Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive771

Copyright violations by User:Uriahdan

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.

---

• Uriahdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A few days ago, I opened a WP:CCI on this user (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Uriahdan) and issued a final warning for copyright violations. The user's latest major addition is almost certainly a copyvio. The user is completely unresponsive to talk page messages. MER-C 00:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely—at least until he requests unblocking and demonstrates that he understands why he was blocked and won't do it again. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch here, good call. – Connormah (talk) 00:35, 4 October 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.

Delete broken archives in my userspace

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.

---

[1], first page. I would tag for U1 (all relevant revisions are on main talk page, text is in archives), but it's a total of 8 pages, a fair bit of tagging. ⁓ Hello71 01:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Dianna (talk) 03:11, 4 October 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.

Rcsprinter Non Admin Closures

After he recently closed an RfD in which he was involved, I have a few doubts about some of this editors other closes and wondered if an uninvolved admin could look his closures over for other problems. Snottywong's Admin AfD counter seems to show a few debates where the consensus is not clearly with his close, and checking a few others individually seems to show cases where he ignores stronger arguments for one position, instead opting for a headcount siding with the opposing position (particularly worrying since the margins in many cases are low). I don't intend to start listing specific concerns with specific closes unless asked to do so (or I would be as well taking all the many cases to deletion review) but a few pairs of eyes looking over his closes would be advantageous. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at his AFD participation with scottywong's tool and see the last afd he closed was on the 27th...he closed it as no consensus which seemed to be the right decision. I suppose he could've relisted or let an administrator do it, but I don't see any glaring issue here. Note: I'm not an admin, just an interested editor. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look back further you can find some more questionable ones, but they are pretty old to bring up at AN/I now, and certainly too stale to reopen. The ones in the last month or so are certainly within the range of acceptable discretion in closing) If anyone wants to, the simple thing to do would be to renominate articles if they disagree with the close (depending on the closer a note explaining why the old discussion shouldn't prejudice the new one may or may not influence them). Monty₈₄₅ 02:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The ones in the last month are still marginal Advance Romance for instance has two deletes that it doesn't meet the GNG and one keep that it's "well known" - The only two Policy based arguments form a consensus that it doesn't meet GNG and whilst No Consensus is a valid close, it flies n the face of the fact that a month previously he closed Island province with a similar voting ratio though numerically oppositely weighted with a keep rather than no consensus (and the delete argument there was stronger than the keep for Advance Romance). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would say the difference there is fine, its substantially different circumstance when not a single editor but the nominator supports deletion then it is when there is a 2:1 split in favor of deletion. Regarding Advance Romance, The nominator makes a good WP:MUSIC deletion argument. The delete !voter makes a generic deletion argument that does not address whether or not this particular song meets the notability guidelines, if it were agreed the article did pass, the argument made would probably not carry much if any weight. The keep !voter makes a general notability argument without clearly labeling it as such and points to the fact the article is well cited, and it does in fact have 2 citations that support general notability, though the first is questionably reliable, the second one clearly is. So we have one good delete argument, one very weak delete, and one moderately good keep argument. Could it have been relisted? Yes, but after a week with no comments, to close it seems reasonable, and it would be a big stretch to argue it should have been deleted on the close. Monty₈₄₅ 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say not really, in a 3 person vote 1 voter is often the article creator or a prominent editor of the article, 1 voter is the nominator and we would hope that third would be impartial. Giving the nominators argument less weight in a 2:1 split implies a bias to the article creator no matter what their argument, it's exactly the kind of bias that consensus should eliminate during the discussion process. On Advance Romance if the second source made more than a passing mention of "Advance Romance" the point might have been valid, but as it is the mention was only passing so does not constitute "Significant coverage" per the GNG and as the first source is self published then the GNG was not met and the keep voter's claim fails to answer the deletion reasoning and should be considered accordingly. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Advance Romance was open two weeks, not a single person participated after it was relisted. Apathy itself demonstrates a lack of consensus, since most votes at AfD are to delete, by a 2 to 1 margin. In a case like this, defaulting to a no consensus conclusion (which means you can renominate it tomorrow) is less destructive than deleting it with a questionable consensus. So as far as this one AfD, it was a reasonable judgment call that many would have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NONADMINCLOSURE "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." When the difference is 1 !vote, that would seem to be a "close call". -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the close itself is procedurally defective. It is prudential advice to avoid controversy such as this. While we should all aspire to follow best practices, failing to do so is not in and of itself a reason to revert. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most closes should be left to an admin but since we do allow them I can't help but to ignore the bit and not look at it as a "non-admin" closure, but just as a closure. As such, my impression is that most people would have closed it this way, so I don't see this as particularly contentious, nor a cause of alarm. This doesn't mean that everyone will agree with the close, but that most would or at least see the logic and utility in it. In general, I believe "no consensus" closes are less contentious to begin with, as it amounts to a punt to a state that existed before the AFD, not a declaration that the community has spoken to keep or delete. For an AfD that fails to draw a crowd that cares enough one way or another, that is probably the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't actually said the close on "Advance Romance" was bad - in fact I said that it was perfectly valid, though I questioned why "No Consensus" wasn't being equally in the Island Province when the nominator was strongly challenging the keep rationale and the voting was equally marginal. Dennis' points about apathy and Advance Romance being a reasonable judgement actually question the whole process of deletion in the case of low profile subjects as the AfD that fails to generate enough discussion becomes only as useful as a PROD - even if strongly valid rationales for deleting are made and weakly challenged.though the latter is a question for the village pump rather than here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Although this is a report of RCS actions in a series of issues concerning a single feature of Wikipedia processes, I feel that in the light of his editing history, we need to look at the bigger picture. While obviously acting in GF, in spite of some more serious issues and the advice in a recently failed RfA, he is still constantly having brushes with policies.

I think it would be a very good idea if RCS were to agree to stay away for a while (6 months?) from anywhere that needs a !vote or a carefully considered judgement or opinion. While the technical side of Wikipedia can be learned, maturity is something particular to the individual that only develops with time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not very well suited for bigger picture discussions -- I'd suggest RFC/U if you feel such an action is appropriate. Nobody Ent 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good idea, and fair, but with the exception of RfAs, please. Stating my opinion on a candidate oughtn't to be restricted. Six months. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 22:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As Dennis said, the only time a NAC is appropriate is when the consensus is clear and when the closure does not require an action that requires certain user rights that the user does not have (Admins closing XFDs, Bureaucrats closing RFAs, etc.). An exception to this might be WP: AN/RFC, an area where I help out and Dennis helps run, where non-admins help close many of the RFCs that don't require the admin tools. I'd like to draw some attention to this closure of an RFA. You won't see it because RCS never listed it at WP: RFAU. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. Additionally, it would be best if RCS didn't make any NACs for the next 6 months, but he should be allowed to vote in RFXs, XFDs, RFCs, etc. He's a member of the community, just as we all are, and he should be allowed to have a say in the community processes, despite his inappropriate closures. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I disagree. While there have been lapses in judgment, there has not been a pattern of disruption or unwillingness / inability to improve--not to mention the fact that he has been less disruptive than many editors who are (rightfully) under no restriction. While Rcsprinter should exercise more caution in closing things (and indeed, consider leaving it to others), and more eyes on his work would help, saying he shouldn't take part in discussions seems more humiliating than anything. I am willing to trust that he'll learn from this, as he has from other incidents, and be able to make better considered decisions for himself in the future. wctaiwan (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Alice in Chains - Possible intervention needed

First off, I sincerely hope this is the right place to bring this up. If not, I apologize and hope a kind admin can move it to where it needs to go. There is a long discussion (almost like an informal RfC) going at Talk: Alice in Chains - Proposal regarding changes made to this article, which is a featured article. In further review it almost looks like it could be 3-4 people going in circles over changes to the article. But I am having a hard time trying to figure out if there is any violations or anything of important to the administrator's community here, and am thinking this is something that needs to be looked at by an admin or two, as it seems to be going around in circles, and going nowhere fast. Thank you for your time. (Because this matter involves an article's talk page, I didn't place the ANI-notice template there, as it doesn't apply to any one specific person.) NECRAT^{Plates On} 07:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I see some mild incivility, but nothing requiring admin intervention. Sounds like a job for WP:DRN. Bobby Tables (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

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.

---

Re: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs)

Came across this character following his raising a complaint at MilHist, a few weeks ago, but because they clearly did not resolve it to his personal satisfaction he took the issue to RFD without notifying anyone. At the time he left a number of uncivil remarks towards someone in the RFD. I asked him to tone it down, as I was uninvolved in the matter, and he became uncivil with an abrupt high-horse attitude about him, with total lack of AGF: User talk:Incnis Mrsi#September 2012.

Two weeks later I was asked to look into his recent behaviour, via email. Did so, still uninvolved, and he has persisted with his arrogant manner of leaving blunt edit summaries, accusing editors of being bad or wasteful, and that he is somehow "perfect" and should never he reverted because he takes insult to it. A strong ownership attitude exists in his behaviour also. He has claimed to have quit editing on Russian Wiki because of double standards, but it is clear that he sets the standards himself, often contrary to Wiki policy, and has a total IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to anyone asking that he stop leaving uncivil, border-line personal attack remarks. I wouldn't say he was down-right offensive, but his manner of "outing" editors as being poor or inexperienced is hardly appropriate in the face of the poor editor retention we have at present. Following this (User talk:Incnis Mrsi#Personal Attack) lengthy discussion, he went on to pursue his disrespect towards editors, and has been asked again to lay off. Again, he claims not to be in the wrong... ever.

I'm not asking for a block here, his actual edits are neither controversial nor disruptive, but his behaviour is certainly unwarranted, and it is inappropriate for him to react with spite towards every editors commenting on his behaviour. I think a couple of admins need to give this fellow a few pokes, after reviewing his edit summaries and underhand remarks towards a few editors, lately. Maybe he will get the jist, given that he feels only someone with authority has the right to rebuke him, then I don't see any other way, he ignores everyone else's concerns. My own remarks started off politely, but his egotistic responses just started to drive me nuts after a while, because he refuses to accept that he is ever saying anything wrong, in an annoying "civil POV pusher" fashion, even with 3 or 4 editors stating the opposite, so the discussions linked do start to lose coherence in a way. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation - much the same experience from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I am not the best Wikipedia user, but this request is made in a bad faith. Yes, I know what I said and I am ready to account for my words.

• You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced.
• Maybe you should start listening to those of us encouraging you to do that, before you dig your own grave into AN/I, hmmm?
• You can tell a good editor by the praise/barnstars on their talkpage. You have one in 6 years. Perhaps not everyone feels you're helping en-Wiki become better, because your attitude to fellow-editors speaks more than your contribs which go unnoticed as a result. Shame..

This three diffs should be sufficient, for an experienced user, to detect the nominator's motivation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting people out of context, is bad faith. Accusing me of bad faith is also bad faith, given than there is plenty of evidence at hand that cannot be denied. Your first quote, for example, was a response to you stating "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user". You only highlighted my point that you think yourself better than everyone. You issued a challenge to my experience, it was met. Don;t cry about it now your civility is being questioned towards multiple editors. Quoting me, only proves you have a beef with anyone who questions your manner. You haven't even made an attempt to defend your rude edit summaries, "bad editor" outing, ownership, being "insulted by reverts", and so on and so forth. I've already openly stated that conversations with you spiral out of control, because you're massively incapable of expressing guilt, so your quotes are irrelevant tit-for-tat. This ANI thread is about you, and your history of incivility. I suggest you direct your immediate attention to that matter, and not me. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same experience at User talk:StringTheory11 and Superatom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, to save people time searching for what StringTheory11 is specifically referring to: User talk:StringTheory11 dispute and Superatom edit summary. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the history of the Incnis Mrsi's talk page, people don't seem to have accused him if in-civility or personal attacks or stuff like that until about September 2012 (but I could be wrong), and he's been here sense 2008. Might the account be compromised? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can ask the people on Wikimedia channels at Freenode, it's genuinely me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is here on Wikipedia merely to look for trouble, not to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia. And dealing with this user is all the more tedious because he/she seems to like to argue points of English language usage with editors who, unlike him/her, are native speakers. Here are a couple differences from my encounters with Incnis Mrsi:

• Me trying to be gracious in spite of my doubts of IM's intentions: [2]
• IM demonstrating what seems to be his/her edit summary MO: [3]

Eric ^talk 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You claimed my edit to be "erroneous" (without explicit arguments, but already with a pronounced doubt about my good faith), I tried to discuss it. Is AN/I a proper place to air grievances about disagreements in one article, or (possibly) even two or three? BTW, a mediation eventually reduced the problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have a long experience of interaction with Incnis Mrsi in Russian Wikipedia, where, especially in the end, this interaction was far from pleasant, and one one occasion I even met them in person at a WikiMeetup. Incnis Mrsi is certainly not a poster boy, they are sometimes incivil and often fail to hear others, and their communication skills are not ideal. On the other hand in most cases the points they are trying to make are valid, and their contribution to the articles is highly valuable. I do not have a good solution, but I personally just learned to ignore the trash they are saying (and believe me it was not easy, for instance, when they came to rally against me at the Arbcom elections) and to extracting valid points. I do not think any formal restrictions would work (except for the full ban of course but then we lose their contributions while gaining nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Answered on the personal talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about this ANI thread off-board, perhaps it should not be in the form of further personal attacks: "I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction" - this is exactly – the point I'm trying to make about your repeated high-horse attitude, and how what you believe is somehow better than what everyone else thinks,per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You always want the last word, and it's the only one you think is "right". Your disregard for the "collaborative spirit" of Wiki is of more concern than anything. Your bully-style attitude, telling people what "not" to do, "never" to do, why they are "waste makers", why you are somehow superior as an "experienced metapedian" is just not appropriate. In short, you talk down to everyone like they're shit on your shoe, and it's that condescending manner than I and others disapprove of, and the fact you can't accept it because of whatever pride/ego you have only for yourself presents a massive COI blindsightedness in favour of your opinions. The fact that you refer to almost everyone who holds a dispute with you as a "troll" and ignore them is also a poor show of will to resolve an issue; you lack tact and communication skills, again, because you somehow you feel you are superior to the rest of us, as is evident in that quote, apparently "the community" has no power over you alone. Funny.. I thought that was the whole point of consensus building: to reach mutual understandings, not let one man exert his will over others like some dictator. You do that, be bashing people with repeat ignorance of their views, and forceful reassertion of your own. It's not how Wiki works. Are you getting this? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody think that MarcusBritish went far beyond the point where his efforts to persuade me to become more civil can be, actually, useful for this community? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, do you think that? As I said before, this isn't about me, people are commenting about you, and with a number of editors now raising behaviour concerns, I suggest you stop trying to create a fork in the discussion. Also, reading between the lines, your reply reads as, "I don't want to be civil.. if I can somehow drive MarcusBritish off, no one can stop me doing whatever I want". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

… namely: searching for illegal redirects (unfortunately, not always CSD-eligible), users and scripts inserting dashes instead of minus signs, and WP:DICTIONARY articles (which are much more common than is usually thought of). Not counting, sometimes, writing large section or even entire articles, despite "my non-native English". I make a job useful for Wikipedia. If I make certain mistakes in etiquette, then I would prefer to be corrected by a people without serious problem with etiquette and good faith, themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been approached by several people for your etiquette, and dismissed them all as "trolls" or "bigots" or "waste-makers", because you apply own limited-vision of who you deem proper to approach you, which appears to be noone. Your preferences are irrelevant, as you are requesting (demanding) to be informed of policy breaches on your own terms. Tell me, how does a guy intelligent enough to edit physics and mathematical articles, lack the ability to apply that same level of intelligence to his social-skills, or a little inner-self psychology, and realise that he is being unsociable towards people? You've admitted that you are "ready to account for my words", so why not start doing that, instead of putting a spin on your attitude, flipping-off your detractors, and show a little constraint when it comes to lashing out at people, instead of treading on editors contributors, as your edit summaries show you do with indiscriminate irreverence. Civility is probably easier to learn and apply than the laws of physics.. how about you start giving it a try, instead of maintain that stubborn, and to be frank - selfish - attitude that you have. Yes, civility is useful for the community, without it Wiki would fail. Why did you quit Russian-Wiki and come over to English-Wiki.. "double standards" or because they too insisted on proper etiquette that you can't live up to? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, I think that. With this, EEng will likely come to sanctions. It is this irresponsive flamewar which caused him to lift any control of his own conduct. Who will account for his imminent block and/or sanctions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, in this thread? No one.. it's about you.. no one willaccept a shift of blame from you to him. You could open a new thread, but I'll lay odds that it will WP:BOOMERANG because everyone will see it for exactly what it is.. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

With 4 or 5 editors having expressed a similar concern here, is there a willing admin looking into the matter further? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh... Yes, but I'm starting into a much more ugly and complicated one further up on the page. Another uninvolved admin is encouraged to try and take a look, I will probably not have time sooner than tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Don't worry, this one isn't particularly "ugly" just a little spread-out, might take a bit of looking into, I've only been a little involved in the recent developments, personally, so I can't say how much deeper it goes or the best way to resolve it, because said editor does not seem to care about resolving anything due to not accepting being at fault to begin with. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what I would consider personal attacks or even incivility so much as odd and disruptive comments regarding other editors. For example, saying X is a waste maker is literally true -- both human and bot editors generate waste heat and of course humans generate biological waste -- so one has to try to infer meaning.
• The removal of such comments is problematic. Although there was no blowback in this case, such removal of comments by higher status editors would typically cause a fracas.
• Incnis Mrsi seems to be generally right on content but needs to improve their interaction with other editors. Quite simply, comment on edits not on the other editors.
• Note: This is a quintessential WP:WQA issue -- no admin action is needed here -- and illustrates the folly of closing that forum without first establishing a realistic replacement. But hey, the tribe has spoken. Nobody Ent 12:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Somehow, I don't think someone is going to call a person a "waste maker" because their body generates waste heat or dumps shit... that's cutting it a bit thin and taking AGF too far... Regardless, fortunately the precise meaning can be found in his own words: User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary#W - a "botcher" (User:Incnis_Mrsi/Glossary#B) even describes it as "may be fairly harmful", this being true, why does he use it so much? One can't admit that a term is harmful, then claim not to be uncivil.. that would be hypocrisy. And calling someone a botcher or a waste-maker is essential contrary to AGF.. it's virtually accusing them of vandalism. Not civil terms. In fact, I find it disturbing that a guy who edits calculus/physics articles sees fit to maintain a list of negative words to use in summaries and comments.. add "imbecile", "twat" and "retard" into the list and he'd have the ultimate glossary of anti-AGF words. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• WP:WQA has been terminated, and WP:DR is for resolving disputes. The problem here is that the editor is uncivil, and when asked to control his attitude even by uninvolved editors, he basically tells them to "fuck off and mind their own business".. so yes, admin intervention is needed here to look into this editor's behaviour - not his editing, his overall conduct with regards to rude edit summaries, antagonising comments to other editors such as ownership-like remarks, pretentious comments, and total disregard for other editors opinions. When an editor is allowed to be uncivil, without warning, or ignoring all concerns, they think they can get away with anything. That is the "potential blowback".. he even admits above that trying to force him to be uncivil is impractical use of ANI time, which is essentially admitting that he does not want to be civil and does not feel anyone is good enough to tell him otherwise. If that isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. The more eyes there are on this guy's interactions, the better. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks to MarcusBritish he posted the link to my glossary, although I did not advertise it anywhere, even on my user: page ;) First, a "waste-maker" (sorry, I did not find a better English expression) does not necessary produce only waste and never a product of acceptable quality. Though, if a construction worker improperly installs, say, "only" 2 beams out of 40, then he can be not only fired out, but fined and even imprisoned. Happily, Wiki is not a building construction, but monitoring for low visible waste such as invalid redirects and improper characters, and, in some cases, even arguing with persons (accidentally) making such a waste, consume valuable resources of (other) users. Second, waste-making is perfectly compatible with a good faith, under such conditions as "ignorance" and "negligence". It is another thing which is not compatible with good faith: a harassment towards a specific user because he argued with another user(s) about quality issues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• It sounds as if you're attempting to try us under the Law of Spikelets for the destruction of collective property. Are we all to be shot, or sent to the gulags? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Advertise, no, edit, yes.. thus it's plain to see on your contribs list.. no secret really, anyone might have noticed it. And we all have a Special:PrefixIndex/User:Incnis_Mrsi/ page.. so again, no secrets here on Wiki, son. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 11:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+428)‎ . . User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary ‎ (+waste) (top) [rollback 3 edits]

Per WP:5P:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

So once again, I repeat that your Wikihounding list, condoning mistakes by User:Jarble is a direct attack, contrary to "do not worry about making mistakes". The list and manner in which you delivered it was uncivil. The only time that might be appropriate is if the edits were vandalism or controversial.. but in this case they were all trivial errors, typos, and you simply bullied him by making him out to be a useless (ie "waste-maker") editor. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, less try this for a tack. Incnis Mrsi, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia, so if you are looking for a view from an editor given some kind of status by the community, that's me. I have three pieces of advice, which may make your editing experience less confrontational.
• First - On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
• Second - if you are trying to use a Russian expression and are uncertain of it's translation, don't use it - say something simpler. For example, the expression "waster" in English is terribly rude when applied to someone, and that's how everyone has been reading your 'waste-maker' (and getting angry with you because it sounded like you are being terribly rude). What you are referring to is a situation in which an editor appears to make a significant number of mistakes such as misplaced dashes or erroneous characters.
• Third - it may be considered unreasonable to pick on editors for making minor errors in spelling, punctuation etc, unless it is a really massive problem (they have just run a script that accidentally replaced every n-dash with an underscore or something like that). Normally, to assist everyone in rubbing along together, it's better to ignore minor mistakes in talkpage edits, and fix them without fuss in articles, and see if you can find a tactful way to say "are you having problems with....." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not minor mistakes is human edits is a problem. Scripts which allow to make multiple errors, which are hard to detect, is a problem. And this becomes a very problem (yes, my English is funny) when automated users are unwilling to fix their scripts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One can only wonder, AGF aside, if his lack of response, despite actively editing since Elen commented, is further indication of Incnis' disregard for others opinions, as he was evidently willing to argue with everyone else of less "authority" – not sure if there's anything more can really be done at this stage, but I hope there are a few more eyes on his questionable interactions as a result, rather than let this matter be swept under the proverbial rug. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppet comments not related to topic – SPI/CU confirmed as blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have encountered Marcus here before but indirectly as an anonymous IP, he was involved in a dispute almost a year ago that spiraled out of control, having trawled through the OP's history of contributions I can safely say that he is not innocent of incivility, as he is also guilty of battleground and bullish behavior that conveniently has been buried under a mass of recent edits. An example is an editor review submitted by said OP, when asked for an opinion. an editor then provided Marcus with some constructive criticism, Marcus than unbelievably personally berates and is very incivil towards the editor, but a more extreme example of the OP's incivility issues was when he threatened an editor in real life after a long and lengthy dispute over something stupid, this editor appears to have then be driven over the edge. With all due respect to you Marcus, you appear to have some good contributions despite everything else but you are the last person who should be submitting an AN/I report for incivility as you appear to love the drama so I suggest you stay away from AN/I for your own sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exquisiterottingcorpse (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC) The above is this brand-new editor's first and only edit. Hmmmmm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, don't worry.. that'll undoubtedly be my favourite Irish stalker, User:Sheodred – I'm sure he fancies me. Feed him some WP:ROPE then I'll pass it to WP:SPI, again.. Reported to WP:SPI. He has more blocked accounts than braincells now. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good one fresh out of the oven [4]. EEng (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Funny how editors who lecture others about English mechanics so often are the same ones whose contribution histories are littered with "(reduced an overlinking and cleansed a lame typography)" [5] and similar examples of unintentional self-parody.

So ironic that he tells someone that their skills are insufficient to copyedit an article, yet follows up with a very poorly worded question. Perhaps showing that they should refrain from offering advice when they've got similar issues? Blackmane (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Given that Incnis is now obviously ignoring this thread in the hope that given time others will grow bored and it will self archive with nothing actioned, what.s the way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs)

The way forward is to go forward. A legit concern was raised, and multiple editors, capped by Really High Status Elen have addressed Incnis. Either their future behavior will be appropriate or it won't. If the former, nothing more needs to be done, if the latter, another ANI or RFCU can be opened. Nobody Ent 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whose Really High Status? Give a link or diff to "a very respectable editor who already addressed Incnis Mrsi", please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Elen of Roads' reply above.. having stated they're a member of Arbcom, what more do you expect.. Jimbo Wales to reply personally? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of typical behavior for Incnis Mrsi -- check out the discussion here for example, which Incnis Mrsi begins with typical massive incivility and personal insults. When Incnis Mrsi discovers that s/he has been wrong about several factual points in the discussion (e.g., whether a merge template was used) s/he simply ignores the new information. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a typical behavior of a good Wikipedia user. Incnis Mrsi and D.Lazard (talk · contribs) in 2½ days wrote the article square (algebra), something that JBL was unable, or unwilling, to do in 3 weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the time it takes to write an article have to do with anything? That's just another typical uncivil remark where you compare yourself to other editors and claim to be somehow better. Doesn't the whole block of remarks above indicate how your persistence in that manner is unwelcome, because it's rude and not collaborative language? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Square (algebra) article predates the filing of this ANI -- Incnis has already been encouraged to improve their collaboration moving forward; finding additional examples of past behavior isn't useful. Nobody Ent 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of it all! — Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Dealing with harassment and "personal" trolling... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[6] Nobody Ent 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I did not find it in this  for some reason. Thanks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Now this really takes the cake. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Does seem somewhat hypocritical.. not that it matters, Arbcom wouldn't take the case unless it had unsuccessfully passed through other channels first.. for all his mathematical and scientific editing ability, can't understand why he didn't grasp that. I think it's more important we try to resolve this now though.. six days is more than enough preliminary discussion time for such a straight-forward matter, hence why I proposed some kind of resolution below, before this gets too tedious and appears as WP:BAITING, as Incnis has clearly frayed a few nerves lately. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that Incnis Mrsi does not abide uncivil remarks towards himself, despite his own behaviour towards others. He has opened an ironic RFC against EEng. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EEng Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained here I stand by my interactions with I.M. EEng (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some administrator involvement so we can wrap this up. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been a distinct lack of admin interest on this, apart from Elen – Incnis tried giving her one of his typical brow beatings yesterday without success, as he seems to becoming despondent due to lack of support for his RFC and behaviour. I'm not sure where this is even going to end up, myself... he seems keen to stand his futile ground. Though from where I'm standing, he might as well be facing a firing squad, the amount of opinion he has drawn against him, standing solo. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let me get something out of the way first: he's still not getting the message, as seen in an exchange today on an article's Talk [7]:

Incorrect Molar Mass The reported molar mass of the "hydron" is 1.00794 g/mol. Isn't that the molar mass of the hydrogen atom? The molar masses are based on the mass of a proton, so the molar mass of the hydrogen cation should be exactly one. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just Learn Physics Better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in all seriousness I'm beginning to wonder if the reason he's not getting the message is that he quite literally can't understand it. Consider this recent post by I.M. to another editor's Talk [8]:

I reverted your edit except its only part which was substantiated: removal of {{pi}}. I know that this was rude, but discarding a legitimate improvement, namely √2, by your edit, was silly. If you want to know, why I behave rude and do attack (you), then ask on my user_talk, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I submit there are two possibilities. Either

hypothesis (a) (the uncharitable interpretation) I.M. revels in the practice of what might be called "open and gross rudeness", or

hypothesis (b) (the charitable interpretation) he does not comprehend basic English words such as rude, attack, and silly.

If the answer is (b) then perhaps the controlling principle needed here is WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty:

If someone can't use English well, and can't discuss things with other editors very well, consider trying to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other-language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.

EEng (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

He won't per this:

"The stranglehold of double standards was the main reason why I ceased to contribute to Russian Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)"

I suspect that means he pulled the same stunts there as here and became outcast for not being civil or cooperative. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, English Wikipedia has its double standards too ☺ although these are quite different. My comment "user:… makes waste" was immediately obstructed, but most of blatantly disruptive and flame-provoking comments were not. And you all know, why these disruptive comments were not obstructed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I.M.'s response gives further weight to my hypothesis (b) above. In addition to, perhaps, trying again at the Russian WP (do they have WP:CLEANSTART?), I suggest in all seriousness that perhaps the Simple English Wikipedia might be a great place for his contributions -- they seem in dire need of help in the mathematics and sciences. I don't know what that idea means in terms of a proposal for what should happen here at en, but he certainly can't be allowed to continue the way he's going, and since he can tread water in an ocean of criticism for weeks on end yet emerge absolutely unwetted, it seems like mentoring is a nonstarter. EEng (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Simple Wiki is designed to present information in Basic English and suggests that there are only 2,000 common English words. You probably have to be good at English in order to determine how to select the right words for a non-English speaker to understand.. people like Incnis use broken English, with common and comples words, but quite muddled.. that's not Simple English Wiki's aim, and he would easily become more frustrated there than here, because a non-native speaker is less likely to be a walking thesaurus and know Simple English alternatives. I expect the maths and physics aren't up to his level either. He may be Russian, but he's not Aleksandr Orlov ("Simples!").Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And an advice to users who are upset with me, such as Andy Dingley, JBL and StringTheory11: try to give me a positive view of the etiquette, instead of participating in flamewars. Of course, I know that I should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate my point, myself, but with this bashing campaign I am already not sure, what I may do and what I must not do. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. But you'd do better to take it, before you give it. In fact, that would be the best place for to start.. by taking advice and stop knocking those who offer it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marcus! I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source. I am sure in the good faith of e.g. Andy Dingley despite his hectic attitude and direct breaches of AGF towards me. Sorry that I see here so few users experienced in content creation and a topical (damn!) interaction. My impression about users depends first on their own conduct, and only after that on my prejudices. I do not discard an other guy's opinion only because I do not like it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but "I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source." is also not AGF.. surely you see that? When people give advice you are supposed to either acknowledge it (mean you neither accept not refuse it), or respond positively.. "thanks for the advice.." you don't attack the advisor out of paranoia, distrust, or for any reason, it's uncivil, rude, not AGF, and not likely to make other people offer you good advice, because you turn them off giving it. You don't have to accept anyone's advice.. but when you don't, you don't have to tell them that. Better to say nothing, than give a seemingly "nasty" response. Understand? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble that people are having with you, I.M, is that all that people have been telling you is that your interaction style (or lack of) is exactly the problem. Your "paranoia" causes you to refuse "advices from every source" even from those of us who have never interacted with you. Experience in content creation does not give you a blank check to insult, attack or dismiss others. Unfortunately, you even acknowledge that you are rude and attack others that was posted above. It looks like what you need isn't a sanction or anything, but a mentor on the expected culture here, and maybe the western world in general, and how to get your point across without being insulting. Blackmane (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's virtually what I've proposed below.. a short period of mentoring in interaction. I though you opposed it though, or were not in full agreement with the idea that he might be mentor-able? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was me that said that ( I may be wrong, I say or write a lot of things that I subsequently forget) Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just below you suggested a 1RR and block if this returns to ANI, and no need for mentoring. Not sure what would be best, though. He's got a new message put up on his userpage. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Struck the last part of my post else I'd be contradicting myself. Blackmane (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the message is something. Will be interesting to see what comes of it. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This thread has dragged on for a very long time, multiple editors have commented confirming User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility across a number of article talk and user talk pages, in addition to my concern over his blunt edit summaries. So far, despite all these remarks, and an Arbcom admin commenting because Incis only expects to be rebuked by an "authority figure", he has failed to acknowledge the comments, has not voluntarily agreed that there is a problem that he should be taking steps to deal with, instead he continues to argue with editors across a number of talk pages and WP:BATTLEGROUND is becoming the case, including the initial signs of war editing, as reverts begin to show. Let's not have this spiral out of control. Given that this issue does not relate to content disruptions, no topic ban should be required. An interaction ban might be appropriate, if this was very serious, but I'm not sure that it would be worth enforcing.. Incnis might be prudent to offer himself to a voluntary interaction ban, staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months, and keeping edit summaries to an absolute minimum by only stating edits effected, without commenting on other editors, or the state of the article, and no words from his "glossary". This would need monitoring, however. I propose, the best thing might be to see that Incnis receive the necessary mentoring, from an experienced mentor/adopt-a-user editor, who can focus specifically on his interaction skills, and help him understand the distinct differences between relevant and potentially "rude" remarks to other editors, and with respect to his non-native English, it is clear that he needs to be more careful and far less bullish, pride isn't required to be a good editor, as much as patience. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a mandatory interaction ban with the conditions MarcusBritish suggested, with the agreement that any violation of the restrictions would result in a block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the continuing aggressiveness, unpleasantness and lack of good faith (see for example the latest posts here in which Incnis Mrsi repeatedly misconstrues constructive comments and is borderline rude and aggressive) I support the proposal (in either the weaker or stronger form). --JBL (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should allow time to pass to see if Elen's suggestion is followed or not. Nobody Ent 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen's comments were made on the 25 Sept. He was still being abrupt after that. e.g. 28 Sept, 29 Sept. Given that he didn't even offer a courtesy response to Elen, do you expect people monitor him once this topic is archived.. unlike ex-WQA 24-hours and zap! archived and we have to start afresh, pain in the arse it is... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have overlooked this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

Thought I'd mention that he did reply, only 3 days later. It's indented under her reply so it's not easily seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The reply is completely non-responsive to any of the concerns raised here. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So he does... and all he does is comment further on what he sees as problematic, as though trying to justify his behaviour, but either completely ignores or fails to respond directly to the concerns Elen took the trouble to highlight about his behaviour which have been raised by several editors this week. Just seems like another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Only meant to say he responded, as opposed to responded in a meaningful way Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban. I support some sanction, but why an interaction ban between just two editors when the issue of User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility has affected other editors too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one proposed an interaction ban with one editor, it says "staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months" — so all editors, all article discussion pages, not including things like requesting admin help/ANI or a mentor's talk page, of course.. just none of his usual "nasty" messaging to IPs/other editors telling them what they've done wrong, no article talk posts as he also tends to upset people on those too. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a talk space ban, not an interaction ban in the usual sense of the term, which I don't think is the way to go. If he's edit warring, then slap an indefinite 1RR and a civility parole that the next ANI he's brought to is a 1 week block and it escalates from there. Simple and no need for monitoring. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There were only early-signs of war editing, I don't think a 1RR need be set unless it escalates. 3RR applies to everyone anyway. "interaction ban".. "talk space ban".. it's all interaction to me, I see no need to worry about semantics as long as it does the job. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This issue has dogged you for a week now. The nature of the ban doesn't matter half as much as the fact of it. Please stop User:Incnis Mrsi from driving away more editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrap this up?

Given that Incnis Mrsi has voluntarily chosen to enact an interaction ban between himself and, well, pretty much everyone (with an exception) for the next 2 months, I'd say that more or less closes out the above proposal as enacted. I guess it's wait and see what happens in 2 months time. Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes – if there's repeat uncivil behaviour over the next few months, give him a block and then he'll have to expect greater sanctions; I'm not too sure anyone can enforce his non-interaction, given that it's voluntary, and the lack of bold admin-interest or support over this sizeable week+ long discussion disgusts me. He'll be known and closer watched now though. Thanks to Elen for trying, however. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:55, 4 October 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: Tifjo089 and irrational deletion

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

---

Hello, i am an ip user in Manitoba who is attempting to speak with Tifjo but every time i attempt to do so, my edits keep getting undone, by someone. I had a message on my talkpage presumably poasted by mdan052 saying that he's the one doing this, yet on Tifjo's page, Tifjo states that they are the one doing this,. I am askng him for clairification on a statement he made above in the section regarding Zaiger in which he says "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." I do not know if he means that he believes me to be Jared Milton, who is a well known youtube user who has made controvercial and just lane dumb statements. I've asked him once about an hour ago, the edit got deleted. i tried again, edit got deleted, message from Mdan052 on my ip talk page. Asked Mdan052 to quit undoing my edits and told him why i'm making them, repoasted my clairification request to tifjo's talk page, only for it to pull a Houdini again. I then see a section in tifjo's page about me falsly accusing Mdan052 of undoing my edits, then i post a message saying why i believed him/her to have done it. it disappears again. I repeated the message on Mdann052's talkpage and so far it is still there. I do not think that it is right for Tifjo to avoic me the way he is when i'm trying to get him to explain a statement he's saying to me. is it a threat? does he think i'm a troll? i am completely clueless as to what is going on here, and would ask that someone gets him to stop his behavior twards me. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can't speculate on Tijfo's reasons, but the edit history of their talk page makes clear (esp. this summary) that your comments are not welcome there, and they have a perfect right to remove them. It would be nice if that had been made clear in an actual response, but that doesn't alter the fact: please refrain from posting on Tijfo's talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • So what do they do? Post on the talk page again.[9]. Not a competent editor here to contribute positively. Doc talk 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Eh, plain talking doesn't seem to work with him: [10]. And by the way, he misquoted me in his ANI statement above. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "I have a feeling" isn't plain talking. Nobody Ent 19:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You tell me that you have a feeling that my "stay-tuhs will change" soon enough here, ("i have a feeling that your stay-tuhs here may change here soon enough") i want to know what you mean by that. and where else am i going to ask you, and in future, please let me know that you don't want to disguss it there, and tell me where i can ask you if not on your user talk page. and sorry for the misquote, i stand slightly corrected. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I fess up: I think you'll be made admin pretty soon. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey hey, sarcasm is my gig, lol. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) a friend of mine for some reason told me to "leave wikipedia alone" for some reason, so this is my last message for a long while untill he flies home. I am not a troll, i do not promote trolling, and i wanted to only see fareness. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• How about this; Tijfo098, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK, hinting/insinuating/quasi-threatening that another editor will be blocked when you lack any sort of admin ability to actually carry such a thing out. Mr. 199.101.61.190, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK and repeatedly posting on someone's talk page when they have made it clear that they do not wish to talk to you. There, my daily let's-make-peace duties are done. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 4 October 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.

Move of draft into mainspace

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 user has moved a sandbox rewriting of French Valley Airport into the mainspace as French Valley Airport/draft and then had the sandbox deleted by an admin. I don't want to CSD this article as duplicating an existing article topic (since valuable information might be lost), I can't merge the content into the existing article and have the page deleted (since the attribution of the merged content would be lost), and to the best of my knowledge such "subpages" are not permitted in mainspace. Whatever the right way to handle this is, it will surely involve admin tools, so I'll leave the matter to you folks. Deor (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, as Wikipedia:Subpages states, "Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace is disallowed" but an option is to move the article in the talk namespace, e.g. [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]. The redirect would need to be deleted though of course. The reason subpages in the article mainspace are disallowed is because the subpages could be found using Special:Random and can appear as the main article. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing as this was my mistake, I have moved the draft from French Valley Airport/draft to Talk:French Valley Airport/draft in compliance with WP:SUB. I see Riley has requested CSD already. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect has been deleted. but same with the draft itself.. Left a message for the deleting administrator. (Recreated) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:03, 4 October 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.

Copyedit help

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 a question for the administators.I have placed a copy of my fathers 2 presidential unit citations in the air corps/air force page as there was no listing for the 320th Bomb Group which recieved 2 citations during world war II. I have typed the exact citations as they are written froma copy of my fathers orders for both citations into the edit page. My question is how do I get this information into the catagoriy which it should be posted? There is a 330th BG listing but none for the 320th? So what I am asking is how do I get this article to show up on the page like the others so when someone looks at the air corps/air force presidential unit citations they will see the listing for the 320th Bomb Group just like the others on the page? I am very new to wikipedia and I looked at the help pages but did not see a how to place the article into the correct listing page where it should go?

Please let me know how to insert the 2 orders atricles in to the page wher it should be or can you do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitrdone1957 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This would need to be filled into the existing wikitable at the article Presidential Unit Citation (United States). I'm going to have a look at it, but next time please ask such questions on the talk page of the relevant article or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. This noticeboard is for administrative topics only. I'll drop you a note on user talk page when I'm done with editing the article so you can have a look at it. Oh, and please sign your contributions to talk pages and discussion boards like this by typing four tilde characters, ~~~~. This will add your username and a timestamp for reference. (N.B. please don't sign your edits to articles). De728631 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 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 section blanking header; long term pattern

24.147.80.78 (talk · contribs) has been continuously removing level 1 headers in articles if there are level 2 headers below them. This has been going on since September of this year. There are broader issues and warnings, none of which have been responded to, from this IP from June of this year. There appears to be good edits within the IP's history, and the subject matter suggests the same individual has been using the same IP since at least June. Yet as far as I can tell they have not responded to any inquiries about this behavior. In fact, before the section blanking started the IP had been contacted by editors about other issues, and blocked for them August 31. Not long after that block expired the editor started again, and that included removing section headers. The header blanking picked up about a month ago.

I, among others, have warned the IP multiple times, and been explicit about the reason. Yet just now the trend has continued again. I would post a list of diffs but a quick look at the history and the diffs with "section blanking" tags are pretty obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• The IP has already been blocked for vandalism only a month ago. I've now blocked again for one week. It's a dynamic IP so if this type of disruption resumes we may consider longer blocks. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The IP was removing level 2 headings if there were level three headings below them, not level 1 headers. A level 1 header is just generated by "=" rather than "==" and should never be used in articles. Graham87 05:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Stillstanding discussion of contributer against policy

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.

---

Stillstanding has posted information about another user not of any use to improving the article Homosexuality[11], and seems to be waging another personal war against an editor. I collapased the post and added the policy about discussing the content and not the contributer but he just uncollapsed it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (e/c)

First, I'll note that Amadscientist did not bother notifying me. In any case, everything they said turns out not to be the case. The purpose of the note I dropped was to let people know what LGR chose to do, particularly so that they knew not to make things worse for LGR by roping them back in during the two-week break; I referred to it as "teasing". My comment said nothing about whether LGR was improving the article, contained nothing insulting, and was not part of any sort of personal war. In fact, it's the result of my withdrawing an edit-warring report that looked likely to get them blocked. There's nothing here more than Amadscientist's misunderstanding, compounded by their violation of WP:AGF. I tried to discuss it with them about on their talk page, but instead of replying, they went to this drama factory. Likewise, I independently asked an admin involved with the edit-warring report for an opinion.[12] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Section removed, and I will block him if he restores it. I've had just about enough bullshit involving this editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You are way out of line. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, please please please just drop this and move on to something else. Zad68 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment has been removed and the editor has been warned. I recommend closing before the back-and-forth starts up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'll fully admit to being out of the loop on this one, but I don't see gloating here. There _could_ be gloating, but I really don't see it without a pretty strong squint. I agree SS should just drop this though--nothing to be gained here. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247...had another account previously I suppose?--MONGO 22:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should drop this and close it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  I was wondering if anyone was curious about his choice of username?--MONGO 23:08, 4 October 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.

Class project needs attention

Over the past few days there has been some activity from what appears to be a class project. The problem is that at least one student signed another student's post on a talkpage while another student under the name of Gingerkd (talk · contribs) added an unsourced BLP violation on Iran-Israel relations about Netanyahu. I gave out a few warnings to Gingerkd and User:Nmisgot but the group is large and there seems to be little supervision, so some admin attention may be required. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Check to see if you can identify the teacher by their account. Ask one of the students, and approach the teacher directly; and then send them to Wikipedia:School and university projects. From my experience in working with these situations, the teacher does do everything on the up-and-up, and is trying to do it the best they can, but clueless teenagers remain stubbornly clueless every time. --Jayron32 03:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For convenience, the students are part of the group User:Nmisgot/sandbox/Lib100 Students. Guessing from this, I'd assume the teacher is Nmisgot, and should be contacted as such, unless someone has some other indication regarding who the teacher is. --Jethro B 04:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - I left a comment on their talk page. There are a bunch of editors making posts on Nmisgot's talk page, referring to Nmisgot as "professor," so Nmisgot probably is the teacher. I asked just to make sure though. I'll see what happens. --Jethro B 04:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Thank you Jethro B. I'll also keep an eye to see where this goes and help point them to Jayron's links. I wouldn't want to see any more unsourced edits from that group, especially BLP vios. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it really does look like they are the teacher, I went and expanded my post to include the points of concern. I'll see what he/she responds. --Jethro B 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll keep an eye also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I've gone through each student's contributions to see if there were any violations still in articles. Most of the students have only edited talk pages, so I ignored those. The few students that added to articles have been reverted, by different editors, for various reasons, so as of now, we're good in terms of violations not being on these articles. --Jethro B 04:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also drop a note at the Education Noticeboard. It appears that this class isn't working within the education project framework, but editors there may be of help. The Interior (Talk) 05:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Jethro B 05:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple admin request to fix a ShadowCommons issue

Resolved

 – done. Graham87 05:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutshell: Could an admin please move File:Blank.svg to File:Fond blanc.svg (the same file, on Commons), and leave the redirect? Non-admins cannot make this type of move, and I will clean up inbound links once the move is completed.

