'm starting to see the point in keeping me comments brief. So let me see: the IP 88.101.59.19 geolocates to Prague, Czech Republic (Czech's mutually intelligible with Slovak), which's still WELL within User:Bizovne's reach. BTW this is his second attempt to defame me within a week or so (the first one didn't work out), and I can only tell what I told on my talk page and in the older ANI entry: So no, the comment was NOT meant for you and if you have any doubts about the true nature of Bizovne (that he's a Slovak nationalist troll), just read my translations of the posts he's made on my talk page. What's worse is that he's even created an account in my "honor": User:CoolKoon jebe svoji matku (=CoolKoon's fucking his mother).. Also, hese are the "discussions" I had with Bizovne in Slovak (and subsequently translated all of them to English): [180], [181] and [182]. I hope you can see from all these texts of Bizovne that he's trying his best to harass me in whichever way he seems fit: a hateful Slovak post here, an ANI report there, and a harassment account too. Yes, I'm aware that I've made some strong statements against him, but I feel REALLY helpless against his practices. Since he keeps changing his IP addresses (and manufactures socks just to torment me), I doubt that any admin tools at hand would change this. So the best I can do is to keep telling "his story" again and again (every time he accuses me of something). -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:17, 30 June 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:Metricopolus

Not sure what's wrong with the user, but appears to just be reverting everything, including ClueBot. [183] [184] [185] Aboutmovies (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure either. Blocked the account as possibly compromised and left a note. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)