Details: File:Blank.svg was uploaded in February 2006. Commons:File:Blank.svg was a completely different file uploaded in April 2006. Both are being used heavily. In 2007, the ENWP image was copied to Commons as Commons:File:Fond blanc.svg, but it was requested that the ENWP copy not be deleted. So now Commons:File:Blank.svg, which is a very useful file, cannot be used on ENWP because of File:Blank.svg, and the file history is a little confusing. This move would solve several problems at once, enabling a clearer file history, ensuring that both images can be used properly, and avoiding the Commons file-move bug (bugzilla:28299) for these heavily used files. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Due to the unusual nature of this request, I'd rather not try to ask for this move with a template, and I don't really want to solicit individual admins on their talk pages if that can be avoided. The only other way to do this would be to delete the Commons image temporarily, but it would risk further complication. This is a fairly simple fix with a one-time action by an admin, any admin... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 05:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes at New_contributors'_help_page

Resolved

An administrator's help is required for changes at the fully protected page Wikipedia_talk:New_contributors'_help_page#Changes --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}} serves very well to get assistance for these situations. :) However, I've tried reducing the protection level. I'm thinking this is likely to be uncontroversial, since it's an easy fix if issues arrive. I've watchlisted the page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zaiger and baseless claims of homophobia

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa, User:Zaiger has repeatedly accused User:Cupco of homophobia ("Cupco is obviously homophobic", "This is anti-gay witch hunt is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. wikipedia is supposed to be a place of knowledge, not ignorance and homophobia.", "message to known wikipedia homophobe cupco" (edit summary)). Now that's an allegation that shouldn't be made lightly. But in this particular case it's especially absurd: Zaiger is one of the main admins of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site not exactly known for its lack of homophobia (even Zaiger himself is happy to use the term "faggot" over there. Can't link due to the spam filter, but I'm happy to provide diffs if requested).

Still, just in case there might be something to it I asked Zaiger to back up his allegations on his talk page (User talk:Zaiger#"Homophobia"?). Unsurprisingly, he did/could not do so. I told him to retract the allegations or back them up, after which he threatened to contact Jimbo Wales and the media(!) and have my sysop-bit removed should I block him, before he simply declared me involved and having a conflict of interest (Not sure why. I used to be active at Encyclopedia Dramatica (the article, not the site), but I don't think I ever interacted with him over there). Despite the silly allegations of having a COI, I figured that having a few more eyes on this couldn't hurt, so here I am. By now, Zaiger has agreed not to call Cupco a homophobe again, though he also said that he would not retract the allegations. (For what it's worth, the origin of the homophobia claims seems to be this edit. At least that's the best I could find.)

That's a bit besides the point, though. Frankly, Zaiger is a troll. He's a main admin on ED (where he calls other people "faggot" regularly), he knows the art of trolling in and out, and he knows exactly how much he can get away with on Wikipedia. His act of being horribly offended by (supposedly) anti-gay comments is blatantly fake, and the only reason he might be doing this is, as they call it, "for the lulz". He's here to have fun, and not to contribute to the encyclopedia. As such, I propose a ban on this user. --Conti|✉ 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that homophobia and transphobia are definate problems on wikipedia and should be handled harshly. However I do not believe that this is one of them. Also the fact that he uses his own communities slur word which I won't even type is really appalling. I wouldd also like everyone to be aware though that chances are Zaiger is really hurting and needs some help. That does not excuse what he is doing but it does say that something is impacting him. I would suggest having a moderator talk to him, inform him of the charges and the consequences, let him explain without criticism and then banning him if he hasn't explained his accusation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in the discussion at this SPI. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, since Zaiger got the SPI spotlight deflected, we can look forward to Zaiger resuming productive article-space edits like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That edit is multiple years old, and Jewbuntu is an actual Linux Distribution. I am sorry but I felt that I was being attacked because of my sexual preference and got defensive. I have promised not to call him it again, yet he continues to make baseless accusations about me being User:LiteralKa when it has been proven otherwise. I feel as if I am the one being trolled. I apologize for making a couple of edits that could be taken as humorous, multiple years apart. Please assume good faith. I am not an active user on Wikipedia, but I do prefer to keep an account so that I may join into discussion concerning pages that interest me. Blocking me is going to do no good and you know it. I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do. I am not trolling, I was just defending myself from what I felt was persecution based on my sexual orientation. The language I use off Wikipedia should have no bearing on anything. I no longer plan on "feeding the trolls" so to speak, so I will not be responding to this anymore. I have promised not to say what I said to him anymore, and I would like to continue to keep this account, but I can't then so be it. There is obviously a back-door agreement to block everyone who edits the GNAA or Encyclopedia Dramatica articles on a non-POV manner. By the way I said I felt that Conti has a conflict of interest because he has an unflattering biography about him Encyclopedia Dramatica (which as far as I can remember I have never edited) and in my opinion seems to have formed an opinion about me based on emotions rather than rational thinking. I am not a bad person, I just react harshly when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize for that and promise to keep it in check. Thanks for reading. --Zaiger (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An edit from late last year is not "multiple years old", and this appears to be the only constructive article-space edit you've made since that edit. Being an actual Linux Distribution doesn't make that factually accurate (a dead project that never gained any traction is not popular anywhere for starters) nor is it a productive edit (piping Richard Stallman to Jews). You also appear to have a history of Jewish-related "jokes". - SudoGhost 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not just indef this editor as a troll, regardless of the SPI results? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any. The SPI results came back negative, by the way, though I'm not surprised by that. There's multiple ED trolls editing Wikipedia at a time, after all. --Conti|✉ 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Naive question for Zaiger: If you "react harshly when you feel [you are] being attacked," and presumably understand that other people have the same feelings you do and have the same reactions when they are attacked, then why do you spend so much time on a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it appears that Zaiger is actually a pretty standard example of a COI editor frustrated by misrepresentation on Wikipedia. His largest recent contributions recently have been talk page debate in which he (correctly) emphasizes that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not defunct, but has continued at a new site. Opposition to this viewpoint is predicated on the erroneous philosophy that ED is narrowly classified as a "web site", and a web site is defined solely by the holder of the original DNS record; but in fact it is a publication and a community foremost. It is not unusual for frustrated COIs to start lashing out more and more, and indeed not unusual for admins to single them out for extraordinarily harsh and unreasonable penalties, but Zaiger and the admins here, respectively, still have the power to do better.

I should emphasize very clearly - whether a user chooses the same name, or another name, to edit resources elsewhere on the web or in print, he should not be subject to any persecution based on ad hominem evaluations of his overall character by people who have read a line or two. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one in which editors are "vetted" for political reliability. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming all of this is correct, this could not possibly be an excuse for blatant trolling, surely? Not to mention that Encyclopedia Dramatica now shows Zaiger's preferred version, anyhow, and still the trolling ensued. Personally, I very much doubt one had to do with the other, but it really doesn't matter in the end. Trolling like that gets you blocked, simple as that.

As for your second paragraph, I'm honestly not sure I understand your point. I shouldn't use Zaiger's contributions on other sites to show that his comments here are just an act/trolling? Huh? Why not? --Conti|✉ 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

the current version is the result of a lot of talk page discussion and consensus, not "Zaiger's preferred version". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Zaiger's preferred version was the wrong one. I fully agree with you that his preferred one is the one that has consensus currently, and as such is the one the article is based on. --Conti|✉ 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting contributions from this IP address [13] [14]. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on those links, it appears this whole "homophobia" charade was a "clever" imitation of the User:Fæ affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Indef

• I agree with Salvio. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not okay with the way this went. Zaiger has made good edits, and some bad edits. Now, he's been blocked indef on a first block, with vague allusions to 'trolling', even though a SPI case was returned as negative. Last I checked BADSITES was not in effect, and editors here on WP should not be blocked based on their alleged actions elsewhere. Furthermore, I'm really not seeing consensus to block here. The big issue here, of course, is that both LiteralKa and Zaiger have been editing the GNAA article in a manner that is disagreeable to User:Cupco, hence the SPI case that fell through, and the subsequent block - Alison ^❤ 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (and as CU who ran the aforementioned case, I fully welcome any other CU to review my analysis and act accordingly)

I didn't block him because he's involved with ED. I blocked him because his on-wiki show is entirely inconsistent with his off-wiki behavior, and strongly suggests that his on-wiki conduct is intended to disrupt rather than out of a good-faith concern. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't right. An editor should not be compelled to be one thing or another on a third-party site - nor should he be compelled to always be the same way on that site as here. The fact is, Wikipedia is a serious endeavor and ED is a humorous one. There's a difference between using a word in the context of a humorous sketch and using it in some other discussion. Mind you, I haven't even looked at Zaiger's case in any real detail - what bothers me here is the logic being used by others in considering it. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

After you get elected to ArbCom we'll talk about that. In the meantime, perusing the talk pages of badmnachine (what hasn't been revdeleted, that is) I see that User:Michaeldsuarez has also been given an indefinite vacation. WP:BADSITES may be a failed policy on Wikipedia, but WP:NOTHERE is applied pretty often. And it was correctly applied in this case to Zaiger, who vandalized a few articles and screamed bloody murder about perceived insults that he regularly tosses at people elsewhere. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obvious troll is obvious. May I suggest that Alison spends too much time in such company, such as User:badmachine—another blocked troll, for whom she also vouched personally at one point? She may have lost sense of what level of trolling is acceptable on enwp. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is *not* obvious, to quote a well-worn meme. I've no problem with indefblocking persistent trolls and have done so many times myself, but I'm not seeing the justification here. I do see Zaiger making an effort to modify his behaviour on request, yet that was rebuffed. And I see a unilateral indef block being handed down for the flimsiest of reasons. It's more of that ED/GNAA/Trolling//b/ third rail effect; associate an adversary 'opposing editor' with any of these groups, file a somewhat unwarranted SPI case, then run to ANI to have them banhammered. The point I'm making here is that not all people are being treated the same here, and that's simply not okay. Then when someone (as I am) questions it, you go on to smear them with the same accusations. I don't care who keeps company with who; what matters is solely their behaviour here, and that they be given fair opportunity to address that properly before they are sanctioned. This hasn't happened here, and it smacks of vendetta - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Riiiight. Look how well badmachine turned out as a Wikipedia editor. WP:AGF and all that while Zaiger pulls off bad-taste jokes about Jews in article space. No thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, his edits were mentioned here, so you might do well to assume good faith. 66.87.70.46 (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In my observation Alison treats other Wikipedians with respect and dignity and good faith and refrains from demonizing other human beings because of one or more actions that aren't Wiki-correct. I don't think any of that is ever a bad thing. Nobody Ent 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to be fair with everyone - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I support the indef. Wikipedia can do with fewer trolls, and this case is rather obvious. Rklawton (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block; I have just logged in and I intended to block Zaiger myself, but I see I was beaten to it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alison, the SPI case was not the reason for the indef block. It was Zaiger's behavior during that case, not the allegations made in that case, that led to the block. As such, the results of the case are irrelevant here (And I have no doubts about the results you posted on the SPI, by the way). You write that "what matters is solely their behaviour here", and I fully agree with that. And, no matter how I look at it, Zaiger's behavior here was blatant trolling for the sake of causing disruption. Either that, or he really is genuinely offended by the most vague allusions that could possibly be interpreted as homophobic (while at the same time having words like "faggot" in his everyday vocabulary). I'm sure you know much better than me which of the two is more likely. I find it interesting that neither you nor anyone else defending him has actually tried to defend the very edits that led to his block. All you offer are platitudes and allegations that he is being singled out. It's hard to respond to vague statements like that, but I can assure you that my motivation for all this was solely his trolling that led to the block, and nothing else. I did not even know that he was an ED bigwig until I looked a bit closer at the issue. --Conti|✉ 21:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

to quote from above: "Riiiight". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that those edits are totally right, but they're not that wrong. The ad hominem argument used against him was indeed where things started going off the rails. Crying "homophobe" was not great, no, but right now, today, we have on Jimbo Wales' page a defense of editors calling people "arsehole" and "dishonest idiot" [15] so why not 'homophobe' too? Or if this is the one sole solitary Bad Word a person can use on Wikipedia, does it have to lead to an indef block? Wnt (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here wasn't the use of the word "homophobe", the problem was that the outrage over the perceived (and non-existent) homophobia was a blatant fake. --Conti|✉ 09:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You're drawing that conclusion based solely on activity on another site, which means that you're blocking him solely based on his participation in that site. This is the reason why Wikipedia ends up being composed of "anonymous cowards" - because any information you give can and will be used against you. In addition, this deduction is not even correct - for example, just because someone freely uses "faggot" in a humor site doesn't mean he would think it is right to call people that, or want to be called that in a dispute about article content or here at AN/I, because it's a totally different context. I would consider that it is actually because ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue, where gay editors feel comfortable that they are not going to have their work deleted or their accounts blocked by those with the so-called conservative agenda, that the use of such words over there is not seen as disruptive. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just cannot take someone seriously who writes that "ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue". The "conservative agenda" bit was particularly amusing, though. --Conti|✉ 12:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have relates to the double-standards I'm seeing here. One editor files a largely unsubstantiated SPI case (which I rejected), and it gets erased surreptitiously and the filer gets a week-long block. The second SPI case is also largely unsubstantiated. I run that to the best of my ability and, though it comes back clear, the accused gets indef'd and the filer pretty-much gets a pat on the back.

By all means, ban all the trolls or whatever (for whichever definition of 'trolls' you determine) but please do so in an even-handed manner across the board. I don't see that happening here. And because there are ED and GNAA connections, it should be demonstrably fair, and done 'by the book'. Because it will be questioned - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that someone who is part of a trolling organization is trolling when their behavior can reasonably be interpreted as trolling seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. If a KKK member makes statements that appear to be racist I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just really like the robes and hoods. It is unreasonable to not consider intentional membership in a group dedicated to committing the same transgression of which one is accused, especially when said transgression is literally the raison d'etre of the organization. I'm sorry Allison, I think you're a fine administrator but you seem to have much too high a threshold for trolling. Sædon^talk 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well no, frankly. Because that's taking off-wiki behaviour into account and that's just not fair. That's without even getting into the whole impersonation/cross-linking business. And if we applied that rule across the board, there would be a whole lot less editors here. Also, making KKK comparisons is grossly unfair - seriously. Look I've been an ED sysop myself at one time. And a WP sysop. Concurrently, even. I'm somehow still here. Yet these days, I'm seeing editors with any sort of remote connection to ED being indef blocked, largely so someone else can have their way with whatever article is in dispute (usually ED/GNAA or MLP stuff). Seriously - that's just not okay - Alison ^❤ 00:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES links to a failed proposal, and one that doesn't address this situation at that. You're asserting that it's not fair but you're not giving an argument as to why it wouldn't be fair. If someone is known to be part of organization X, the purpose of which is to engage in behavior Y, and then that person engages in what can be reasonably interpreted to be behavior Y, we would be foolish to pretend that this linkage is outside of the bounds of consideration. In murder trials of gang members, for instance, gang affiliation can be presented as evidence - even though it is prejudicial - because gangs are organizations known for engaging in murder.

Your other two arguments are either strawmen or tangential: (i) I did not make that claim that all editors who are also ED editors are trolling WP, only that when someone appears to be trolling and is part of a trolling organization it is reasonable to take said affiliation into account and (ii) this isn't an editor with a "remote" connection to ED randomly getting indeffed - it's an editor who appeared to be trolling to uninvolved, [presumably] reasonable editors, and who is more than a "remote" player at ED. Lastly, you make the assertion that a KKK comparison is grossly unfair but have not offered an argument demonstrating that the fundamentals of the analogy are false(namely that both groups can be seen to exist for the purpose of deviance and that if it were reasonable to consider the affiliation of a member of one group the same argument stands for a member of the other group. In no way does the analogy carry the insinuation that ED members are like the KKK in regards to their morality, nor that ED members are racist. It is a common mistake for people to focus on non-fundamental aspects of an analogy as a means to dismiss the analogy as a whole, but I think you will find after consideration that the fundamentals are congruent). Sædon^talk 00:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about doing it 'by the book' and are concerned that things will be questioned, should you have been the one to have done the SPI both times since you personally know the individuals named in the SPI?. - SudoGhost 00:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I personally know them, I pointed out that I know who they are IRL (in real life). That's very different - Alison ^❤ 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you see a huge distinction there, but I'm not seeing it. That's still very questionable, you being the one to handle both SPIs when you know and have had previous extensive off-wiki involvement with the individuals in the SPI. If you're going to claim "by the book" wasn't happening, next time perhaps you should take a look at your own actions, because you aren't exactly in any position to be claiming things weren't handled correctly. Perhaps there is no WP:INVOLVED-equivalent for CUs, but either way you shouldn't be handling the SPI for your former associates. - SudoGhost 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - I have not had "previous extensive off-wiki involvement" with anyone mentioned in either of those cases. Please point out evidence to support this assertion, or withdraw it. In fact, I've run plenty of cases here over the years involving Wikipedians with whom I've had involvement; it's an inevitability here. As it happens, this is now being handled by AUSC so they can decide accordingly. But statements like this are utterly unfair - Alison ^❤ 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more unfair than you accusing others of being unfair and of not going "by the book" if you're going to put yourself in a position where you actions are just as questionable. Someone who says "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets" shouldn't be the one to run the SPI on "those guys", especially if you were concerned about the appearance of being fair and avoid questionable actions. - SudoGhost 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting words into my mouth that I did not utter is unfair. I did not say "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets". I suggested that two of them are unrelated based on my knowledge of who they both were IRL. I did not say that nobody was socking; that had yet to be determined. At this point, I'm not going to comment any further - Alison ^❤ 11:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for paraphrasing, your exact words were "I can say that I know who both {{user|LiteralKa}} and {{User:Zaiger}} are IRL and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated." If you're going to vouch for two editors in an SPI, you shouldn't then be the one that runs the CU and then ask others to take your word on the results. Is this something actionable? Probably not. However it is very questionable activity, especially when you then complain that others might be doing questionable things regarding the same situation. - SudoGhost 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this line of discussion is productive. I suspect that many of our veteran checkusers could say something like "I can say that I know who both Grawp and who Bambifan101 are IRL, and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated". That doesn't mean that they'd be vouching for either Grawp or Bambifan. T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a situation where some checkuser gained knowledge of the editors due to their experience as a checkuser/admin, as Zaiger's talk page indicates. I'm not suggesting that something inappropriate happened here, but when an editor points out that something should be done carefully since it would be questioned, their own actions in that situation shouldn't be just as questionable. - SudoGhost 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a related concern: Zaiger's location is identical to that of the IP which made a (now revision-deleted) edit to the SPI case against me which Basedircrory (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) quickly blanked and then replaced with identical text and his signature instead of the IP signature after he logged in. So how can they "geolocate to very different places"? —Cupco 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have seen all their IP addresses and you have not. As I've already stated, I welcome any other CU to recheck my result, and I see one has already - Alison ^❤ 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is a witch-hunt --Polmas (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. COI trolls are needed here so badly for their "excruciating anal devastation" line of comments. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

trolling? you forget about Comet Egypt who was obviously a troll, and you want trolling? "Is it my fault, that i'm better than you? even though i'm a jew.

everybody just loves me. 

they just come to see,

how hot and amazing i am,
they just need to stay calm.
i just wanna be left be,
but everyone wants to touch me, inappropriately.

I'm hot really hot and you're just super not. i'm cool you're fat so i treat you like a household mat. everybody wants to be me, i think it's cuz they can see, that i'm just so super cool..."(jared milton, who is a real troll)- that is trolling, it is made clear to me that this person Zaiger has said that he will not repeat his actions of calling the user in question a homophobe, so i see no point to the indef block. I support alison fully. instead of blocking somebody who has stated that they will sease and desist, you should be looking for people who post worthless shit like the quote i gave. and to me, it appears that you're basing this on his account on encyclopedia Dramatica, that's how things look anyway. I'm not attempting to accuse anyone here, but put it this way, you're flimzy reason for blocking this user after he has clearly stated that he will not do it again, is as dumb as the song i quoted above. maybe try that on for size. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where did he say he won't do what again? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

here: "I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do." Previously he said he would not retract his statements, however, nor did he ever even attempt to substantiate his claims. --Conti|✉ 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Subsequently. Since Alison says Zaiger's address doesn't geolocate to the same place as Basedircrory, but the IP address which Basedircrory tried to hide in their deleted contributions geolocates to where Zaiger says he is located on his blog (in multiple and his most recent posts, I should add) then I suggest (1) Basedircrory was probably using a proxy until they slipped up by making a non-logged in edit, and (2) another checkuser should look at whether the sources are from proxies or consumer IPs. —Cupco 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If he wants to put up an unblock request he should explain what he plans to contribute to Wikipedia, not just give assurances that he won't behave like a troll. Insofar he turned out to be the prototypical WP:COI editor we don't want here. His main focus here was the article of the website (ED) he is associated with. His style of argumentation on Wikipedia was a mirror of the style that ED promotes and not just in that last incident (see the unrelated "excruciating anal devastation" comment linked above.) Besides that, he vandalized a couple of other articles here with his ED-style "jokes" about Jews and made inconsequential minor edits to a few more. [16] [17] That was essentially his four-year career here. It's hard to escape the conclusion that his participation to Wikiepdia was a net negative up to now. Yes, we do coddle other potty mouthed editors (cf. latest ArbCom request on "Professionalism and civility"), but at least they contribute something besides trivial edits and bad jokes. The indef block imposed on Zaiger is not at all unusual. See the case of 7mike5000 for comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like some low-level and mild issues over a period of time being built up into a massive troll conspiracy based on who he is and what website he is primarily associated with. Not a good block at all, certainly not an indef. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Having reviewed the information here, I think this is a clear case of someone with an axe to grind and not someone with a serious commitment to the growth and betterment of Wikipedia as a project. This appears to be someone who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia as their primary motivation for contributing, so I'm not sure we need to keep their distractions around for much longer. I'm afraid of all of the collateral choking should we grant someone like this too much WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just because someone refuses to retract their statement doesn't mean that they are going to continue harassing people over it. I agree that we should kdeep wikipedia free of trolls, but even with the sources you gave, it still looks like you're blocking him based on his connection with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Why don't you tell me that i can't edit here because of my bulbapedia account (Christian woods), that would not be fair, would it? in any case, i do acknowledge that he stated that he will not retract what he said before, but you refuse to acknowledge that he has stated clear as day that he will not repeat his actions regarding fear of homosexual people. Again, worry about those people who repeat their disruptive actions, and not those who dispite their refusal to retract the statement, has made it clear that there will be no repeats of such things in the future. I don't have an account here nor do i wish to create one, but i can say this. maybe i can talk to him a little bit, i am jewish after all and i have actually made jew jokes before on a couple websites. maybe if you allow him to use his talk page i can speak with him and find out what's going on, i have a thing with trolls, how do you think i got Jared Milton to stop making videos on youtube, at least for the present time anyway? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Has Zaiger made any actual good article contributions? That's the main thing I want to know. Silverseren^C 04:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a grand total of 20 edits to mainspace, the majority of which apparently deal with Encyclopedia Dramatica. In short: it would seem not. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And what's wrong with encyclopedia dramatica? i don't remember there being anything oh so bad about comedy, ooh! heavin forbid someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica dare help edit an article on this site about it, because that's the biggest crime ever commited! ooh, why don't you do a spi to find out where he lives again, arrest him and launch the jail cell with him/her into space so he/she will either burn up in the thurmosphere or die due to lack of oxygin. note the sarcasm. what exactly is wrong with being from encyclopedia dramatica anyway, i mean you shouldn't give people from that site the status of troll automaticly, allison, help me. I'm not saying that he can do jew jokes, i stated above that i'm jewish, but i'm saying that using encyclopedia dramatica as part of your basis to block zaiger is not only asanine and shit headed, but it's also unjust and unreasonable. What's next, you gonna block me now because i have a bulbapedia account? look up Christian Woods, i'm also on bulbagarden and Serebii, gonna block me for being from there? the way you guies act, i could just as easily be a troll because i have an account on a site related to pokemon, i mean really. understand? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BLOCK STRONGLY. - i made that all caps to show my sincerity. reason: The basis of the block as i can see has shit to do with the contribution for the encyclopedia, and everything to do with his status on encyclopedia dramatica. I'm not promoting the website or anything, i just wish to see a little bit of fairness here, this block is not justified, and Encyclopedia Dramatica should never have been brought into this. i'm sensing something that appears suspiciously like an attack campaign, and it is the reason why i didn't make that edit i wanted to make in the article about Zoroark master of elusions. You guys are making it look like you're automaticly a troll and it's the biggest crime on earth as i said above to have a minor minor connection with something or someone. So, i oppose and curse this block, and its basis, in the name of fairness and in the name of wikipedia! (throws out chest bairing wikipedia's logo on the front of shirt. then proclaims loudly:) No Attack campaigns.

You make this look like an unfair battle from super smash brothers in which link, samas and Pikachu are ganging up on a level 2 luigi, and luigi can't attack or defend himself. that's my analogy of most of you guies here. sorry, that's how i'm seeing it, i'm sure i'm not the only one who notices tha attack campaign format of this, not only against zaiger, but against encyclopedia dramatica, which is a COMEDY website, "for the lols" (meaning it's supposed to make one laugh.) thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You've made your point in this thread amply enough already. Now please drop the WP:STICK. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sticks have two ends, and I've found it's often hard for a single editor to carry one by themselves from very long. Nobody Ent 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not untill i see some fairness here, and besides, you're doing the attacking anyway. you oppose my views, so i will don't think i've made my point clear to all people here yet. you don't even acknowledge what i'm saying. and again, i don't support trolling, but i believe that the block should have been for a better reason than encyclopedia dramatica, and leave my contribs out of this. you've all proven to me that i am not welcome here, but i shall sease when i see some fairness here. this isn't about tijfo or myself anyway, it's about zaiger as you can clearly see. i don't see the fairness, andand also leave my status out of this please tijfo, i don't take to such things that well. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Can we have more poems then? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters much (being eponymously a nobody) but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome here. However, if you need or expect fairness from Wikipedia I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed -- not because of maliciousness but a host of reasons too long to iterate here. Nobody Ent 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just think that things should be handled different, and i'm shitty at poetry, ask my english teacher. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Also if you're refering to the quote i gave tifjo, it's super super cool by jared milton. please youtube if you like, but warning, it's a little strange to say the least. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block - Although he clearly did not display the civil behavior required to be a productive Wikipedian, I feel that an indef block is far too much for his comments on a superfluous SPI case that he was only named in for editing an article in a NPOV manner that someone didn't find productive. I feel a short-term block would benefit more, as well as possible wiki-mentorship or whatever it's called. Maractus (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

possible idea

Now here's a suggestion that should seem fair to all parties concirned: yes it does involve unblocking him.

• step 1: unblock him but monitor his edits (but don't be all creepy stalky about it)
• step 2: rather than punnishing him for editing ED articles, you can maybe encourage him to do civil disgussions on the ED article's talk page on how he can word his contributions so they don't seem like promos.
• step 3: someone have a conversation either via e-mail or on his talk page on how some ideas of things to help contribute to. it worked for me on bulbapedia, which is similar to this but about pokemon. nevertheless, that idea should be considered.

If he persists then maybe a week or month long block would be ideal, an indef should never be a first time block, it gives a bad impression on people, not just Zaiger him/herself. also, it's not right to make assumtions that because of his status on encyclopedia dramatica, he's a troll. as stated in the previous section here, ED is humorous while this is serious. I know i don't have status on Wikipedia here, but i don't care, i just think that maybe my suggestion should be considered before you finalize this disgussion. and no, i don't support him making jew jokes on serious websites, i am jewish after all. thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, so why is everyone saying ED instead of just saying erectile dysfunction like adults? Also, I think it was very insensitive for the previous poster to refer to ED as "humorous" when sufferers often find themselves feeling powerless -- even impotent (though admittedly the neurological signs are often soft). EEng (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's an alternate suggestion: go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For the love of Kirsty Hawkshaw i'm trying to help out here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly do you want to help? What connection do you have to Zaiger? Silverseren^C 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i have a connection to him. I think that the block is unfair because of what it's based off of. quite a few of these people are letting this ED shit get to them, and i'm trying to the best of my ability to see this as a reasonable block, but i'm at the point where it will litteraly take this spaciffic someone to help me out, because i don't see it as a reasonable basis at all.

• even though he refuses to retract his homophobe acusations, he has clearly stated that he will not repeat the statement in the future.
• His status (pronounced stay-tuhs, the propper way) on encyclopedia dramatica is being brought into this when it has as much to do with this as the way i pronounce status does.
• and finally, assumtions of trolling because of said status on Encyclopedia Dramatica being used as arguments to rationalize his block

are not ways that a block should be imposed on someone. we can't read minds, and i'm sure some good faith has been assumed, but let's not show that we make those kinds of assumtions please, it brings Wikipedia a bad immage. This is coming from someone who wishes every once in a while to find things to edit on this encyclopedia. I'm uninvolved, and though i oppose the block, i don't promote trolling at all. But i also know not to assume he's trolling or not. i'm trying to put this nutrally but it's hard when i get told to go away by Andy the Grump, and when Tifjo tries to status push here. Again, let's leave my status out of this, we're not here to talk about my status, we're here on this notice board to help make a rational decision based on a good reason and not based on views on a sertain websight that makes attempts at humour. so let's just stick to trying to keep things as reasonable as possible here. mkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling your stay-tuhs here may change soon enough [18]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please define what you maen by saing my status will change, and Hopefully he did stop making videos. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, i'm much moe concerned about the fact that he doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. A complete and almost utter lack of mainspace edits shows that he's really not making any constructive worthwhile edits. Combine that with past and present negative actions and I see no reason for him to be unblocked. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you're not here for that purpose, then you shouldn't be here. Silverseren^C 17:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh i do have a few article edits i wish to make, i'm just currently attempting to find sources for them, such as the fact that Kirsty Hawkshaw was active in 1989. i just don't have a completely reliable source yet, so i'm not putting that untill i do. and i take it my suggestion won't be considered at all? my Status better not be the reason, and i ask again, what does tifjo mean by saying my status here will change soon enough? clairify that please and thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean you as in you, I was just speaking in general. And it seems to me that he's being "punished" because he really doesn't seem to be a constructive editor. Combine that with the unconstructive things he's done and I don't see why he should be allowed to stay here. And, yeah, it might be better if you make an actual account. Silverseren^C 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What's done is done, but i won't create an account, odds are it'll be inactive for long periods of time, i spend most of my time on bulbapedia. but i'd still like clairification on Tifjo's statement on "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." what exactly is that supposed to mean? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you "quoting" this guy on your talk page? Someone you know or wish to emulate? Doc talk 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Catch me if you can? For someone "not trolling" he is surely well acquainted with plenty of trolls. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i was acquainted with trolls, i said i got a spaciffic troll to stop on a different website for the time being. again, i do not support trolling at all, and rather wish that it never began at all. But alass, there's nothing i can do about that. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic

I do not agree with the indef block, yet I see a rationale for a short-term ban and other measures to be taken. Thus I propose:

1. The block shortened to one month
2. Possible wiki-mentorship or other source of guidance

Zaiger has been somewhat productive from what I can collect, so there's no use in driving him off completely when he has potential to help the project and cut out the disruption. Maractus (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We are here to build an encyclopedia. When a person only puts forward 20 edits to that goal I feel that this is not a good use of time if we look at [Bobrayner's Law. The units of potental positive work done by Zaiger != the work to keep them within community policies --Guerillero | My Talk 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Slow edit war

Can someone please look into this slow edit war on 1911. Some reverts seem to be done using Rollback tool. There are some more articles with the same edit war going on: 1910, 1909, 1908, 1907, 1906, 1912. --SMS ^Talk 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried stopping the edit war and discussing the issue? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

SMS isn't involved in the edit war; he just happened to see it. From glancing at both users' talk pages, User:Keith D left each of them a friendly prod on 11 Sept to stop the blind reverting and discuss it. Apparently that message was completely ignored because they're still going at it. Also, this edit war is pretty damn lame. Ishdarian 06:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on User talk:Keith D/Archive 35#Re:1907 I have given up trying to get more constructive responses from the other editor involved (who, btw, did not respond to Keith D's request for input) and, given the other user's past history (see for example Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#CalendarWatcher, User talk:CalendarWatcher#Previous account(s)?, User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 4#Previous account(s)?, I did not really expect anything useful. I'd appreciate neutral input on this matter. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You should stop removing valid information. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "Valid". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for a week and removed DerbyCountyinNZ's rollback rights. Please sort the content issue out on the talkpage - I' don't want to have to block anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING behaviour by User:Antidiskriminator

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 report this issue reluctantly, but I can see no other option given the situation. User:Antidiskriminator and I initially had a large amount of interaction on Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, which I had moved to its current title on 11 April 2012 [19]. We first interacted on 4 May 2012 in relation to a wikiquette issue [20], but didn't really start interacting until a Request for Move for that article was lodged on 1 August 2012 [21], which was closed on 12 August with the result Not Moved. Both User:DIREKTOR and I opposed the move. Before that RM was closed, User:Antidiskriminator commenced further threads on the talkpage here [22] on 6 August 2012, and simultaneously here at WikiProject Serbia [23].

On the same day as the previous RM closed (12 August 2012), User:Antidiskriminator lodged a further RM with the same intent move to German-occupied Serbia. It was closed on 21 August 2012 with the result Not Moved. Both User:DIREKTOR and I opposed the move. Starting on 15 August 2012, User:Antidiskriminator and I started to have a lot of interaction at Talk:Pavle Đurišić which User:PRODUCER and I had recently helped get to MILHIST A Class. On 29 August another editor started a further discussion of the article title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia,[24] which was quickly dominated by User:Antidiskriminator who focused on what they considered to be the behaviour of "other editors", clearly including myself and User:DIREKTOR. On 10 September 2012, User:Antidiskriminator started another thread about the title [25], and again on 14 September 2012 [26] and again on 18 September 2012 [27]. These latter threads focused on User:Antidiskriminator's issues with the behaviour of editors that were opposing the move of the article.

In June 2012, User:DIREKTOR and I had a discussion about the naming of the various articles that make up the Seven Enemy Offensives. This was the culmination of a number of discussions we had about this topic over the previous few months. The discussion occurred here [28], but the resultant moves of all but one of the articles were linked on all the relevant talk pages prior to the moves being made. No-one opposed those moves, and the articles have been stable at those titles since then. The one remaining article was Second Enemy Offensive. On 29 September 2012, I moved [29] this article to Operation Southeast Croatia per the talk page here [30] and the previous discussion User:DIREKTOR and I had at Battle of Kozara. I have been editing articles within the Seven Enemy Offensives pretty much since I started on WP late last year, and to my knowledge, User:Antidiskriminator had not edited any of those articles or talk pages in that time.

Almost immediately after the move, User:Antidiskriminator commented on the talk page of Operation Southeast Croatia saying that he opposed the move and that it should be returned to its previous title as User:DIREKTOR and I had not gained consensus for the move [31]. Both User:DIREKTOR and I expressed our concerns that User:Antidiskriminator's appearance at the article was suspicious, and said so. I even cautioned User:Antidiskriminator about my concerns about him WP:WIKIHOUNDING me at his user talk page here [32], where I stated

Your decision to oppose the recent move there (in retrospect after consensus had been achieved for the move, which is consistent with the approach User:DIREKTOR and myself have taken to the Seven Enemy Offensives articles over several months), appears on face value to be an attempt to follow my edits to cause me distress, and gives rise to the suspicion it is being done out of revenge for a perceived slight because you have not been able to gain consensus for your preferred move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The move of Operation Southeast Croatia is not clearly a violation of WP policy, which would be your only possible excuse for following my edits (and move) at that article. Your behaviour is disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason that is acceptable on WP.

However, User:Antidiskriminator has not acknowledged my request on his talk page, and has continued to act aggressively on Operation Southeast Croatia, including returning the article to the previous title,[33] and tellingly, using as a justification for their involvement what clearly they perceive to have been an illegitimate move of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia by myself on 11 April 2012 [34].

I consider User:Antidiskriminator's decision to oppose my recent move at Operation Southeast Croatia (in retrospect ie after consensus had been achieved for the move by the only involved editors (User:DIREKTOR and I), which is consistent with the approach User:DIREKTOR and myself have taken to the Seven Enemy Offensives articles over several months), appears on face value to be an attempt to follow my edits to cause me distress. It gives rise to the suspicion it is being done out of revenge for a perceived slight because User:Antidiskriminator has not been able to gain consensus for their preferred move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The move of Operation Southeast Croatia was not clearly a violation of WP policy, which would be the only possible excuse for following my edits (and move) at that article. User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour is disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason that is acceptable on WP, and I request admin intervention to stop this behaviour. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much response you'll get to an initial post as long as that. On one of the initial points raised - I was briefly involved in discussing it some months later - I'm confused as to why you thought the April move of the page re German-occupied Serbia was appropriate in the first place. That - or some variation of it - is rather obviously the clear, common and consistent-with-similar-pages title for the page in question. When I came in to argue in favour of a move to such a title, I wasn't aware that it had only recently been unilaterally moved away from that to the current cumbersome, obscure and unclear "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". If that move had been subject to a formal RM - as the later, failed bid to return to the more obvious title was - it would never have been moved in the first place. You had virtually no talk page support for making the move in April and since then there has been regular discussion in favour of moving it back, all stymied by "no consensus" RM results, even though it is clearly the preferred title in the real world and among editors here, and even though there was no consensus to move it in the first place. That might, as you acknowledge, be part of the problem here (I make no comment on whether subsequent behaviour by others is appropriate or not). N-HH talk/edits 10:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is surely an irrelevant side discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You raised it yourself as a possibly contributing factor. I agree with the suggestion that the dispute at that page is relevant - although I disagree with your assessment as to where consensus about that page title lies - and thought it worth expanding on why that issue is problematic in itself. N-HH talk/edits 11:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH, perhaps you did not look into the matter quite thoroughly. You've expressed some of your positions in your recent post on the article talkpage, and, as I have stated there, you've certainly gotten a few things rather wrong. Its a long discussion and an even longer story.

@Peacemaker, I think this might be a matter for WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AE. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing more then a organised and insidious traveling circus with the only goal to eliminate all opposing sides from relevant discussions. Exactly the same fabricated "reports" already happened with several other disagreeing editors, who are not masters of GAMING THE SYSTEM like some of you here. Deliberate misrepresentation of entire situation, misguiding of other newly included editors, partial informing, and all for defending questionable, and wrong POV, while using wiki to push some personal agenda. Stunning. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WW it'd be prudent to avoid such decorum breaches as your unsubstantiated accusations against other users (FutureP) have already been noticed and commented. That being said, Peacemaker you should take your concerns to AE without sections that focus on content disputes and have no proposed sanctions and evidence (3RR/ARBMAC warnings) as they aren't ANI/AE material.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins, please close this incident, I have accepted the several suggestions that it should be at AE, not here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 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.

StillStanding-247 discussing my murder

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.

---

Ok, I've been patient for days while Dennis Brown et al. try to work with StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) but talking about paying for me to be murdered is far enough. This user's talk page is full of folks trying to explain to him what he did wrong. He doesn't get that 1 edit reverting another user's edit in an edit war involving many users is still edit warring. After his ANI thread against me closed in support of the topic ban, he continued to personally attack me on his talk page: "grossly incompetent", accused me of gaming the system, called me immoral, accused me of a conservative bias (two diffs there). He later received a warning for something unrelated from Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) and immediately accused him of "assuming bad faith". He fails to understand why he is responsible for his own actions despite the actions of others. And finally, he insists to continue in this behavior, claiming that WP:ADMINACCT means I have to bear it. This guy is a clearly tendentious editor whose constant refusal to get the point is draining on the communities patience and mine personally to the point where his own suppoters are considering an RFC/U. If anyone feels he hasn't had enough guidance, I'll eat my shoe. His behavior boils down to three things: 1) Toe the line, 2) Blame others, 3) Accuse the admin of bias to involve them. Enough is enough. I invite everyone to give his talk page a read over.--v/r - TP 13:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that is just crossing the line. TParis, I suggest you trace this guy's IP address and report him to the authorities. That is too far and that shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL! He used to proudly display his IP address -- then whan any editor referred to it, sought a block for them "outing" him! [35] etc. And then tried to get Art Rubin blocked for an IRC "joe job" [36] I believe he has the Guinness record for most admin "final warnings" being warned by way over a dozen separate admines in a very short period of time - and avoiding any penalties therefor. [37] Because some of you are too careless to read, I'm going to spell it out for you. Collect is outing me by posting where he believes I live. I have asked for it to be redacted, but you people have made such a mess of this that it's pointless. You should be ashamed of yourselves for aiding him. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) seems to show how he reacts to anyone saying anything at all about him. Cheers Collect (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I started reading the talk page, then my brain started to turn to mush and I felt like garotting myself with this elastic band ... but the general gist I see is that things have got totally out of hand, and threatening to kill TParis, even if said in the heat of the moment and in jest, is going too far. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been following StillStanding's antics a bit (mainly from AN3 reports), hence I am not surprised that he was about to be the subject of an RFCU. However, death threats are going just too far, so I have indefinitely blocked StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to murder a user, even implying that StillStanding-247 has supposedly "paid" someone to kill TParis is extremely horrific. Clearly StillStanding-247 is not mature for Wikipedia. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, let's hold off on calling the cops, or calling these "death threats", as it was clearly intended as joking, albeit in bad taste. However, I think the overarching claim of tendentious editing is clearly valid, I think he's been given enough chances, I think he's made it clear he is not going to alter his battleground behavior, and I support Reaper's indef block. In a way, citing these "threats of violence" as a reason for the block is probably going to end up needlessly confusing the issue; it gives SS247 a detail to focus on when requesting an unblock, when that isn't the biggest problem with this editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that StillStanding is actually going to go kill TParis, but it is for TParis to decide whether to talk to the police or report this to the WMF. However, the threat was not just two friends "messing around" with each other, but one user who has an extreme dislike for another posting a threat against him, and hence not joking. That said, even if he unambiguously retracts the threats as "comments made in frustration", "joking", or whatever, I am still opposed to unblocking unless his massive battleground behavior and tendentious editing can be curbed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Wikipedia requires a collaborative working environment with actual human beings. Death threats, no matter how ludicrous or facile on their face cannot be allowed. I am generally loathe to invoke "protecting the community" since the community isn't the point, it is a tool - but this isn't about protecting community sensibilities, but the community's members. Indef, ban, and gone until StillStanding-247 demonstrates a personality change.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make light of the comments; they're not acceptable, and fit into his overall pattern of behavior. I just think they're not (I need to reword this somehow, I'm channeling Akins, hopefully you know what I mean) "legitimate" death threats; the problem with them is not that TParis is in danger, the problem is that they are part of his overarching inflammatory, disrespectful, antagonistic, battleground approach. They risk turning the discussion into "were they real threats or were they bad jokes", when the real issue is his overall behavior. We can't let the inevitable unblock request discussion focus just on those comments. "Until StillStanding-247 demonstrates a personality change" is what I'm trying to emphasize too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block Very much a tendentious editor with a clear "I didn't hear that" problem. Joking about killing an admin shows major immaturity issues, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block I had final warned him at an earlier ANI thread and would have done the block myself if I wasn't asleep. MBisanz ^talk 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed with Tznkai. The nature of their death threat - joking or not - should be enough to just indef and forget. But looking at the commentary on their talk page, it is evident they are not here to work collaboratively, but rather to war endlessly over their preferred POVs. The only thing we're likely to get by an unblock at this point is more wasted time and effort. Resolute 14:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Joke or not, this is way beyond the acceptable limit. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Yep, no question. Even if it was just a 'joke', it's absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. That's just plain and simple trolling in a very sinister manner. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 14:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment a decent editor driven insane by the politics of this place. I hope he's happy in his evil lair. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Tparis has taken more personal attacks, insults, insinuations, and IDHT from StillStanding in the past week or so than I would have even thought possible for one person to take. SS capping his tirades off with talking about killing Tparis is over the line, period. His behavior even before was tiptoeing on the line of so-excessive-it-must-be-halted, but rather than being blocked before now, he was given tons of room to calm down and pull himself back, presumably because everyone wanted to make sure they were being fair to him. Tendentious POV pushing and professional victimhood? Not conducive to a workable Wikipedia atmosphere, but not necessarily immediately blockable. Doubling down with death threats, however? 100% not ok, do not pass go, do not collect $200, and good luck convincing the community you have any goal other than to abuse another Wikipedian if you're unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block I appreciate TParis's patience while several of us tried to get Still to back off the personal attacks. I had offered to mediate a new discussion on the original topic ban and reached out in every way I knew how to. In the end, we couldn't find common ground with him. After seeing the mocking death threats, which was after a series of blistering personal attacks, I can't find fault with blocking him. I feel like we have made every effort, extended every possible second chance that could be, stretched the meaning of "good faith" to the breaking point here. These kinds of threats are unacceptable from anyone, and we are all responsible for our actions, no matter "provoked" we think we are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. In the wake of all the other issues with this editor, this block was unavoidable. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. Even though it is obviously meant as a joke, it is in very poor taste and unacceptable in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, extend to community ban The goal of such a threat was as a minimum intended to provide a chilling effect, forcefully dissuading not only TP, but others from "going against" them. He then continued in the same vein. Wholly support advising authorities of the threat dangerouspanda 14:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, coming from someone who's tried to work with him. While I think it's obvious he was joking, this was simply the last straw. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block (NAC) It seems absolutely correct to block him for all of those disgusting comments. Personally I think that he should be reported to the police as you can't just let death threats go without action regardless. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Not for the "murder threat". Maybe he should be blocked for the other stuff, but I seem to be in a minority of one in thinking the reaction to the so-called "murder threat" is way over the top. Leaving aside that the comment is clearly and obviously supposed to be a joke (if a silly one), it's literal meaning isn't even a "murder threat", and I don't even see an implied threat actually. DeCausa (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think it was just for the threat. The threat was the "icing on the cake" and it only demonstrated that my efforts to get him to come around and cooperate were being wasted. It was the final straw, after a long series of personal attacks and inability to climb off the soapbox. The threat was the worst of it, demonstrating that it was only going to get worse, not better, so action had to be taken to prevent more disruption. Talk of banning (above) is premature, but I don't see him being unblocked any time soon, justifiably. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't lose any sleep over the block - there's enough there to justify it besides the threat that's not a threat. But all the outrage of some of the posts and talk of reporting to "the authorities" seems to be a minor outburst of mass hysteria to me. DeCausa (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that others may be taking the threat more literal than the intent. To me, it was just a ramping up of the personal attacks, and doing so in a shockingly brazen and disrespectful way. It was as much an attack on Wikipedia as Tom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree, there is enough other things to justify the block (such as falling off the WP:CLUETRAIN and the incivility etc), but interpreting [38] as a threat of violence isn't one of them. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good Block The incident does not need reporting, I agree with User:DeCausa that it wasn't an actual threat. But it falls into the "watch how clever I am, when I post something that looks like a murder threat, but technically isn't, just to show how stupid the WP community is, because they will fall for it." Had it been the first post, the proper response would be, "cut it out, we don't need that here". That it is the 100th such example is an amazing testament to this community's capacity for forgiveness.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Something being a "joke" does not mean that it is not to be taken seriously. GiantSnowman 15:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think its similar to yelling "fire" in a movie theater. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block and I would support a community ban if push comes to shove --Guerillero | My Talk 16:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - The only thing wrong is that it should have been done a month or two earlier. This user has freely admitted that they will not change their ways and will continue to be disruptive until they are banned. For disclosure, I have gotten into it with this user and have been topic banned, which I take responsibility for. --Mollskman (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Facepalm —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
  forcemeat  17:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously a poor joke in poor taste, and an appropriate block by Reaper. You won't like my next comment, but why is this thread attracting such a bunch of "high fives" from the other admins? I thought WP:NPA was a policy, but it seems like that has become the entire goal of this thread. It is fine to collaborate on solving a problem, and even to commiserate as admins, but gravedancing seems a bit over the line. Does the thread need any more grinding down of the editor in question, or is it a good time to close it? -- Avanu (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There are no personal attacks here, it's customary to leave something like this open in case someone disagrees. But yeah, this one is obvious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:22, 5 October 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.

Confused cross namespace article problem

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 sure if this is the best place to post this, but it's a bit of a jumble now, and I think admin tools will be required to untangle it. User:Petrus201066300 created NAKAYALE a few days ago. I moved it to Nakayale and requested speedy deletion of the all caps redirect. That user has since been keeping at least three copies of it going, one at their user page, one at their talk page, and the actual article itself. I just realized today that they had recreated the all caps article, and moved the proper caps article to user talk space. Now, the correct article title is a redirect to User talk:NAKAYALE; there is no such user name. Anyway, it's a bit of a mess and it would be great if someone could get it all back the way it's supposed to be. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Floq and I got it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)I've moved the page to Nakayale, and it appears Elen already deleted the page User talk:NAKAYALE. It' s bit unclear why Petrus moved the article back to the ALLCAPS title, but I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Already done that, and move protected the article for a couple of weeks. Hopefully he'll ask for some advice. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Should the all caps version be deleted per WP:R3? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I usually leave those as harmless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 5 October 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.

Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa

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.

---

Efrange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This spring, a group of admirers of the subject began a concerted effort to turn the article on him into a hagiography. Eventually, one account made a death threat (as I recall) and was blocked and the page ended up being indefinitely semi-protected. Now, a new tactic is being tried. User:Efrange created George Calciu, an equally effusive portrait of its subject, and redirected the other article to the new one. My complaint was then met by a request for protection claiming necessity on the grounds of avoiding "Communist slander". Of course the charge is absurd and I actually admire the man myself, but clearly, this user (who has had an account for over five months) has no notion of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:ESSAY, and other relevant policies. I'm not sure what remedy would be best, but I do want to avoid the tiresome edit wars we had in the spring. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Efrange may have had an account for five months, but they haven't done much in those months except to behave inappropriately. They've made only 36 edits, 31 of which were to article space (they don't talk much). They've had two coypright warnings, one in June and one much more recently in this little debacle. Their comments at RFPP indicate they have an agenda. For me, the only issue is whether sanctions are warranted without more engagement. I don't see anyone trying to talk to them (not counting edit summaries), although I may have missed it. If I'm right, then I think someone needs to explain things to them. If they don't respond and continue to edit disruptively, then, of course, sanctions would be warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this was funny, unintentionally though. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to just indef now and be done with it, this person is clearly a classic case of NOTHERE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but except in egregious vandalism-only accounts, I tend to prefer one clear warning before indeffing. I'd also note that they haven't edited since their absurd comments at RFPP. If they start editing again disruptively without even responding here, an indef would be clearer to me, even without a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Efrange has made a comment on my talk page. Civil, but kind of pointless, since there was no need to repost his entire article. This line strikes me as revealing: "If you are truly Orthodox, it would seem that you would not have sided with the article posted before it". Perhaps he should be referred to OrthodoxWiki, or at least to WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've indeffed him. He recreated the inappropriate article, put it on Biruitorul's talk page and created a sandbox with it as well. I've restored Biruitorul's talk page and deleted the sandbox. That, plus of course he never responded here. Not surprisingly, Blade's instincts turned out to be spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 5 October 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.

Incivility

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.

---

Kwort has been using foul language on me and an anonymous IP who had undone their unhelpful edit on Yan Bingliang. Kwort was blocked for three days for the vandalising of the mentioned page but resumed vandalising once the block was over despite multiple warnings from me and several other users. See Kwort's talk page and my talk page history. I request further action be taken to show them that such language is not welcome on wikipedia. Thanks. ~ Acsian88 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you seriously just report someone's incivility to AN/I, and direct us to their talk page where you called them "a arrogant, useless, brainless, uncouth, condescending low-life"? WilyD 09:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Acsian88, as you can see, Kwort has been re-blocked for a week. (I would have made it two weeks, but YMMV.) I can understand you were provoked, but please read Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. If you retaliate like this again, you will certainly be blocked yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC).

Bishonen, I was insulted using much stronger language (e.g. the f word, b-stard, etc) even before that (look at my talk page history if you don't believe me: [39][40] and etc. I'm not even going to list everything. I ignored them and just undid it but they kept coming and added even stronger threats. Anyway, Kwort has been blocked so I hope that's the end of that. -Acsian88 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't change your own responsibility to be civil. Nobody Ent 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended to indef Nobody Ent 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, they used a sock to threaten violence. Seemed appropriate. WilyD 10:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur, don't think anyone would think otherwise. Nobody Ent 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the last we'll see of Kowort; I've started Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kwort just in case he re-appears. GiantSnowman 10:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -Acsian88 20:46, 5 October 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.

Could an admin stop in to look at this Sharyl Attkisson edit-protected edit request

Hello, could an uninvolved admin stop in at Talk:Sharyl_Attkisson#Edit-protected_edit_request at take a look at it? The article is full-protected until 13 November. The request has been open for 4 days without any admin input. Please either act on the request or provide feedback as to why it shouldn't be done at this time. Thanks... Zad68 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in that it's not the only edit protected request that's been standing for a long time.... there's also one on Talk:Revolution (TV series) that has similarly been pending for days. Are there no admins patrolling the edit requests category? Also, it looks like something might be broken on that page, as the boxes at the top aren't transcluding the most recent pages listed on the bottom of the page.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhhh.... it appears that semi-protected edit requests are similarly messed up and stopped updating the box at the top on 10/2...... I'm going to raise this over at WP:VPT as well, because it's pretty clear something has gone pear-shaped in the wikipedia software.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The boxes are User:AnomieBOT/PERTable and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable which are normally updated by AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) within a few minutes of an {{edit protected}}/{{edit semi-protected}} being activated or deactivated. That bot needs to be woken up. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Anomie fixed the bot/listing issues, so that's taken care of. Now would some kind admin(s) care to deal with the accumulated editprotected requests? Sailsbystars (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS issue?

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 editor, Mercy11, informed me that I am misinterpreting the WP:CANVASS guideline in my observation that they were canvassed to come to the talk page of Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States. The canvass request at issue was made on Mercy11's talk page here by XL8TION. On the article talk page, I drew attention here to the language XLR8TION used in their request to Mercy11:

"Please add your opinion on the talk page... ...A right-wing Filipino is trying to cause problems to the photos... because of his right wing views... ...he is trying to create a divisive faction in the community... ...Please contribute your opinions to the article's talk page to dispel his absurdness..."

The "right-wing Filipino" XLR8TION refers to is apparently RightCowLeftCoast. The guideline on WP:CANVASSING states "Canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate." Can an un-involved administrator or experienced user clarify for us whether or not this constitutes inappropriate canvassing, or is instead entirely acceptable? I will post notices on the user talk pages of Mercy11, XLR8TION, and RightCowLeftCoast about this ANI posting. The overall thread is Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#POV infobox. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be an NPA issue here too. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The NPA issue extends to the article talk page, along with assumption of bad faith. Also, it seems textbook canvassing in my opinion. --Nouniquenames 16:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• This posting here is purely a diversion from the real topic that is under discussion at Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#POV infobox): it is using a Guideline (canvass) to divert attention from a higher level matter - a Policy (POV). Undoubtly done in wp:good faith, but in the end still has the same effect of disrupting the encyclopedia - another Guideline. Attention-seeking by escalating to this forum from frustation that things are not moving his way at Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#POV infobox is not a legitimate alternative. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
• If there is/was personal attack, then the correct thing to do is to deal with it based on the NPA policy, not the illegitimate canvass tactic. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

There is/was a NPA issue and there was also a legitimate canvassing issue. There's no reason to handle only part of the issue. Now we can deal with both. --Nouniquenames 17:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• The charge of canvassing is legitimate, and I agree that there is a personal attack as well. I won't act as an admin here since I'm having some problems of my own with XLR8TION's editing elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I am very tempted to block them but I fear that it is too late and I am crossing over to punitive territory. (I was in class) I removed the remaining notices from the canvased talk pages as an interm measure. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, a stern warning is always welcome... Drmies (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Very true doctor. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Stern warning, how about a wake-up call to what the original editor who caused this debate has on his user talk page.? The use of images presently in the infobox is reflective of the Puerto Rican community. Puerto Ricans vote 90% of the time for the democratic party, therefore it's not shock that the majority of elected officials of Puerto Rican ancestry are Democrats. The removal of Rep. Velasquez's photo is not only highly insulting but simply is a denigrating edit of the first Puerto Rican woman elected to Congress simply because she is in the Democratic Party. Wake up folks and realize that politics DOES NOT belong in this article. This article is about mainland Puerto Ricans ad NOT Puerto Rican politicians. --XLR8TION (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • See BRD. There is nothing wrong with opening up a discussion. Just because you do not agree with a person's point does not make it invalid. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • XLR8TION, make no mistake, what you did was canvassing because it wasn't neutral in tone. You can point someone to a discussion, but you can't inject your opinion. When you do this, you should invite more than "buddies", and invite ALL others who have participated recently. What you did was in an insulting tone, thus a violation of NPA. I have no prior involvement with you, so if you do something like this again, I have no issue blocking you. As to the content of the article, take that to the article talk page, then WP:DRN if you can't reach consensus, but under no circumstances does that absolve you of the mistakes you made here. The key to avoiding issues it to notify people in a neutral manner, both in quantity of people, and tone of notification. Now you know. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• I messaged XLR8TION HERE in the hopes he will tone down his responses to other editors' views. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

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.

List of Armenian Americans

Hetrometro (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is vandalizing List of Armenian Americans page after numerous warnings. Adds non-notable names and changes most of wording from English to German. I have warned him to no ado. Please help.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hum, seems to be adding 'Simpsons' characters too: eg Chuck Garabedian [41]]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Looked at the contribs, gave him a final warning. If he doesn't want to participate in a good faith fashion, then he is wasting our time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hetrometro has restored the content, again without any attempt at discussion or explanation. I've blocked the account, with a final entreatise to discuss lest the next block be indef. I have not removed the content Hetrometro re-added, but that doesn't preclude anyone else doing so. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I did purely as it was unsourced and repetitively contentious, with no prejudice against anyone else adding part or whole back with explanation and sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A user keeps vandalizing Armenian related pages

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 user was going around vandalizing Armenian related pages. When he got banned he created a new account and has since continued vandalizing. As of October 1 this individual has vandalized 13 Armenian related pages. He changes the names of soccer players, removes and adds fake players, changes jersey colors, changes the history of the clubs, etc. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To save others time, the user appears to be User:Vagharshapat. They have been notified (and insulted as a free bonus), although on their user page rather than their talk page. Ninetoyadome, I think the standard response here is that if they continue despite the warning, WP:AIV is the place to deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

his previous account, which got banned, received numerous warnings but he still continued. His previous account was User:KunoxTxa Ninetoyadome (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indef, vandalism, pov issues, likely sock of KunoxTxa. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:29, 5 October 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.

Misinformation Campaign

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.

---

[42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

This is to draw the kind attention of a Wiki administrator to a user's misinformation campaign on the page titled "Political Families of Bangladesh" (see diffs above) for last two years. A single hacker has used multiple DNS addresses to remove listings of the political families of the founding fathers of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and the families of the first Heads of the Governments of Bangladesh, disrupting the chronological order of listing of those political families whose members served the Republic of Bangladesh in a certain chronological order along with an order of political rank. This individual replaced the founding families listing and substituted it by listing families of well-known convicted war criminals who are currently serving prison time and have been nationally and internationally condemned. The user has been notified 13 times and documented reports of his alleged violation has been filed in the "Talk" page of the article in question (see diffs below). It is only this user who has been disrupting this page by removing the political family listings of founding fathers of the nation and substituting it with a list of families of war criminals and this not only reduces the credibility of the Wikipedia but it also insults those who are consulting it through various search engines and social networking sites. For the sake of integrity and credibility of the Wikipedia, I would like to request Wikipedia to either delete this page completely so that dead political founding fathers and respected individuals are not insulted in this manner; or put a permanent freeze on this page so that subjective vandalism and misinformation campaign against families of dead national political heroes of the People's Republic of Bangladesh do not occur anymore. Your professional and ethical cooperation and if necessary intervention in this matter will be highly appreciated. Thank you very much.

[47] [48] [49] [50] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.44.205 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I know nothing about the subject matter here, but maybe the solution is to strip out every single item that isn't 100% rock solid sourced, and indef semi-protection, since the ability to stealthily add BLP violations is simply too high. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be in line with convention: list only notables (families first, since that's the title of the article, and maybe some individuals). I've already applied semi-protection for three months; maybe I'll strip a bit more. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm no, off to AfD we go. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 6 October 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.

Possible "sneaky vandalism" deemed "mondo annoying"

A brief conversation on my talk page about the edits made by 49.145.53.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) led to a suspicion of more of those edits by IPs in the same range. I think we need a smarter person than me to figure out if something is going on, if a rangeblock is possible, etc. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

If not sneaky vandalism, at the very least this looks like a cartoon aficionado who doesn't bother with sources or edit summaries. Suspicions are always aroused when accounts persistently mess with dates and similar stats. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Another final warning given here. They need to at least provide some type of summary, source or talk. Otherwise we can only assume it is vandalism. I would support a block, and a range if needed if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I'll drop a note at a cartoon project page, requesting interested editors to fact check. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note here [51], in hopes that someone will give it a glance in the near future.... 76.248.149.47 (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

76, I posted this for you, FOR YOU!!!!, since you mentioned other IPs in the same range. Perhaps you can address that topic? Happy days, Drmies (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm appreciative, and would send you puppies made of chiffon if I could. It appears the previous IPs, like those seen here [52], [53], [54], are used temporarily, then quickly abandoned. These are rabbit holes replete with serial IP editing I wouldn't wish on the most bored admins--my take is that the animation project doesn't spend much time checking on these. I work tomorrow, and have to wake up somewhere between 4:30 and 5:00 AM, but even if I weren't calling it quits I can't imagine going through all this without a flashlight and a hairshirt. A last intriguing note: the 49 range all hail from the Philippines. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have no doubt half a dozen admin geeks are already calculating collateral damage while assembling their rangeblockbombs. Sleep tight! Drmies (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

To my shame, after 6 years of adminship I never have worked out how to do a rangeblock. I am sure somebody more technically adept will take up the strain if it becomes necessary. --John (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, most people don't work with networks to know. I have for 20 years but only an admin 6 months and haven't figured it all out yet. In this case, I believe it would be 49.144.0.0/13, which is 524,288 addresses. I don't think the software allows for such a large range requiring either a series of range blocks to overcome (not recommended), page protection, or someone to really dial in and figure a more narrow band that would cover them. It is as much art as science, oddly enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

...or WP could start requiring email-confirmed real name registration and sign-in-to-edit, which would eliminate this and tens of thousands of other such cases. Just sayin'... Carrite (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They could, but they won't, for reasons known only to themselves at this juncture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

If they did that, only a few hard-core people would contribute to Wikipedia, because it would make it annoying to log-in to edit anything. The result is that articles would become out of date, and the articles that weren't out of date, would be the same as blogs by the few people who want to log in. So it would turn Wikipedia into a blog. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of information anyways so who cares if it can be edited anonymously? It would not become authoritative if people had to log-in, because it would represent only the views of the few people taking the trouble to log-in, exactly like a blog. 24.125.39.254 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not any trouble to get an account and log in; thousands of editors do it. Some in this very thread don't and they have their reasons, but your argument is bogus and your comparison to a blog is silly. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

TVTropes of all places requires users to sign in to edit. WMF's refusal to require it is nothing more than sticking to their dogma while ignoring the fact it gets run over by reality's karma every time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

← I asked 49.145.53.55 on their talk page to stop making the edits (and I included four sources for the correct information, which was in addition to the source already in the article), then three admins left notes, agreeing with me and telling them to stop, telling them about this ANI thread, and issuing a final warning. After all of that, the IP repeated the edits, which a different user reverted, and then they did it yet again, which I just reverted. I had initially AGF'ed 'em because they changed a birth year to the correct one; only now did I investigate and discover that it was 49.145.12.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who had originally changed it a month ago. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them. --John (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

User Tassedethe is vandalizing

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 Territory page redirected to the Territory_(disambiguation) page. I kept a link to the Territory_(disambiguation) page at the top of Territory and added more information to Territory about the topic. Tassedethe keeps reverting it, which is vandalism. In general if a topic has real information, there should be a page about the topic with a link at the top to a disambiguation page, which is what I was trying to do. Right now there is only a disambiguation page, but no page about the topic "Territory" itself. 24.125.39.254 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP has replaced the contents of territory with a single line dictionary definition. This has been done 5 times. He has been reverted by Cluebot, User:Gilderien and myself (3 times). I issued the IP a warning (following the Cluebot warning) and after he replaced the page again I protected it. As a disambiguation page it lists the multiple meanings of territory and includes a link to Wiktionary. He has also cut/paste the content of territory to Territory (disambiguation) (for the 2nd time). I have previously reverted that edit but I will not revert again pending any discussion here. Tassedethe (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

So Tassedethe is saying it should stay a disambiguation page? Should we change all topics to land on a disambiguation page first? No, that's not the way other pages are. Pages that have real information have an article with subsections. If there are meanings that don't belong in the subsections, you can have a link to the disambiguation page at the top, which links to pages for other meanings. I was trying to get a real article started for the Territory topic, rather than have it go directly to a disambiguation page. What's wrong with an article starting out with just a few sentences? Going straight to a disambiguation page says that Territory is not a real topic and doesn't deserve an article of its own, which is incorrect. It is a real topic that deserves an article of its own with a lot of topical information. That does not exist right now. 24.125.39.254 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't even deserve to be a discussion – Tassedethe is right. IP, go and read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the dab page per se, but the complain here is specious. If Tassedethe had been vandalizing, this should have been reported at AIV after sufficient warnings. But Tassedethe was not vandalizing, and the claim that they were is false and seems to be employed as a kind of stick. I'm closing this report. Discussion should take place on the talk page; if anyone wishes to revert the IP's changes, please do so with an edit summary and, please, bring up the matter on the talk page, linking to the appropriate policy/guideline. IP, don't make such a false claim of vandalism again or you may be blocked for disruptive behavior. Needless to say, edit-warring (on either side) is blockable as well. This is the war room; please take your fight to the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen the edits at Territory, only at the dab page. I've warned the IP for edit-warring, of course. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I know it's closed, but just a note for posterity: it's possible this could all have been avoided if Tassedthe hadn't called this "vandalism" to begin with; I see we're jumping on the IP for doing that, but Tassedthe did it too. Now the IP's edits were incorrect, but it would have been better to explain why instead of saying "stop vandalizing or you'll be blocked" right out of the blocks; I'd have been pissed off at that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, I thought I missed something in those edit summaries but I didn't--I see now that you're referring to the warning on the IP's talk page which I didn't see since the IP removed it. Your point is well taken, and I added onto your comment on the IP's talk page. If you don't mind, I'm moving the "archive" goalpost. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 7 October 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.

Continued disruptive editing by User:GreatLifeInService

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.

---

As you can see from his talk page: User talk:GreatLifeInService, he has been warned and blocked constantly for his poor editing practices. At first, it was always false, unsourced, or original research type edits, in which he was blocked once. After that, he kept adding the same sort of fake/hoax information, but now would copy and paste another reference in the article, making it look like it was sourced, when the source said nothing to back up his claims. He was blocked a second time for this. Now he's back at it again, and I just wanted to cut to the chase rather than waiting for Admins to come across him again. I'm tired of cleaning up his hoax edits, and lecturing him through his edits when he refuses to respond or start any sort of discussion with anyone whatsoever.

I can provide difs if I have to, but they're already provided up and down his talk page, which is virtually nothing but warnings and block notices... Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 6 October 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.

Contradicting Checkuser Statements

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:Elen of the Roads recently blocked User:Basedircrory, claiming checkuser evidence suggested he was a sockpuppet of banned user User:Zaiger[55]. However, a recent SPI on User:LiteralKa named both accounts as potential socks, and were later stated to be unrelated[56] by User:Alison. Obviously one of the two is wrong, and it should be resolved as to who. Maractus ^talk 00:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It's possible neither is wrong. Alison's checkuser was about 6 days ago. Elen's checkuser was I presume very recently. It's possible there was no technical evidence of relatedness at the time of Alison's checkuser but there is now whether because of carelessness, the assumption they were safe, perhaps both of those, or just a form of trolling. Nil Einne (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it helps, but I can provide numerous links to help establish that the two are different people. Maractus ^talk 00:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Best take that up with Elen. Any evidence you provide will have to be weighted up against the evidence they are related and only a checkuser will have access to that evidence. However, if my hypothesis is correct, unless you know both of them in real life, it's doubtful your evidence will mean much as they were clearly trying to hide their sockpuppetry so any evidence for them being unrelated could easily come from that. Nil Einne (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just suggesting that several off-wiki accounts operated by the users could help provide evidence that they are indeed two different people. Maractus ^talk 00:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually make that 8 days Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Off-wiki accounts are generally not considered as evidence, pro or con. We have no control over the other sites, no way to verify anything, and if we have learned anything, it is that sockpuppeting is not that hard to do here with teams of people working on it. Having multiple accounts by the same person on another website is likely easier than here. And we have no control over the their logs and no reasonable way to be assured that what an archive says today is the same thing it said a month ago. There are just too many variables to use off-wiki information as it is completely unverifiable. In general, it is difficult to prove a negative anyway. This is one reason we don't use CU to prove innocents here at enwp. And CU isn't magic pixie dust. Between proxys (open and private), NAT, hotspots and most people having access to two very different IPs, home and work, CU can vary in a few days. You just started talking with Elen on her talk page, and normally we ask people give that a good faith effort first. She has replied with 5 comments in 12 hours, all recent, so obviously she is attempting to answer you in good faith there. This really shouldn't be at ANI to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that two different checkusers stated different results, not just speculation. I believe that is enough cause for this to be here. Maractus ^talk 01:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it is reason to talk to the CU's on their talk page first. If you can't work it out there, then you can bring it here. This is no exception. Bringing it here only adds drama, and odds are that you can just ask, like you have, and they will answer, like Elen has been. ANI is the last resort, not the first. So yes, I would request a close until the talk page discussion has been exhausted, per our usual methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:05, 7 October 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.

Possible block evasion by User:StillStanding-247

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 want to bring this to the attention of administrators here because the user StillStanding-247 was recently blocked indefinitely for “Massive battleground mentality, assuming bad faith, and worst of all, threatening violence” and looking at his talk page it seemed that many administrators were involved. I think there is a good possibility that he has created a new account to continue this behavior.

On September 18, user StillStanding-247 added “conservative” to description in first sentence of Americans for Prosperity page [57]. He was reverted and soon after that, a brand new account (Sally Season) made its first ever edit that happened to be identical to StillStanding’s edit [58]. Sally Season’s next edits were on You didn’t build that and Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund which StillStanding was editing a few days earlier. The times in which Sally Season has edited have never overlapped with the times that StillStanding has edited. Sally Season’s edits and comments on talk page are very similar to StillStanding’s and Sally Season has displayed battleground mentality on talk pages [59] [60], which was one of the reasons for StillStanding’s recent block. Since StillStanding was blocked, Sally Season has increased their activity, all on pages in which StillStanding had previously been active. I know this is a serious accusation, but it is unlikely that all of that could be coincidence. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You could have added it to the SPI, if some trigger-happy sort hadn't deleted it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Insults are not helpful Bugs. It would have required a new SPI regardless of outcome, since a CU already made a determination. That is what I suggest if you think they are a sock, not ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 7 October 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.

BLP-violating edit summaries by Argopelter

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 article in question is Im Yoona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Argopelter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps insisting in his edit summaries that Im Yoona is his quote: "Waifu". After I warned him not to do this he came to my talkpage and left me a personal attack. Now he repeated his claims about Im Yoona being his "Waifu" even after my warning: (just a reminder that YOONA IS MAI WAIFU :3) These BLP violations, and tendentious editing to match, need to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What does "waifu" mean? Minorview (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's Japanese for wife, but more often is used as an e-term for an imaginary significant other. Maractus ^talk 00:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're complaining about the edit summaries, not the edits themselves, right? And what do you think he means by "mai waifu", putting aside the issue that the edit summary is unrelated to the edit? Based on a quick Google search, it seems to have different connotations, although it apparently literally means "my wife". I kinda doubt that's what he means. My guess is he means he's a big fan, which, if true, is clearly inappropriate in an edit summary but not a BLP violation. And I think he only called you a "jerk" because you accused him of vandalism. I would think he just needs a warning to limit edit summaries to a description of the edit and keep his personal fan-related feelings out of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page. We'll see if he behaves better.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be the editor is literally suggesting the subject of that article is his wife, occasionally we do get people who to seem extent appear to genuinely believe in some of of fantasy they seem to have invented. And saying some celebrity is their wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend isn't an uncommon issue whether or not the person saying it believes it. In any case, hopefully the warning will be sufficient. Nil Einne (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying earlier but I was out. Anyway I think "Mai Waifu" means "My wife". As Nil says he may be declaring some crash or other wishful thinking regarding Yoona. Syntactically speaking his declaration: (just a reminder that YOONA IS MAI WAIFU :3) denotes that "Yoona is his wife" not that he is a fan of Yoona. "Yoona" is the subject of the verb and "waifu" the object. A clear BLP violation and a violation of the edit-summary system. Whatever it is I don't think it is proper for a user in any serious enterprise to use the edit-summary field to advertise their feelings or imaginary relations with the subjects of the articles here. I checked also his latest comments and he still insists on the "waifu" theme. His prospects for complying with Bbb23's request don't look that great and I think a block is past due. He cannot keep violating BLP this way. Regardless, thank you all for your comments and advice and especially Bbb23 for his advice and actions as an admin, Nil for his insightful comments and Maractus for his input. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

AIV is not responding. Now he is edit-warring on my talk. Can anyone block this guy? Thanks. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Says the one who just vandalized my talk page repeatedly. Argopelter (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone also please remove Twinkle use from this editor as he used it to warn me for removing a BLP violation from his talkpage: 2012 (edit) (undo) Argopelter (talk | contribs) (Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User:Argopelter. (TW))

I used it to revert your vandalism. Argopelter (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

"mai waifu" is a term of endearment. Cool it, man. Argopelter (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for expressing your "endearment" for its article subjects. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for you to be shoving your foot up my ass. Argopelter (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you explain the "This user loves Beagles." userbox on your page, then? Argopelter (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Knock it off. Argopelter, stay away from their talk page. One more revert there, one more templated warning, and I will block you temporarily. And both of you, stop it here as well. This isn't worth the electrons: dinosaurs gave their life so you could post this stuff here. Enough. I'm closing this right now. Argopelter: mind your manners please, and be more careful. Bbb has given you decent advice on your talk page; listen to it. Dr. K., I understand your anger (a bit), but this isn't worth the effort. Also, that use of Twinkle isn't much of a violation, and as far as I understand TW isn't a right we revoke. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert his talk page. Argopelter (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, whatever. I will close this now. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, enabling this user this way simply emboldens his serial and clueless violation of BLP. This is simply wrong. Nothing to do with anger. He simply must be stopped since he cannot treat BLP subjects this way. However if you disagree, I respect that, although I don't share your evaluation. As far as Twinkle he can be blacklisted. It has happened before. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not for this, yet, Dr. K. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 7 October 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.

NPA and edit warring block needed

I've been having a content dispute on Anti-Japanese sentiment with User:71.94.7.228. After finding more sources to satisfy xyr concerns (and after having had to remove some BLP infringing material on the article's talk page--see my redaction here). Unfortunately things have become a bit worse, because now he says (to me) "You've got autism you cold retarded fuck" and recommends that I perform some sexual behaviors on his talk page. The editor has also crossed 3RR on the article. While I'm inclined to think a block is appropriate, I'm WP:INVOLVED and thus would like someone else to look into it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. That said, all "Anti-X sentiment" articles must burn in hell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That is a static IP, you might have been too generous, considering his homophobic comments above on his talk page. I suppose we can see, but I'm betting a few months off would be more fruitful as nothing useful has come from that IP, and searching around the web shows nothing of value would be lost with a longer block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bettina Wulff

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 note that 95.33.9.54 is spreading libel at Bettina Wulff. I suggest that his IP be blocked and that the article itself be protected. Regards, MountWassen (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, hope 3 months will be enough until the vandals have lost interest in that campaign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So do I. Thanks for your prompt response. Regards, MountWassen (talk) 09:24, 7 October 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.

AfD Closure of Thulasi Nair

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 article didn't had any refs when it was nominated and during the first three votes at the AfD. I added three references to the article ([61], [62], [63]) from Times of India, India's largest National Newspaper. Then I voted 'Keep' in the AfD. The AfD was closed and the article has been deleted. I contacted the closing admin Mark Arsten and asked for a relisting. The admin asked me to ping the three other voters to ask whether they would change their opinion. I did, but unfortunately none of the three voters have replied to my message. I am not appealing against the admin's action. I respect Mark Arsten for their actions and their reply to me. I just wanted an uninvolved admin's opinion on whether the article satisfies notability with the three references that I added. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anbu. The proper venue for this kind of issue is WP:DRV. Would you be ok with taking it there instead? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I searched for such a notice board before posting here, but couldn't find. I have made an entry there. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:18, 7 October 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:The "good guy"‎ redirecting talk and user page to IP 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.

---

Can someone else chime in and tell User talk:The "good guy"‎ that he cannot redirect his user and talk pages to the IP pages? He is claiming that the registered account is a legitimate sock account used for maintenance and thus he is able to redirect to his "main account", the open IP. Thanks-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:38, 7 October 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.

76.189.121.57

This IP user, 76.189.121.57 has been deleting sourced material and threatened to report me for reverting their edits. I do believe this was a personal attack on me because I do put the sourced vocal ranges on non-opera singers pages, and the user has something against that. I don't like edit warring, but the user has been doing it as well for some reason. Tribal44 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

To the admin handling this, please see my talk page and the message I just posted to admin Mark Arsten. Tribal's user page clearly explains why she will not stop inserting vocal ranges into articles. Hopefully, we can put an end to what Tribal44 has been doing. Many editors have reverted her, but she just goes right back in and reverts it back. Thanks. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

While vocal ranges may have some place in the article, provided they are sourced, they probably do not belong in the lead section. However, the overarching issue in this discussion is the ongoing incivility between the two editors that can be seen at the IP's talk page, where the two have been "going at it", for lack of a better term to characterize the disagreement. To me, this is part content dispute, part incivility...Go Phightins! (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not mad at Tribal at all. :) Just frustrated. I'm sure she means well, but what she's doing is totally inappropriate. I gave clear edit comments and explained to Tribal why what she's doing isn't right, but as her user page shows, her mission is to put vocal ranges into as many singer's articles as possible, regardless of whether it belongs there or not. Many, many editors have reverted her since she started doing this and she just reverts back, so I'm surprised this hasn't been reported before. She can't go into to Mick Jagger's article and change "Mick Jagger is a rock singer for the Rolling Stones" to "Mick Jagger is a baritone singer". ;) That's just a made-up example, but that's what she's doing in many, many articles. Or she's just sticking the vocal range somewhere else in the lead. Her user page makes clear why she's doing it, but an admin needs to educate her about why she needs to stop. My apologies for anything taken as incivility, but I see this process Tribal's been doing has been going on for a long, long time. Someone really needs to stop it. I appreciate her passion for music and, in particular, vocal ranges, but what she's doing is wrong. Thanks. :) --76.189.121.57 (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tribal's userpage says that "if it's annoying you, let her know". So I think a reasonable expectation would be an explanation. Though I'm honestly not sure that ANI is the proper venue for this discussion. It should probably be worked out on user talk pages...Go Phightins! (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)To the IP: Is there a reason you are making threats of blocks and shopping for admin on Mark Arsten's page? Your tone and actions outside of the reverts is questionable here, and you speak with an air of authority that exceeds the reality of the situation. The IP has left one rude warning[64] on the user's talk page and has been threatening reporting for disruption and getting Tribal44 blocked. At a minimum, this is very incivil (and a perfect case for the non-existing WQA). As to whether or not Tribal should or shouldn't be adding vocal ranges, I have no idea. Doesn't seem so bad, but this isn't DRN and you don't threaten someone who is obviously making good faith edits. If you were as well versed in policy as you claim to be, you would know that since this covers multiple articles, you get a third opinion, go to WP:DRN, or start an WP:RFC, or go to some venue, but you don't threaten someone because you disagree with them. 76.189.121.57 is being disruptive at a minimum. Again, no comment on the content, but if the IP doesn't seek a solution rather than badger, I will be inclined to consider a block for being disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that so many editors have reverted her "vocal range" edits made it very clear to her that what she's doing is inappropriate. But she just reverts every single editor that reverts her vocal range content. And she continually puts edit comments like "Stop doing that" or similar. Btw, even IF putting vocal ranges into every singer's article was appropriate, a lot of the sourcing isn't even good/reliable. But it shouldn't be in the articles anyway... it's inappropriate unless it's an opera singer. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Again: Take it to dispute resolution. Do not threaten good faith editors. Period. I shouldn't have to repeat this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Dennis Brown I was going to post the same thing, but when I clicked edit, it'd already been said. You don't threaten good faith editors with blocks, or any type of sanctions for that matter. See WP:AGF, please. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, this has been going on for a very long time (many editors reverting Tribal for adding the vocal range content and then being reverted by Tribal), yet apparently it hasn't been reported. That is very disruptive and an administrator needs to be aware of it. So I wrote Mark for help rather than filing a formal report. I wanted to see what Mark advised. And this issue IS about the content. It's not isolated. It's happening in many, many, many articles. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you don't get to threaten editors who are acting in good faith. I understand your rationale for pinging an administrator to take a quick look before you formalize a discussion, but that's not the problem in this situation. Incivility is the issue and very little effort, it seems, has been put forth trying to get the user to explain herself. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw, I never said I could implement any particular action. I said that I would report what she was doing if it continued. Nothing wrong with that. My language may have been a bit harsh and I apologized for that already. But this isn't a new problem. It's been going on for a long time, with many editors reverting Tribal. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And an administrator, me, is giving you a solution right now. The anticipated response is "Ok, I won't be incivil any more and I will take this to WP:DRN" so we can just move along without further action, and maybe edit an article or two. It isn't the ONLY option, just the best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, to be clear, yes there is a problem with saying you will report someone who is making good faith edits. Even if they are, I'm not going to block them for being mistaken. You don't "report them", you go go DRN WITH them, and let uninolved people help find a consensus. Just because you disagree doesn't make it the wrong edit, by the way. Threatening to report is incivil and if the threats (which have a goal of intimidating other editors) continue, you will be blocked. I can't put it any more plain than that. Stop it. Go to DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)All right, this is the last time I'm posting tonight, I may check again tomorrow, but what specific editors have reverted. Please show us some diffs. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DOZENS of editors have reverted Tribal over a long period of time. And here's a typical example of what Tribal does ([65]). For a long time, the opening sentence was "Vibeke Stene (pronounced vee-beh-keh) (born 17 August 1978) is a Norwegian vocalist who was in the gothic metal band Tristania." Tribal changed it to "Vibeke Stene (pronounced vee-beh-keh) (born 17 August 1978) is a Norwegian spinto soprano[1] singer." So we have a singer for a metal band and Tribal changes it to say she's a spinto soprano. Totally inappropriate. Editors have reverted these types of edits repeatedly, but Tribal just goes back in and puts back the vocal range version, usually with an edit comment that says something like "Stop changing the vocal range", or no edit comment at all. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

See? This is a personal attack. I don't know why the user is doing this, but it is downright inappropriate and annoying. The user is trying to bully me out of not reverting *any* edit anymore. I say let the actual admin decide on the whole senerio. Tribal44 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

I already gave my opinion. If the IP wants to debate, I'm not interested as ANI isn't a debate forum, we don't decide what is the best content here. Ever. It is an incident forum. You can choose to accept my advice, or you can continue along the same path but now informed of the consequences. But 76*, you can do what I recommended or you can wait around and maybe some nicer and more patient admin will come along with a different solution. But I'm off, so good luck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You said "this" is a personal attack? What exactly do you think was a personal attack? I simply pointed out evidence of the type of edits you've been doing for a long time. This isn't personal. It's about your inappropriate editing. I've already said previously that I think you mean well, but what you're doing with your vocal range insertions is wrong. That's why so many editors have reverted it. But you just keep ignoring every editor that reverts you by simply reverting them back, and then put an edit comment saying to stop doing it. That's not how Wikipedia works. I know vocal ranges are very important to you, but that doesn't mean you should go into every singer's article and put it there. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting way out of hand. I don't and will not listen to some IP user who thinks my edits are labeled "inappropriate". That is for the wiki admin to say, NOT you ok? I edit different pages as well. Are you going to feel all "superior" and revert them too? Ohhh wait, I just made another different edit...and another one... and now this one. You going to revert those too??? Tribal44 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tribal44

Tribal44, you've got some real misconceptions here. (1) IP editors have a perfect right to edit here and the fact that they are unregistered, cannot be used to negate the value of the edits per se. (2) No, this is not for a "wiki admin" to decide. Admins do not decide content issues, editors do. And where there is a dispute, the appropriate thing to do is to take it to the article's talk page and discuss it with other editors, and possibly seek a third opinion. Both you and 76.189.121.57 have been edit-warring and mildly incivil to each other. Neither of you has the moral high ground. Tribal, without commenting extensively on the dispute, I will say that some of your edits could be construed as inappropriate in that they involve synthesis and original research and at times less than ideal sources. This one, for example, is sourced to a fan forum, in which the singer is participating: "The only thing I can say, from the classical theory, is that I'm MezzoSoprano.". Nowhere does she say that she "Her vocal range is spinto soprano" (a different voice range from a mezzo-soprano and a voice term which applies only to operatic singers). It is inaccurate and misleading to use it for other genres. This one is referenced to the singer's blog. She says: "I really dont know my range anymore since its been so long since we checked it. But I am a soprano and if I would use the classical singing more I would be lyrical I think." Nowhere does she say that "her melodic range is typically in the soubrette soprano range" (again a term used for opera singers). Voceditenore (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

PS Although it neither detracts from nor enhances the validity of what I'm telling you both, I'm not an admin. Voceditenore (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Being an admin is meaningless here, as you point out, it is a content dispute, which is why I keep saying to take it to the proper venue. I would imagine the IP is probably right on much or most of the content, but again, the constant insulting tone and bullying to a fellow editor, which is ironic since he has been on my talk page calling me a hypocrite, a bully and a liar simply because he has trouble understanding plain English. So for a final time, he needs to take it to some type of content dispute resolution, as his constant rudeness and aggressive behavior will get him blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again Dennis, you are being a total hypocrite. I don't say that to be mean. I say it because it's true. You have continually characterized me as being uncivil, have claimed that I made "threats", and have called me a bully. Yet what have you done? Exactly what you are accusing me of. Repeatedly. From the beginning, you spoken to me in a condescending manner, and have made threats about banning me. I have acknowledged that some of my words to Tribal may have been a little harsher than necessary and I apologized for that, but I NEVER bullied anyone and I never made any threats in the way you are attempting to characterize. After I made good faith edits, with full edit comments, explaining why it is inappropriate for Tribal to go into every singer's article and insert detailed content about their vocal range (in the lead, no less), Tribal reverted all of them, even putting back other content for which there could be no dispute whatsoever (such as redundant content, or content that was either unsourced or unreliably sourced). Because of this, I indicated to Tribal that the matter would be reported if she didn't stop what she was doing and that she could end up being blocked for inappropriate editing. That is NOT a threat. If anything, it was a courtesy to let her know what would happen if it continued. This is not a minor issue. It is a major editing issue because it involves thousands of articles - every article about a singer, whether the singer is famous or relatively unknnown. Tribal's own user page even acknowledges exactly what she is doing and what her purpose on Wikipedia is: "I might as well create this page, and the reason why I add vocal ranges onto pages. I was a part-time vocal teacher for 4 years. That is why I post the ranges of the singers, with reliable sources of course. I don't do it to be annoying, if it is annoying to some people, let me know." So mistake one is that because vocal ranges are important to Tribal, she assumes it's important enough to put not only into a Wikipedia article, but into every singer's article. The second mistake is that she has the gall to put this vocal range content into the leads of the singers' articles. Sometimes she will even go further, by changing the opening sentence of a singer's article and instead of saying the person is a rock singer for such and such a band, she'll change it to the person is a mezzo-soprano singer, for example. And we're not talking about opera singers. We're talking about pop and rock singers. The third mistake, and this is huge, is that many, many of these content insertions about vocal range are unreliably sourced, as Voceditenore began alluding to above. Tribal will simply link to clearly inappropriate (unreliable) sources, or even just link to multiple videos on YouTube as proof of the claim. This needs to stop. Because if it doesn't, Tribal will continue going into hundreds of articles of singers and putting in this vocal range content into the lead. And editors will continue to revert, and she will revert right back. And she will, as she has done so often, try to put this content into many articles that are rarely edited, so it is unlikely to ever get noticed or not noticed for a long time. We, as editors, simply do not have the right to simply go into every article within a particular category to add a specific type of content just because it's meaningful to us personally. It needs to be content that is worthy of inclusion into an encylopedic article. And further, it most certainly needs to be lead-worthy if it's going to be put into the lead. I imagine Tribal has been doing this for years, so I don't know yet and can't imagine how many articles of singers she's done this to. All I know is that I did a quick check of her edit history going back a year or two, and the vocal range content was reverted by many editors, yet was put back by Tribal, with edit comments such as "knock it off", "stop removing the vocal ranges", "stop doing that. good lord" etc. I'm sure she was well-intentioned when she came up with this idea years ago, but she obviously knows that many editors have opposed it through their reverts, yet she continues to revert all the reverts, and put the vocal range content into other articles. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, 76.189.etc., calling a good faith admin who happens to be one of the most respected ones on the project a hypocrite, is probably not a good idea when trying to resolve a problem saying that you're the good guy. As has been said a million times (it seems), this is for an article's talk page as a content dispute. Dennis suggested, and I will echo, seek a third opinion. But ANI is not the place for this, and soon this thread will likely be closed because it's not serving the purpose of ANI. Thank you--Go Phightins! (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And one more thing, the diff you provided above was of you making a revert. You claim "dozens of other editors have" and I want a diff of one of these dozens of others. Go Phightins! (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GoPhightons, your opinion of the admin and what is a "good idea" is just that... your opinion. His comments and actions here and in other talk pages show a different story. He implied I was a fool by alluding to a "fool's errand", threatened me with blocks and said, just above, said I have "trouble understanding plain English." Do you call that civil? That is not the behavior of someone who deserves respect. And you obviously don't understand how huge/widespread this problem is with Tribal44 or else you wouldn't have made the suggestion to deal with this on "an article's talk page." This problem is not about a single article, or even a few articles. It's about hundreds, and potentially thousands, of articles, where Tribal wants to insert the vocal range content, even though it's not worthy of inclusion and most certainly not lead-worthy. These are not opera singers we're talking about. They're pop and rock singers, etc. And it's interesting how you completely ignored what Voceditenore said. And if you want to see all the times Tribal44 has been reverted, all you have to do is simply look at her edit history, like I did, and do a word search for "vocal range". You will see all the reverts of other editors who have reverted her for the vocal range content. This has been going on for four years. And be sure to read Tribal's edit comments when she reverts all the editors who reverted her. Look, the vocal range content doesn't belong in those articles, the sources in most cases miserably fail the reliability test (or the content is put there completely unsourced), and even if the content were worthy of inclusion, Tribal clearly does not understand that the content is in no way lead-worthy. And amazingly, she will even put edit comments like this one,[66], which says "I may be wrong, but heard the role was a contralto one." This is what it's gotten to after all these years of doing this; she'll simply enter content even though she openly admits that she had no idea if it's accurate or not, and do so with no sources. All of this has to stop. And it needs to be addressed as an overall editing issue because it involves every singer's article. --76.189.121.57 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you were being rude, you are refusing to take the content dispute to the proper board and are instead threatening another user. Yes, if you keep doing that I will block you. This isn't a threat, this is an admin telling you your behavior isn't acceptable and what the consequences will be if you don't use other options. Too bad, as you are probably right on the content issue, but you don't get to be the sole arbiter of content, it requires a consensus which doesn't currently exist. The answer isn't to keep reverting and threatening the user. At this point, I would ask another admin to look at this for action. Since he has been busy calling me a liar, a bully, someone that shouldn't be an admin, etc. in the hatted portion of my talk page, and refused to consider WP:DRN, another set of admin eyes is appreciated since I don't want to hear cries of "involved", no matter how unaffected I really am by these comments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:76.189.121.57 for 24 hours for continuing with the insulting/attacking/battlefield behaviour (both here and on Dennis's talk page) rather than listening and taking it to WP:DR. In response I stand accused of abuse of admin tools - I'll leave it to others to decide that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I say the block was correct. I would've done the same. De728631 (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Not handled well

I'm not seeing evidence of inappropriate threats by 76. Compare You need to stop or you will be reported for disruptive editing. with the standard wording of {{Uw-disruptive3}} Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. The forum shopping statement is a stretch as a) 76 explained they were in process of posting on Mark Arsten's page when the ANI was posted, and b) they didn't post the ANI. I'm seeing an unfortunate back and forth spiral of 76 and Dennis as much talking past each other as to each other. While I won't say the block was wrong -- certainly not any abuse or anything like that -- a timely close tag on this thread -- with positive comments on 76's page on how to proceed with the content issue -- might have been a better approach. Nobody Ent 16:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Both parties were seriously edit warring (5 reverts each on one article alone). 76 receives edit summaries calling him a troll [67], [68]. When contacted by the other editor on his talk page, responds abrasively but to call it a threatening personal attack is a stretch. Asks an admin for advice and assistance. Another admin comes along instead and tells him it looks like he's forum-shopping and he should discuss it at ANI, where unbeknownst to him, he has already been reported. There, he's given some alphabet soup, called a bully again, and told he shouldn't discuss it at ANI after all. I had entered into a dialogue with him on my talk page, but he was blocked in the interim. Yes, he should have dropped the stick, but he could have been helped to do that, so much better. There was way too much indignation all 'round in my view. Voceditenore (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this was a simple content dispute that could've and should've been discussed on an article's talk page to reach consensus, but it was blown way out of proportion. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Update - I've added some further advice (very close to Nobody Ent's advice) on 76's talk page. I've also offered to unblock immediately if they'll agree to drop the insults and follow WP:DR - I've suggested WP:RfC and have offered to help with a review of the content dispute. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant to add that any admin can, of course, unblock if they think it would be appropriate - no need to ask me first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• 76's last edit seems to indicate the usefulness of a block has passed -- Drive by unblock requested. Nobody Ent 19:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I agree - done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Content discussion

Started discussion of underlying content issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Musicians#Vocal_range Nobody Ent 19:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Found footage (genre)

User:Track100 is repeatedly removing content from this page without explanation or discussion.

diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. Serendi^podous 18:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted his last edit and left him a 3RR warning, if he reverts again he should be blocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Nationalistic disruption

Masanori Asami (talk · contribs) has been disrupting Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in an attempt to push a Chinese nationalistic point of view. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco is constantly being brought up by the editor when challenged, and it is this Treaty that Chinese nationalists have been using to try to say that they have claims over the embattled Senkaku Islands and other parts of Okinawa Prefecture. Masanori Asami has also been disrupting the Chinese Wikipedia, forcing the administrators there to lock down the Ryukyu Islands page.

It is clear that Masanori Asami is not here to constructively build an encyclopedia anymore and will only try to push his/her point of view on the Ryukyu Islands and their relation to China.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

By what reason, did Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) labels me a nationalist? I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) lacks the ability of reading, and I think I am far from a nationalist or a patriot of Japan. After I had requested Ryulong(琉竜) to show the reliable source on the talk page of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ryulong(琉竜) began to make actions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 4 and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here. These must be the bothering tactics of Ryulong(琉竜), Ryulong(琉竜) must show the reliable source that my definition of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is synonymous with "Ryukyu Islands".(Masanori Asami (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

Ryulong stated that you were pushing a Chinese nationalist PoV, not Japanese. – Richard BB

WP:DISCSANC may be applicable here under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands, though there has been some confusion as to how the wording of the remedy applies. This may be WP:AE material. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. For I have not classified the Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) into the Ryukyu Islands of Japan. I think Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) belongs to Taiwan China.(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

But my nationality is Japanese, so it is not correct that even if Ryulong(琉竜) had called me a nationalist for short instead of a Chinese nationalist. (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

I find it odd that someone who claims to be a Japanese citizen believes that the embattled islands belong to the Republic of China rather than their own nation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But Masanori Asami can communicate in Japanese Does that erase your suspicion? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough, there are in the world some non-Japanese people who can communicate using the Japanese language: there's even this thing called "language classes" that non-Japanese can use to improve their abilities.. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion on MA's ethnic background is irrelevant to the case at hand. One's ancestry is not the determining factor when considering if behaviour is disruptive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia article of late Professor Kiyoshi Inoue who was a Japanese but clarified meanness of the Japanese Government about Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute. (Masanori Asami (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

The definition of Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) is same to an article of People's Daily in 1953, and is almost same to the arrticle of Baidu(百度百科) edited by the Chinese nationalist in Mainland China. They want to make Ryukyu independent from Japan, and classify Ōsumi Islands (大隅諸島) which have never belonged to Ryukyu Kingdom into Ryukyu Islands, such that to make the area of Ryukyu wider. For they think the land of Ryukyu belongs to China. If you can understand chinese, please see "琉球群岛" in Baidu(百度百科) below.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/68665.htm

(Masanori Asami (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

Masanori Asami, the definition on Wikipedia is the common definition for the English speaking world. The Americans referred to the entirety of the chain as the "Ryukyus" during their occupation. Up until sometime last year, the article was solely about the islands that comprise Okinawa Prefecture, but upon further research several editors discovered that Encyclopedia Britanica and other publications refer to everything in the "Arc" as the Ryukyu Islands. You have for reasons unknown seen fit to disrupt the page on not only the English Wikipedia but the Chinese Wikipedia. You removed valid sources, removed anything regarding the Osumi and Tokara chains, removed content regarding Japanese rule, the Japanese name for the whole chain, and some other nomenclature information and a free photo. On top of that you have been fighting over the content fork at Ryukyu Arc as well as insisting that content be added to the main page that the Amami Islands are not part of the Japanese definition, even though that information is already covered. You are not here to constructively edit. You are here to push a point of view.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Be bold. --(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

This really does seem like AE material to me, but the wording of the WP:SENKAKU remedies are vague enough in their scope that I'm not sure if bringing it there would be the right course of action. I have a mind to file a request for clarification on the matter, unless anyone can give me a definite answer on the matter short of that process. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on my misgivings on the general wording of the remedies as well as how applicable they are here, I have opened a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Senkaku Islands. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Masanori Asami is now repeatedly calling into question my qualifications for editing all of Wikipedia because of a message I have posted on my ja.wp talk page that hasn't been changed in like 5 years. Also he saw fit to edit WP:SENKAKU to post the same screed against me he posted on the AFD for Ryukyu Arc.

I believe that Masanori Asami lacks the competence that we seek of editors for this project, and will only continue to disrupt Wikipedia in its English, Japanese, and Chinese editions so long as one project uses the common English definition of the "Ryukyu Islands" which encompasses everything the Japanese call the "Nansei Islands", rather than a portion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

He posted the screed a 3rd time now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong(琉竜) named this claim "Nationalistic disruption", so Ryulong(琉竜) must make it clear that Ryulong(琉竜) think me (user:Masanori Asami) as the nationalist of China or the nationalist of Japan, to avoid the "chameleon tactics" in the future.(Masanori Asami (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Ryulong(琉竜) made my nationality a problem substantially, so Ryulong(琉竜) should disclose own nationality.(Masanori Asami (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

It must be paid attention that, even if I(user:Masanori Asami) had been a nationalist of China or Japan and my editing had been perfectly correct, then there would have been no problem. So, the title of this claim "Nationalistic disruption" is not suitable for wikipedia, such labelling is a technique to evade investigation.(Masanori Asami (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

I am an American national currently residing in Okinawa Prefecture. I may have been wrong to label your disruption as nationalistic, but it is most certainly disruption at any stage. Why else would the Chinese Wikipedia have seen fit to fully protect their page on the island chain had you not been disrupting it there? You have clearly been disrupting both the English and Chinese Wikipedias with your attempts to make the definition of the "Ryukyu Islands" your own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would be most helpful if someone instituted an interaction ban. That doesn't resolve the content dispute, though. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  09:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would an interaction ban be necessary when I'm a regular editor with several hundred thousand edits and Masanori Asami is a WP:SPA?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think editing limited to one very narrow area or set of articles is bad, but I create Daikon Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in 2007. Daikon Island is a volcano, so I edited the article of Volcanology of Earth Science. Please see my abstracts about "Daikon Island" in the homepage of "Japan Geoscience Union" below. So, Ihave some knowledge about the "Ryukyu Arc".

http://www2.jpgu.org/meeting/2003/pdf/v055/v055-p030_e.pdf

http://www2.jpgu.org/meeting/2004/pdf/v055/v055-p026_e.pdf

(Masanori Asami (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

Asami continues his personal attacks.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

They were not personal attacks.(Masanori Asami (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

"How could you graduate an elementary school?" is most certainly a personal attack.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Even an elementary school child of the average ability is different from "1,046 km (650 mi) " and "650 km (400 miles)" . (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

I didn't read the numbers and only paid attention to the text. A simple mistake that you want me to pay for so you can be in the right.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc

Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc after had made the page of (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryukyu Arc) . The editing of substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc contradicts the proposal for the article deletion. That means the withdrawal of the proposal by Ryulong(琉竜).(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

(notice) After Ryulong(琉竜) had begun to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc, User:EauOo moved page Ryukyu Arc to Ryukyu arc.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Ryulong(琉竜) should apologize to me in having proposed the article deletion.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

There is no rule saying "thou shalt not improve the article after nominating it for deletion" - especially as the edits were not "substantial contents" - and there is precisely zero requirment for anyone to apologise, especially for AfD nominations done in good faith. Strongly reccomend this subsection be closed as spurious and specious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The rule system of Wikipedia is incomplete. Thus the incomplete part must be complemented by "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" and good sense. Estoppel is one of such general principle of law recognized by civilized nations, especially by English speaking nations.Please see Estoppel.(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:VNT. Also please see WP:THETRUTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) does not understand the definition of Ryukyu Arc given by User:EauOo at 16:23, 6 October 2012. In fact, Ryulong(琉竜) added "It comprises the entirety of the Ryukyu Islands chain. ", but that means "Ryukyu Islands" do not include Daitō Islands(大東諸島) nor Senkaku Islands(尖閣諸島), for according to the definition of Ryukyu Arc given by User:EauOo, "Ryukyu arc" do not include Daitō Islands(大東諸島) nor Senkaku Islands(尖閣諸島; Diaoyu Island, zh:釣魚台列嶼). Please see the history page of Ryukyu arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Masanori Asami (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

So, the title "Nationalistic disruption" lose the meaning. (Masanori Asami (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

While my initial labelling of your disruption as nationalistic in nature may have been wrong, it is certainly clear that you are disrupting regardless. You unilaterally changed the content of one article to fit your whims while creating another poorly written article that is finally being looked at by people who know more about the subject than either of us do to create a proper page where you could not and where I was probably wrong in dismissing it as a stand alone article. However, I am under no requirement to apologize to you for anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong(琉竜) and Chinese people think same islands belong "Ryukyu Islands"

The islands written by Chinese people belonging to "Ryukyu Islands" by online encyclopedia of Hudong was the same as the view of "Ryulong(琉竜)" in Ryukyu Islands of English-Wikipedia until I changed the article of "Hudong". (Masanori Asami (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)) http://www.hudong.com/wiki/琉球群岛

Please click and see the history page "历史版本" of "琉球群岛" of "Hudong". And compare the version of "历史版本42" by "下自成奚" and "历史版本48" of "浅见真规". (There is no direct link url to the history page.)(Masanori Asami (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC))

Asami, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I am an American citizen with absolutely no Asian heritage who along with User:Nanshu and User:Kwamikagami decided that "Nansei Islands" does not exist in English usage to describe the islands between Kyushu and Taiwan, while "Ryukyu Islands" does. Stop accusing multiple people of some sort of systemic bias because the common Chinese and English definitions of "Ryukyu Islands" and 琉球群岛 are the same and more extensive than you want them to be. The fact that you have just now blatantly revealed that you are going from user submitted website to user submitted website to change the definition of this subject just shows you are here to push an agenda, and that is not welcome.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we had a long and somewhat contentious discussion over this, and decided that the preponderance of English sources trumps usage in Japanese. This is WP-en, after all. We accommodated the Japanese by adding a section on just that. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In your discussion, "English sources" mean encyclopedias and dictionaries. When the editor of Wikipedia use an encyclopedia about the core part of the definition, the editor of Wikipedia must obey the rule of the copyright, but untill you (kwami) changed Ryukyu Islands yesterday there had been no "quotation" of encyclopedias and dictionaries in the definition part (top of the page) of Ryukyu Islands, it had benn illegal. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

You (kwami) had already known that, so you changed Ryukyu Islands and added the source of definition yesterday. And you hid that and referred to "English sources" here. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

And the editor must understand the definition given by encyclopedias and dictionaries, this is more important. For Wikipedia threaten the existence of encyclopedias and dictionaries. Do you understand the definition given by encyclopedias and dictionaries? -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

So, please explain under your definition how can you understand the article 3 of "Treaty of San Francisco" to me. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

Right now I'm trying very hard not to block you for nationalist disruption; you're pushing your luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do. This is getting ridiculous and this should have been stopped days ago. He's now accusing everyone of violating copyrights just to get his way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What? Hudong and Baidu are never reliable sources. And from the history I've seen, they are edited by Japanese. And Masanori Asami please refrain from making personal attacks.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• This screed (diff is of its removal) made up my mind. Masanori Asami (talk · contribs) is now blocked for disruptive editing, personal attacks, and not showing evidence of the competence required to be a Wikipedia contributor. Any admin may unblock if he shows signs of the Cluehammer 40000 having had an effect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Hakam II

بابيلون (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on removing a sourced section in Al-Hakam II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He has been reverted by me, Cluebot and at least another user in the last few days. No other contributions by him. José Luiz ^talk 20:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I issued a warning to User:بابيلون that he may be blocked if he reverts again without getting consensus for his change. He is trying to remove a well-sourced claim about Al-Hakam's homosexuality. The claim is backed by three references to what appear to be reputable historians. This editor has tried adding the following to the *article text*: "All stories about Al Hakam II homosexuality are pure nonesense, these stories come from non Islamic soureces and there is no mention whatsoever to it in the Islamic history books, so they cant be taken seriously." EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock farm at Consett

See Talk:Consett#Consett_Iron_Theatre: this looks like textbook sock-puppetry to support a hoax. -- The Anome (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Impressive. One has to wonder why the alleged Consett History Society that has been used as a reference via this page is presenting their Iron Theatre as scrapped in the early 1900s when there are images of it taken in 2008. But on a closer look these images may even be from downtown Los Angeles and not from Consett, England. So much for the quality of the references used for this hoax. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday an article was created about part of the War of 1812 that historians had up until now overlooked, The Battle of Allentown. Also created was an article about its leading figure, one William C.J. Mason. Both sourced from this website. Back on topic: a theatre made entirely out of iron? The acoustics would have been terrible! WP:SPI is this-away.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

Doctor Reno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a lengthy original essay to the end of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, detailing numerous reasons why he (the editor) is convinced Obama is not eligible to be President. I reverted him, but he promptly reverted me back. I also left a notice on the editor's talk page, explaining the issue and advising him of the Obama article probation sanctions. I didn't revert him the second time because I don't want to be seen as getting involved in an edit war, but I strongly recommended in my talk page comment that he revert his own edit. If he fails to do this, I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to remove the material in question, and possibly also take other actions in keeping with the article probation sanctions. — Richwales 06:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the edit, and added a confirmation of your warning to him. Removal of stuff like this is covered under WP:BLP anyway, so there is no reason for concern over reverting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Rich, you also need to remember to notify users when you raise issues about them at ANI - I've done it for you in this instance. I second FPaS; you can revert this sort of thing at will without fear of violating 3RR. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I know (about the ANI notice requirement) — and I was in the middle of composing a notice, but my efforts got edit-conflicted, first by FPaS, and then by you (Yunshui). Thanks for doing it on my behalf. — Richwales 07:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised you hadn't done it - sorry for the edit clash! (Next time I'll give you a few more minutes...) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Urolagnia

We seem to have another obsessive IP (or possibly the same one we had trouble with on the subject before), intent on spinning the article (with questionable grammar etc), and using questionable sources in the process. Most notably, the IP (currently User:87.194.46.83, but changing frequently) has inserted a statement that "R. Kelly was famously accused of featuring in a video telling a girl how to urinate, and urinating on her" into the article - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. Can I ask that people keep an eye on the article, at least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've warned the IP. If the BLP violations continue then I think semi-protection would be warranted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected for three months. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to strongly object to the offensive language used by AndyTheGrump here and else where, and his misleading remarks made about me here. After edit warring against me, and refusing to admit that the oxford english dictionary is a reliable source he told me to "piss off: [69],I would like to point out that, rather than complaining first here, I followed procedure, and contacted him on his home page - where he wrote ""the article is on a paraphilia, and it is going to say so clearly. If you want to promote it, go somewhere else. This is an encyclopaedia, not a watersports forum."87.194.46.83 (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think his complaint is dishonest. Firstly, the statement was supported by reliable sources, and is already in the R. Kelly article - exactly which aspect of WP:BLP is violated. Secondly I did not insert the claim, but reinstated it with sources as requested by Andy . Thirdly I object to being called obsessive for trying to fix problems with articles. If you look at the edit history for Urolagnia you will see Andy consistently reverting my edits without proper explanation, and if you look at the talk page you will be able to see his POV. I also object to being described as an "obsessive IP (or possibly the same one we had trouble with on the subject before)," and ask that you examine the article and talk page properly.87.194.46.83 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Range block for Aberystwyth university - IP 144.124.24.57

How does one go about requesting a rangeblock?

I have the problem below - which I would have taken to AIV, but it's a bit too detailed for the sort of thing there:

Editor User talk:144.124.24.57 has clearly no intention of improving the encyclopedia:

• Threats followed by insertion of unsourced and rumoured content, which culminated in a 72 hour block:
  • Brendan Fraser talk page
  • History page for Brendan Fraser
• Advice offered regarding BLP process, but no apparent interest in following it up - talk page
• Sock puppetry:
  • User_talk:Rastadon1987
  • Special:Contributions/144.124.4.81
• Insults followed by denial and accusation when they are pointed out to them
• Impersonation of other editors to try and push their opinions, and non-understanding of why it is a problem to do such a thing.
• More insults on my talk page

Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment you can add that this IP has made an edit impersonating me as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This situation has been made worse by continuing to entertain this user long after they should have been WP:DENY'd. I'm going to issue a couple of blocks (not a rangeblock at this stage, though the /16 doesn't appear to be very active) and protect User talk:Chaheel Riens, but everyone needs to ignore this person now. That includes not having lengthy conversations in response to frivolous complaints of discrimination, and not following the IP to completely unrelated pages to start edit wars. Thanks. – Steel 13:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks dad! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

User-page problem

After he made one (vandalistic) edit, I noticed that Sam Ahmed Actor (talk · contribs) had created a fake article—about himself, naturally, and complete with falsified refs—as his user page, so I dropped a warning on his talk page, hoping that he would remove or revise it. Later, I noticed that the material was actually, mutatis mutandis, a copy of Dev (actor) (he even copied the page-protection and maintenance templates), so I blanked it as a copyvio. (I thought about asking for revdel but decided it wasn't worth the trouble.) Now he's recreated it. I think an admin should delete the page and perhaps issue a sterner warning. Deor (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted and uw-copyvio left. Any more copyvios will be grounds for blocking without further warning. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

He's recreated the material on his talk page. Would someone please block him. (Nyttend's been inactive since his original reponse to this thread, or I'd just notify him to do so.) Deor (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done - material removed and user blocked for 48 hours. I've told him that I'll indeff him if he re-introduces it anywhere. GiantSnowman 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I was just about to leave for work when I made the original block. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Reporting myself on behalf of Brad Watson, Miami

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.

---

Ok, ok, really reporting Brad Watson, Miami, for his various problems with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:IDHT

Brad_Watson,_Miami (talk · contribs)

Here, Brad Watson claims to have reported me to y'all earlier this morning. Since I don't see any report in his contributions, I'll file on his behalf. Brad has been adding fringe material, often unsourced, across various pages, and has been trying to justify his edits on talk pages using his own particular form of gematria.

• Here is one of Brad's edits to God where he misquotes a fringe source in a fringe fashion. At Talk:God#Possible Origin of 'G.O.D.', multiple editors explain WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE, and he snubs all of that. This is when he first caught my attention, and so I left a summary of site guidelines and policies on his page, which he later removed, indicating that he acknowledges the message I left.
• Here Brad continues to make edits based on his particular form of gematria. I and others then again played along with his WP:TE WP:IDHT at Talk:Number of the Beast#Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6) Reagan(6) = 666, not "six hundred sixty six", asking him to stick with mainstream academic sources.
• Here I again point out that gematria is not an acceptable source.
• Here I try again to direct him to our reliable sourcing guidelines again.
• Here I've removed unsourced material he added, and explain once again that gematria is not a reliable source.
• Here I remove more edits based on gematria and further fringe misquotation of sources, again asking him to quit using gematria as a source and make sure his sources actually say what he's citing them for.
• Here Jasonasosa (who is aware of this thread) and I further drive home that Wikipedia does not accept gematria as a source.
• Here I once again pester him about using his gematria as justification for changing articles.
• Here I revert him linking to a non-free copy of a public domain translation of Kebra Nagast. At Talk:Kebra Nagast#"The Glory of the Kings" & publisher info, I'm not the only person to say "there's no reason to link to a site selling it, there's plenty of public domain translations linked in the article."

Seeing how many of my edits are to articles relating to religion, the occult, and the history of both, I wasn't hounding him into him in articles like God, Number of the Beast, Selah, Nero, Hermaneutics, Isopsephy, Burning bush, and Kebra Nagast. These are only the places where I've interacted with him, glancing through his other edits, I see he behaves similarly elsewhere. Various editors beyond me have also left him messages on and about different pages, but he either does not respond or responds with hostility to any call to follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc, etc.

So far, I'm one of the main (but not only, thankfully) editors following through on his POV and sourcing problems, and he seems to be under the impression that I'm just making this up to bully him instead of pointing to our site's social contracts. He needs to know that WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE are backed by all serious editors who don't end up getting blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at User Talk:Brad Watson, Miami and ya'll will see that gematria/Isopsephy now serves as wp:verifiable sourcing for editing in Wikipedia.   — Jason Sosa 16:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Self reporting yourself at ANI seems POINTy. I recommend reformatting this as a standard report of User:Brad_Watson,_Miami, which it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

True. I'll add that I've seen no evidence that Brad Watson is a positive contributor to Wikipedia - he seems to be here just to push his unusual ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This can readily be seen at Talk:Seven Seals and Talk:Number of the Beast, who for some reason, had been stuck on referring to the History Channel as a source, but only after watching an episode, without using proper citations.  — Jason Sosa 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll be leaving the old thread title so he can find the thread, but I've reformatted it otherwise. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(Oh, thought I should point out that I did notify Brad about this discussion in another discussion with him, which is why I have not changed the thread title). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose topic bans or sanctions on Brad Watson for all articles related to Book of Revelation as can also be justified by the Revelation related blogs mentioned at User:Brad Watson, Miami which he pushes on his talkpage and other's talkpages, here. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• What Dougweller said. I think a topic ban should include all religion-related articles, broadly construed, and all edits that are religion (or mason) related articles. Very broadly construed. Here is a user who doesn't get something--including the basic idea of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Seven seals, I see he's been pushing his garbage under an IP address for over a year, and Jason Sosa was correcting him on this stuff last year. I'm tempted to say the topic ban should read "User:Brad Watson, Miami is hereby topic banned from any article or edit relating to religion or freemasonry, broadly construed, and will be indef'ed for violating this ban under this or other accounts." I'll let someone else write up the formal proposal, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Um... is there a reason you're all talking about a topic ban instead of an indef block? Kindness? Or are there some edits on some subjects that we can actually use in there somewhere that I'm missing? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I broadly construe my broad construction as a topic ban, basically, of all edits. I.e., an indef block. It reminded me of the famous Tachash case, and the important matter of the color of dolphins. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Indef block for sure. This kind of editor cannot contribute normally. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Uninvolved comment: I generally favor topic bans over indefinite blocks or site bans per WP:ROPE: they are effectively indefinite blocks on people who have nothing else to contribute, but on the off chance that someone is redeemable, it leaves them an avenue to return into the fold. Its a way of stopping the disruption in the least severe manner, which is usually desirable as a first step. --Jayron32 18:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone cannot grasp basic policies like WP:NPOV and WP:RS after repeatedly having them drawn to their attention, they are no use here. A block seems much more logical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been going on for some time now. This was their first edit with this account, back in July: [70] bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

While all I was hoping for was more third-party attention to get it through his skull, and would settle for a topic ban, a block would be more satisfying, especially seeing how he's been pushing his crap for at least a year under different IP addresses (again, see Talk:Seven seals). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm indeffing now for general disruption. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that Ian and Jason were willing to go with topic-bans only, but I also agree with the block. Any unblock would have to come with said topic ban. Keep an eye for socks. --dangerouspanda 21:37, 8 October 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.

"Amanbir Singh" IP

Yesterday, 117.199.109.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who signed as "Amanbir Singh" was blocked for disrupting the talkpage of Anders Behring Breivik and for repeated removals of the block notice on User:Meowy's talkpage. I was the first of two admins who declined his unblock request.

Some of the postings this user has come with seem like threats of violence [71] (he will argue he is only warning of dire consequences from others, but I am quite certain that a defense like that won't work.)

Another IP came back today as 117.220.144.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), also signing with Amanbir Singh, and I have blocked that one as well. Apparently the person here is IP-hopping, so please keep a eye out. Also, the threat above is of the type where I would seriously consider the Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm process, even if I am 90%+ sure that this is simply a troll. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I too have had the pleasure to be visited by 117.199.109.150 117.199.105.177 [72] but I decided to ignore them. Given this new development I'd advocate a range block. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

See also 117.199.105.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Meowy's user page. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this has been going on for a quite while, starting at 21 March 2012:

• 117.199.99.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [73]
• 117.220.147.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [74]
• 117.199.111.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [75]
• 117.199.99.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [76]
• 117.199.111.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [77], [78]
• 117.207.152.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) posted a faked unblock request and this spat. I've now blocked this one for real (1 week) including denial of talk page access.

De728631 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This guy seems to be on a global trolling mission. 117.207.152.91 has also been disrupting the Breivik article talk and Tournesol's user talk page at the Swedish WP: edit history. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Has Sv.wp been informed of what's been going on here? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have informed Tournesol on his en account. He's an admin over there. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Tournesol has now also been notified at sv.wp. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

We appear to have blocked the following addresses and ranges at SVWP:

• 117.220.144.0/20
• 117.220.144.80
• 117.207.152.0/22
• 117.199.96.0/20
• 117.207.152.163
• 117.199.102.112
• 117.207.152.91

I'm not sure exactly what ranges the /20 and /22 correspond with, but the last block was yesterday morning so I suppose the blocks solved the problem. - Tournesol (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The ranges above look okay to softblock (anon only, account creation blocked). But I'm usually not inclined to rangeblock Indian IPs for extended periods of time because they often tend to be messy ISPs (lots of collateral). Elockid ^(Talk) 12:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I think then we're better going to softblock him on sight. De728631 (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Creationist 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.

---

Andycjp has been involved in a persistent edit-war with myself and another editor at Walking due to his persistent and deliberate attempts to remove at least the word "evolution" from the page, while not-so-subtly altering the title to suggest an imaginary alternative, presumably creationism. This is not isolated behavior - he has made similar edits in heel and Anatidae (see recent history of each) going back nearly a year. He has not altered his behavior in the face of multiple warnings from myself and Fama Clamosa, and remains dogged in his attempt to insert this nonsense into legitimate articles on scientific topics. His edit history shows him to be productive in other areas, but this sort of vandalism is unacceptable. HCA (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

On this topic: this is unacceptable censorship.

On the broader topic of young earth creationist censorship (I emphasize young earth because old earth creationism is totally compatible with theistic evolution): For Christ's sake, can we just get a policy made saying "Wikipedia accepts evolution as a fact, don't try to hide it just because you don't like science"...? I know that it really should just be an essay saying "per WP:NPOV, we side with mainstream science and accept evolution as a fact, and handle young earth creationism as a WP:FRINGE theory." However, if we do that, that's only going to let people go "it's just an essay," or "it's just a guideline." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to say that we offer blanket endorsement of one theory over another. We claim the need to cite specific facts, relying on the most authoritative sources for those citations. Those sources will dictate what Wikipedia endorses. If Young-Earth Creationism is indeed a fringe theory, reliable sources will take care of that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I actually disagree with you there, Jprg. The Bible is not a reliable source for scientific articles, despite what Andy seems to think [79]. No editor should be forced to take such an editor through dispute resolution and get consensus not to cite the bible on in a section of evolution or other such ridiculous things. There's a difference between editors disagreeing over the reliability of a source and the fringeness of a theory, and one editor pushing a POV that doesn't have a hope or a prayer of being included, except in an article on the POV itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The bible is a primary historical document and it's apparent that it shouldn't be used. If you use the most reliable secondary sources to give WP:DUE weight, fringe views will be put into perspective with the mainstream. Current guidelines in this area are actually pretty good (provided people follow them). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

HCA, Andycjp's edits are not vandalistic. Read WP:VANDAL#NOT before using that word. His edits are problematic and appear to push a POV, but that does not make them vandalism. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

See the statements in Talk:Evolution/FAQ which are backed at least by the consensus of the editors on that page. The FAQ observes that "The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists." In this edit by introducing a comment about the Garden of Eden into the Walking article Andycjp may have gone over the line. His edit summary is "Other views have the right to be represented here-most of the planet knows full well God has a hand in everything". Allowing a literal reading of the Book of Genesis to affect our article on a scientific topic is unacceptable. He is close to needing a warning under WP:ARBPS, in my opinion. See the wording which Arbcom used at WP:ARBPS#Serious encyclopedias. I agree with editors above that the word 'vandalism' is not appropriate for Andycjp's editing, but he has engaged in long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree a (final) warning to Andicjp is needed here, as a minimum. Let's also not forget that the WP:NPOV policy has very explicit guidance on exactly this type of situation: WP:Making necessary assumptions. Quote: For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. It doesn't really get any clearer than that, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, vandalism is the wrong word, since Andycjp believes himself to be making Wikipedia better, grossly misguided as he may be. His editing is in violation of a dozen or so of Wikipedia's alphabet soup policies, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is clear here, and it needs to stop yesterday. --Jayron32 05:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm now considering whether a mere warning or a block is in order. This editor has been around since 2004. Has he been known for similar disruptive behaviour before? Edits like [80][81][82] (random collection from his talk page) suggest that he was involved in disruptive POV editing repeatedly, and repeatedly showed quite nasty aggressive behaviour over it. Has he ever been warned explicitly about anti-evolution POV pushing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think some warning should be considered as any block would more than likely be indef, considering the circumstances and user's block log. Tiderolls 05:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's all of these warnings from this particular dispute. I really do think that requiring a more formal warning here is overly bureaucratic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see a final warning for "vandalism", which he is not guilty of, and a handful of NPOV warnings over time for specific edits. But I don't see a clear explanation and warning over his general religious POV approach to editing. And he genuinely believes he is doing right and making Wikipedia better. Some may see it as overly bureaucratic, but I think he needs a properly explained final warning that removing reference to evolution from scientific articles, trying to use the Bible as a reliable source, etc, is not permissible and that he will be blocked if he continues. Once that's done, if he does it again any admin can issue a block with community support without having to come back here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he does state on his userpage that "consensus is not truth", so I'm not inclined to A as much GF as to his intentions. I guess I can see there being somewhat of a grey area here, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

He's actually right that "consensus is not truth", but that's not the point here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, an editor who has been around since 2004 and who has been involved in a number of disputes here knows that the project operates on the former. I don't find his comment below to be exactly encouraging, either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not encouraged either. But as he has not had the problems with his edits clearly explained to him before (he's just had various alphabet soup servings, some of which were blatantly wrong), I think that step is necessary before considering a block - certainly for an editor acting in good faith, which I believe he is. I've offered something of an explanation, below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the fact that A) he openly disdains consensus and B) regards being called out on this issue as being made a martyr (!), I think a Formal Warning™ would fall on deaf ears. That said, I'm not sure that an outright block would be reasonable here, given the limited scope of the disruption, troubling though it may be. A topic ban on scientific subjects would seem more in order. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I am getting wikicrucified am I?andycjp (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

that won't make you wikijesus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Or wikispiderman (he has a much cooler costume). Such actions can lead to more than 3 days in the wiki underworld, often with slim chances of resurrection. Heiro 07:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Any chance we could keep the mocking comments out of this, folks? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What is happening here is that your editing behaviour is being discussed - and you have clearly been making edits that are not acceptable. Firstly, you must not censor scientific articles to remove reference to evolution - amongst biologists, it simply is not controversial. And you cannot use religious texts as reliable sources for scientific/factual issues - they can be used as sources for what the texts themselves say or as references for what their followers believe, but not as reliable sources for factual claims. Now, the scientific consensus might indeed be wrong about evolution and the age of the Earth (though it is pretty overwhelming), but even if it is wrong it is still the job of Wikipedia to echo it - that's what encyclopedias do; they don't try to correct or argue against consensus. Anyway, if you agree to stop trying to promote your religious views or change scientific articles away from the scientific consensus, I see no reason for any sanction other than a warning/notification on your talk page (though others, of course, might disagree with me and the consensus might be a block now - as with Wikipedia articles, I can't go against consensus). But if you continue, then it's pretty certain that you will be blocked from editing, probably indefinitely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• This kind of editing isn't vandalism, but it makes it pretty obvious that the user isn't here to build an encyclopedia. Andycjp doesn't seem to want to work cooperatively with other editors, his comments here suggest he finds this process amusing and doesn't take it seriously, and seems to ignore warnings about the content he is intent on adding. I agree with Jayron32 that a block is in order, immediately. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  Before you claim that it is clear that he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, have you actually checked the totality of his edits? I have checked random selections of them, and there appear to be plenty that are fine. The problem is in one area, and if he keeps clear of that specific problem, I see no reason why he can't carry on here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  I acknowledge that, for the most part, the editor has been making constructive edits, and agree that the current situation suggests only a limited topic area problem. But issues of POV have come up in the past (e.g. here), as has edit warring (e.g. [83] and [84]). It is surprising that these sort of constructive comments from Enric Naval have not sunk in more deeply and that this off-handed response bears resemblance to the ones in this discussion. I do not believe the user is learning from past mistakes. Granted, these mistakes are way in the past, and I understand not all of them are relevant to the current topic of contention. But even if the editor has made many positive contributions, I am not terribly impressed by the user's demeanor or their inability learn from these past experiences. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

' God is the only lawgiver and judge. He alone can save or destroy. Who do you think you are to judge your fellow man?' James 4:12andycjp (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a little known fact that James was opposed to websites setting their own rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this user's only response to this thread really to quote the Bible?! And to say "Who do you think you are to judge your fellow man?" Topic ban. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright Andy. You're going to need to do three things: 1) Stop invoking God in content disputes; 2) Stop trying to drown out the scientific viewpoint on evolution; 3) Stop trying to insert the biblical viewpoint on evolution. You are one stupid edit away from being blocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative and serious encyclopedia. Editors who don't get that aren't welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, a number of editors have explained to you why your edits are problematic, and I find your response wholly unacceptable, not to mention offensive to other people. ("What about us atheists? The Mohmedans don't come round here waving bells at us! We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom, or Hindus harmonizing in the hall, and the Shintus don't come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans....") Responding with a random, out of context quote, from a religious text (something I personally find reprehensible as you can take out-of-context quotes from just about anywhere in The Bible and use them to say whatever the hell you like) indicates you do not understand what the problem is. You need to understand very quickly that other people have different opinions to you, and they all have a place on Wikipedia, otherwise you'll be blocked because you don't want to hear it. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Lawgivers: United States Congress, Judge: Chief Justice of the United States. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I think these sorts of edits and comments would be more at home at Conservapedia. – Richard BB 11:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I notice that Andy edited yesterday, on a Sunday and Exodus 35:2 states quite clearly "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death". From this, we can conclude that either a) Andy should be sentenced to death or b) quoting random bits from the Bible doesn't make a convincing argument. Since a) could be interpreted as a personal attack, let's go with b). --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• But the "seventh day" is actually Saturday, or, more precisely, the time from sunset on Friday night to appearance of the first stars on Saturday night. You heretics will all burn! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban for Andycjp

Proposal If an editor is problematic in a specific area, then a topic ban from that area makes the most sense. There are issues outside that area, but they can be looked at if the issues persist. I propose a topic ban from evolution related edits broadly construed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Per Boing! said Zebedee's observations above, the problematic edits only occur in this area, and he makes positive contributions elsewhere. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban broadly construed across the subject of evolution. Per the fact that everyone seems to agree that the editors other edits are fine (and I checked a few myself and found no problems). If they can keep themselves to other subjects, problem should be solved. I am seriously worried about the editors response (i.e. the spouting religious texts to justify their actions). But maybe a cool down period overnight may change their mind. Heiro 10:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban. I believe the editor can certainly continue to edit constructively within many topics on Wikipedia, but evolution-related topics do not appear to be one of them. While I am still concerned about the user's interactions with other editors and their handling of this ANI discussion, I think this is an appropriate step to be taking. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This user could have used this AN/I discussion to learn and correct his mistakes, but then he decides to quote James 4:12 and decides that we are not worthy to judge him. He's clearly stubborn and unwilling to change, and he clearly has an issue with scientific fact simply because it conflicts with his interpretation of his religious text. If he'd have kept his bias and disdain for scientific evidence to himself, that'd be fine; instead, however, he attempts to censor evidence and remove scientific facts from Wikipedia in an attempt to promote his interpretation of his religion. The views of his god are not encyclopaedic (at least not in the articles in question). – Richard BB 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, he's clearly convinced he's right and I don't think we can expect him to change his position - which is fair enough except that we can't have him editing in this topic area. He's got other interests (I also did a spot check of edits outside this area and they seemed harmless) so a topic ban should be sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. If he were to edit evolution-related things in the same tendentious way again, I would block him in any case. The likelihood for him to edit evolution-related things in a different, NPOV-compatible way appears quite low. Therefore, we can just as well tell him to not edit evolution-related stuff at all from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - totally inappropriate behavior. I suspect he would be happier at Conservapedia, where his shameless biases are taken as givens. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Damn skippy. --Jayron32 12:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The problem must be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support as I stated above. Also per FP@S, I don't see this user being of any help in the topic area at any point in time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Not only is the tendentious creationism-pushing unacceptable, but responses like the one the user made to this thread is disruptive. Further examples should also result in a block, IMO. DeCausa (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. What about edits like this one? This was just an an unneccesary edit to remove the word "evolve" from an article about that has nothing to do with evolution. Singularity42 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That's just weird. I hate to say it but that plus his response here and recent ones in a similar vein on his talk page raise for me some sort of recent WP:COMPETENCE issue.DeCausa (talk)

That is just plain odd, it's like he's trying to suppress the concept that things might change with time in any capacity. .... Perhaps broadly needs to be extended to editing sentences which have the word "evolve", "evolving", "evolution or any derivatives. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that and thought it was fine, as it was an incorrect use of the word "evolve" - individuals don't evolve. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the narrower scientific meaning? There's certainly a broader meaning of "develop into" which does apply to individuals. DeCausa (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not specifically - I think "grown into" makes far more sense than "evolved into" when referring to two young people who have grown up - we don't evolve up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support, admittedly for religious reasons - St. Augustine wrote in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis that a non-Christian may know much about the world, and that "It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support -He's clearly being disruptive. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support- The editor's responses here are indicative of a POV that will never harmonize with how we work here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support — a "topic ban" is absolutely required — at least. Anything less is wiki-tolerance ad absurdum. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support; this disruptive POV pushing has to stop. De728631 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Venue question

• • Not to be overly bureaucratic, but why are we having a topic ban discussion at ANI when they belong at WP:AN? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Because the discussion on the ban grew out of a natural extension of a prior discussion which was appropriate to ANI. The discussion didn't start from scratch, and having the prior discussion right here next to it is helpful for context and history. That being said, I never understood why ban discussions were supposed to happen at WP:AN over WP:ANI anyways, except to arbitrarily push a certain volume of posts from this desk to that one. After all, every ban had to have originated with some number of incidents... It seems incongruous to shuttle ban discussions off to that desk, which is more properly designed to handle discussions about things admins need to do that don't involve sanctionable stuff. --Jayron32 13:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more confusing to have the same discussion across multiple noticeboards. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Not laboring it, just saying it is arguably less prone to drama and drive by comments. Every other page at enwp is, for that matter. Normally, linking it is trivial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - put a link at AN over to here. There's not much point moving it now that it's started and looks like it's going to be pretty conclusive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know, it was more of a "for future events" comment than anything else. Once started, it is too late. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: Jayron's comment is exactly right: when a ban discussion arises naturally from an ANI, it's generally the case that it continues on ANI. When one is started from scratch, it should be brought up at AN, or moved there from ANI if caught early on. That's been the usual procedure for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that since WP:AN specifically states it is for ban discussions and ANI is not, and most start here, that the accepted norm is link over to a new proposal on WP:AN for that portion. This is a trivial thing to do, and the design and guidelines seem to indicate this was the original design intent. I'm not saying moving this one that is already knee deep to be bureaucratic, I'm saying that if current guidelines indicate this is what we should do, then this is what we should be doing, or change the guidelines and repurpose or remove WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If that's what the guidelines say, then they are wrong and should be changed, since Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to be descriptive rather than proscriptive, and reflect actual practice, which is as Jayron and I have described. There's no need to "repurpose or remove" AN, since it is the preferred starting point for topic ban discussion which do not arise out of ANI discussions. (Also, topic ban discussions are hardly the only purpose that AN serves.) I haven't done an actual count, but I don't think your impression that "most" topic ban discussion start on ANI is correct, and I note that when they're started here ex nihilo, moving them to AN is almost invariably done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a fairly recent innovation: I've been around the block a bit here at Wikipedia, and it has only been the last year or two that we've been moving ban discussions to AN; I believe that when people started doing so it was merely to free up space here. AN serves lots of purposes besides ban discussions, lots of notices regarding tasks that need admin work unrelated to sanctioning people go on there. Which is what it was originally designed for. --Jayron32 02:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin close needed

I've just reverted a non-admin close of this thread. While I don't disagree with the consensus, WP:CBAN specifically requires an uninvolved administrator notify the user of the ban and then the discussion can be closed. Nobody Ent 13:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Reviewing thread from the top. Please wait several additional minutes for my blood pressure to level--Tznkai (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURO, WP:SNOW, WP:IAR, WP:LIGHTBULB, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins can provide useful oversight. Also, it gives you a go to person in case, I dunno, the topic ban is breached and a block is in order. Restricting a user's freedom should be done with great caution, and if that deference to the liberty of the less powerful contributors annoys someone as overly bureaucratic, too bad. Now please, let me finish.--Tznkai (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Andycjb is topic banned from any edit concerning evolution (in word or concept), creation (of the universe, the earth, or its creatures), or the origin of species (broadly construed), in article or article talk namespace indefinitely. The rough consensus on the thread, which spanned a bit over 12 hours in time is that Andycjb is attempting to improve the wiki, but has a blind spot in certain areas, which are laid out with some additional precision above. I am discounting the inappropriate invitation for Andycjb to pack up and leave for a different wiki. We welcome help at Wikipedia, however imperfect. Biased editing is also not vandalism, it is just biased editing.--Tznkai (talk) 13:54, 9 October 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.

Admin requested for RfC closure at Human penis size

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

---

Would a tactful admin mind closing a request for comment on Human penis size? I think the answer is clear, but the article talk page is overly full of single purpose editors who are obsessed with penis measurement and it would be best if an admin made a conclusive decision based on arguments rather than vote counting. The RfC is Talk:Human penis size#RfC: Is an image illustrating "length" and "circumference" necessary?. Thanks. And, please, block anyone who cannot stop themselves from making penis jokes here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Done by Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER (and Drmies). Hatting extended discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know what, I looked at that discussion before, a couple of weeks ago, and now I remember why I didn't close it. It's a mess, and if there's any consensus it's no consensus/leaning toward include. Call me a dick, but what I suggest you do is start the whole thing all over again, asking for a simple yes or no on that particular image. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I just went and looked at it, and drew a slightly different conclusion. I saw no consensus, and was troubled that the question as to whether the sources say the method shown is the proper scientific method for measuring, so the question as to the accuracy remains (or possibly being OR in the image itself). There was some merit to the concern that the penis shown was not representative of most penises as well, being very US centric (Caucasian and circumcised). That led me to think it was leaning ever so slightly to not include as those valid points weren't really addressed in the counter arguments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Oh, I would never say so since I'm a totally uninvolved admin who knows penises only from books, but that image is indeed totally problematic. I see where you're coming from with your last point, about validity, and it's the lack of proper discussion that makes me want to set the whole thing aside and tell them to start all over. They can do one of two things, or both: have a discussion as to whether an image ought to be in there, and have a simple poll-like discussion (we don't do polls blah blah blah) as to whether that image ought to be in there. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC) So you and I should both go close it as "no consensus, with suggestion of having a straight up or down vote" then? Really, that is the right solution. Obviously, there is no consensus, and it is arguable as to which way it leans due to the vague nature of input. And yes, I'm kind of serious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I've marked it as close pending for now, working on it based on both of our observations. Your comment is of course wanted, if you so choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:15, 8 October 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:Jlbyrun and White Mountain School

New user User:Jlbyrun has been adding copyrighted and non-neutral content to White Mountain School. The material is being lifted directly from various pages of www.whitemountain.org. For example, this diff contains content ripped from the site, as Google reveals [85]. I've warned the user twice (see user's talk page), to no avail as the warning are being ignored. I've reverted twice on the article already today, and am now leaving it to you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted and warned; block seems like overkill to me at this point, although if others think differently they are welcome to step in with the blockhammer. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits Made by JohnDopp in Re: Douglas Anthony Cooper

I bring to the noticeboard a complaint about the conduct of JohnDopp (and also that of his alter ego, “Qworty”) and ask that he be refused further access to the Wikipedia entry for Canadian novelist Douglas Anthony Cooper.

JohnDopp has repeatedly vandalized and tagged this entry; and certainly not because he can’t stand writers being compared to Milan Kundera or Italo Calvino.

It is because of something else entirely. When that conflict of interest was made plain by several editors on “talk” and “articles for deletion” pages, JohnDopp squawked that his privacy was being compromised.

So, let me give you an example without blowing JohnDopp’s cover.

Douglas Anthony Cooper has recently written a series of essays supporting “apples.” These essays have been published in a high-profile news site. JohnDopp is notorious in this community for his obstreperous attacks on “apples”.

Now Cooper has announced that he's about to write a series of scathing articles about “oranges”.

JohnDopp is outrageous in his constant trolling in support of “oranges”. He's perhaps the most pernicious “oranges” shill on the web. In fact, some people say you can't talk about “oranges” without JohnDopp showing up to spout the party line.

I’ve made no pretense about my identity or position in defense of Douglas Cooper against these baseless attacks. I post and edit under my real name. While Cooper is just an acquaintance, I am also involved in the “apples” community, and I too have been attacked and pilloried by JohnDopp, including but certainly not limited to these Wikipedia discussions.

JohnDopp insists that he's neutral and knowledgeable enough to comment—always negatively -- on Douglas Anthony Cooper. But on what basis? JohnDopp has no special expertise or experience in literature. His only argument is apples and oranges.

When the woman who actually wrote the Wikipedia entry about Douglas Anthony Cooper joined the debate on the “articles for deletion” page and announced that fact, JohnDopp still insisted that that the entry was "self-promotion." Even after he knew better.

Even when Cooper’s entry was overwhelmingly deemed a "Keep", JohnDopp still laced the talk pages with as many negative things as he could about Mr. Cooper, a last ditch attempt to smear. He did this in tandem with editor “Qworty,” whose writes with a remarkable similarity of syntax to JohnDopp. (When confronted with this fact “Qworty” suddenly went silent.)

JohnDopp is trying to destroy Cooper's credibility for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with literature: he wants people involved in this debate of apples and oranges to dismiss Cooper as a lightweight, not notable, a self-promoter.

JohnDopp and his alter ego Qworty should be permanently blocked from discussing Douglas Anthony Cooper. (They should probably be banned from editing anything in this whole field of apples and oranges.) All of the comments about Cooper should be removed; inspired as they were by JohnDopp, acting in bad faith every single step of the way. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Just at a glance, I sense an incoming WP:BOOMERANG here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, should that be the case, so be it. It's worth the risk to bring the machinations of this editor to light. I've been honest from the start. One has to ask, finally, why it would be of so much importance to someone to delete or hack the entry for a novelist, if there wasn't in fact, some subtext. (It's my own opinion that perhaps Wikipedia should not allow for anonymous contribution or editing, and instead ought to verify all users; as anonymity lends itself to such shenanigans.) Larkin Vonalt (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This will be fairly obvious on review, but I'm going to state it for clarity and convenience here.

• I have neither "repeatedly tagged" nor "vandalized" the article in question. I placed a notability tag on the article, which was removed without explanation by one of Mr. Cooper's supporters, who then accused me of vandalism. I replaced the tag and attempted to explain that it was not vandalism; it was deleted again, without explanation. At this point, rather than engage in edit warring, I requested dispute resolution. At no time have I sought to undermine the processes or policies of Wikipedia.
• I am not Qworty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), nor do I have any association or contact with Qworty outside of Wikipedia.
• Mr. Cooper's original article was rife with WP:COI, WP:SPIP, WP:SPS, and WP:PEACOCK, and the sources did not support the subject's notability. My edits were in good faith and were based solely on content, not my "literary expertise" or alleged "trolling" on behalf of any variety of fruit. As demonstrated by the AfD discussion, there were valid concerns about the subject's notability. And when the numerous problems with the article were corrected, I promptly withdrew my objections and voted to keep the article.
• It was in fact Mr. Cooper who sought to vandalize and delete the article and was subsequently banned. It was Mr. Cooper's meatpuppet who initiated the AfD on his behalf, not me. I would always prefer to see an article improved rather than deleted.
• Larkinvonalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had no interest in Wikipedia until Mr. Cooper asked his meatpuppets to target me for personal abuse and harassment.[86] In her one week at Wikipedia, Larkinvonalt has not contributed to improving the article in any way; her only contributions have been harassment of other editors and unexplained, disruptive reversions of their work.[87]
• In contrast, I have never had a dispute of this kind in my history on Wikipedia, and I have always sought to retain neutrality and balance in my edits. -- JohnDopp (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This issue has nothing to do with me to the exception that I have brought this matter to the attention of those who might be able to do something about it. JohnDopp has failed to explain why he was insistent about the changes made in the entry for Douglas Anthony Cooper, or to answer the charges that he is neither neutral nor knowledgeable as to the subject at hand. Still, JohnDopp cannot resist name-calling and other unpleasant behaviors here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. (As for my own history with Wikipedia, it began so long ago that one didn't even have to be a "user" in order to make contributions or edits.) Larkin Vonalt (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I was afraid this might end here. Hopefully it ends with this venue. I was involved in the AfD discussion as well as (marginally) the COIN post. There were some issues with the article, and the AfD showed quite a high percentage of accounts with few to no edits outside of the topic area. I tagged accounts there with {{spa}} based on contributions, including both Larkinvonalt and JohnDopp.

• JohnDopp contacted me on my talk page (now archived) in disagreement with the tag. (Note that he did not remove the tag himself, but contacted me, the one who placed the tag, instead.) While his edit history was closely tied to animal cruelty-related articles, and this author had written concerning animal cruelty, he seemed less single-purpose, and less tied to this article and a related POV. I modified his note accordingly. We also discussed some ideas for him going forward so he could productively edit without accruing such a label in the future.
• I had no interaction with Qworty, but the duck test seems to have JohnDopp as a different person. A CU might disagree.
• My interaction with Larkinvonalt was that of him reverting my productive edits (including combining identical refs) with the summary "restored text." When I pointed this out to him, he simply determined that if I continued to contact him, it would be seen as harassment[88].

I don't know what Larkin is trying to push, but it seems he is trying to push something. I'd rather him topic banned, if a ban is to occur, to prevent the POV he wants to push. --Nouniquenames 01:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm pretty happy with how the deletion debate turned out. Even JohnDopp voted "Keep" when he saw he couldn't win.

That doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem here. This is the situation you're dealing with:

Let's say there are these two writers named Woodward and Bernstein, and there's a Wikipedia article about them. An editor comes along whose name is RichNix, and he flags these writers as "not notable," and tries to delete the article. So these writers protest that RichNix is in fact a man named Richard Nixon, and that they're in the middle of exposing him and his friends as really awful people. RichNix screams that his privacy is being infringed on, so all of the complaints and information about him really being Richard Nixon are erased.

We're not dealing with presidential politics here, but we're dealing with a pretty important political matter nevertheless. It involves over 100 million dollars, and the lives of millions of animals, each year. So it's not just fluff.

I'm saying maybe privacy isn't such a great principle in this case. People should have to own what they say. That is why I, like Larkin, use my own name. It sure isn't helping Wikipedia, in this instance, to allow an editor to hide his agenda and identity. Someone like JohnDopp should lose his privacy privileges in this kind of situation, and then let him defend himself once everyone knows who he really is, and what he's done. CandaceWare (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

Comment: It should be noted that in retaliation for this complaint, JohnDopp has opened "sock puppet investigations" against Candace Ware and myself, indeed against everyone who disagreed with him in the matter of Douglas Anthony Cooper. In his "investigations" material, he provided screenshots of Facebook conversations that he should not have been privy to, as he is not the Facebook friend of anyone involved. Facebook has ruled repeatedly that they construe this misuse of screenshots in this manner to be "theft of intellectual property," and JohnDopp knows this, because he has gotten in trouble for it before. Furthermore, because I have blocked JohnDopp on Facebook, he should not be able to see ANYTHING that I have written there, and yet he provides a screenshot of it! Clearly, he has multiple accounts everywhere! And all because he wants to question the notability of a Canadian novelist. Right, nothing else going on here. Right. NoUniqueNames must also be connected with JohnDopp, as there was no reason for him or her to be called to this discussion. I did restore some punitive edits that NoUniqueNames had done in the spirit of overzealous editing. Like JohnDopp, NoUniqueNames shows no previous affinity for literature in his or her Wikipedia career. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Larkin, extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof. If you have the proof that JohnDopp, Qworty, and NoUnique names are the same user, take it to SPI. If you do not have that proof, I would HIGHLY suggest you stop throwing around these accusations. This whole situation stemmed from what appears to be a good faith notibility tag on the Cooper article, and JohnDopp voted keep for the article. This whole discussion seems to be retalitory and should be closed as such. Ishdarian 02:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And Candace, you stated Even JohnDopp voted "Keep" when he saw he couldn't win. JohnDopp was one of the first editors to vote keep. I think you should avoid making false statements such as this one. Ishdarian 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks JohnDopp's notability tag was done in anything remotely akin to "good faith" simply hasn't followed the issue (and your comment regarding JohnDopp's 'keep' also reveals that you haven't been following it, Ishdarian). Douglas Anthony Cooper is in the midst of writing a series about a highly controversial organization. JohnDopp is the WEBMASTER for the apologist/propaganda site that protects this organization. The fact people are so obtuse when it comes to recognizing this blatant COI just drives me NUTS. People, please -- wake up!!!! 75.142.17.148 (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

No, it really was done in good faith. At the time he tagged it, the article was horribly sourced. A handful of editors worked on it and brought it to a much better state. He tagged it to get it help. JohnDopp did vote keep after some work had been done on the article. I looked at the contribs, and I'm not seeing any malicious intent on JohnDopp's part. Other parties, however, I can't be as certain about. Ishdarian 03:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Larkin, I'm here because I watch this page. It can be an interesting barometer of the community, and simply watching has taught me some interesting policies, procedures, and best courses of action. More to the point, though, I chimed in because I was involved in the AfD and the COIN and had discussions on my talk page with at least two of the other editors involved in the Afd at the time. Everything I posted was out in the open for anyone (admin or not) to see. Editors have other things to do, though, so I posted what I could to help along with my personal opinion. I honestly wish you had said something on a talk page to any of the non-spa accounts at the AfD, as I cannot imagine that any experienced editor would have advised you to go ahead with this. It's also interesting that when a SPI case was opened, you didn't disagree with the accusation. Your only contention was that he shouldn't have those screenshots of facebook that show he's correct. --Nouniquenames 07:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Ishdarian", how would you know what edits were made in good faith, unless you are indeed JohnDopp? In fact, "Ishdarian"'s edit was reported to me through Wiki mail as having been made by JohnDopp. Go figure. Sometimes you forget to cover your tracks, John. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting. Proof?

Simply looking at the contribs for the page, JohnDopp's first edit was a simple notability tag. Nothing more. It doesn't seem like a far stretch to beleive that a person trying to build an encyclopedia would perform an act that would further the project. Ishdarian 04:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

... Larkin, stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a sockpuppet of JohnDopp. As you are making these accusations on no other basis than "they all agree with each other and disagree with me" it is uncivil and, indeed, can easily be seen as a personal attack. In fact, your claim above regarding "Ishdarian's edit was reported t me through Wiki mail as having been made by JohnDopp" is, in fact, blatantly untrue as the edit history of this page shows. I would strongly reccomend you retract that statement immediately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Uuhhhmmm -- if you're going to insist Larkin stop accusing everyone who disagrees with her of being a JohnDopp sock puppet, Bushranger, why are you not calling HIM out for exactly the same behavior? I would strongly recommend a little balance in your reprimands.CandaceWare (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare

If you break it down, JohnDopp filed an SPI report of why he thinks you two are meatpuppets, including the evidence he had. Larkin is throwing out baseless accusations without providing a shred of proof. There's an unwritten rule about accusing people of sockpuppetry: Put up or shut up. If you can't provide evidence of why you think people are puppets, then don't accuse those editors of such. Using those kind of arguments violate the no personal attacks policy. Ishdarian 02:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I've followed this situation closely, and frankly can see little wrong, or unusual at this time. There is no admin action to take. It's over. I recommend this thread gets closed by an uninvolved administrator soon, preferably with one of little reminders about what we're here to do. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is "little wrong, or unusual" about what has gone on, and if you guys cannot see the glaring COI here, then it's no wonder Wikipedia is universally scorned as useless, other than as a place to find links to real sources of information. As for JohnDopp's ridiculous and petty hissy fits about various types of "puppets" -- every single user/editor ON Wikipedia began as an SPA. If this reception is typical, then it's a wonder anyone sticks around long enough to expand their activity. Still, it's been fun learning about the editing process, the colorful vocabulary, and writing code. And I'm very glad to have helped the "Keep" happen. So not a total waste of time.CandaceWare (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandaceWare (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on this thread alone, I suspect CandaceWare and Larkinvonalt need to be indeffed for abusing Wikipedia as a battleground. So consider this your invitation to convince me otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I can't see who the oversighter was for the AfD for some reason, if whoever that is notices this thread, could they please let me know?--Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The suppression log can only be accessed by editors with the oversighter flag for privacy reasons. That said, I am the OS who hid a couple of edits on the AFD page; however, I'd rather avoid commenting on this issue, because, since the privacy policy prevents me from disclosing anything I come to know in my capacity as a functionary, I fear my comments would not be particularly interesting or helpful... I'm sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Pulling the Plug on My Financial Contributions.: Since clearly Wikipedia administrators have little or no interest in keeping the site neutral and free from bullies, I will be withdrawing my regular and sizeable financial contribution that helps keep the thing up and running. P.S. Bushranger, please note "sockpuppet" allegations made by JohnDopp entirely in retaliation for this very real complaint against him. Apparently it's fine for JohnDopp to engage in libel, slander, baseless accusations, conflict of interest and bad faith edits, simply because you say so. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, check your facts before making blatantly false accusations. JohnDopp filed the SPI report on 2 October. You didn't file a complaint on ANI until 7 October. There is nothing retalitory about the report. Also, threatening to withdraw financial support won't help you get your way. Ishdarian 07:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It always amuses me to no end how people who think that making donations to the WMF grants them any sort of status. None of us who edit WP care whether you donate or not, we're volunteers who give up our time, which to some may mean money, to do our bit here. If you give money as well as time? well bully for you, it doesn't change the fact that you are nonetheless bound by the same policies as everyone else. Financial contributions do not put you above everyone else. Be careful of the door on your way out. Blackmane (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Larkinvonalt blocked indefinitely for battleground behavior and multiple edits over time requiring revision deletion (oversight). I am asking the Audit Subcommittee to confirm the appropriateness of the oversight. I am now turning to see if CandaceWare and JohnDopp need to be blocked or warned for any reason as well.--Tznkai (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

At this time, I do not believe CandaceWare or JohnDopp need to be blocked. I do think that both of them could use some time away from the animal welfare topic area. Furthermore, I believe that CandaceWare, despite a rocky start, could become a valuable and broad based contributor to wikipedia. Any Wikipedians willing to work with CandaceWare as an informal mentor, please volunteer to do so here.--Tznkai (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If someone more experienced volunteers, that may be better, but I would be willing to try to help if Candace finds it acceptable. (It would be understandable if preference was given to someone less involved.) --Nouniquenames 16:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent IP-user

There's an Australian IP user that has been editing articles on military and naval history since early August that I think it's starting to become a problem. Edits are certainly in good faith, and some of the copyediting has been useful. But there's a very rough treatment of articles on occasion with wholesale removal of paragraphs and statements without any proper motivation. I've had to revert most of the changes in three bouts of edits in galley during the last few days because of repeated removals and outright skewing of facts.

• 114.75.8.223 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.0.250 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.27.218 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.18.155 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.15.113 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.2.102 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.6.12 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.13.6 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.30.223 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.30.9 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.6.12 (talk · contribs)
• 114.75.2.102 (talk · contribs)
• 2002:724B:8DF:0:0:0:724B:8DF (talk · contribs)

Here are some of the more problematic edits from other articles.[89][90][91][92]

The biggest problem is that along with reasonable prose changes, there are wholesale removals of facts and what appears to be editing from a purely personal view of what facts should be. The change of the figure "1,700" to "10,700" in this edit is especially bad, since the former figure appears to be correct (I checked other sources). Where the latter figure comes from is a complete mystery.

I see potential for useful contributions here, but I'm concerned about the lack of dialog. Since the IPs change constantly, and no attempt has been made to use talkpages, I don't really know how to engage in discussion. Any suggestions?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"no attempt has been made to use talkpages" is correct - even if the IP changes, you should at least have tried to discuss with the (then-current IP) - you have also not notified them of this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As you can see for yourself, the IP has changed on a daily basis for over a month now. No IP has been used on more than one date, or even more than a few hours. I have tried to communicate through edit summaries,[93][94][95] but the problem remains.

The removals and subtle skewing of facts (accompanied by moderately useful improvements of prose) are very tricky to deal with. They're very easy to miss. Anyone who's hesitant about reverting completely, but doesn't go through edits in great detail, risk missing very relevant changes. I've notified all the IP's talkpages now, but the reason I'm posting here is because the user has been around for about a month and is not improving. And I simply don't know how to deal with the issue if the IPs just keep changing so rapidly.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

And here's the most recent IP:

• 114.75.8.242 (talk · contribs)

Peter ^Isotalo 06:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now semi-protected Galley and left a note on the article talk asking the IP to discuss the matter. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, De.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Id420x

Id420x (talk · contribs) is editing the leads of some American cities in Massachusetts or Rhode Island to add distances to multiple cities or towns. Xe (or an IP adding the same edits before this account was created) has been reverted by at least 3 editors and a detailed suggestion as to what he should be doing added to his talk page on the 2nd. I gave him an edit warring notice yesterday plus the comment "I've posted the above because you haven't responded to either the fact that you are being reverted or to the comments above. Discussion between editors is vital to Wikipedia" but xe just carries on with no discussion. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments: At least two IP addresses appear to be involved. The behavior extends to articles on towns and cities in other regions of the U.S. The number of reversions at, for example New Bedford, Massachusetts, is becoming too numerous to list or count, way beyond three. Giving the distances to Washington, Los Angeles and Honolulu (!) from a place in Massachusetts is seriously off-topic and a distraction to the reader. What's next, the distance from everywhere to everywhere else? The edit warring needs to be shut down before this situation gets any further out of hand. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The named user has now made several more edits of this pattern after being given a general warning about edit-warring and after being alerted to this ANI thread, so I've given him 24h ew-block purely on procedural grounds. Feel free to extend length or spread to other IPs/accounts, I don't have time to work more on this right now. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The same editing pattern has been shown by IP 76.118.118.117 at Fall River, Massachusetts and New Bedford, Massachusetts and 68.99.241.179 (especially at Sharon, Massachusetts). Hertz1888 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hertz, I agree this is completely absurd. The reader should be oriented as to the location of any given city or town by giving its distance to the Boston Marathon finish line in Copley Square and/or the John Harvard Statue in Harvard Yard. Anything beyond that is blatant surplussage. EEng (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what better focal points than those two greatly aspired-to destinations. What more could any reader want? Thanks for lightening up the discussion and giving me a good laugh. Sometimes we take ourselves, and our editing, too seriously. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that these two are the same as our editor. Same edits, same pattern, same handwriting. IP 68 is active (became active after Id420x was blocked) and will be blocked for evasion. Maybe they'll actually participate in discussion at some point, maybe not. Maybe we'll have to semi-protect all these articles, which would be silly. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Id420x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.118.118.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Id420x's block expired and immediately resumed the same behavior, so I indef'ed. 76.118.118.117 again joined in, so I gave it an explicit 1-week block. DMacks (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A possible problem with undiscussed moves

Hi all, I'm reluctant to start a thread on the drama-board about this, but... people have tried to discuss some concerns about Gryffindor's mass moves, and Gryffindor has carried on regardless. What should be done? Here's a summary - I'll try to keep it neutral (others may disagree, of course)

• Earlier in 2012, Gryffindor started moving articles about government bodies, typically along the lines of like Senate of Trinidad and Tobago -> Senate (Trinidad and Tobago). A lot of the moves are over redirects.
• Some editors have disagreed with the moves and tried to start a discussion; [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] etc. Gryffindor just keeps on moving pages regardless.
• Personally, I believe that some (not necessarily all) moves are flawed, on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. In many cases Gryffindor's edit summaries seem bizarrely unrelated to the actual moves (for instance, "per constitution" even though the relevant constitution doesn't use the new name, or "proper name" even though the new title is not used by any source). Gryffindor didn't reply to my latest query and instead moved some more pages.
• I only noticed this because I watchlist Burkina Faso; in the wake of one of these undiscussed moves, an unrelated editor came along to "correct" National Assembly of Burkina Faso to National Assembly (Burkina Faso). The former title is used by far more sources than the latter. I queried on the relevant talkpage but Gryffindor did not reply.
• One particularly worrying example is on Senate of Pakistan: Gryffindor moved it, Green Giant disgreed and started an RM, the RM was closed as "page returned to original name", then Gryffindor moved it again anyway.

What can we do to get things back under control? If many of these moves have met with disagreement, shouldn't we be using RMs? (and respecting the result of the RMs) bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-communication block to get them to respond. Lack of communication isn't acceptable Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor has communicated. Nobody Ent 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In that particular case, Gryffindor commented on the RM requestor's talkpage and then moved the page anyway, contrary to the RM which had been closed by an uninvolved admin. In this case they responded to another editor's complaint with a comment that simply doesn't mention or justify the new title Gryffindor had chosen. In this case, Gryffindor tells another complainant that they moved to the WP:COMMONNAME, but the name Gryffindor actually moved it to was neither the official nor the most common name, and like the other cases it's a highly improbable search term (Won't somebody think of the readers?). However, these responses only account for a tiny proportion of moves; hundreds of other moves were undiscussed and other objections have gone unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by bobrayner (talk • contribs)

• I note that Gryffindor appears to be an administrator - since 2006 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason to block pending explanation? dangerouspanda 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)True -- why do you mention it? Nobody Ent 13:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• He has replied to one of the concerns, but on the other users talk pages [104] as Ent pointed out, but he needs to stop and come here before doing any more since that is a reply, not a discussion. And Ent, I understand why he mentioned it. Rules are different now, some old school admins do things differently. This may or may not be that situation. I left a message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• I mentioned the fact that he's an admin from way back a) specifically for the reason Dennis suggests, and b) because admins are expected to set an example and should be held to higher standards of behaviour -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see he has made one edit since the last notice, hopefully he will show up soon and help by adding some clarity to the issue here.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Gryffindor has not replied here, but they have only made one edit since the start of the thread. I'm not interested in punishment; if the undiscussed moves have stopped, then the main problem has been solved. I'd like to spend some time reviewing old moves (there are hundreds of them) and may open RMs in cases where I think the move was inappropriate - would y'all be OK with that? If there are many, they might have to be bundled up into groups (like some of the recent multiple-RMs on people-with-diacritics-in-their-names). bobrayner (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

hello there. I just saw this discussion here, sorry if I did not see it earlier. The formats used in the names of the articles are wrong, therefore I moved it. This is in line with the editing guideline Be Bold. But since some users seem to object to the proper format, I have ceased moving the articles for the moment. Fact remains, that the proper names of most of the assemblies and parliaments are following a wrong format. I have left my comments on a number of User and article talk pages to explain the reasons. I have also moved articles with a comment in most cases, which is basically always the same argument that the format has been wrong. Some users seem to insinuate that I am not engaging in discussion, and that is not correct, Assume good faith. But we can obviously engage in a more centralised discussion either here or somewhere else, I am open to suggestions. Gryffindor (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We would disagree on what is "wrong" and what is the "proper format". Framing the problem in terms of other people objecting to your Truth is unhelpful. But, still, thanks for replying here! I'll try a couple of RMs and see what the community thinks is the best way to title some of these articles. bobrayner (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zrdragon12 Reverting for Fun and Deleting Well-Sourced Material for No Reason

Zrdragon12 instigated a massive edit war across numerous articles that previously got him blocked for a week. User:Nguyen1310 was blocked along with him; because I had taken part in the edit war, an admin blocked me shortly after the other two. Zrdragon12 has just been unblocked, and he is already causing more of the same old problems, having learned nothing. He has reverted two editors three times on Vietnam war casualties, for a total of 6 reverts. He's also had lesser edit wars on other articles, and resorted to personal attacks. I reported his antics to ANI too late last time, so that (to an admin) nobody had clean hands--but I will not repeat that mistake. Let me be clear: Our dispute is not over controversial issues, despite the contentious nature of the article. Zdragon12's reversions are a knee-jerk reaction, not a last resort. So, why do I say this?

• In this edit, he added the following text to the start of a section: "American forces killed around 5,500 civilians between 1960 and 1972; in democide. Rummel's estimates range from 4,000 to 10,000." However, the end of the section already said: "American forces killed around 5,500 civilians between 1960 and 1972 in democide; Rummel's estimates range from 4,000 to 10,000." Clearly, his edit was redundant. In addition, he added this text: "The Phoenix Program was a counterinsurgency program executed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), United States special operations forces, and the Republic of Vietnam's security apparatus during the Vietnam War. It targeted the Viet Cong civilian infrastructure in South Vietnam. Historian Douglas Valentine states that "Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers"." This, too, was a repeat of what the article already said: "The Phoenix Program was a counterinsurgency program executed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), United States special operations forces, and the Republic of Vietnam's security apparatus during the Vietnam War. It targeted the Viet Cong civilian infrastructure in South Vietnam." In his next edit, he trimmed the excess, but his edit summary was surreal: "removed piece that was stated twice,someone did some very bad editing here". Someone? I asked him what he meant, but even though I offered proof of his error, he blamed me for his own edit and refused to acknowledge any mistake. He even suggested that I was guilty of "harassment"!
• Our dispute is minor. The issue is if we should include a direct quote from a historian about the Phoenix Program, or summarize it as we do with all our other sources in the article. I favor the latter option, especially because Zrdragon copied all of the text from the Phoenix Program article without attribution and previously refused to correct this. The article is not about the Phoenix Program, it is about the Vietnam war. It is a list of statistics, not a place for political commentary. Still, especially when I tried to discuss it on his talk page, why would he risk an edit war over something so insignificant?
• He's hurting his own cause just to revert. Although he is editing from a pro-North Vietnam POV, he reverted an IP's edit about American democide in the war. Democide refers to deliberate killings by American troops or deaths caused by American bombings that had no target. Zrdragon's alteration left us with the following text: "American forces killed around 5,500 civilians between 1960 and 1972; Rummel's estimates range from 4,000 to 10,000." That is, self-evidently, a ridiculous underestimate. I imagine that if Zrdragon actually read the text he was playing around with, he would have accused "someone" of "pushing a right-wing POV"--even though, again, he made the sloppy edit. He even reinserted typos and extra spaces that I removed!
• Look at this edit, which I have yet to revert or even challenge (though it cannot stand): Zrdragon removed "During the peak war years, almost a third of civilian deaths were the result of Viet Cong atrocities"--a statistic cited to a book from Oxford University. Why did he do this? His edit summary said only "POV".
• The article includes sections about South Vietnamese killings, North Vietnamese killings, and killings by the U.S. military. Each section was structured (pre-Zrdragon) so that it started with a list of atrocities, and ended with a range of estimates. Because he edit warred to get the American democide estimates at the start, not the end, of that section (for whatever reason); he altered the South Vietnamese section accordingly. The whole article is not, however, consistent in this regard; edit warring has resulted in a loss of coherence.
• He seems to have adopted an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude to my attempts at engagement. He continually insists that other people are the real edit warriors, and he is an angel.
• His six direct reverts can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here. With regard to Zrdragon's battle with the IP, I can state that the IP was correct about what the source said, and that Zrdragon was edit warring to remove sourced material he did not like. Zrdragon and the IP are also involved in a minor edit war at Free World Military Forces, in which he is POV-pushing. They're only at 2 reverts each, but it fits into a broader pattern.
• On his talk page, Zrdragon has left message board-style personal attacks that demonstrate a battleground mentality: For example, "How did that ban work out for ya? LOL"

So what do I want an admin to do? Simple: Block Zrdragon12 again, forever if necessary. He just got unblocked, and I'm not playing any more games with him. Previously, he racked up several dozen reverts in a couple days battling with PhilipCross, Stumink, Nguyen1310, several IPs, and myself. I have never encountered a less constructive, less self-aware editor in all my time here. Every article he has ever contributed to has exploded into an edit warring frenzy. Let's nip it in the bud now. He obviously hasn't learned his lesson.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny. I really don't have time to look at this in detail, but it won't end well. For the record: the IP belongs to User:Stumink [105] (same geolocation). Tijfo098 (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: Zrdragon12 may be right about America in Vietnam not being very reliable. It should probably be cited only with attribution. But you guys should take stuff like this to WP:RS/N, not get into another crazy edit war over it. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is a very simple matter. Zrdragon has clearly violated the 3RR, in spirit if not in letter, on one of the pages they were blocked for edit warring on. Nobody else has done anything comparable, and I would prefer if you did not treat it as a joke just because you don't have the time to look into it--especially since you admit it probably won't end well. I may not have technically crossed the line last time, but I was still blocked. There's really no ambiguity about if Zrdragon could be given another block--nor have I done anything that would justify one--but if you would rather give him the benefit of the doubt or just laugh it off, that's fine by me. You weren't the one that took action last time, either.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm worried about the Rummel spam in that article too. He is not exactly an apolitcal historian. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that Rummel never came up once in this edit war, and the article used Rummel extensively before any of us even joined Wikipedia. You appear to be saying that Zrdragon can violate the 3RR because he is a leftist. Otherwise, Rummel is off-topic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, remember that WP is not exactly a reliable source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole democide business that Zrdragon12 and Stumink=IP are edit-warring over is just Rummel's POV basically. And Rummel is cited ten times in the article, just by name. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. Well, that wasn't my main concern, although I did mention that by eliminating the word "democide" to make a point, Zrdragon inadvertently left us with a ludicrous underestimate for deaths caused by the U.S. military. Rummel was always cited by name for each of his claims because he is not without controversy. By the way, I have notified Stumink of this discussion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this isn't really the place to ask, but would you object to me restoring the material from America in Vietnam if I explicitly attribute it to the source? And, if not, should I ascribe it to Lewy or mention the book by name?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Strictly based on edit-warring behavior, I think Zrdragon12 and Stumink=IP should get an equal block this time. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I do find this all rather childish,it is like telling tales to teacher but what can you expect from User:TheTimesAreAChanging. He has spent his time keeping files on me to report,how sad is that? Anyway said editor sat on the Vietnam war casualties page for a very long time and did not even have a section there called deaths caused by US military,even though there are sections for the South Vietnamese military and the North Vietnamese. I put in that section and he tried to revert it a few times because at the end of the day he is biased as can be. I mean not having a section of deaths caused by the American military when they caused a lot of deaths in the Vietnam war is a joke and that editor is a joker. Now if that is the type of editor that has gotten away with this blatant bias for so long can still edit here then it just goes to show wikipedia as the joke it is and not even worth reading as a source for anything.The sources on said page are also a joke, he uses Rummel like it is a new toy he had for Xmas and cannot get enough of and the other fav is Guenter Lewy another joker used by rightwing cowboys to state that really America never killed hardly anyone in Vietnam. It is a joke and this guy is a joker a long with his mate User:Nguyen1310. The fact is that User:TheTimesAreAChanging was also edit waring,he does it all the time. He seems to think that he can put stuff in the North Vietnam section that is POV but he does not want anything like that in the South Vietnam or American sections. He is trying to push a line that is untrue by any scholarly standards and he has been getting away with it for years. There are so many threads about Vietnam now that are just a repeat of all the negative stuff that is in all the other threads,it is just copy and pasted wholesale,what's the point? It is to tell a biased on sided story of the Vietnam war and the Communist government.Negative things about the South and America have been deleted by those two editors as they play like a tag team.This guy is actually stalking me,he got banned for edit waring and as soon as he came back he is harassing me. I was talking to another editor about something on his talk page and then who should appear?User:TheTimesAreAChanging,he starts threads on my talk page to slag me off but he is all innocent, he never mentions what he does.The guy is a bad editor,uses rubbish sources and harasses anyone who does not agree with his edits. He is biased beyond belief and a joke.I think that just about covers my opinion on this matter.Here is User:TheTimesAreAChanging running off to inform his mate of events,Be Warned,just like kindergarten. Zrdragon12 (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This most recent outburst again demonstrates a determined battleground mentality and personal dislike for other editors.

The behaviour and actions Zrdragon accuses others of committing are the same things Zrdragon has been doing to articles. Look at that user's edits and edit history, they're very self-explanatory. This is the 2nd time Zrdragon is embroiled in another massive edit war. Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh there you go User:TheTimesAreAChanging your little buddy and tag team partner has turned up as moral support. Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

More childish attacks by Zrdragon... Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh you mean like these done by you and now you are trying to delete it..God and Buddha help us all, against the demonic griffon or this where you go on and on calling me she even though you have been told many many times that I am a he. She.Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

A bit of unsolicited advice: Any admin (or anyone else!) reading this can easily see Zrdragon12's behavior. Commenting on it that way is unproductive and will just tar you with a foul smelling brush. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My behavior? Oh I am so sorry that I defend myself..Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I retracted that statement, so I removed it. I puzzled about you, that's why I'm refraining from using gender-related descriptors to refer to you. Nguyen1310 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You mean you are refraining from using gender related descriptors like these? She? Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Another insult from User:Nguyen1310 I just saw a bad case of split personality, as said by another admin in the previous incident!. You are confused. In the other incident an editor came along and claimed that I had used various IP's to edit on wikipedia,he then after further research decided that I did not, yet another editor came along and stated that just by looking at the edits it was clear that it was not me as I had been reverting the IP's reverts and as a joke..he stated that I would have to have a split personality.You have also claimed that I accused you of editing with other IP's Accusing me when I never have, you have confused yet again another editor talking about me. Anyway is there any reason why you keep slagging me off on User:TheTimesAreAChanging talk page and then delete it? Zrdragon12 (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I recalled that (the split personality one, NOT the IPs) after making that statement, so I removed it since I no longer support that statement I made earlier. Anyways, I will refrain from getting involved in this incident. Nguyen1310 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

We're rapidly approaching TL;DR territory (again). Can an admin please close this before it gets out of control? Nguyen, Tijfo, and (apparently) Kerfuffler agree that Zrdragon's violation of 3RR so soon after his block deserves a reprimand. Tijfo wants Stumink to get an "equal block". Let Zrdragon off with a warning, block him for a day or two, block him for a week, block Stumink, do nothing, or whatever--But please stop this from escalating into a serious of personal attacks between Nguyen and Zrdragon.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you will find that I am just pointing out your mates attacks on me and not attacking him, see the difference there? Zrdragon12 (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I attempted to hide the personal attacks, but Zrdragon reverted me. Note that he just left me this message: "LMAO. You are done and dusted and proven to not know what you are talking about."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you only quoted a part of what I said and quoted it out of context to make me look bad but I expect nothing else from you really. Anybody can click the link and see it is related to a debate we are having on your claims about the Soviet population under Stalin and deaths in that and the fact that you have been proven wrong. Your selective quoting just shows everyone what your game is. Also I reverted you because it is not up to you to decide what is or what is not off topic in this thread. All the things you tired to class as off topic were very much on topic and that is why you got reverted. Zrdragon12 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

• Evidently, the previous 1 week blocks for edit warring dind't sufficiently emphasize to Zrdagon and TTAAC that edit warring is an unacceptable way to solve conflicts. I've reblocked both for a month. Any admin is welcome to revise this if they feel it is too lenient or too harsh. Note that this has nothing to do with the underlying content dispute; but those are solved thru discussion, not edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(more) In particular, This response to the block leads me to wonder if I'm missing something, and that the edit warring by Zrdragon was just a trap. I mean, TTAAC shouldn't be edit warring, especially after a 1 week block just ended, but if I find out I'm intentionally being used as a tool by a throwaway account to "get" someone else, I'll ignore that and unblock TTAAC. If someone knows more than I do about either one of these two, feel free to use your judgement to do whatever you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good catch with TTAAC. He's obviously omitted the edit war where he was involved [106] [107] [108] [109] . Well, because he got into that one after his last post in this thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I unblocked TTAAC, as it has become clear that Zrdragon is a throw-away account intended to get other editors blocked. A block on TTAAC was warranted, but I'm not going to be someone's tool. Later tonight when I can concentrate (currently cooking), I'm going to reblock Zrdragon indef, as he's switched to using IP's to evade his block. Also, as you pointed out on my talk page, Tijfo, there are other edit warriors in this topic area. I think we've suffered quite enough disruption in this topic area, so I'm going to start handing out edit warring blocks like candy to repeat offenders. If someone thinks I'm getting too aggressive with the blocks, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these two SPA was actually Horhey420 (talk · contribs)? My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think that? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken about the intention of Zrdragon. Look at his first edit war at Oliver Kamm back in September (which apparently was not reported). He is simply very belligerent. It looks he followed TTAAC from there. That doesn't mean the articles on the Vietnam War don't need attention though. I'm in partial agreement with Zrdragon that sources [over]used in some article on Vietnam War are of low quality or highly-politicized. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon's last edit war with TTAAC looked however totally gratuitous; it was over an obviously unsuitable WP:EL. Perhaps there was an element of explicit baiting to Zrdragon's edits. I see you've changed his block to indef. It was probably unavoidable at some point. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this, this, etc., it seems that TheTimesAreAChanging is followed by a group of SPA, some of which are possibly the same user. BTW, did you ever saw how alternative accounts of the same user revert each other to prove that they are different users? That happens. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop this B-52 bombing with sock accusations. Nguyen1310 is an edit warrior on the same side as TTAAC (in most stuff concerning Vietnam, anyway). Some proof of that: G N G N Z N some IP, assumed Z Tijfo098 (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo, I was never involved with the edit war you just linked to above, so I'm not sure how it proves Nguyen and I are "on the same side". I do find it slightly amusing how your opinion has shifted from "TTAAC's obviously omitted the edit war where he was involved" to "Well, because he got into that one after his last post in this thread" to (about the same edit war!) "Zrdragon's last edit war with TTAAC looked however totally gratuitous; it was over an obviously unsuitable WP:EL." I abandoned Vietnam War casualties to Zrdragon and stayed out of War Remnants Museum/Free World Military Forces. I only reverted Zrdragon 3 times on Vietnam War because his edits were, indeed, obvious trolling! Floquenbeam could have blocked me for the 3 reverts--given the broader pattern--but, in such cases, a judgment call is required. So I thank Floquenbeam for good judgment, while reiterating the fact that I put myself at risk by coming here. In the past, I have reverted Nguyen for POV-pushing or synthesis a number of times (from Authoritarianism to Vietnam War casualties); I'd rather not go through the diffs, but--by all means--ask Nguyen if you don't believe me! Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hanged, drawn and quartered

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.

---

From the history of Hanged, drawn and quartered:

• 5 October 2012‎ Bravo Foxtrot (articulation of process, with wikilinks)
• 23:15, 5 October 2012‎ Parrot of Doom (Undid revision 516223000 by Bravo Foxtrot (talk) our readers aren't idiots)
• 07:45, 9 October 2012‎ Bravo Foxtrot (Undid revision 516229180 by Parrot of Doom (talk). Edits were cited, explanation for blanket revert was bizarre and WP:OWNy)
• 08:07, 9 October 2012‎ Parrot of Doom (Undid revision 516782810 by Bravo Foxtrot (talk) maybe one of our editors is an idiot)

• Bravo Foxtrot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Neither editor has initiated a discussion over the changes or the revert on Talk:Hanged, drawn and quartered

1. What are the reasons for not protecting the page?
2. What are the reasons for not blocking one or both of them?

Stating in the edit history without a detailed explanation on the talk page that a revert is "bizarre" is confrontational, and the positioning of "one of our editors is an idiot" immediately after a user name is a breach of WP:Civil.

-- PBS (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(chuckle) Only foolish admins tread the ground of (shudder) "civility blocks". Let 'em battle it out. Doc talk 09:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

PoD is aware of this ANI.his response to me is a breach of WP:CIVIL. He has now breached the civil policy twice over this issue:

• "personal attacks" -- "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them."
• rudeness

I suggest that PoD is blocked for a token hour (the length of time between these two breaches of the Civil policy) because "an unfolding pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable." -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just fully protected the article for 48 hours to allow for dispute resolution. PBS, you could have started a talk page discussion of this and/or asked the editors to discuss it via their talk pages if you're concerned about the matter. Your snarky ANI notification [110] was always going to attract a snarky response, though I've also asked POD to tone it down. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D I do not think that you should have closed this ANI report so quickly. There has yet to be a community debate on the actions of the two editors. Please revert the close.

In what way was my ANI notification to PoD snaky? Is PoD not an experienced editor and as such should PoD not be aware that calling another editor an idiot in the edit history of the article inappropriate behaviour?

You compare my posting to his page with his response by stating that his response was also snarky. His response was not snaky it was a breach of WP:Civil.

In your posting to Pod's talk page you suggested that I provoked PoD, how did I provoke PoD? His response to your posting states categorically that he will disregard with your suggestion. Are you going to do anything about it? -- PBS (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with PBS. This shows that Parrot doesn't get it around here: they're not a new editor, and they go out of their way to state that they don't give a crap about civility/NPA...indeed, the edit-summary of the link I provided actually proves the opposite of what it said...methinks they need such a reminder. dangerouspanda 11:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And such a warning is likely to achieve what at this point in the proceedings? There's a semi-relevant history between PBS and PoD, and indeed both could have handled the exchange better. I'd suggest just letting the matter drop and allowing the editors to work out the content dispute on article talk as appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about a warning? dangerouspanda 12:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you work on your use of English pronouns before irritating PoD and other editors further. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Singular they. Please refrain from going on irrelevant tangents in an uncivil manner. If you feel that their use of "they" is problematic, take it up on their talk page, but don't derail this discussion with it. Fram (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fram, please observe WP:AGF and WP:Civil. This is English Wikipedia, and competent English-speakers wince at the suggestion that PoD is a tuple. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think a simple warning is appropriate. It is easy to see how Parrot of Doom might have drawn the conclusion that Wikipedia:Civility was no longer policy or enforced. Sudden, unexpected blocks are inappropriate. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the response is informative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• PBS, surely there are better things to do then to try and get PoD blocked for a civility offense. If it were really so egregious you would have blocked him/them yourself; this thread's purpose is not to find a consensus for a block already made, and I can only conclude that it exists for the purpose of drama, especially since you yourself noted that Bravo Foxtrot should have acted otherwise. Move to close. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

FB why do you think that PoD might have drawn that conclusion? -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Drmies two points the first is that I will not block PoD because with the second breach of civil I am an involved administrator. As to why I brought this to ANI and did not take administrative action myself is because some would argue that any administrative action I took that involved PoD would be as an involved editor. As my bland statement on PoD's talk page initiated such an uncivil retort, where other than ANI should I have initially taken this situation report? -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent I don't think you should have closed this discussion when there were several questions posed that had not been answered, and contrary to your opion, I think discussion here is likely to benefit Wikipedia. I read you civil essay with interest, but I don't think you have addressed the issued of editors who as a tactic persistently personalise discussions, to obfuscate content disputes and to divert conversations down unproductive byways.

It is clear to me that PoD repeatedly uses a tactic with edits to edit histories and talk pages to turn content dispute into discussions about editorial behaviour, with those who's content contributions he digresses. This is harmful to the project and while such tricks are not a breach of policy, the use of incivility is, and so I think that PoD should be blocked with an escalating length of block every time he is uncivil. -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to real life, so I regret I have to skip the links. Long term incivility just isn't deal with well at ANI, and a block would cause more trouble that it will solve. See last year's ArbCom case and the current request for case, and the current RFC on civility. RFCU would be a better option. Nobody Ent 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody dumbing down a Featured Article so that is offensively stupid to anybody with an elementary school education is a problem.

Administrators and their familiars using PoD's statement that "our readers are not idiots" as a pretext to poke PoD is a problem. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, NE, while long term incivility isn't something dealt with well at AN/I, AN/I is the only place left to deal with incivility, after the "oh, we don't need THIS anymore" closure of WQA... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm somewhat bemused by a) this thread being reopened for no clear purpose and b) the suggestions that Parrot of Doom be warned for incivility, when I did just that (as noted above, in relation to dropping the F word). While I have a pretty low opinion of incivility, there's no way that I can justify blocking Parrot of Doom for a single not terribly rude edit summary (and, in fairness I would have also needed to have blocked PBS for his snarky ANI notification post on Parrot of Doom's talk page given that it was about as rude). Blocking Parrot of Doom for snapping back at a rude talk page post also can't be justified given it would be over the top. If there's a long-term problem with an editor's conduct, use a RfC/U to document this and propose a solution rather than post ad-hoc ANI reports about single issues. As no-one has posted here for about 10 hours, I'm re-marking this as closed. Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 10 October 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.

Numerous disruptive edits

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.

---

Hope this is the right place for this.

I came across this guy User:1.227.87.226 who apparently likes the "undo" button lately, but has been making numerous, un-constructive, unsourced edits for several weeks now. I followed his back-trail and he is doing damage, as some edits are, in some cases, somewhat libelous edits to living person Bios (see: Lee Myung-bak, Kim Jae-Bum], etc.; some are simply to important numbers (for instance, regarding dimensions of the Soviet Union) that were made and remained unchallenged at the time; some are random, minor style breakers, as in the removal of flags from several infoboxes (see: sample icon removal). He also went after User:122.34.45.157 on Oct 09, reverting his last six edits.

I only went back a week or so —who knows what's gone on before. I think a block is in order, but leave it to you to follow-up. Thanks. GenQuest (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm. I looked at a bunch of edits and ended up giving them a final warning, linked to Kim Jae-Bum. I don't see a good reason to block right now, but any subsequent edit of this kind (serious violation of BLP, with apparently a pro-North-Korean POV given their edit on Kaechon internment camp) should be followed by an immediate block. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Looking closely at that static IP, it looks like a proxy (wireless router, actually), and possibly a misconfigured one. It isn't technically open, but it is odd to see port 53 open on a wireless router. Someone else might take a look, if they are so inclined. I will as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you tell that? Is there some service you're using, or do the numbers of the IP address indicate what you just said? Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I know from working around IT for two decades ;-) For security reasons, I just keep it simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

:-( Here I hoped it was some convenient tool that I could use just as easily as Whois. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked - Misconfigured router. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 10 October 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.

Possible spam attack

• rockthathat.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I speedy deleted a few user pages which were just some kind of weird advertising/promotional/commercial content, then I noticed they all had the same format user name of "name123..." and the content was of similar format. At least one of them had comments to see other similar pages of the same format name, though those pages did not exist. It looks like some sort of coordinated spamming, so I went back and indef blocked them. The ones I've zapped so far are...

• User:Michalg101
• User:Neville311
• User:Darreu819
• User:Jone845458

I've also had a look at the User creation log, and I see a worrying number of other new accounts with the same format names having been created this morning, though most have no contributions yet. But the content of the above 4 is weird, with most having no actual links to sale sites, so I'm rather perplexed about what's going on. A few more eyes on these would be good, together with a scan of the user creation log from time to time for any more of the same format that may have created content. (I'll notify the above 4, because I'm really not sure what weirdness is happening here, and I'll watch their talk pages) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Krtery899 is another one I just found - I haven't taken any action on that one, to leave one that non-admins can see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible school project? I ran into a similar naming scheme from a class operating out of the U of Penn a year ago. Heiro 09:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, could be - I'm tempted to undo the blocks, in case it isn't anything nefarious. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I've unblocked - benefit of the doubt and all that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've run into quite a few of these whilst patrolling CSD in the last couple of weeks. The random text - looking as thought it's been copy-pasted from a wide range of sources - immediately makes me think of the random text strings used by email spambots to try and circumvent certain filters, and as those I found regularly contained dodgy-looking links hidden in the mess, I've been routinely deleting and blocking. To me, they look a lot like bot-created accounts. It may be worth requesting a checkuser on some of these, especially since they don't seem to be letting up. Some examples from my block log: User:Calebp656, User:L69OOyee9d, User:Zheng6710d26, User:Malikq016, User:Nikenfl466, User:Le4frkwh4. (Since I believe these accounts to be bots, I haven't notified them of this discussion; if an admin thinks I should do so nevertheless, just ask) Yunshui 雲‍水 09:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If the others were like User:Krtery899, it looks like an SEO scam. Apart from containing "www.rockthathat.com" (not hyperlinked) the majority of the text there is from that site, albeit garbled with other random phrases including... er... "Dubai Search engine optimization". Voceditenore (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I also ran a couple of these names through Google. Observe the results for "Jone845458" and one of Yunshui's "Zheng6710d26". - Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha, very interesting - it is looking a lot like bot-driven SEO. I guess the thing to do is just delete and block (but I'll leave that undeleted one for a little while, in case it helps with any further insight). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, those are spambots; feel free to block with extreme prejudice and, then, contact a CU who can check for sleepers and impose rangeblocks. In this case, no rangeblock was possible, unfortunately. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to revoke the talk page access for these accounts. They are known to also spam on their talk pages. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reblocked all the users who are not globally locked without talkpage or email access as spambots. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly a poorly-configured spambot. Shouldn't someone also add this domain to the spam blacklist, or XLinkBot's list? That will eliminate the need to play what-a-mole with the throwaway spam accounts. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I can't say that I am against blacklisting this stuff (is it cross-wiki by any chance, then meta is the place to be), unfortunately the links were added in a non-linking way (without protocol links are not converted to working links) and the blacklist hence will not stop the spamming. An edit-filter may help (I wrote a detecting one once (Special:AbuseFilter/354) for user/user talk page spam, maybe there are some terms that can be extracted from the created pages which can be added to the terms in the filter so we see it when it is added). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

request immediate deletion

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

---

request immediate deletion of article "Susan Jiwey" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanjiwey (talk • contribs) 07:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD filed on user's behalf at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Jiwey. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was apparently created by the subject. The reason given in her request for speedy deletion was "inaccurate and out of date.". I did not search extensively, but the editing history appears to contain no inappropriate personal information. I think this is simply a matter of notability. If there is not sufficient ongoing information available to keep it updated it should be deleted as not notable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Deleted per WP:SNOW. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 10 October 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.

Problematic user returning: Geraldgorilla

Geraldgorilla (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA editor focused on the now deleted via AFD, USP Networks. He appears to be a sock or meatpuppet of both UnderAdvice (talk · contribs) and Wpoel (talk · contribs). Yes, I know WP:SPI is over there, but that's not why I'm bringing him here.

He's recently returned to Wikipedia and his user page has a statement about how he is "conducting a minor crusade to try and tag those incurable wikiwonkers" and "beware. Twats will not be tolerated." I'm pretty sure that's not in the spirit of cooperative editing, but I'd rather have someone else deal with this as I'm pretty sure I'm at least partially the target of this invective. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/420mysteryman69

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 editor is consistently and repeatedly vandalising articles - I am not sure what to do about it - can someone help? Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Smerus. The standard venue to report continuous vandalism is WP:AIV. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:37, 10 October 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.

Belchfire

On 25 September, Binksternet started a discussion thread about Belchfire (talk · contribs) on User talk:TParis (see "Ignoring sanctions on US political articles"). At the time, major concerns about Belchfire's behavior were raised with administrator TParis. In the discussion, it was shown that Belchfire had received at least three major warnings from administrators about his battlefield behavior and edit warring. TParis said he was on vacation playing the new WoW expansion and couldn't be bothered to deal with the problem.[111] Shortly after the thread ended on the 26th of September, Belchfire disappeared two days later, on the 28th. Today, Belchfire returned, engaging in the same exact behavior that has not yet been dealt with as requested by Binksternet back in September. To make matters worse, Belchfire appears to be gaming the system, reverting to the edits of a SPA IP (User:71.97.130.211) on political positions of Mitt Romney and violating the spirit of general sanctions by engaging in edit warring,[112] and coincidentally, doing the same thing on the same day on homosexual agenda, reverting to a version created by another SPA, this time a registered account (User:BacktoWiki).[113] This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely. Is Belchfire here to build an encyclopedia or to play games? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This complaint is nonsensical:

• A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever.
• When I edit an article, I'm not responsible for the contribution history of previous editors. Ever.
• Even if I was responsible for those contribution histories, neither of the editors cited by Viriditas meet the criteria of WP:SPA.
• Supposing just for the sake of the argument that they were SPAs, that doesn't mean it's against policy to revert to their version of an article, because there's no policy against being an SPA.
• All that remains is (supposedly) "odd behavior", which isn't much of a complaint. And there is no policy against "odd behavior".

I humbly suggest that Viriditas stop wasting everybody's time unless/until he has a real issue for admins to deal with. The only battlefield behavior here is this trumped up, fictitious ANI thread that he's started. G'day. Belchfire-TALK 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I maintain, using the above examples, that you are deliberately engaging in disruptive behavior. An enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem has been collected by other editors/admins, so there is no need for me to repeat it here. You are basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts which effectively increases the 3RR count by adding additional reverts into the mix. I'm asking for action to be taken based on Binksternet's original request from 25 September.[114] Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Viriditas is hardly "wasting everybody's time." After looking into the links provided, I see that Belchfire has been warned numerous times and appears to me to have serious issues, starting with systemic vios of WP:TEND, and I call for remedial action to hereby come into consideration including a full topic ban for any political subjects. Clearly this has gone on far too long. And for the record I am utterly uninvolved with any of this. Jusdafax 00:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is someone accusing BF of sockpuppettry?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruption is more like it. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. For clarity, I do not accuse Belchfire of socking. Jusdafax 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is an ongoing problem that needs to be stopped, but Belchfire has given every indication that he is unwilling to stop his behavior. Far too often he has been reverting other editors on a drive-by basis on multiple articles—not engaging the other editors on the talk page to build toward consensus. He just throws a wrench in the works as he drives by. At WP:DISRUPT we see that Belchfire's pattern is identified under "Signs of disruptive editing". Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's a content dispute that has no place at ANI. Also, the originator of the complaint did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue elsewhere, which is required per the bolded verbiage at the top of this page (only 22 minutes passed between a message on my Talk page that the initiation of this section). This entire thing is motivated solely by partisan politics. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is no "content" under dispute in this report, only your continuing bad behavior. As for attempting to resolve it, the diffs show that you've been warned many, many times. At this point, we need administrator action. We are far past the point of trying to resolve it. Been there, done that, now we need action. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BF has had issues inte past, mostly with civility, but since being warned he has been much more civil. Where is he refusing to discuss?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a discussion when there is something to discuss. There is nothing to discuss here; this is simply a politically-motivated content dispute - not an ANI-worthy complaint. Viriditas knows better. Belchfire-TALK 02:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no content under discussion in this thread, only your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The links Veriditas posted above, highlighted "enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem," indicate there is plenty to discuss, as I see it. In my view to deny that is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I respectfully suggest Belchfire take this matter a bit more seriously, because up to this point they are doing themself a disservice. Binksternet and Veriditas raise troubling points that arguably merit community oversight and sanctions. This is the place to discuss that. Calling their complaints "partisan politics" reveals a battleground mentality on Belchfire's part. Jusdafax 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But the initial complaint by OP makes it seem like they are accusing BF of puppettry. This needs clarification.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever." LOL! Someone needs to review what is considered edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was sticking in my craw as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How so? Care to explain how both Belchfire and Collect are wrong on this point? Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of warnings is to change behavior and if that is not effective then the next logical step is sanctions. I believe we have reached that point and would support a topic ban on political articles. Also, I find his comment on edit warring disturbing, since he has been blocked twice recently for edit-warring. It shows an unwillingness to follow the spirit of policy, and avoid sanctions by following the letter. TFD (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no editorial misbehaviour warranting this section - it is clearly a matter of disputes between ed\itors on content matters, and this is not the place to rule on content matters. Further, it is dictum that "edit war" does, indeed, require more than a single edit. I would further note that the editors who seem most aggreieved have been involved in precisely analogous behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no content dispute under discussion here, nor have I been involved. In fact, I have made a total of zero edits to the articles named in this dispute:[115][116][117][118] This discussion is about Belchfire's edit warring (which does not require more than a single edit) and battlefield behavior which has resulted in multiple warnings, all of which have been ignored. At this point, we're calling for action, preferably a topic ban or sanction. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note SPI is --> thataway. Making accusations here is not proper. Collect (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has made any such accusations. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Here [119] you say that BF is ...basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts (emphasis added). This is tantamount to making the claim that BF is socking, which is a serious accusation. If you have evidence or even a strong suspicion, take it to SPI.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't imply that Belchfire is socking in any way, but it does imply that he is reverting to versions edited by other throwaway accounts to game the general sanctions and 3RR. I hope you understand that this statement does not in any way imply that he is the operator behind those accounts, but rather that he conveniently seems to show up at coincidental and opportune times to revert to their versions. There are any number of explanations for this coincidental behavior. For example, they could be meatpuppets, not socks, and no SPI would ever prove anything. Now, please stop distracting from his behavior under discussion. This isn't a dispute about content or a request for an SPI. It's a discussion about Belchfire's continuing battlefield behavior. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of something called a watchlist? These edits you present as "evidence" of disruption of BF appear to be a coat-rack to bring up a discussion of sanctions against BF. Don't accuse me of making distractions, I'm not the one making insinuations.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Belchfire's contribution pattern, there appears to be a gaming of the 1RR of general sanctions and the 3RR coordinated with the coincidental appearance of single-use IPs and throwaway SPA's. You can dismiss this as a coincidence when it happens once, but twice within the same day on two different articles right when Belchfire "returns" from a week-long vacation? Sorry, this does have the look and feel of odd behavior. I monitor editorial patterns all the time, and this is very strange behavior. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Red herring. No one has accused anyone of sockpuppeting. Saying an editor has a revert only account does not imply there is another account. You inferred it, but it wasn't implied. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is the poster child for votestacking. He finds a controversial article and reverts to restore the position of his friends, but he does not engage in discussion. More than any other, Belchfire is the type of editor that Lionelt hoped to recruit (and did recruit) for the Conservatism WikiProject to further conservative causes. The exhaustive list of disruptive edits that Swatjester warned him about includes many exemplary votestacking instances such as this one removing well-cited but negative information at Christian Coalition of America, without a single peep on the talk page, and this one at You didn't build that to revert to a fabricated image photoshopped by Lionelt, added to the article by Lionelt, one which was soon deleted. Anybody who wishes to investigate further into Belchfire's editing pattern will find too many disruptive reversions, the same things Swatjester already noted. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the Belchfire votestack I found most disruptive: he involved himself in the article for precisely one edit, reverting my changes to the lead section of BP and the addition of text cited to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. Belchfire used the edit summary, "removing unsourced material and obvious original research". Such a summary was purely spiteful, considering the sources and carefully crafted text. Belchfire never once engaged in discussion on the article's talkpage. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire's involvement with the project has improved since they received a final warning on September 9, but it seems to be mostly due to reducing the level of activity, as opposed to altering undesirable editing behavior.

The drive-by reverting started about a week after Swatjester's final warning.

• September 16 - I posted a warning about this edit.

• September 20 - Removing an entire section with an edit summary of "removing unsourced and poorly sourced material". Notably, one of the sources removed is an American Psychological Association article. The content needed improvement but a complete removal was not constructive.

• September 20 - Incivility and here.

• September 21 - Removal of content with an edit summary of "removing excessive detail, undue weight and non-neutral language. there, now it's explained". Notably, this edit restored User:98.91.31.197's same reversion. Interestingly, a similar revert was performed on October 7 by User:98.91.29.75. Both IP's have only edited Christian Coalition of America.

• September 25 - Removal of sourced content with an edit summary of: "sourcing does not equal relevance"

• October 7 - Removal of sourced content with an edit summary of: "removing undue weight. the significance of these orgs needs to be better established to merit special mention"

• October 7 - Removal of sourced content with and edit summary of: "See WP:BITE. Better rationale is needed, reason given is NEVER valid" I was concerned about possibly biting a new user, so I asked Belchfire about it, but did not receive a response. – MrX 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the Sept 20th bullshit comments, most of the edits and summaries you cite appear to be reasonable, as they can reasonable be rationalized. Perhaps he is frustrated at what he percieves to be edits that do not reflect what the sources state? When you proceed to revert his edit before discussing, do you expect him to answer your talkpage response? I'm on the bandwagaon that BF can certainly be curt and sometimes abrasive, but most of these problems can be handled within BRD. Two bad the D part is often an afterthought. And BF is not the only guilty party.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is not just curt and abrasive, he is purposely disruptive. That's the key point. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's the claim being made. So far the diffs presented here haven't shown disruption, much less intentional disruption. That is unless you consider source checking and attribution to be disruptive. I would however urge BF to start opening TP sections when he removes material he believes to be unsourced and be more specific as to the chief complaint.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as believing text to be unsourced when in fact it is sourced to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. The chief complaint is that Belchfire piles on in edit wars, that he is disruptive in his edit pattern. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as an example, one of the cited diffs above is [120] which is a removal of unsourced material. There are other edits, also above, where BF has reverted edits that contain unsourced and sourced material in one fell swoop. Perhaps you feel he should have been more judicious in removing only the unsourced portion. Perhaps he felt it wasn't his responsibility to clean up anothers mess. Did he see one "bad" edit and decide to revert the whole thing? Is it ok to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Let's postualate that this is a misunderstanding on both sides. If everyone were to take this up on the talk page then we wouldn't be discussing it here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you chose that example, because here is the passage from the Rolling Stone article:

" "Open your eyes, people," Anderson recently wrote to the local newspaper. "What if a 15-year-old is seduced into homosexual behavior and then contracts AIDS?" Her agenda mimics that of Focus on the Family, the national evangelical Christian organization founded by James Dobson;"

Belchfire removed: "Anderson's agenda is similar to that of Focus on the Family" with an edit summary: "removing unsourced original research" – MrX 02:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And I realise we disagree on these matters, but I think Belchfire's edit was absolutely fine. The statement was in Wikipedia's voice. A claim like that needs to be cat in the voice of the one making it. It's the responsibility of people adding content to ensure that it is neutral. Not only wasn't the sentence cited, it wasn't neutral, and those sort of added opinions may certainly be removed on sight. StAnselm (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add this series of events which occurred as the Parents Action League was being expanded:

• September 6 - "removing original research" followed by two additional reverts
• September 8 - "removing trivia" 1st revert
• September 8 - "Don't edit-war over this, please. If you think it should be here, make your case in Talk. I'm taking it out - again - because it's irrelevant." 2nd revert
• September 8 - Talk page discussion that was not going quite the way Belchfire had hoped
• September 8 - Well, that didn't work. I know! Let's see if we can get the entire article deleted!

At first, I was encouraged to see Belchfire, StAnselm and Insomesia joining together with me in the spirit of improving the article. But almost immediately, it became evident that there was an effort to keep sourced content out of the article. When that didn't work so well, Belchfire sent it to AfD in a WP:Twinkle of an eye. Belchfire's reason: "This organization fails GNG, as it is unheard-of outside the Minnesota Twin Cities area. Article is here purely as a coatrack to cover it's SPLC "hate group" listing." – MrX 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I find it interesting that in this discussion, the members of Wikiproject:Conservatism are out in full force to defend Belchfire, especially those who previously tag-teamed with him like Little Green Rosetta. Not two days ago they were out for blood, misconstruing a joke comment as a "threat" in order to get rid of an editor who stood in the way of their tendentious POV-pushing and endured a great deal of abuse from them and nasty comments or worse for doing so. I think Belchfire ought to be blocked indef on the same grounds that the WP:Conservatism crowd demanded StillStanding-247 be blocked for. And yet, they insisted his conduct shouldn't come under an RFC/U first, while they want Belchfire given free rein to run around while an RFC/U is researched and filed? I have an alternate proposal, for all members and admin members especially of WP:Conservatism: Conservapedia is THATAWAY. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, the editor mentioned above was blocked for a comment about offing an admin. He was also blocked for repeated disruption and his block was widely supported. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this ip is most likely indeffed user SkepticAnonymous  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to StillStanding-247 who is still defended even though he is one of the worst POV pushers to ever hit this sight, amazing. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, having a lousy sense of humor tinged with a little irony isn't a blockable offense. The comments you refer to are [121] and [122], which are clearly meant as him making jokes. There's no way " Even if I agreed to your dastardly plan to murder TParis" can count as a threat. The fact that it was a middle of the night pile-on by editors and admins associated with TParis is as much a matter of WP:CANVAS behavior as anything else, just as the rush to defend Belchfire is a function of WP:CANVAS levels from a certain Wikiproject. Reaper Eternal is previously on record as a WP:Conservative supporter and "supports the campaign to fire Obama", and blocked within 15 minutes, which is quite a rush to indef-ban an editor who's gotten the short end of the stick from a POV gang since day one. It's pretty obvious what is was going on was an attempt to get someone blocked/banned for political reasons because they oppose POV-pushing editors, nothing more or less, and the defense of Belchfire who has just as much a habit of tendentious editing and disruption is being treated the other way by the same people for reasons of political affiliation as well.

I don't see any reason to miss or minimize the fact that Belchfire saw StillStanding-247 gone, and figured he could get into tendentious editing again because one of the people likely to report him was now blocked.

Also, false accusations don't do much for me. Pull the other one while you're at it, otherwise they'll get lopsided. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

topic ban proposal

• Strongly support a topic ban for the areas where Belchfire is unable to contribute constructively: Politics, Christian political organizations and people, Christian right, civil rights organizations, anti-gay/hate group organizations and LGBT topics. While Belchfire can make positive contributions to Wikipedia, I believe that this topic ban would have a net positive effect on the project. – MrX 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)(Added Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

• Support topic ban A single edit can be edit warring; particularly when you pile in a edit war with others by not getting consensus for the bold reverted change first (It's BRD, not BRRRR). Belchfire trying to force an edit through by re-inserting a bold edit is edit warring, and it seems to be something he does quite often. The account shown account shown User:BacktoWiki is clearly a SPA account. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No case other than "IDONTLIKEHIM" has been presented. The implication that he is socking was improper on this page as I noted, and the fact that he has content disputes is insufficient to purge him. I would note that those seeking to ban him are specifically involved in the disputes, and that I would not support a topic ban on them either. AN/I is not the noticeboard to get folks barred from areas where the ones proposing the topic ban have remarkably similar attributes themselves. Collect (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No one implied sock puppetting. You wrongly inferred it as has already been pointed out several times. Stop with the red herrings. Are we reading different ANI threads? The diffs have been presented, that you have ignored and denied the reality of the diffs, which clearly show piling in on an edit war, doesn't mean there is no case. It is self evidently not just a content dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How else do you read This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely as anything other than a veiled accusation of impropriety? Cheers -- and the "new account" below does not seem to be "new" either. Collect (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the IP and registered account linked above are new, and appeared just prior to Belchfire reverting. Why do you claim they are not new? Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support Agree a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. --JimEdgers (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC) — JimEdgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Question: Point of order - Why was this comment ^ stricken out? – MrX 13:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This !vote is by a sockpuppet. As are a few comments by a one ip address. I suspect the other ip address (supporting BF) might be a sock as well, but I have not an inkling of who the sockmaster would be. In any case I suspect a closing admin will take this into account during their closure.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that this had become such a puppet show. – MrX 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Rabblerousing from the usual suspects. Arkon (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree with IRWolfie. A look at the edit on the Romney positons article shows that this was indeed an edit war and BF's revert part of it[123]. I also note the use of the edit summary to debate or disute the previous summary claim (See WP:REVTALK) is one reason to consider this single revert an edit war. With the addition of the revert on the Homosexual agenda article, it does look very much like a topic ban is appropriate for "politics, religion, homosexuality (Edit:Not just this single article but all LGBT related articles) and civil rights" broadly construed as mentioned by Binksternet.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This has relied to much on verbiage and innuendo -- he reverted to the last version edited by an SPA (gasp) ... just sayin' ... not that I'm accusing anyone of sockpuppetry (but it's okay if you connect the dots on your own). More diffs, less words and less mud next time please. And single edits are warring, they're bold! Like a good Wikipedian is supposed to be. Nobody Ent 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's lists of diffs in the discussion above. You want even more than that? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone whose actually read all of the diffs above (where diffs were actually provided), none of them seem to support the accusations of the submitters. To quote a recently indefed editor "What else you got?"  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Curious question: When you read all of those diffs, did you really see no examples where content was removed on false premises? Did you really not see that Belchfire wrote "The edit summary was erroneous, my bad" when called on it? – MrX 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::LGR is Belchfire's tag-team partner... linkage from the same. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on political, religious and LGBT articles as warnings appear to be ignored, as I explained above. TFD (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  I have examined one of the edits [124] about which this topic has been opened, and found the complaint regarding this edit to be without merit.  The edit by Belchfire in question addressed the issue that the previous post was WP:BITE.  Note that the link provided by the OP hides the edit comment of the previous post: [125].  Belchfire's objection was sustained by the subsequent edit comment, which has removed the "WP:BITE".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • To be certain, the pattern is not established by just "one of the edits". It is the continuing pattern that is a problem. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This does not appear to be a clear-cut case. You should start a WP:RfC/U instead. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposed ban in its broad nature. I sure as hell think it is time to act on the final warning about 2012 election editing as this type of revert is so beyond inappropriate that it needs little explanation. The conduct at Parent's Action League is troubling, but over a month old. Seems to me an RfC/U is the more appropriate step at this point, even if just to sort out exactly where he should be prevented from contributing. Not gonna rule out that his contributions in some of the other areas might be constructive unless there is evidence to the contrary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing of substance here. If anybody should be topic banned, it should be the person who started this thread since he has a pretty clear POV biais. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:: As opposed to yours? "let's ban anyone who disagrees?" 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Reading the Warning thread [126] convinced me there was a problem here, thanks to admin Swatjester. It includes a substantial number of links to diffs that indicate an edit pattern I can only call tendentious per WP:TEND. I feel these links make a strong case for a topic ban with a mandatory lengthy block for even one more violation. I defy Belchfire and his band of supporters to explain this away:

(Start Swatjester's warning message) "Belchfire, stepping in here as an uninvolved administrator, I've noticed that your actions on Wikipedia have drawn quite a lot of attention recently. You're pretty much constantly on one noticeboard or another -- often times invalidly, but still. It's pretty clear to me that you're viewing Wikipedia as a battleground to fight a war over conservative articles, and your edits are often times uncivil, and make personal attacks in the process of doing so. This is not a recent occurrence, there are several times you've done this. You also seem to use the phrase "coatrack" as a bludgeon to get your way in discussions.

Examples: Reverting a listing in a deletion debate, reverting large amounts of validly sourced edits, personal attacks and incivility personal attacks on an administrator, incivility and personal attacks, edit-warring back in a valid removal of a non-free image with questionable justification, while accusing a good faith editor of wikistalking, incivility, incivility, removal of sourced material, including sources from Department of Justice, Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, etc. with the argument "removing unsourced material and obvious original research", claiming other people's edits are "nonsense", sarcastic comments suggesting another editor you are in a dispute with should be topic banned, incivility, inappropriate removal of sourced content, inappropriate removal of sourced content, incivility, clearly misleading edit summaries to justify removing validily sourced material.

And that's just in your last 50 edits. Here's more.

Claiming information sourced to Britannica.com was "unsourced", removal of large amounts of sourced information, in an edit war, without consensus, incivility, personal attakcs, accusing others of bad faith because they oppose you in a content dispute, incivility and personal attacks, accusing opponents in a content dispute of tendentiousness, and again, admin aboose, calling other editors revisions "bullshit", accusations of bad faith, bad faith removal of content, blatant incivility ("nonsensical horseshit"), accusations of "wikihounding", incivility, bad faith categorization of opposing arguments, POV removal of content to significantly "weaken" the "pro-obama" side, incivility "irrelevant bullshit", categorizing New York Times sourced material as "original research", removal of sourced content, justifying edit warring because of "some hack at NYT", snarky response when called on the previous diff, blaming Wikipedia, "Bilge", personal attacks, blatant incivility

And that's just from the next 50 edits." (Here I snip Swatjesters warning, which continues in the original.)

This astonishing mass of evidence clearly indicates a problem editor. That he went right on with his edit pattern, as shown above, in spite of Swatjesters warning, indicates bad faith. I say again, indicates bad faith. He denies he has a problem in this very thread, calling it a "content dispute." That is absurd, in my view, and I hereby call on the community to take action for the good of the project. We have heard from his friends; now let's weigh the evidence and take action. Jusdafax 03:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have time to look all those diffs. So I just sampled one [127]. Calling bullshit StillStanding's claim "You're stonewalling by playing burden tennis" is not civil, but it's not blatantly uncivil either. And we know that it took a saint to put up with StillStanding. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And even then... StAnselm (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to look at more than one diff to see a pattern of civil POV pushing. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

All I see from the above is political football like Wikipedia always sees before some election (in the US or elsewhere). And it takes two teams to play it [128] Tijfo098 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As far as I can tell, the actual original complaint consisted of noting that a different editor (who consistently battleground edits against BF) complained on an admin's page, and was told not to bother the admin. V then posts and makes vague intimations about sockpuppetry or running sockpuppets, that neither makes much sense, nor is particularly clear. BF is a very active editor, with a take on several articles; this complaint looks very much like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKE vote on whose POV will win, not a behavior problem. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::It's intriguing that the "admin" in question is TParis, who has a history of tendentious editing as well as a political bias well known and who previously was gung-ho to create a topic ban and eventually tried to (succeeded at) get someone blocked indef for political disagreements; now that Belchfire was reported for violating the same topic area, he's mysteriously "too busy" to handle it? I can see why it was brought here. There are obvious favorites being played based on political affiliation and it casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that we're discussing a "topic ban" for Belchfire while a less tendentious and more productive editor who was deliberately provoked and prodded over and over again is indeff'ed just makes the whole of Wikipedia look dodgy. Support a topic ban for Belchfire only at such time as the person he and his fellow travellers were targeting gets the same fair treatment, otherwise support treating all sides in this deplorable mess the same. Meatpuppeting is bad, WP:CANVAS is bad, tag-teaming is bad, tendentious editing is bad, threats are bad, admins telling someone to commit suicide are worse. That all ought to apply no matter which side it is. If they don't like it, Conservapedia is --> thataway. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not log in? - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Belchfire is not the only POV warrior here to make Wikipedia safe for conservative thinking, he's merely the least subtle about it. And I see that the usual suspects are here to tell us all that we're imagining things or trying to throw up as many irrelevancies as they can to cloud the issue. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The evidence is crystal clear that Belchfire has a serious history of tag team edit warring, and that is his primary “contribution” to Wikipedia. Numerous warnings and discussions have failed to persuade him to change either that or his repeated incivility. It's time to stop the disruption. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
  forcemeat  10:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As no such evidence was given, I think your position here is not tenable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights, very broadly construed. Belchfire has made it abundantly clear, over and over again, that he is either unable or unwilling to constructively edit in these areas. He has been given ample opportunity to improve his behavior, but has consistently failed to do so. There is no indication and no hope that he will ever change, so the topic ban should be indefinite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. On the contrary, the evidence here shows a significant improvement after the September 9 warning. There is some incivility, but the diffs presented do not indicate any disruptive editing after the warning. StAnselm (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I stumbled upon this issue last night, and have since examined the evidence thoroughly. Belchfire had quite the laundry list of disruptive edits last month, but there isn't much evidence that he hasn't improved on this behavior. It certainly seems to me like those who brought this complaint in the first place did so largely due to a personal grudge against an editor they know has been problematic in the past. I would recommend that Belchfire take note that his disruptive edits remain unacceptable, but I don't feel the need for more decisive action at this time. If there were a marked resurgence of nonchalantly destructive edits similar to what was seen in September, then I would support an indefinite topic ban. Coppaar (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for LGBT topics and political organisations, broadly contrued. Belchfire has previously been warned by an admin and multiple other editors but behaves as if never warned. I further think that Belchfire is non-productive in this topic area because he has one of the strongest biases i have seen, in a far-right direction. Wikipedia will be better of without such unconstructive editors. In the past Belchfire's POV was largely balanced out by Still, but now that Still is blocked, we have Belchfire roaming free. Pass a Method talk 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support as noted by many, Belchfire has had many warnings over and over. The tag teaming edits, many here "oppose", show its a common trait.--178.254.135.157 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC) proxy user   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Struck Tagged the above as an SPA, possibly related to one or more above. a13ean (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment just wondering; is this a record for socks, proxy, and throw-away accounts contributing to an ANI? The number of such invalid contributions cast doubt on the the objectivity of the proceedings, and suggest meat-puppetry. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Association fallacy much? It's supposedly one, possibly two socks. How is that a record and how could it possibly cast doubt on this report? I suggest you read Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Dear V; you are just not listening to the points made. Belchfire alleges that he is subjected to personal attacks, and both much of the above is personal, not edit-based, and fraudulent accounts pop up to attack BF. Part of any allegation of tendentious editing is repeated abuse of WP processes to delay proper editing. Part of BF's defense is that BF runs into more problem ediTORS that can be expected of a normal WPedian, and sure enough, on the ANI: many more problem ediTORS. Direct and specific relation between problems on this ANI and the problems BF alleges partly explain the editing; no logical fallacy here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Belchfire runs into more problem editors? He runs into problems on purpose; he creates problems. He cannot be considered a normal Wikipedian with his disruptive behavior. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

        BF edits in an area that attracts more problem editors than, for instance, Zoology. The USE of process must be measured against the prevalence of process problems in the AREA IN WHICH BF edits. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

      • @Anonymous209.6: I think there is a misunderstanding here. Belfchfire is not 'running into problem editors'; he is the problem editor, as the many, many examples above prove. This is not about content; it is about how his editing consists of mostly deleting sourced content and the sources, under false pretenses, and then either disappearing or resorting to crass incivility when other editors try to engage him in discussion. I have seen no evidence so far that indicates he has edited these articles in a constructive manner, by conducting research, copy editing, fixing MoS issues, adding new sections, etc. His legion of supporters seem to be more concerned with losing an ally in some imagined crusade to protect the wiki from the blight of liberal untruths, than with building a great encyclopedia. There are socks and SPAs on both sides of this debate, and they can all be easily dismissed by the admin who determines the outcome of this ANI. Viriditas was exactly right about this being a (desparate) attempt at association fallacy. – MrX 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Speaking of association fallacy.... "legion of supporters". Arkon (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

          Let's be clear; attacks on other editors are NOT a rebuttal, and that includes disparaging editors by making unsubstantiated speculations on their internal motivations, and that similarly, other editors arguments, such as "on both sides" are both factually (mostly) incorrect and invalid WP arguments. Again, lack of listening makes for lack of "understanding". The point being made is that ABUSE of process is a cornerstone of tendentious behavior, and to establish ABUSE, we must consider what reasonable USE is, given the topic area and prevalence of need of USE. This ANI can be used as evidence that BF simply runs into more problem ediTORS than a usual WPdian, the evidence being that more sub-investigations and blocks/bans are handed out to participants on this ANI than appear on the average page in 5 years. This is explicitly NOT an "other people do it" argument, but an argument that the topic areas lend themselves to more process.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

          • Belchfire creates problems when he kicks process out the window. You are concerned about process but his edits show that he is not. He jumps in and reverts disruptively without discussion. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- I've finally had the chance to look at a large number of BF's recent edits, and I now believe that he does not have a net positive impact on this project. While he clearly has made some positive contributions I think there's too strong a tendency to remove sourced material just to see if it sticks, to be barely civil with other editors, and to often make misleading edit summaries. I'm afraid that while he does make some good edits, the benefits to the project are canceled out by all the time other volunteers have to spend dealing the others. a13ean (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jusdafax. I've had poor interactions with Belchfire almost every time and have to decide whether I want to interact with them just to edit an article I saw problems with. The battleground mentality makes for a bad environment to respect other editors and find common ground for improving articles. Insomesia (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Since BF received a warning, his civility has improved. Some of the articles in the proposed topic ban area have had problems with mischaracterization of the sources. I can only assume that BF feels that this abuse was done to push a POV, of which IMO is a fair assumption. We should not topic ban an editor who is preventing such abuse to the enyclopedia. Has he been perfect in this? No, he was even challenged on a removal of a source by MrX and BF acknolwedged his error. Displaying accountability for an error is the exact opposite of being disruptive. Several of the support !votes above are the very editors who simply have a different POV than BF and are attempting to squelch him.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

LGR, you almost had me rethinking my support of the topic ban. That is until you accussed editors who support the ban of "attempting to squelch him". I would ask you to strike that out unless you have some supportive evidence you wish to present for that accusation.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the possibility that those who may have different political persuasions than BF would like to seem him banned a 500lb gorilla? I precisily didn't name names because I don't care to spend time to go through the edit history. The socks above clearly have it "out" for BF.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:the "good guy" redirecting to IP page (yet again)

The user continues to redirect the account user page and user talk page to the unregistered IP account. Even after notices from other editors per [129] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using the IP as my main "account" and I see no policy against this. The only reason I registered (now as the "good guy") was to protect my right to edit by IP. Full reasons are at my talk, which the nonanonymous user above has studiously avoided citing policy at. I did miss one thread about this in that analysis, but it does not seem to make a difference. I also note that the user above has used some strong incivility in a recent edit summary while reverting me yet again. Policy guidance would be helpful. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IP is a shared IP. We cannot be sure all edits from that IP are from one specific editor. Given that, I am against the redirect being permitted, as it could (even accidentally) give the appearance of a shared account. --Nouniquenames 16:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You're saying people might accidentally perceive that the "good guy" is a shared account, when there is no evidence of that? Even though nobody knows the account password except me, the primary user of the IP? Even though my intent is (properly according to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY) for the account's pages to link informally to the user's main pages (the IP pages, where most of the talk addressed to me appears)? Wherever the warning of use of shared IP appears, the disclaimer also appears that states that the primary user of the IP also has a named account for maintenance purposes.

It occurs to me I could abandon, and request userspace deletion for, the account; but then I would be giving up my personal rights e.g. to request oversight, as it appears IP editors cannot request oversight even though they may be in more need of it. If consensus is that WP's intent is that IPs have no rights to create accounts to request oversight while remaining IP editors, I will listen to it and may learn to live with it. But otherwise I believe I should exert my right to edit through shared IP as well as the right to protect myself against (community-proven) harassment through oversight. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

By your own admission [or at least that of somebody using that IP address; see what I mean?] the IP address (which is not an account, but an IP address) can be shared by others, and has been in the past. Given that fact, and the fact that you have a legitimate account established, I would say in the strongest terms that the redirect is not appropriate in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the prior comments, note that the IP address in question has the appearance of a static IP, as it is not in any of the usual dynamic IP blocklists (see [130]). Unfortunately, this does not, by itself, mean that the IP is not "shared", per se, as the IP would normally be the gateway address, so could be shared by multiple editors at one organization, business or residence. As the IP is shown as belong to a business, the "ANSWER GROUP" (see [131]), the information suggests that this IP is, indeed, shared. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason we are here at drama central discussing a redirect when we already have WP:RFD explicitly for this purpose? (and for the record IP users can request oversight. They are of course expected to provide a reason that unambiguously meets the criteria for suppression and if they fail to do so the requests are declined.) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please help me out Orangemike. This IP demonstrates a user's credible, continuous desire to continue editing by IP. Due to community-proven harassment, the account and IP both demonstrate a user's credible statement of believing oneself compelled to obtain and link the account to request oversight. WP:SOCK#NOTIFY says linking the accounts informally is acceptable. As an IP editor I have the right to use the talk page of a shared IP. Are you saying that as an account-based editor I lose the right that I had as an IP-based editor to use the talk page of a shared IP? Then maybe I have uncovered a benefit of IP editing that I lose when I obtain an account! 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not want to edit by IP. You want to edit by IP AND by a registered user account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you Beeblebrox on both points. If I can initiate an RFD I'll do it myself. RedPen, yes, I do, I understand this is allowed behavior if one account is only segregated for maintenance. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My interest in this is in part to [[132]] an article currently under MfD, which is the userfied version of a page deleted by discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. The page was userfied prior to the user rename to The "good guy" while the account was under the inappropriate user name User:IP 12.153.112.21 (note this is User:IPXXX NOT IPXXX). Given this confusing history it is of great importance to keept the greatest level of transparency possible, and redirects do nothing but add levels of confusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I affirm the desire for the greatest level of transparency, which I think is served by redirecting to the notices at User:12.153.112.21 and its talk. If readers don't notice the "redirected" message they probably won't quibble about the page title either. As for the userfied article, I have added a notice at User talk:12.153.112.21 that the redirected page currently in question contains a properly attributed fork of the userfied article, now moot. If there is some notice that TheRedPenOfDoom thinks is important for the article's history, it should be added to the userfied talk (although I think this was already done). I really am uncertain why this is dragging out. If I went to RFD it appears I'd need to do a "procedural nomination" and then vote "speedy keep" because default is delete and TheRedPenOfDoom doesn't want delete but wants the history to be retained. Nu? Mu? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this has been handled kind of dysfunctionally at many steps along the way. Far too many reverts and templates and communication thru edit summaries and misunderstandings and account switches and bad faith assumptions and outings and indef blocks and misquoting policy and such. My first thought is that we should all just back off and agree to do whatever Beeblebrox thinks is best, since he's most familiar, but since Beeb's answer to that might be "what did I do to you that you hate me so much to propose this", I think a good alternative is to follow his advice so far: close this, leave the redirect in place for now, and go to RFD if it's really important that the redirect be removed and replaced with something else. That would be my recommendation too.
  By the way, TGG/12.*, I think Beeb's point is that if TRPoD or OM or someone want the redirect removed, they can initiate an RFD. I don't think his point was that you should do it.
  It might be useful to gently remind all involved that in the grand scheme of things, this really doesn't matter very much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Just as a public service announcement, let me clear up the issue of whether an account is needed to request oversight in some more detail. An account is not required to request that the oversight team act on something (in fact, you don't even need to have ever edited Wikipedia!). An account is required to use the Wikipedia email function to contact the oversight team, but even without an account you can always email oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org - no account necessary! IP, what I think you might be misunderstanding is that as long as you're editing as an IP, you're "displaying" that WHOIS information for public consumption. So as long as you're editing as an IP, that WHOIS information is not "private information", so it cannot be oversighted (in general terms. your mileage may vary, contact your nearest oversighter for special cases). If you edit under an account, then information about what IP you're editing from is no longer public - you're not displaying it, and if someone manages to dig it up, that's considered private information. In this particular case, IP, by editing first as an IP and then as both an account and an IP, you're giving free access to your WHOIS information. If you want to keep people from being able to see where you're editing from, you'd need to edit only as an account from now on (and in my personal judgment as an oversighter, your previous IP contributions would not be eligible for oversight, since you've personally and quite determinedly linked the IP to your account). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - if you want an alternative account ( and per SOCKLEGIT it can be done -- assuming correct steps are followed and it's used correctly) why not create another named account and use that rather than an IP ? It would give you the alternative account and negate the reason for this report ? User:KoshVorlon 19:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For transparency, I would rather link everything to the IP instead of starting fresh. I don't think that creating another account for any purpose would be very transparent nor would it be easy (given this discussion) to link the account to the IP such as by redirect. Fluffernutter, while your advice is very good and generally applicable, more than one user has been judged as having misposted additional speculative information beyond that available by IP search, so yes that's another layer because this is not about ordinary oversight of Whois data but about speculations related to Whois data. Ah well. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That person would be me. I don't believe it was all that extrodinary, but , consensus states otherwise, so, no problem. Creating a non-ip under socklegit is possble, look at "eatshootsandleaves", that's a socklegit account, so it

Bishonen and Bishzilla. It can be done, and, in that fashion, you no longer have to worry about anyone from Tag logging in under that IP, and you bear no further burden if someone did and decided to vandalize wikipedia. User:KoshVorlon 20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The user just above has just reverted my redirects again (first time for that user today) prior to posting on this thread. I don't know whether fixing it again, or not fixing it for now, is the better course. I have accepted the burden of the occasional vandalism edits that have arisen from this IP. The burden I was not prepared for was constant reverting against userpages, without policy basis and without discussion, which some admins have found rather pointless yet nobody has succeeded in stopping. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If a lot of people are telling you not to do something, it's probably a good idea not to do it, at least until the discussion about it is over. Or would you rather continue edit-warring over this during the discussion until somebody protects the userpage? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been advised by two users and 1 admin not to do that. If nothing else, you will want to follow the admin's direction. User:KoshVorlon 20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC the two users have now both used obscenity in edit summaries and the admin did not present any reasons or indication of familiarizing himself with the case either, so I do have a habit of discounting advice that tends not to be grounded in anything other than preference, even when it's teamed up against me. As I just said, I appear to be in another double bind, as fixing it again now didn't seem to work, and waiting to fix it later (whether by my reverting later or by my waiting for someone else to see the light) doesn't seem to work either. Several editors have agreed this behavior isn't against any policy; it appears it's just not something anyone besides me has had the effrontery to request. I still agree that RFD is perhaps the best place to discuss this but it has been hinted to me above that I should not go initiate there myself.

The policy is that an alternate account should be linked to the user's main page. I think the question is whether a shared IP page can be used for this purpose as the main page of an editor who exerts the right to prefer to use the shared IP to edit. Very few (perhaps also excluding myself) have addressed the question from a policy basis. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know the right forum for this discussion; perhaps (gulp) it really is here at ANI? My suggestion that you not file a pro forma RFD yourself was just, that: advice, not a demand. If you think it makes sense to file one, do it. Anyway, I have no problem with the redirects, and don't think those reverting you have any real policy basis on their side. But were I you, I would settle for a short message explaining the situation in text, with links to the IP talk page, rather than the redirects that seem to be driving everyone to distraction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: [133]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to soft direct (for both the user and talk pages, right?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like kind of a no-brainer.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a logical solution that has the potential to satisfy all parties. --Jayron32 21:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering at what point you figured I was obscene in telling you that, based on policy, the redirect should not be there. It would seem that we have different definitions of obscene. --Nouniquenames 05:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have cut the Gordian knot by deleting User:IP 12.153.112.21 and its accompanying talk page as U2 - userpages belonging to a non-existant user. It's way too confusing to keep it around for people to edit war over. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

While we are all here. Is it appropriate for someone who "wants to edit as an IP", to have the privilege that comes with having a registered account of having userfied an article that was deleted as part of an AfD? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly troubled by that. I have zero problems extending to IP editors the same courtesies as we extend to registered editors. It doesn't make anything better to "force" him to use an account to userfy an article. Insofar as the only point of userfication is to allow development to proceed to a point where it can be moved back to the mainspace at some point in the future, there shouldn't be any hindrance to IP editors doing that sort of work. None at all. --Jayron32 06:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there ... but isn't one of the "Advertised benefits" of having a registered account the ability to create userspace drafts and subpages? Let's not enable things here. dangerouspanda 10:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Enable what? You don't want to enable the improvement of the encyclopedia?!? --Jayron32 12:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you see preservation of an article User:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels that was deleted per discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and has no viable plan to address the concerns of the original AfD as an "improvement of the encyclopedia"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, hold on a second. You're conflating two seperate issues in this. First is "Should IP users be allowed to userfy articles", which is a broad site-wide practice issue. I posit that there is ultimately no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Wikipedia that registered users do. So, speaking from the point of view of sitewide practice, there shouldn't be any problem with IPs userfying articles, broadly speaking. There's nothing in a sitewide practice like this that needs to be considered as "enabling" this one point of contention. Either we allow the practice or not, but either way, it that decision isn't made for all of Wikipedia based on the peculiarities of this one case. That being said, the second issue, entirely and wholly unrelated to that, is whether this one userfied article belongs at Wikipedia. We have a mechanism for dealing with that, and it is currently underway at Wikipedia:MFD#User:IP_12.153.112.21.2FList_of_AT.26T_U-verse_channels. We're not going to simultaneously decide here a different conclusion from what the MFD determines. So, if you want to weigh in on the appropriateness of the userfied article, do so at the MFD. If you want to start a discussion over the broad site-wide policy issue of IPs having access to userfied articles in general, do so at WP:VPP. There's really no point in belaboring either issue in this thread. --Jayron32 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

" no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Wikipedia that registered users do" - we dont allow IPs to create pages, we dont allow IPs to edit protected articles, we dont allow IPs to move pages etc. There are LOTS of mechanisms that could potentially improve the encyclopedia that IPs do not get to do.

We have policies about legitimate SOCK accounts. Is userfying an AfD's page appropriate use of SOCK account? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCK only disallows the use of multiple accounts to deceive. The account is publicly linked to the established identity of the user here, and isn't trying to deceive anyone or mask any identity. In fact, the IP user in question has tried repeatedly to comply with the spirit and letter of WP:SOCK by linking his allowed alternate account to his preferred IP address he uses to edit, only to be repeatedly squashed in doing so. I mean, you tell him he has to comply with policy, he does, and then you tell him he can't do that either. If a registered user is allowed to create an alternate account for certain purposes, uses it only sparingly, and publicly and conspicuously links it to his main account, that is allowed 100% of the time. How is that different from what happened here? Look, I'm not going to come out and say that the IP in question is not misbehaving in some way. They may be. But when you bring a hundred and one spurious accusations against them, many of which aren't even violations, it looks more like your just throwing as much shit on him to see what's gonna stick. Confine your discussion to only those salient issues regarding his behavior that is an actual violation of established Wikipedia practice and is actually disruptive, and not any of this silliness about IP editors not being allowed to also maintain an account for legitimate purposes. And again, if you want to explicitly ban all IP users from userfying articles, that's a just and proper and right and good discussion for us to have as a community, just not in this thread. I am awaiting your thread at WP:VPP on that issue. --Jayron32 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. " Is it standard policy to allow a SOCK account for the purpose of allowing an IP to have a userfied copy of an article that was deleted per AfD? And your position is that there is no standard policy about that yet and so that question cannot be asked here. Is that right?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's break this down into two parts. Part one: Is it a violation of community standards to userfy a deleted article so it can be improved? WP:USERFY says not. Part two: Is it a violation of community standards to set up an secondary account which is publicly linked to one's primary account? WP:SOCK says not. So, what I ask you is if WP:USERFY is accepted practice, and above-the-table, clearly identified secondary accounts are legal under accepted practice, then what is the disruption between the two? but just on the central issue of the policy, I can't find anything in the policy that says "People may not establish a publicly declared secondary account to allow them to userfy an article". I see nothing that says that that is not allowed. At all. If you'd like it to be explicitly not allowed, WP:VPP awaits you to start that discussion. I also note that you continue to do your position a giant disservice. It may very well be true that 12.153 could be in the wrong here. I'm not really sure. But if he is, it isn't for any of the reasons you have noted. Maybe he's not making a proper use of WP:USERFY in the sense that the article shouldn't have been preserved at all. However, if that were the case, by introducing patently off-topic issues which aren't violations of any sort anyways all you've done is clouded the issue. As I've stated above, there may be something worth discussing here, but you've picked the wrong battle to fight, and it does your stance no service to continue to press forward on that front in this thread. If this is a misapplication of WP:USERFY and NO copy of the article should have been userfied, that's an unrelated issue to what you're bringing up repeatedly here. It's also an issue which is being discussed at the above noted MFD, and so doesn't bear discussing here seperately. --Jayron32 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone performing yet another confusing move to User:12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels. Though an experienced editor spoke to the contrary, it appears that I cannot create such a page in my IP space as an IP, and it would be too confusing for me to log in and move or create myself. So if there is truly no mechanism for IPs to create subpages in IP userspace, yes, there is a valid and interesting question whether an IP has a right to a userfied article. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You can create User talk:12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels. IPs can create user talk subpages to their heart's content, but you cannot perform a page move, so you'd have to cut&paste with proper attribution. --64.85.216.51 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

I've come across a big of an issue with articles concerning Jobie Hughes, which includes At Dawn (novel). I'd edited the article to where it was up to date and was sourced by multiple reliable sources. Now I've had my edits reverted to the previous version, which not only has copyvio from the author's website ([134]) but is also out of date. The same thing has happened with the novel article, which has a complete lack of sourcing to it. I've reverted to my edits, which were to redirect the novel to the author's page and to keep my updated version of the author's page, but I've noticed that there's been a few accounts that have been either reverting my edits or selectively removing parts of the article that they personally don't like, such as the controversy section. I've also been accused of having a personal bias against the author, and since there's not only multiple accounts reverting the pages but I'm being accused of having an agenda, I'm bringing it up here. Here are the specific edits in question: [135], [136], [137].

I'd left a notice on the user's page that accused me of having a grudge against the author (User:Ohioana) and I notice that both of the editors (User:Sb1995) that have been reverting my edits only edit the Hughes themed articles (not that there's specifically anything wrong with that), but I'm bringing it here before it escalates any further.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are not displaying a NPOV and read like a publicist blurb. Besides that, this is a content dispute and no admin action needed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where in specific do my edits read like a publicity blurb? I was rather careful when it came to editing the author's page. As far as the edits on the book page, I want to stress that the previous revision with the various praise reviews was not written by me, but rather by the other user. This is the edit I made before realizing that it was only sourced by two reviews and lacked enough to pass WP:NBOOK: [138] The previous version by Ohioana is fairly promotional in content, especially since it takes the PW review somewhat out of context, making it sound more praising than it actually was. I was the one who redirected the article to the author's page because all that existed were various unsourced vanity reviews. Also, what about the accusations that I'm supposedly vandalizing the author's page because of a bias against the author? I'm getting incredibly tired of SPAs coming onto pages that I've edited and reverting edits back to previous versions or going onto AfDs, accusing me of having a bias because I'm removing content from articles that is unsourced, non-NPOV, and/or is outright promotional in content. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be promotional. It's hard to see redirecting the book article as reading "like a publicist blurb". :) I've left a note at User:Ohioana pointing out civility policies and also linking to "dispute resolution". Please try to engage them in conversation at the talk page of the article; if dispute resolution doesn't work out, additional steps may be necessary, but I think at this point more direct administrator intervention would be premature. (Although it does look like there might be a WP:COI somewhere.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Problem is, I've asked them and they've never actually stated their reasoning beyond anything along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and other arguments that don't show notability or justification. As far as content removal goes, they haven't said or showed me anything to show why the information shouldn't be in the article for Hughes or how exactly it's incorrect. At no point do I ever state outright that Hughes said one thing or another about the contract, just that multiple news outlets reported on the separation of the writing team and that it had been rumored that contract issues had been a part of the ongoing issues between the two of them. It might not have lead to the split exactly, but considering that more than one news source had commented on this and ESPECIALLY considering that this is really the only time that Hughes is mentioned specifically, I find it puzzling that this is removed. Almost every mention of Hughes has been in relation to the contract with Frey, with much of the coverage going over the contract (and the papers' reactions to the contract stipulations). There's actually not that much coverage of Hughes outside of this, which is why I'm also not sure as to why the user is so particularly sure that these things are incorrect. Even if they are, if enough news sources reported on it and this was ultimately one of the things he was known for in relation to his ghost writing the Lorien Legacy series, then it should be included in some format. We do a disservice by not including all of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• See this report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone please step in here? The user is constantly editwarring without any reason as to why they view the information as incorrect. I'm just being ignored by the user and they've consistently reverted to a version that not only includes copyvio, but removes all but the most glowing praise of Hughes.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

• It's now up to five reversions without any administration intervention.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Dcshank

I'm being harrassed by the above user. Serious lack of good faith. They are leaving discouraging and inflammatory notes on my talk page which I've tried responding to but to no avail. Is it any wonder people get fed up and leave if this is what continues to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a:

• Welcome
• A polite note that assessments should be done by project members
• A polite explanation of a reversion

You are seriously calling this harassment?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• At the most severe, it looks like a mild content dispute to me. As a regular admin once said, WP:DRN is thataway.... --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• What Sphilbrick says. It's not harassment: they're actually trying to help you. On the other hand, you should stop assigning quality ranks to those articles unless you are a member of the specific project or have an otherwise proven experience in quality evaluation. Please listen to Dcshank's advice, or you might indeed be blocked, and no-one wants that. (And no, I don't think this is a matter yet for DRN.) Drmies (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• The user has now reported me as a vandal. Yes, I would call that harrassment. And you've just assumed the exact same thing, that I have no experience in "quality evaluation", that I have no idea what I'm doing. Why is this? What makes you think that? I don't think I've even evaluated them by quality. Is it a crime to rate Dante or Cervantes alongside Joyce? It doesn't require a genius, a child could work that one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• You're blocked for three hours since you continued behavior judged to be disruptive instead of talking this out. (That's besides the fact that this ANI thread was specious to begin with.) I'm not quite sure that more explaining needs to be done; I'll leave it to Dcshank to do so, but I note that your rebuttal ("a child can do this") doesn't require an answer. Your block is short, since I think (I hope) you have the project's interest at heart, but you cannot pursue a course that's not OK with other editors. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm suspicious that this IP doesn't know how to sign edits, yet knew where ANI was and how to do an unblock request pretty much straight off the bat. Coincidence, or sounding a bit sockish? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't jump to conclusions, Ritchie. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies, I wasn't suggesting it was, other than just things struck me as a bit odd. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know that I notified Dcshank about this discussion. I know I'm not involved, but I figured someone should let him know it was happening. RunnerOnIce (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I kind of assumed they'd know from the IP's talk page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NP. Thanks Runner and Drmies. I had some real world work errands to do. I thought I would let the drama unfold and check in later to see who got muddy. Not the low profile behavior of a sock, but definitely the behavior of someone not unfamiliar with the inner workings here. --  :- ) Don 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I should have just stayed silent on this issue. What a lot of drama! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you really are a bunch of sneaking no good doers, aren't you? Working away behind the scenes like this, defending wikipedia from any outsiders who get in the way. If its any use at all, I'm noting for the record that Doctor Mies is now behaving menacingly around my talk page, suggesting I could be blocked again. [139] I didn't even make that edit they accused me of making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Dcshank has resumed their personal vendetta against me. I have signed up for the project and this is now becoming very annoying. They have given me a "final warning" and I have done absolutely no wrong. [140] [141] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I guess this isn't over. The IP's snarky comments and insinuations seem to continue; sounds like someone is being oppressed. I have no vendetta here, needless to say, and I don't think Dcshank has one either. Anyway, I don't have that much of a problem with their edits, it's the whining that is somewhat bothersome ("behaving menacingly"--I don't even know how I would do that). I'm hoping that someone from the literature project has a look at this IP's edits. This thread is of course going nowhere, unless it boomerangs someplace. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, I tried. We tried. It's up to Literature people now. I can't keep him/her busy all night, I have real work. Fortunately it is about 3 am there now. --  :- ) Don 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have done nothing wrong. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Point me to a policy I have violated. And I am not whining. I was happily going about my business when Dcshank started with their vendetta again. Drmies "behaved menacingly" in that they lurked on my talk page insinuating that I would be blocked if I misbehaved as if I were a naughty child, then accused me being responsible for an edit I did not even make. That was what it was about. I have done nothing wrong. I am being painted as some sort of outsider - an outsider who, if the above is to be credited, is not a "literature person"? Not a literature person? Who gives anyone the right to decide if I am or am not a literature person? I think I could be forgiven for losing my temper on several occasions over the course of the last several hours. But I haven't. How do you do that across a computer screen? I have been accused, among other things, of not being "calm" - and now I am "whining"? I am not. The only thing I can do is say that I am not. I don't know how you prove such a thing in these circumstances. But I am not. I insist I am not. And "somewhat bothersome" does not do justice to what I've been through with you unreasonable people. "Somewhat bothersome" to read what I have to say? More like "somewhat bothersome" to be blocked for hours over nothing, not to mention "somewhat bothersome" to be hounded and harassed in the way that I've been and am continuing to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed this entire case and it's a lot of nothing, just another instance of Victim mentality. Let's just close it out. Qworty (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, feel free to close, but just note that I've reblocked the editor for 48 more hours. Wikipedia requires collaboration. One person cannot simply declare him or herself an expert who knows exactly what importance various literary works, authors, and subjects have, and tell eveyone else to let him/her be. Now that the IP has been asked to discuss the matter at the Wikiproject page, s/he needs to do so. If s/he is unwilling to do so (i.e., to have a civil conversation without continuous attacks on other editors), then s/he can't edit here. I don't know if we'll see a change of heart in 48 hours, but if we don't, then the block will have to be extended.

As a side note, the IP editor claims his/her keyboard doesn't have a tilde key. Is that even possible? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The course you propose seems more than sensible. While I doubt that the 48-hour block will lead to 18 years of maturity, it's worth an AFG shot. Blocking may have to be permanent after that. We simply cannot allow one emotionally disturbed individual to monopolize so much time and energy. As for the tilde--he either does not know what one is, does not know how to copy and paste four of them, is using a keyboard that lacks one, or some combination of all three. In any case, I don't understand how he can proclaim himself to be the world's greatest expert in, among other things, Spanish Literature without knowing what a tilde is. Qworty (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I give up. I was ready to unblock, but they proved that they are either incompetent or playing dumb. At least they now have a defender with a registered account--someone else to hate us and cry admin abuse. Ah well. At least I get a bonus from Jimbo for every block I make. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

CertificationPoint

After removing a speedy template a number of times from CertificationPoint a number of times and having it returned, User:Terrigentry subsided. A SPA, User:Blgiles23, then came into being apparently for the purpose of removing those speedy templates and justifying it (speciously, in my opinion) to the editors who had placed them. I therefore took the article to AfD and User:Terrigentry began removing those templates, material, etc. I can't keep up with reverting this and think some administrator attention is warranted. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to say with 100% accuracy, but it may also be that User:Terrigentry has falsified an Articles for creation notice. I cannot locate any track of CertificationPoint having actually been created through AfC. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:DGG who has dealt with this by deleting and salting the article in question. I'll keep an eye on the creator(s). Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blgiles23 is a  Confirmed sock of Terrigentry. I have indef'd the sock and blocked Terrigentry for a week. Please drop by my userpage if you see similar pages come up. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• ...and I must be going blind, also  Confirmed ByronLGiles (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire

On 25 September, Binksternet started a discussion thread about Belchfire (talk · contribs) on User talk:TParis (see "Ignoring sanctions on US political articles"). At the time, major concerns about Belchfire's behavior were raised with administrator TParis. In the discussion, it was shown that Belchfire had received at least three major warnings from administrators about his battlefield behavior and edit warring. TParis said he was on vacation playing the new WoW expansion and couldn't be bothered to deal with the problem.[142] Shortly after the thread ended on the 26th of September, Belchfire disappeared two days later, on the 28th. Today, Belchfire returned, engaging in the same exact behavior that has not yet been dealt with as requested by Binksternet back in September. To make matters worse, Belchfire appears to be gaming the system, reverting to the edits of a SPA IP (User:71.97.130.211) on political positions of Mitt Romney and violating the spirit of general sanctions by engaging in edit warring,[143] and coincidentally, doing the same thing on the same day on homosexual agenda, reverting to a version created by another SPA, this time a registered account (User:BacktoWiki).[144] This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely. Is Belchfire here to build an encyclopedia or to play games? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This complaint is nonsensical:

• A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever.
• When I edit an article, I'm not responsible for the contribution history of previous editors. Ever.
• Even if I was responsible for those contribution histories, neither of the editors cited by Viriditas meet the criteria of WP:SPA.
• Supposing just for the sake of the argument that they were SPAs, that doesn't mean it's against policy to revert to their version of an article, because there's no policy against being an SPA.
• All that remains is (supposedly) "odd behavior", which isn't much of a complaint. And there is no policy against "odd behavior".

I humbly suggest that Viriditas stop wasting everybody's time unless/until he has a real issue for admins to deal with. The only battlefield behavior here is this trumped up, fictitious ANI thread that he's started. G'day. Belchfire-TALK 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I maintain, using the above examples, that you are deliberately engaging in disruptive behavior. An enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem has been collected by other editors/admins, so there is no need for me to repeat it here. You are basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts which effectively increases the 3RR count by adding additional reverts into the mix. I'm asking for action to be taken based on Binksternet's original request from 25 September.[145] Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Viriditas is hardly "wasting everybody's time." After looking into the links provided, I see that Belchfire has been warned numerous times and appears to me to have serious issues, starting with systemic vios of WP:TEND, and I call for remedial action to hereby come into consideration including a full topic ban for any political subjects. Clearly this has gone on far too long. And for the record I am utterly uninvolved with any of this. Jusdafax 00:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Is someone accusing BF of sockpuppettry?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruption is more like it. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. For clarity, I do not accuse Belchfire of socking. Jusdafax 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is an ongoing problem that needs to be stopped, but Belchfire has given every indication that he is unwilling to stop his behavior. Far too often he has been reverting other editors on a drive-by basis on multiple articles—not engaging the other editors on the talk page to build toward consensus. He just throws a wrench in the works as he drives by. At WP:DISRUPT we see that Belchfire's pattern is identified under "Signs of disruptive editing". Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's a content dispute that has no place at ANI. Also, the originator of the complaint did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue elsewhere, which is required per the bolded verbiage at the top of this page (only 22 minutes passed between a message on my Talk page that the initiation of this section). This entire thing is motivated solely by partisan politics. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is no "content" under dispute in this report, only your continuing bad behavior. As for attempting to resolve it, the diffs show that you've been warned many, many times. At this point, we need administrator action. We are far past the point of trying to resolve it. Been there, done that, now we need action. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BF has had issues inte past, mostly with civility, but since being warned he has been much more civil. Where is he refusing to discuss?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a discussion when there is something to discuss. There is nothing to discuss here; this is simply a politically-motivated content dispute - not an ANI-worthy complaint. Viriditas knows better. Belchfire-TALK 02:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no content under discussion in this thread, only your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The links Veriditas posted above, highlighted "enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem," indicate there is plenty to discuss, as I see it. In my view to deny that is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I respectfully suggest Belchfire take this matter a bit more seriously, because up to this point they are doing themself a disservice. Binksternet and Veriditas raise troubling points that arguably merit community oversight and sanctions. This is the place to discuss that. Calling their complaints "partisan politics" reveals a battleground mentality on Belchfire's part. Jusdafax 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But the initial complaint by OP makes it seem like they are accusing BF of puppettry. This needs clarification.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever." LOL! Someone needs to review what is considered edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was sticking in my craw as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How so? Care to explain how both Belchfire and Collect are wrong on this point? Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of warnings is to change behavior and if that is not effective then the next logical step is sanctions. I believe we have reached that point and would support a topic ban on political articles. Also, I find his comment on edit warring disturbing, since he has been blocked twice recently for edit-warring. It shows an unwillingness to follow the spirit of policy, and avoid sanctions by following the letter. TFD (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no editorial misbehaviour warranting this section - it is clearly a matter of disputes between ed\itors on content matters, and this is not the place to rule on content matters. Further, it is dictum that "edit war" does, indeed, require more than a single edit. I would further note that the editors who seem most aggreieved have been involved in precisely analogous behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no content dispute under discussion here, nor have I been involved. In fact, I have made a total of zero edits to the articles named in this dispute:[146][147][148][149] This discussion is about Belchfire's edit warring (which does not require more than a single edit) and battlefield behavior which has resulted in multiple warnings, all of which have been ignored. At this point, we're calling for action, preferably a topic ban or sanction. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note SPI is --> thataway. Making accusations here is not proper. Collect (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has made any such accusations. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? Here [150] you say that BF is ...basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts (emphasis added). This is tantamount to making the claim that BF is socking, which is a serious accusation. If you have evidence or even a strong suspicion, take it to SPI.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't imply that Belchfire is socking in any way, but it does imply that he is reverting to versions edited by other throwaway accounts to game the general sanctions and 3RR. I hope you understand that this statement does not in any way imply that he is the operator behind those accounts, but rather that he conveniently seems to show up at coincidental and opportune times to revert to their versions. There are any number of explanations for this coincidental behavior. For example, they could be meatpuppets, not socks, and no SPI would ever prove anything. Now, please stop distracting from his behavior under discussion. This isn't a dispute about content or a request for an SPI. It's a discussion about Belchfire's continuing battlefield behavior. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of something called a watchlist? These edits you present as "evidence" of disruption of BF appear to be a coat-rack to bring up a discussion of sanctions against BF. Don't accuse me of making distractions, I'm not the one making insinuations.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Belchfire's contribution pattern, there appears to be a gaming of the 1RR of general sanctions and the 3RR coordinated with the coincidental appearance of single-use IPs and throwaway SPA's. You can dismiss this as a coincidence when it happens once, but twice within the same day on two different articles right when Belchfire "returns" from a week-long vacation? Sorry, this does have the look and feel of odd behavior. I monitor editorial patterns all the time, and this is very strange behavior. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Red herring. No one has accused anyone of sockpuppeting. Saying an editor has a revert only account does not imply there is another account. You inferred it, but it wasn't implied. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is the poster child for votestacking. He finds a controversial article and reverts to restore the position of his friends, but he does not engage in discussion. More than any other, Belchfire is the type of editor that Lionelt hoped to recruit (and did recruit) for the Conservatism WikiProject to further conservative causes. The exhaustive list of disruptive edits that Swatjester warned him about includes many exemplary votestacking instances such as this one removing well-cited but negative information at Christian Coalition of America, without a single peep on the talk page, and this one at You didn't build that to revert to a fabricated image photoshopped by Lionelt, added to the article by Lionelt, one which was soon deleted. Anybody who wishes to investigate further into Belchfire's editing pattern will find too many disruptive reversions, the same things Swatjester already noted. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the Belchfire votestack I found most disruptive: he involved himself in the article for precisely one edit, reverting my changes to the lead section of BP and the addition of text cited to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. Belchfire used the edit summary, "removing unsourced material and obvious original research". Such a summary was purely spiteful, considering the sources and carefully crafted text. Belchfire never once engaged in discussion on the article's talkpage. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire's involvement with the project has improved since they received a final warning on September 9, but it seems to be mostly due to reducing the level of activity, as opposed to altering undesirable editing behavior.

The drive-by reverting started about a week after Swatjester's final warning.

• September 16 - I posted a warning about this edit.

• September 20 - Removing an entire section with an edit summary of "removing unsourced and poorly sourced material". Notably, one of the sources removed is an American Psychological Association article. The content needed improvement but a complete removal was not constructive.

• September 20 - Incivility and here.

• September 21 - Removal of content with an edit summary of "removing excessive detail, undue weight and non-neutral language. there, now it's explained". Notably, this edit restored User:98.91.31.197's same reversion. Interestingly, a similar revert was performed on October 7 by User:98.91.29.75. Both IP's have only edited Christian Coalition of America.

• September 25 - Removal of sourced content with an edit summary of: "sourcing does not equal relevance"

• October 7 - Removal of sourced content with an edit summary of: "removing undue weight. the significance of these orgs needs to be better established to merit special mention"

• October 7 - Removal of sourced content with and edit summary of: "See WP:BITE. Better rationale is needed, reason given is NEVER valid" I was concerned about possibly biting a new user, so I asked Belchfire about it, but did not receive a response. – MrX 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

With the exception of the Sept 20th bullshit comments, most of the edits and summaries you cite appear to be reasonable, as they can reasonable be rationalized. Perhaps he is frustrated at what he percieves to be edits that do not reflect what the sources state? When you proceed to revert his edit before discussing, do you expect him to answer your talkpage response? I'm on the bandwagaon that BF can certainly be curt and sometimes abrasive, but most of these problems can be handled within BRD. Two bad the D part is often an afterthought. And BF is not the only guilty party.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire is not just curt and abrasive, he is purposely disruptive. That's the key point. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that's the claim being made. So far the diffs presented here haven't shown disruption, much less intentional disruption. That is unless you consider source checking and attribution to be disruptive. I would however urge BF to start opening TP sections when he removes material he believes to be unsourced and be more specific as to the chief complaint.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as believing text to be unsourced when in fact it is sourced to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. The chief complaint is that Belchfire piles on in edit wars, that he is disruptive in his edit pattern. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as an example, one of the cited diffs above is [151] which is a removal of unsourced material. There are other edits, also above, where BF has reverted edits that contain unsourced and sourced material in one fell swoop. Perhaps you feel he should have been more judicious in removing only the unsourced portion. Perhaps he felt it wasn't his responsibility to clean up anothers mess. Did he see one "bad" edit and decide to revert the whole thing? Is it ok to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Let's postualate that this is a misunderstanding on both sides. If everyone were to take this up on the talk page then we wouldn't be discussing it here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that you chose that example, because here is the passage from the Rolling Stone article:

" "Open your eyes, people," Anderson recently wrote to the local newspaper. "What if a 15-year-old is seduced into homosexual behavior and then contracts AIDS?" Her agenda mimics that of Focus on the Family, the national evangelical Christian organization founded by James Dobson;"

Belchfire removed: "Anderson's agenda is similar to that of Focus on the Family" with an edit summary: "removing unsourced original research" – MrX 02:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And I realise we disagree on these matters, but I think Belchfire's edit was absolutely fine. The statement was in Wikipedia's voice. A claim like that needs to be cat in the voice of the one making it. It's the responsibility of people adding content to ensure that it is neutral. Not only wasn't the sentence cited, it wasn't neutral, and those sort of added opinions may certainly be removed on sight. StAnselm (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add this series of events which occurred as the Parents Action League was being expanded:

• September 6 - "removing original research" followed by two additional reverts
• September 8 - "removing trivia" 1st revert
• September 8 - "Don't edit-war over this, please. If you think it should be here, make your case in Talk. I'm taking it out - again - because it's irrelevant." 2nd revert
• September 8 - Talk page discussion that was not going quite the way Belchfire had hoped
• September 8 - Well, that didn't work. I know! Let's see if we can get the entire article deleted!

At first, I was encouraged to see Belchfire, StAnselm and Insomesia joining together with me in the spirit of improving the article. But almost immediately, it became evident that there was an effort to keep sourced content out of the article. When that didn't work so well, Belchfire sent it to AfD in a WP:Twinkle of an eye. Belchfire's reason: "This organization fails GNG, as it is unheard-of outside the Minnesota Twin Cities area. Article is here purely as a coatrack to cover it's SPLC "hate group" listing." – MrX 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment I find it interesting that in this discussion, the members of Wikiproject:Conservatism are out in full force to defend Belchfire, especially those who previously tag-teamed with him like Little Green Rosetta. Not two days ago they were out for blood, misconstruing a joke comment as a "threat" in order to get rid of an editor who stood in the way of their tendentious POV-pushing and endured a great deal of abuse from them and nasty comments or worse for doing so. I think Belchfire ought to be blocked indef on the same grounds that the WP:Conservatism crowd demanded StillStanding-247 be blocked for. And yet, they insisted his conduct shouldn't come under an RFC/U first, while they want Belchfire given free rein to run around while an RFC/U is researched and filed? I have an alternate proposal, for all members and admin members especially of WP:Conservatism: Conservapedia is THATAWAY. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, the editor mentioned above was blocked for a comment about offing an admin. He was also blocked for repeated disruption and his block was widely supported. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, this ip is most likely indeffed user SkepticAnonymous  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to StillStanding-247 who is still defended even though he is one of the worst POV pushers to ever hit this sight, amazing. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, having a lousy sense of humor tinged with a little irony isn't a blockable offense. The comments you refer to are [152] and [153], which are clearly meant as him making jokes. There's no way " Even if I agreed to your dastardly plan to murder TParis" can count as a threat. The fact that it was a middle of the night pile-on by editors and admins associated with TParis is as much a matter of WP:CANVAS behavior as anything else, just as the rush to defend Belchfire is a function of WP:CANVAS levels from a certain Wikiproject. Reaper Eternal is previously on record as a WP:Conservative supporter and "supports the campaign to fire Obama", and blocked within 15 minutes, which is quite a rush to indef-ban an editor who's gotten the short end of the stick from a POV gang since day one. It's pretty obvious what is was going on was an attempt to get someone blocked/banned for political reasons because they oppose POV-pushing editors, nothing more or less, and the defense of Belchfire who has just as much a habit of tendentious editing and disruption is being treated the other way by the same people for reasons of political affiliation as well.

I don't see any reason to miss or minimize the fact that Belchfire saw StillStanding-247 gone, and figured he could get into tendentious editing again because one of the people likely to report him was now blocked.

Also, false accusations don't do much for me. Pull the other one while you're at it, otherwise they'll get lopsided. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

topic ban proposal

• Strongly support a topic ban for the areas where Belchfire is unable to contribute constructively: Politics, Christian political organizations and people, Christian right, civil rights organizations, anti-gay/hate group organizations and LGBT topics. While Belchfire can make positive contributions to Wikipedia, I believe that this topic ban would have a net positive effect on the project. – MrX 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)(Added Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC))

• Support topic ban A single edit can be edit warring; particularly when you pile in a edit war with others by not getting consensus for the bold reverted change first (It's BRD, not BRRRR). Belchfire trying to force an edit through by re-inserting a bold edit is edit warring, and it seems to be something he does quite often. The account shown account shown User:BacktoWiki is clearly a SPA account. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No case other than "IDONTLIKEHIM" has been presented. The implication that he is socking was improper on this page as I noted, and the fact that he has content disputes is insufficient to purge him. I would note that those seeking to ban him are specifically involved in the disputes, and that I would not support a topic ban on them either. AN/I is not the noticeboard to get folks barred from areas where the ones proposing the topic ban have remarkably similar attributes themselves. Collect (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No one implied sock puppetting. You wrongly inferred it as has already been pointed out several times. Stop with the red herrings. Are we reading different ANI threads? The diffs have been presented, that you have ignored and denied the reality of the diffs, which clearly show piling in on an edit war, doesn't mean there is no case. It is self evidently not just a content dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How else do you read This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely as anything other than a veiled accusation of impropriety? Cheers -- and the "new account" below does not seem to be "new" either. Collect (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the IP and registered account linked above are new, and appeared just prior to Belchfire reverting. Why do you claim they are not new? Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support Agree a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. --JimEdgers (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)— JimEdgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Question: Point of order - Why was this comment ^ stricken out? – MrX 13:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This !vote is by a sockpuppet. As are a few comments by a one ip address. I suspect the other ip address (supporting BF) might be a sock as well, but I have not an inkling of who the sockmaster would be. In any case I suspect a closing admin will take this into account during their closure.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that this had become such a puppet show. – MrX 18:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Rabblerousing from the usual suspects. Arkon (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree with IRWolfie. A look at the edit on the Romney positons article shows that this was indeed an edit war and BF's revert part of it[154]. I also note the use of the edit summary to debate or disute the previous summary claim (See WP:REVTALK) is one reason to consider this single revert an edit war. With the addition of the revert on the Homosexual agenda article, it does look very much like a topic ban is appropriate for "politics, religion, homosexuality (Edit:Not just this single article but all LGBT related articles) and civil rights" broadly construed as mentioned by Binksternet.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This has relied to much on verbiage and innuendo -- he reverted to the last version edited by an SPA (gasp) ... just sayin' ... not that I'm accusing anyone of sockpuppetry (but it's okay if you connect the dots on your own). More diffs, less words and less mud next time please. And single edits are warring, they're bold! Like a good Wikipedian is supposed to be. Nobody Ent 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There's lists of diffs in the discussion above. You want even more than that? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone whose actually read all of the diffs above (where diffs were actually provided), none of them seem to support the accusations of the submitters. To quote a recently indefed editor "What else you got?"  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Curious question: When you read all of those diffs, did you really see no examples where content was removed on false premises? Did you really not see that Belchfire wrote "The edit summary was erroneous, my bad" when called on it? – MrX 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::LGR is Belchfire's tag-team partner... linkage from the same. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on political, religious and LGBT articles as warnings appear to be ignored, as I explained above. TFD (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  I have examined one of the edits [155] about which this topic has been opened, and found the complaint regarding this edit to be without merit.  The edit by Belchfire in question addressed the issue that the previous post was WP:BITE.  Note that the link provided by the OP hides the edit comment of the previous post: [156].  Belchfire's objection was sustained by the subsequent edit comment, which has removed the "WP:BITE".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • To be certain, the pattern is not established by just "one of the edits". It is the continuing pattern that is a problem. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This does not appear to be a clear-cut case. You should start a WP:RfC/U instead. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposed ban in its broad nature. I sure as hell think it is time to act on the final warning about 2012 election editing as this type of revert is so beyond inappropriate that it needs little explanation. The conduct at Parent's Action League is troubling, but over a month old. Seems to me an RfC/U is the more appropriate step at this point, even if just to sort out exactly where he should be prevented from contributing. Not gonna rule out that his contributions in some of the other areas might be constructive unless there is evidence to the contrary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing of substance here. If anybody should be topic banned, it should be the person who started this thread since he has a pretty clear POV biais. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:: As opposed to yours? "let's ban anyone who disagrees?" 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Reading the Warning thread [157] convinced me there was a problem here, thanks to admin Swatjester. It includes a substantial number of links to diffs that indicate an edit pattern I can only call tendentious per WP:TEND. I feel these links make a strong case for a topic ban with a mandatory lengthy block for even one more violation. I defy Belchfire and his band of supporters to explain this away:

(Start Swatjester's warning message) "Belchfire, stepping in here as an uninvolved administrator, I've noticed that your actions on Wikipedia have drawn quite a lot of attention recently. You're pretty much constantly on one noticeboard or another -- often times invalidly, but still. It's pretty clear to me that you're viewing Wikipedia as a battleground to fight a war over conservative articles, and your edits are often times uncivil, and make personal attacks in the process of doing so. This is not a recent occurrence, there are several times you've done this. You also seem to use the phrase "coatrack" as a bludgeon to get your way in discussions.

Examples: Reverting a listing in a deletion debate, reverting large amounts of validly sourced edits, personal attacks and incivility personal attacks on an administrator, incivility and personal attacks, edit-warring back in a valid removal of a non-free image with questionable justification, while accusing a good faith editor of wikistalking, incivility, incivility, removal of sourced material, including sources from Department of Justice, Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, etc. with the argument "removing unsourced material and obvious original research", claiming other people's edits are "nonsense", sarcastic comments suggesting another editor you are in a dispute with should be topic banned, incivility, inappropriate removal of sourced content, inappropriate removal of sourced content, incivility, clearly misleading edit summaries to justify removing validily sourced material.

And that's just in your last 50 edits. Here's more.

Claiming information sourced to Britannica.com was "unsourced", removal of large amounts of sourced information, in an edit war, without consensus, incivility, personal attakcs, accusing others of bad faith because they oppose you in a content dispute, incivility and personal attacks, accusing opponents in a content dispute of tendentiousness, and again, admin aboose, calling other editors revisions "bullshit", accusations of bad faith, bad faith removal of content, blatant incivility ("nonsensical horseshit"), accusations of "wikihounding", incivility, bad faith categorization of opposing arguments, POV removal of content to significantly "weaken" the "pro-obama" side, incivility "irrelevant bullshit", categorizing New York Times sourced material as "original research", removal of sourced content, justifying edit warring because of "some hack at NYT", snarky response when called on the previous diff, blaming Wikipedia, "Bilge", personal attacks, blatant incivility

And that's just from the next 50 edits." (Here I snip Swatjesters warning, which continues in the original.)

This astonishing mass of evidence clearly indicates a problem editor. That he went right on with his edit pattern, as shown above, in spite of Swatjesters warning, indicates bad faith. I say again, indicates bad faith. He denies he has a problem in this very thread, calling it a "content dispute." That is absurd, in my view, and I hereby call on the community to take action for the good of the project. We have heard from his friends; now let's weigh the evidence and take action. Jusdafax 03:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have time to look all those diffs. So I just sampled one [158]. Calling bullshit StillStanding's claim "You're stonewalling by playing burden tennis" is not civil, but it's not blatantly uncivil either. And we know that it took a saint to put up with StillStanding. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

And even then... StAnselm (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to look at more than one diff to see a pattern of civil POV pushing. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

All I see from the above is political football like Wikipedia always sees before some election (in the US or elsewhere). And it takes two teams to play it [159] Tijfo098 (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As far as I can tell, the actual original complaint consisted of noting that a different editor (who consistently battleground edits against BF) complained on an admin's page, and was told not to bother the admin. V then posts and makes vague intimations about sockpuppetry or running sockpuppets, that neither makes much sense, nor is particularly clear. BF is a very active editor, with a take on several articles; this complaint looks very much like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKE vote on whose POV will win, not a behavior problem. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

::It's intriguing that the "admin" in question is TParis, who has a history of tendentious editing as well as a political bias well known and who previously was gung-ho to create a topic ban and eventually tried to (succeeded at) get someone blocked indef for political disagreements; now that Belchfire was reported for violating the same topic area, he's mysteriously "too busy" to handle it? I can see why it was brought here. There are obvious favorites being played based on political affiliation and it casts doubt on the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that we're discussing a "topic ban" for Belchfire while a less tendentious and more productive editor who was deliberately provoked and prodded over and over again is indeff'ed just makes the whole of Wikipedia look dodgy. Support a topic ban for Belchfire only at such time as the person he and his fellow travellers were targeting gets the same fair treatment, otherwise support treating all sides in this deplorable mess the same. Meatpuppeting is bad, WP:CANVAS is bad, tag-teaming is bad, tendentious editing is bad, threats are bad, admins telling someone to commit suicide are worse. That all ought to apply no matter which side it is. If they don't like it, Conservapedia is --> thataway. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not log in? - Sitush (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Belchfire is not the only POV warrior here to make Wikipedia safe for conservative thinking, he's merely the least subtle about it. And I see that the usual suspects are here to tell us all that we're imagining things or trying to throw up as many irrelevancies as they can to cloud the issue. --Calton | Talk 04:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support: The evidence is crystal clear that Belchfire has a serious history of tag team edit warring, and that is his primary “contribution” to Wikipedia. Numerous warnings and discussions have failed to persuade him to change either that or his repeated incivility. It's time to stop the disruption. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
  forcemeat  10:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As no such evidence was given, I think your position here is not tenable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights, very broadly construed. Belchfire has made it abundantly clear, over and over again, that he is either unable or unwilling to constructively edit in these areas. He has been given ample opportunity to improve his behavior, but has consistently failed to do so. There is no indication and no hope that he will ever change, so the topic ban should be indefinite. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. On the contrary, the evidence here shows a significant improvement after the September 9 warning. There is some incivility, but the diffs presented do not indicate any disruptive editing after the warning. StAnselm (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I stumbled upon this issue last night, and have since examined the evidence thoroughly. Belchfire had quite the laundry list of disruptive edits last month, but there isn't much evidence that he hasn't improved on this behavior. It certainly seems to me like those who brought this complaint in the first place did so largely due to a personal grudge against an editor they know has been problematic in the past. I would recommend that Belchfire take note that his disruptive edits remain unacceptable, but I don't feel the need for more decisive action at this time. If there were a marked resurgence of nonchalantly destructive edits similar to what was seen in September, then I would support an indefinite topic ban. Coppaar (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for LGBT topics and political organisations, broadly contrued. Belchfire has previously been warned by an admin and multiple other editors but behaves as if never warned. I further think that Belchfire is non-productive in this topic area because he has one of the strongest biases i have seen, in a far-right direction. Wikipedia will be better of without such unconstructive editors. In the past Belchfire's POV was largely balanced out by Still, but now that Still is blocked, we have Belchfire roaming free. Pass a Method talk 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

*Support as noted by many, Belchfire has had many warnings over and over. The tag teaming edits, many here "oppose", show its a common trait.--178.254.135.157 (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC) proxy user   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Struck Tagged the above as an SPA, possibly related to one or more above. a13ean (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment just wondering; is this a record for socks, proxy, and throw-away accounts contributing to an ANI? The number of such invalid contributions cast doubt on the the objectivity of the proceedings, and suggest meat-puppetry. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Association fallacy much? It's supposedly one, possibly two socks. How is that a record and how could it possibly cast doubt on this report? I suggest you read Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Dear V; you are just not listening to the points made. Belchfire alleges that he is subjected to personal attacks, and both much of the above is personal, not edit-based, and fraudulent accounts pop up to attack BF. Part of any allegation of tendentious editing is repeated abuse of WP processes to delay proper editing. Part of BF's defense is that BF runs into more problem ediTORS that can be expected of a normal WPedian, and sure enough, on the ANI: many more problem ediTORS. Direct and specific relation between problems on this ANI and the problems BF alleges partly explain the editing; no logical fallacy here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Belchfire runs into more problem editors? He runs into problems on purpose; he creates problems. He cannot be considered a normal Wikipedian with his disruptive behavior. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

        BF edits in an area that attracts more problem editors than, for instance, Zoology. The USE of process must be measured against the prevalence of process problems in the AREA IN WHICH BF edits. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

      • @Anonymous209.6: I think there is a misunderstanding here. Belfchfire is not 'running into problem editors'; he is the problem editor, as the many, many examples above prove. This is not about content; it is about how his editing consists of mostly deleting sourced content and the sources, under false pretenses, and then either disappearing or resorting to crass incivility when other editors try to engage him in discussion. I have seen no evidence so far that indicates he has edited these articles in a constructive manner, by conducting research, copy editing, fixing MoS issues, adding new sections, etc. His legion of supporters seem to be more concerned with losing an ally in some imagined crusade to protect the wiki from the blight of liberal untruths, than with building a great encyclopedia. There are socks and SPAs on both sides of this debate, and they can all be easily dismissed by the admin who determines the outcome of this ANI. Viriditas was exactly right about this being a (desparate) attempt at association fallacy. – MrX 16:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Speaking of association fallacy.... "legion of supporters". Arkon (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

          Let's be clear; attacks on other editors are NOT a rebuttal, and that includes disparaging editors by making unsubstantiated speculations on their internal motivations, and that similarly, other editors arguments, such as "on both sides" are both factually (mostly) incorrect and invalid WP arguments. Again, lack of listening makes for lack of "understanding". The point being made is that ABUSE of process is a cornerstone of tendentious behavior, and to establish ABUSE, we must consider what reasonable USE is, given the topic area and prevalence of need of USE. This ANI can be used as evidence that BF simply runs into more problem ediTORS than a usual WPdian, the evidence being that more sub-investigations and blocks/bans are handed out to participants on this ANI than appear on the average page in 5 years. This is explicitly NOT an "other people do it" argument, but an argument that the topic areas lend themselves to more process.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

          • Belchfire creates problems when he kicks process out the window. You are concerned about process but his edits show that he is not. He jumps in and reverts disruptively without discussion. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- I've finally had the chance to look at a large number of BF's recent edits, and I now believe that he does not have a net positive impact on this project. While he clearly has made some positive contributions I think there's too strong a tendency to remove sourced material just to see if it sticks, to be barely civil with other editors, and to often make misleading edit summaries. I'm afraid that while he does make some good edits, the benefits to the project are canceled out by all the time other volunteers have to spend dealing the others. a13ean (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Jusdafax. I've had poor interactions with Belchfire almost every time and have to decide whether I want to interact with them just to edit an article I saw problems with. The battleground mentality makes for a bad environment to respect other editors and find common ground for improving articles. Insomesia (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Since BF received a warning, his civility has improved. Some of the articles in the proposed topic ban area have had problems with mischaracterization of the sources. I can only assume that BF feels that this abuse was done to push a POV, of which IMO is a fair assumption. We should not topic ban an editor who is preventing such abuse to the enyclopedia. Has he been perfect in this? No, he was even challenged on a removal of a source by MrX and BF acknolwedged his error. Displaying accountability for an error is the exact opposite of being disruptive. Several of the support !votes above are the very editors who simply have a different POV than BF and are attempting to squelch him.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  01:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

LGR, you almost had me rethinking my support of the topic ban. That is until you accussed editors who support the ban of "attempting to squelch him". I would ask you to strike that out unless you have some supportive evidence you wish to present for that accusation.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the possibility that those who may have different political persuasions than BF would like to seem him banned a 500lb gorilla? I precisily didn't name names because I don't care to spend time to go through the edit history. The socks above clearly have it "out" for BF.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you are saying here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:the "good guy" redirecting to IP page (yet again)

The user continues to redirect the account user page and user talk page to the unregistered IP account. Even after notices from other editors per [160] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using the IP as my main "account" and I see no policy against this. The only reason I registered (now as the "good guy") was to protect my right to edit by IP. Full reasons are at my talk, which the nonanonymous user above has studiously avoided citing policy at. I did miss one thread about this in that analysis, but it does not seem to make a difference. I also note that the user above has used some strong incivility in a recent edit summary while reverting me yet again. Policy guidance would be helpful. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IP is a shared IP. We cannot be sure all edits from that IP are from one specific editor. Given that, I am against the redirect being permitted, as it could (even accidentally) give the appearance of a shared account. --Nouniquenames 16:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You're saying people might accidentally perceive that the "good guy" is a shared account, when there is no evidence of that? Even though nobody knows the account password except me, the primary user of the IP? Even though my intent is (properly according to WP:SOCK#NOTIFY) for the account's pages to link informally to the user's main pages (the IP pages, where most of the talk addressed to me appears)? Wherever the warning of use of shared IP appears, the disclaimer also appears that states that the primary user of the IP also has a named account for maintenance purposes.

It occurs to me I could abandon, and request userspace deletion for, the account; but then I would be giving up my personal rights e.g. to request oversight, as it appears IP editors cannot request oversight even though they may be in more need of it. If consensus is that WP's intent is that IPs have no rights to create accounts to request oversight while remaining IP editors, I will listen to it and may learn to live with it. But otherwise I believe I should exert my right to edit through shared IP as well as the right to protect myself against (community-proven) harassment through oversight. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

By your own admission [or at least that of somebody using that IP address; see what I mean?] the IP address (which is not an account, but an IP address) can be shared by others, and has been in the past. Given that fact, and the fact that you have a legitimate account established, I would say in the strongest terms that the redirect is not appropriate in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the prior comments, note that the IP address in question has the appearance of a static IP, as it is not in any of the usual dynamic IP blocklists (see [161]). Unfortunately, this does not, by itself, mean that the IP is not "shared", per se, as the IP would normally be the gateway address, so could be shared by multiple editors at one organization, business or residence. As the IP is shown as belong to a business, the "ANSWER GROUP" (see [162]), the information suggests that this IP is, indeed, shared. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there some reason we are here at drama central discussing a redirect when we already have WP:RFD explicitly for this purpose? (and for the record IP users can request oversight. They are of course expected to provide a reason that unambiguously meets the criteria for suppression and if they fail to do so the requests are declined.) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please help me out Orangemike. This IP demonstrates a user's credible, continuous desire to continue editing by IP. Due to community-proven harassment, the account and IP both demonstrate a user's credible statement of believing oneself compelled to obtain and link the account to request oversight. WP:SOCK#NOTIFY says linking the accounts informally is acceptable. As an IP editor I have the right to use the talk page of a shared IP. Are you saying that as an account-based editor I lose the right that I had as an IP-based editor to use the talk page of a shared IP? Then maybe I have uncovered a benefit of IP editing that I lose when I obtain an account! 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not want to edit by IP. You want to edit by IP AND by a registered user account. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you Beeblebrox on both points. If I can initiate an RFD I'll do it myself. RedPen, yes, I do, I understand this is allowed behavior if one account is only segregated for maintenance. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My interest in this is in part to [[163]] an article currently under MfD, which is the userfied version of a page deleted by discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. The page was userfied prior to the user rename to The "good guy" while the account was under the inappropriate user name User:IP 12.153.112.21 (note this is User:IPXXX NOT IPXXX). Given this confusing history it is of great importance to keept the greatest level of transparency possible, and redirects do nothing but add levels of confusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I affirm the desire for the greatest level of transparency, which I think is served by redirecting to the notices at User:12.153.112.21 and its talk. If readers don't notice the "redirected" message they probably won't quibble about the page title either. As for the userfied article, I have added a notice at User talk:12.153.112.21 that the redirected page currently in question contains a properly attributed fork of the userfied article, now moot. If there is some notice that TheRedPenOfDoom thinks is important for the article's history, it should be added to the userfied talk (although I think this was already done). I really am uncertain why this is dragging out. If I went to RFD it appears I'd need to do a "procedural nomination" and then vote "speedy keep" because default is delete and TheRedPenOfDoom doesn't want delete but wants the history to be retained. Nu? Mu? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that this has been handled kind of dysfunctionally at many steps along the way. Far too many reverts and templates and communication thru edit summaries and misunderstandings and account switches and bad faith assumptions and outings and indef blocks and misquoting policy and such. My first thought is that we should all just back off and agree to do whatever Beeblebrox thinks is best, since he's most familiar, but since Beeb's answer to that might be "what did I do to you that you hate me so much to propose this", I think a good alternative is to follow his advice so far: close this, leave the redirect in place for now, and go to RFD if it's really important that the redirect be removed and replaced with something else. That would be my recommendation too.
  By the way, TGG/12.*, I think Beeb's point is that if TRPoD or OM or someone want the redirect removed, they can initiate an RFD. I don't think his point was that you should do it.
  It might be useful to gently remind all involved that in the grand scheme of things, this really doesn't matter very much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
• Just as a public service announcement, let me clear up the issue of whether an account is needed to request oversight in some more detail. An account is not required to request that the oversight team act on something (in fact, you don't even need to have ever edited Wikipedia!). An account is required to use the Wikipedia email function to contact the oversight team, but even without an account you can always email oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org - no account necessary! IP, what I think you might be misunderstanding is that as long as you're editing as an IP, you're "displaying" that WHOIS information for public consumption. So as long as you're editing as an IP, that WHOIS information is not "private information", so it cannot be oversighted (in general terms. your mileage may vary, contact your nearest oversighter for special cases). If you edit under an account, then information about what IP you're editing from is no longer public - you're not displaying it, and if someone manages to dig it up, that's considered private information. In this particular case, IP, by editing first as an IP and then as both an account and an IP, you're giving free access to your WHOIS information. If you want to keep people from being able to see where you're editing from, you'd need to edit only as an account from now on (and in my personal judgment as an oversighter, your previous IP contributions would not be eligible for oversight, since you've personally and quite determinedly linked the IP to your account). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - if you want an alternative account ( and per SOCKLEGIT it can be done -- assuming correct steps are followed and it's used correctly) why not create another named account and use that rather than an IP ? It would give you the alternative account and negate the reason for this report ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

For transparency, I would rather link everything to the IP instead of starting fresh. I don't think that creating another account for any purpose would be very transparent nor would it be easy (given this discussion) to link the account to the IP such as by redirect. Fluffernutter, while your advice is very good and generally applicable, more than one user has been judged as having misposted additional speculative information beyond that available by IP search, so yes that's another layer because this is not about ordinary oversight of Whois data but about speculations related to Whois data. Ah well. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That person would be me. I don't believe it was all that extrodinary, but , consensus states otherwise, so, no problem. Creating a non-ip under socklegit is possble, look at "eatshootsandleaves", that's a socklegit account, so it

Bishonen and Bishzilla. It can be done, and, in that fashion, you no longer have to worry about anyone from Tag logging in under that IP, and you bear no further burden if someone did and decided to vandalize wikipedia.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The user just above has just reverted my redirects again (first time for that user today) prior to posting on this thread. I don't know whether fixing it again, or not fixing it for now, is the better course. I have accepted the burden of the occasional vandalism edits that have arisen from this IP. The burden I was not prepared for was constant reverting against userpages, without policy basis and without discussion, which some admins have found rather pointless yet nobody has succeeded in stopping. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If a lot of people are telling you not to do something, it's probably a good idea not to do it, at least until the discussion about it is over. Or would you rather continue edit-warring over this during the discussion until somebody protects the userpage? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been advised by two users and 1 admin not to do that. If nothing else, you will want to follow the admin's direction.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

IIRC the two users have now both used obscenity in edit summaries and the admin did not present any reasons or indication of familiarizing himself with the case either, so I do have a habit of discounting advice that tends not to be grounded in anything other than preference, even when it's teamed up against me. As I just said, I appear to be in another double bind, as fixing it again now didn't seem to work, and waiting to fix it later (whether by my reverting later or by my waiting for someone else to see the light) doesn't seem to work either. Several editors have agreed this behavior isn't against any policy; it appears it's just not something anyone besides me has had the effrontery to request. I still agree that RFD is perhaps the best place to discuss this but it has been hinted to me above that I should not go initiate there myself.

The policy is that an alternate account should be linked to the user's main page. I think the question is whether a shared IP page can be used for this purpose as the main page of an editor who exerts the right to prefer to use the shared IP to edit. Very few (perhaps also excluding myself) have addressed the question from a policy basis. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't know the right forum for this discussion; perhaps (gulp) it really is here at ANI? My suggestion that you not file a pro forma RFD yourself was just, that: advice, not a demand. If you think it makes sense to file one, do it. Anyway, I have no problem with the redirects, and don't think those reverting you have any real policy basis on their side. But were I you, I would settle for a short message explaining the situation in text, with links to the IP talk page, rather than the redirects that seem to be driving everyone to distraction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: [164]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to soft direct (for both the user and talk pages, right?) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like kind of a no-brainer.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a logical solution that has the potential to satisfy all parties. --Jayron32 21:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering at what point you figured I was obscene in telling you that, based on policy, the redirect should not be there. It would seem that we have different definitions of obscene. --Nouniquenames 05:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have cut the Gordian knot by deleting User:IP 12.153.112.21 and its accompanying talk page as U2 - userpages belonging to a non-existant user. It's way too confusing to keep it around for people to edit war over. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

While we are all here. Is it appropriate for someone who "wants to edit as an IP", to have the privilege that comes with having a registered account of having userfied an article that was deleted as part of an AfD? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not particularly troubled by that. I have zero problems extending to IP editors the same courtesies as we extend to registered editors. It doesn't make anything better to "force" him to use an account to userfy an article. Insofar as the only point of userfication is to allow development to proceed to a point where it can be moved back to the mainspace at some point in the future, there shouldn't be any hindrance to IP editors doing that sort of work. None at all. --Jayron32 06:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoa there ... but isn't one of the "Advertised benefits" of having a registered account the ability to create userspace drafts and subpages? Let's not enable things here. dangerouspanda 10:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Enable what? You don't want to enable the improvement of the encyclopedia?!? --Jayron32 12:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you see preservation of an article User:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels that was deleted per discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and has no viable plan to address the concerns of the original AfD as an "improvement of the encyclopedia"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, hold on a second. You're conflating two seperate issues in this. First is "Should IP users be allowed to userfy articles", which is a broad site-wide practice issue. I posit that there is ultimately no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Wikipedia that registered users do. So, speaking from the point of view of sitewide practice, there shouldn't be any problem with IPs userfying articles, broadly speaking. There's nothing in a sitewide practice like this that needs to be considered as "enabling" this one point of contention. Either we allow the practice or not, but either way, it that decision isn't made for all of Wikipedia based on the peculiarities of this one case. That being said, the second issue, entirely and wholly unrelated to that, is whether this one userfied article belongs at Wikipedia. We have a mechanism for dealing with that, and it is currently underway at Wikipedia:MFD#User:IP_12.153.112.21.2FList_of_AT.26T_U-verse_channels. We're not going to simultaneously decide here a different conclusion from what the MFD determines. So, if you want to weigh in on the appropriateness of the userfied article, do so at the MFD. If you want to start a discussion over the broad site-wide policy issue of IPs having access to userfied articles in general, do so at WP:VPP. There's really no point in belaboring either issue in this thread. --Jayron32 16:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

" no problem with IP users having the same mechanisms to improve Wikipedia that registered users do" - we dont allow IPs to create pages, we dont allow IPs to edit protected articles, we dont allow IPs to move pages etc. There are LOTS of mechanisms that could potentially improve the encyclopedia that IPs do not get to do.

We have policies about legitimate SOCK accounts. Is userfying an AfD's page appropriate use of SOCK account? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCK only disallows the use of multiple accounts to deceive. The account is publicly linked to the established identity of the user here, and isn't trying to deceive anyone or mask any identity. In fact, the IP user in question has tried repeatedly to comply with the spirit and letter of WP:SOCK by linking his allowed alternate account to his preferred IP address he uses to edit, only to be repeatedly squashed in doing so. I mean, you tell him he has to comply with policy, he does, and then you tell him he can't do that either. If a registered user is allowed to create an alternate account for certain purposes, uses it only sparingly, and publicly and conspicuously links it to his main account, that is allowed 100% of the time. How is that different from what happened here? Look, I'm not going to come out and say that the IP in question is not misbehaving in some way. They may be. But when you bring a hundred and one spurious accusations against them, many of which aren't even violations, it looks more like your just throwing as much shit on him to see what's gonna stick. Confine your discussion to only those salient issues regarding his behavior that is an actual violation of established Wikipedia practice and is actually disruptive, and not any of this silliness about IP editors not being allowed to also maintain an account for legitimate purposes. And again, if you want to explicitly ban all IP users from userfying articles, that's a just and proper and right and good discussion for us to have as a community, just not in this thread. I am awaiting your thread at WP:VPP on that issue. --Jayron32 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. " Is it standard policy to allow a SOCK account for the purpose of allowing an IP to have a userfied copy of an article that was deleted per AfD? And your position is that there is no standard policy about that yet and so that question cannot be asked here. Is that right?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's break this down into two parts. Part one: Is it a violation of community standards to userfy a deleted article so it can be improved? WP:USERFY says not. Part two: Is it a violation of community standards to set up an secondary account which is publicly linked to one's primary account? WP:SOCK says not. So, what I ask you is if WP:USERFY is accepted practice, and above-the-table, clearly identified secondary accounts are legal under accepted practice, then what is the disruption between the two? but just on the central issue of the policy, I can't find anything in the policy that says "People may not establish a publicly declared secondary account to allow them to userfy an article". I see nothing that says that that is not allowed. At all. If you'd like it to be explicitly not allowed, WP:VPP awaits you to start that discussion. I also note that you continue to do your position a giant disservice. It may very well be true that 12.153 could be in the wrong here. I'm not really sure. But if he is, it isn't for any of the reasons you have noted. Maybe he's not making a proper use of WP:USERFY in the sense that the article shouldn't have been preserved at all. However, if that were the case, by introducing patently off-topic issues which aren't violations of any sort anyways all you've done is clouded the issue. As I've stated above, there may be something worth discussing here, but you've picked the wrong battle to fight, and it does your stance no service to continue to press forward on that front in this thread. If this is a misapplication of WP:USERFY and NO copy of the article should have been userfied, that's an unrelated issue to what you're bringing up repeatedly here. It's also an issue which is being discussed at the above noted MFD, and so doesn't bear discussing here seperately. --Jayron32 01:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone performing yet another confusing move to User:12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels. Though an experienced editor spoke to the contrary, it appears that I cannot create such a page in my IP space as an IP, and it would be too confusing for me to log in and move or create myself. So if there is truly no mechanism for IPs to create subpages in IP userspace, yes, there is a valid and interesting question whether an IP has a right to a userfied article. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

You can create User talk:12.153.112.21/List of AT&T U-verse channels. IPs can create user talk subpages to their heart's content, but you cannot perform a page move, so you'd have to cut&paste with proper attribution. --64.85.216.51 (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

I've come across a big of an issue with articles concerning Jobie Hughes, which includes At Dawn (novel). I'd edited the article to where it was up to date and was sourced by multiple reliable sources. Now I've had my edits reverted to the previous version, which not only has copyvio from the author's website ([165]) but is also out of date. The same thing has happened with the novel article, which has a complete lack of sourcing to it. I've reverted to my edits, which were to redirect the novel to the author's page and to keep my updated version of the author's page, but I've noticed that there's been a few accounts that have been either reverting my edits or selectively removing parts of the article that they personally don't like, such as the controversy section. I've also been accused of having a personal bias against the author, and since there's not only multiple accounts reverting the pages but I'm being accused of having an agenda, I'm bringing it up here. Here are the specific edits in question: [166], [167], [168].

I'd left a notice on the user's page that accused me of having a grudge against the author (User:Ohioana) and I notice that both of the editors (User:Sb1995) that have been reverting my edits only edit the Hughes themed articles (not that there's specifically anything wrong with that), but I'm bringing it here before it escalates any further.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are not displaying a NPOV and read like a publicist blurb. Besides that, this is a content dispute and no admin action needed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where in specific do my edits read like a publicity blurb? I was rather careful when it came to editing the author's page. As far as the edits on the book page, I want to stress that the previous revision with the various praise reviews was not written by me, but rather by the other user. This is the edit I made before realizing that it was only sourced by two reviews and lacked enough to pass WP:NBOOK: [169] The previous version by Ohioana is fairly promotional in content, especially since it takes the PW review somewhat out of context, making it sound more praising than it actually was. I was the one who redirected the article to the author's page because all that existed were various unsourced vanity reviews. Also, what about the accusations that I'm supposedly vandalizing the author's page because of a bias against the author? I'm getting incredibly tired of SPAs coming onto pages that I've edited and reverting edits back to previous versions or going onto AfDs, accusing me of having a bias because I'm removing content from articles that is unsourced, non-NPOV, and/or is outright promotional in content. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be promotional. It's hard to see redirecting the book article as reading "like a publicist blurb". :) I've left a note at User:Ohioana pointing out civility policies and also linking to "dispute resolution". Please try to engage them in conversation at the talk page of the article; if dispute resolution doesn't work out, additional steps may be necessary, but I think at this point more direct administrator intervention would be premature. (Although it does look like there might be a WP:COI somewhere.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Problem is, I've asked them and they've never actually stated their reasoning beyond anything along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and other arguments that don't show notability or justification. As far as content removal goes, they haven't said or showed me anything to show why the information shouldn't be in the article for Hughes or how exactly it's incorrect. At no point do I ever state outright that Hughes said one thing or another about the contract, just that multiple news outlets reported on the separation of the writing team and that it had been rumored that contract issues had been a part of the ongoing issues between the two of them. It might not have lead to the split exactly, but considering that more than one news source had commented on this and ESPECIALLY considering that this is really the only time that Hughes is mentioned specifically, I find it puzzling that this is removed. Almost every mention of Hughes has been in relation to the contract with Frey, with much of the coverage going over the contract (and the papers' reactions to the contract stipulations). There's actually not that much coverage of Hughes outside of this, which is why I'm also not sure as to why the user is so particularly sure that these things are incorrect. Even if they are, if enough news sources reported on it and this was ultimately one of the things he was known for in relation to his ghost writing the Lorien Legacy series, then it should be included in some format. We do a disservice by not including all of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• See this report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone please step in here? The user is constantly editwarring without any reason as to why they view the information as incorrect. I'm just being ignored by the user and they've consistently reverted to a version that not only includes copyvio, but removes all but the most glowing praise of Hughes.Tokyogirl79 (talk)

• It's now up to five reversions without any administration intervention.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Dcshank

I'm being harrassed by the above user. Serious lack of good faith. They are leaving discouraging and inflammatory notes on my talk page which I've tried responding to but to no avail. Is it any wonder people get fed up and leave if this is what continues to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a:

• Welcome
• A polite note that assessments should be done by project members
• A polite explanation of a reversion

You are seriously calling this harassment?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• At the most severe, it looks like a mild content dispute to me. As a regular admin once said, WP:DRN is thataway.... --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• What Sphilbrick says. It's not harassment: they're actually trying to help you. On the other hand, you should stop assigning quality ranks to those articles unless you are a member of the specific project or have an otherwise proven experience in quality evaluation. Please listen to Dcshank's advice, or you might indeed be blocked, and no-one wants that. (And no, I don't think this is a matter yet for DRN.) Drmies (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• The user has now reported me as a vandal. Yes, I would call that harrassment. And you've just assumed the exact same thing, that I have no experience in "quality evaluation", that I have no idea what I'm doing. Why is this? What makes you think that? I don't think I've even evaluated them by quality. Is it a crime to rate Dante or Cervantes alongside Joyce? It doesn't require a genius, a child could work that one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
• You're blocked for three hours since you continued behavior judged to be disruptive instead of talking this out. (That's besides the fact that this ANI thread was specious to begin with.) I'm not quite sure that more explaining needs to be done; I'll leave it to Dcshank to do so, but I note that your rebuttal ("a child can do this") doesn't require an answer. Your block is short, since I think (I hope) you have the project's interest at heart, but you cannot pursue a course that's not OK with other editors. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm suspicious that this IP doesn't know how to sign edits, yet knew where ANI was and how to do an unblock request pretty much straight off the bat. Coincidence, or sounding a bit sockish? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't jump to conclusions, Ritchie. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies, I wasn't suggesting it was, other than just things struck me as a bit odd. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know that I notified Dcshank about this discussion. I know I'm not involved, but I figured someone should let him know it was happening. RunnerOnIce (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I kind of assumed they'd know from the IP's talk page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

NP. Thanks Runner and Drmies. I had some real world work errands to do. I thought I would let the drama unfold and check in later to see who got muddy. Not the low profile behavior of a sock, but definitely the behavior of someone not unfamiliar with the inner workings here. --  :- ) Don 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I should have just stayed silent on this issue. What a lot of drama! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you really are a bunch of sneaking no good doers, aren't you? Working away behind the scenes like this, defending wikipedia from any outsiders who get in the way. If its any use at all, I'm noting for the record that Doctor Mies is now behaving menacingly around my talk page, suggesting I could be blocked again. [170] I didn't even make that edit they accused me of making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Dcshank has resumed their personal vendetta against me. I have signed up for the project and this is now becoming very annoying. They have given me a "final warning" and I have done absolutely no wrong. [171] [172] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I guess this isn't over. The IP's snarky comments and insinuations seem to continue; sounds like someone is being oppressed. I have no vendetta here, needless to say, and I don't think Dcshank has one either. Anyway, I don't have that much of a problem with their edits, it's the whining that is somewhat bothersome ("behaving menacingly"--I don't even know how I would do that). I'm hoping that someone from the literature project has a look at this IP's edits. This thread is of course going nowhere, unless it boomerangs someplace. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeap, I tried. We tried. It's up to Literature people now. I can't keep him/her busy all night, I have real work. Fortunately it is about 3 am there now. --  :- ) Don 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have done nothing wrong. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Point me to a policy I have violated. And I am not whining. I was happily going about my business when Dcshank started with their vendetta again. Drmies "behaved menacingly" in that they lurked on my talk page insinuating that I would be blocked if I misbehaved as if I were a naughty child, then accused me being responsible for an edit I did not even make. That was what it was about. I have done nothing wrong. I am being painted as some sort of outsider - an outsider who, if the above is to be credited, is not a "literature person"? Not a literature person? Who gives anyone the right to decide if I am or am not a literature person? I think I could be forgiven for losing my temper on several occasions over the course of the last several hours. But I haven't. How do you do that across a computer screen? I have been accused, among other things, of not being "calm" - and now I am "whining"? I am not. The only thing I can do is say that I am not. I don't know how you prove such a thing in these circumstances. But I am not. I insist I am not. And "somewhat bothersome" does not do justice to what I've been through with you unreasonable people. "Somewhat bothersome" to read what I have to say? More like "somewhat bothersome" to be blocked for hours over nothing, not to mention "somewhat bothersome" to be hounded and harassed in the way that I've been and am continuing to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.102.64 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed this entire case and it's a lot of nothing, just another instance of Victim mentality. Let's just close it out. Qworty (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, feel free to close, but just note that I've reblocked the editor for 48 more hours. Wikipedia requires collaboration. One person cannot simply declare him or herself an expert who knows exactly what importance various literary works, authors, and subjects have, and tell eveyone else to let him/her be. Now that the IP has been asked to discuss the matter at the Wikiproject page, s/he needs to do so. If s/he is unwilling to do so (i.e., to have a civil conversation without continuous attacks on other editors), then s/he can't edit here. I don't know if we'll see a change of heart in 48 hours, but if we don't, then the block will have to be extended.

As a side note, the IP editor claims his/her keyboard doesn't have a tilde key. Is that even possible? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The course you propose seems more than sensible. While I doubt that the 48-hour block will lead to 18 years of maturity, it's worth an AFG shot. Blocking may have to be permanent after that. We simply cannot allow one emotionally disturbed individual to monopolize so much time and energy. As for the tilde--he either does not know what one is, does not know how to copy and paste four of them, is using a keyboard that lacks one, or some combination of all three. In any case, I don't understand how he can proclaim himself to be the world's greatest expert in, among other things, Spanish Literature without knowing what a tilde is. Qworty (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I give up. I was ready to unblock, but they proved that they are either incompetent or playing dumb. At least they now have a defender with a registered account--someone else to hate us and cry admin abuse. Ah well. At least I get a bonus from Jimbo for every block I make. Drmies (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

CertificationPoint

After removing a speedy template a number of times from CertificationPoint a number of times and having it returned, User:Terrigentry subsided. A SPA, User:Blgiles23, then came into being apparently for the purpose of removing those speedy templates and justifying it (speciously, in my opinion) to the editors who had placed them. I therefore took the article to AfD and User:Terrigentry began removing those templates, material, etc. I can't keep up with reverting this and think some administrator attention is warranted. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm unable to say with 100% accuracy, but it may also be that User:Terrigentry has falsified an Articles for creation notice. I cannot locate any track of CertificationPoint having actually been created through AfC. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to User:DGG who has dealt with this by deleting and salting the article in question. I'll keep an eye on the creator(s). Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blgiles23 is a  Confirmed sock of Terrigentry. I have indef'd the sock and blocked Terrigentry for a week. Please drop by my userpage if you see similar pages come up. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• ...and I must be going blind, also  Confirmed ByronLGiles (talk · contribs). -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fry1989 and DrKiernan

• User talk:Fry1989#Request and (I think):
  • User talk:DrKiernan#Your absolute insistence on GDR flag and coat with gold instead of black
• User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions and
• Fry1989's block log

DrKiernan is well known to be rather mild; Fry1989 not so much. Fry's talk popped up on my watchlist and he's in it pretty hot and heavy with DrKiernan; called him a troll, on commons, for example. This seems to be about fictitious flags, which Fry does rather a lot of. I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago, which is why his page is on my watch. The talk is pretty messy and will have rolled along while I've been typing this. I think Fry's unblock needs reconsidering. I've seen very little constructive participation from him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done anything on Wikipedia that broke my editing restrictions, I've barely made 30 edits this past week alone and none of them had anything to do with Drkiernan or pages he has worked on. Everything he is complaining about happened on Commons (how can my English Wikipedia restrictions apply to Commons???? That's not even stated on my restrictions page, it's ridiculous!), and is filled with half-truths and assumptions. He blames me for "following him around". I haven't done anything of the sort. The fact I came across those files is easily explained because I go through the daily upload logs, The files aren't even Drkiernan's. All I did was remove a fictitious tag from those three files which Drkiernan added, and I only did that once on each file. I haven't even touched them since!!! Trajan is the one who removed Drkiernan's tags a further two times, which is when Drkiernan nominated them for deletion on Commons. I was completely unaware of this until Trajan came to my talk page and ASKED me to give input in the DR. I have only posted in the DR once, give my view, and haven't gone back since. I do not understand what I have done that could possibly be worthy of a block, nevermind an indef block. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

In my view, I think it's rather bad form to bring a dispute from some other Wiki project over here to the English Wikipedia, and then for DrKiernan and Br'er Rabbit, who are fully aware of Fry1989's temperament, to fan the flames to goad Fry1989 into violating his unblock restrictions. That's how it appears to me. I would support an interaction ban on all parties. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I just wanted to make a tentative comment. Fry1989 notified me about the problem he was having on his talk page. While looking there, this topic was opened by Br'er Rabbit, whose involvement puzzles me a bit, but no matter. I was involved in the unblock conditions (listed above), but there was extensive discussion with User:Amatulic, and I've notified him of this topic. I won't comment much on the merits of DrKiernan's complaint at this time, and I'm not sure what DrKiernan seeks at this point as he didn't open this topic. My brief comment is that DrKiernan was asking Fry to leave him alone at Commons. Br'er Rabbit inflamed things. Fry felt pushed. DrKiernan got more forceful because he didn't get the response he wanted, and here we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• Now responding to Amatulic's comment, I fully agree with everything he said except I haven't yet decided whether an interaction ban is needed. Depends on other comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Br'er Rabbit won't even answer my repeated requests for what he thinks I have done to deserve an indeff block. "Long-term problematic"? What is that supposed to mean? What "problems" have I caused here since my unblock? I've been following my restrictions as laid out on my restrictions page to the letter. I haven't gotten into revert wars, I haven't flamed people, I haven't followed anybody around, I haven't done ANYTHING! But somehow he thinks he can support me being indeff blocked without even stating why! So what if I called Drkiernan a troll on Commons? First off, that was my personal opinion after being asked by another user to participate in a deletion request. Second, it was on Commons!! My restrictions have nothing to do with Commons, this is completely a Commons matter if it's an issue at all! Also, I came here not too long ago myself asking for an interaction ban between me and Drkiernan because of the constant spats we have had for 2 long years. He and I can't get along so I try to avoid him the best I can. Yes, I went to his talk page, about an issue on Commons, but he is doing the same now. I used language which is a bit strong, but when you look at the actual full sentences, I didn't call him anything, I didn't attack him. I have followed my restrictions very clearly. I do not deserve this witch hunt. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at it this way; your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd missed the whole unblock discussion in August, so I was surprised to see Fry1989 editing at all. And I see him calling DrKiernan a troll and being quite belligerent, including addling the threading on his talk. I see the separation between en:wp and Commons as pretty thin; images go there, are used here. I don't think I had much to do with whatever got Fry dinged in August; I saw it go by, but don't think I even commented. The Rwanda thing was more like February, and I don't think I've had any conflict with Fry since. FWIW, DrKiernan is probably off for the night, so best to see what he has to say tomorrow. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you why I put my replies that way was to answer him and you separately, and that the reason I reverted you (once) is because I felt like you were disrupting me by moving my replies around??? There was absolutely no malicious intent behind it, but you keep trying to assert that there was. From the beginning of that you have accused me of disruption, when I told you twice before now why I did it. Stop accusing me of malicious intent which I don't have! Fry1989 ^eh? 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And the "Rwanda thing"? That's been over and done with for half a year, I don't even know why you would bring it up. It resolved itself ages ago, way before my unblock discussion in August even came about, and it wasn't even brought up in August, it has nothing to do with this. It feels like you're brining up past issues just to make me look worse and worse to get rid of me. Maybe not, but it sure feels that way right now. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have come here atleast two times over the years about Drkiernan. The second time I asked for an interaction ban, I don't remember what I wanted the first time, but both times when I tried pointing out how he pushes me, and is rude to me, and orders me to do things for him when he's capable of doing them himself, they are ignored. I never got help. But whenever he complains about me, I always end up with threats of blocks and bans and restrictions and everything else. You people ignored my cries for help, and this is what happens when you do that. I don't want anything to do with him, but we keep rubbing shoulders here and there every few months and then this kind of nonsense comes about. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I already outlined on your talk how your move of my post away from DrKiernan's (to whom I was replying) was inappropriate because it changed the context of things. That you don't get it goes a ways towards explaining things. You are aware that DrKiernan is well respected on this project, right? Right? Calling him a troll, anywhere, is absurd, and far from civil. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read my post again. I didn't say anything on whether the way I posted my replies, or the subsequent revert of your change, was wrong or right. All I said is that you are accusing me of doing it maliciously and with the intent to disrupt when that absolutely isn't the case, I told you why I did it, please STOP accusing me of doing it maliciously! So what if it was (in your opinion) wrong? Doing something wrong doesn't always translate to deliberate malicious intent. You don't like the way I arranged my replies? Fine I'm sorry. But stop this attack on my intentions when I've made clear they were anything but what you accuse them of being. As for whether or not Drkiernan is well-respected here, that doesn't factor into how he interacts with me, or how I interact with him. That's between me and him, not how others view him. Just because someone is widely respected, doesn't mean they're above the capability of mistreating someone else. He has been rude to me for years. He's ordered me to change files and do other tasks for him which he is perfectly capable of doing himself. What right does he have to order me around to do things? And yet people like you seem to think that it ok, but that when I get tired of being pushed around, I'm the one with all the blame. Protect the bully, punish the victim, it's an old story I'm very aquainted with. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've not used the word "malicious", but you have, repeatedly. And calling DrKiernan a "bully" is just silly; especially coming from a bully in victim's clothing ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad this is humourous to you. You have continuously accused me to doing my replies (and the single subsequent revert) with the intent to disrupt. That means you think I did it maliciously, whether you said the word or not. I've also made no attempts to shy away from the fact that I've been very rude to him, but you have to acknowledge that he has done the same and more. This website is littered with him commanding me to do things for him so he'll "accept them" and "allow them" on articles. Those Greek monograms for example, many times he ordered me to change them to blue so he would "allow them" on articles. Why do I have to do that for him? He showed in the past he was capable of doing it himself, he had no other problem with the files except their colour, so why couldn't he change them himself? Instead it was a further attempt to bully me into submission, "change these files or I won't allow you to add them to their rightful articles" like I'm some worker to be stepped on. Yes I've been rude as hell to him at times, but you completely ignore that it has been in response to TWO YEARS of unsolicited pushing around by him. He followed my edits to pages he had nothing to do with, and then passed judgement. He told me to change files for him. He has called me names. He has done so much to me, but somehow because I can't take it anymore, I'm the bully, I'm the one that needs to be blocked. I CAME HERE TWICE asking for help and you people ignored it. You don't think I'm not aware that he and I don't get along??? It takes two to tango and you make excuses for his steps in the dance. Disgusting. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The background seems to be this - User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions :

• "Civility requirements (in effect for 6 months after the current block expires): ... All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors, except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages ... Fry1989 agrees that the requirements listed above constitute best practices that should be followed at all times, and that the durations above refer to the period in which a violation will result in the resumption of an indefinite block." (my emphasis)

Unblock conditions were agreed in August 2012. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Break

• I want Br'er Rabbit and Fry to stop arguing with each other. If DrKiernan does not come here and tell us what he wants to do, this topic should be closed. This is not the right forum to have Fry's unblock and the conditions of his unblock reviewed (see Br'er Rabbit saying "your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed"). As for whether Fry has violated the conditions, neither I nor Amatulic believes he has, or if he has (I haven't read every one of Fry's remarks on his talk page or here), it's only because he's been goaded into it. So, Br'er Rabbit and Fry - stop posting here. Fry, if Br'er Rabbit won't stop, ignore him. That's my advice and my position at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Then what is the right forum to report breaches of Fry's unblock agreement? --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the right forum to report a breach. I'm saying this is not the right forum to have the unblock and agreement reviewed. I'm also saying that that is what I think Br'er Rabbit really wants. Finally, I'm saying that if someone believes that Fry should be sanctioned for breaching the agreement, someone other than Br'er Rabbit needs to step up and say so, but the bickering between Br'er Rabbit and Fry should stop. And another finally, I'm going off-wiki now, so I won't be able to respond to anything until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I should stop posting here? When Fry's got about six times the verbiage going as I do? And note that I didn't bother replying to his last above the {{od}}. And another note; I already suggested awaiting DrKienan's commenting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You've raised the issue to the community, the back and fort just clouds the issue. Nobody Ent 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's just make sure a couple of things are clear here. First, from what I've read above, I'm not seeing many allegations that Fry1989 has violated his unblock conditions, or has been disruptive in any other way, in his edits over the past few weeks on English Wikipedia. If I am wrong about that then would someone please post specific diffs.

I gather the main (alleged) problems are on Commons. In general, we don't sanction an editor on English Wikipedia for misconduct on another project. That is not, however, an absolute rule; in extreme cases of harassment and the like, editors have been banned from En-WP for misconduct on another project, on another non-wiki website, via e-mail, or offline. The key words there, however, are "extreme cases." What's been described above doesn't sound yet like an extreme case.

That being said, if the situation is as it's been described, then Fry1989 should clean up his act on Commons, rather than risk sanctions there, or here, or anywhere. I have no role or participation on Commons and don't plan to read through the edits there, but if Fry1989 called DrKiernan a "troll" on Commons, he should apologize and not do it again. DrKiernan is the farthest thing from a troll on English Wikipedia, and unless he has a personality transplant each time he logs off of English WP and onto Commons, he isn't a troll there either. An attitude of "I can call you what I want there and you can't do anything about it here and neener neener neener" isn't going to impress anyone on either project.

And I agree that at this point we can see if DrKiernan wants to take this further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection to an interaction ban between myself and Drkiernan (something I've already asked for before and it was ignored) or myself and Br'er Rabbit. I don't even understand why my talkpage was in his watchlist anyways, going through the entire history from 2009 to present, this is the first time he's ever posted there (unless he had a previous account or previous account name). Fry1989 ^eh? 01:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

To include commons? Nobody Ent 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue on Commons is cloudy. The files in question were not Drkiernan's, and the files' uploader asked me personally to give my input on the DR for his files that Drkiernan initiated. Drkiernan does not often comes to Commons (from my observation anyways), but I would be open to that extending to Commons if people feel it's necessary. I already try and avoid him here, the only real issue on Commons was that today I self-admittedly called him a troll. Was it nice? No. Was it out of line? Of course. But again you have to understand that I have over 2 years of interaction with this user and it has almost always been unpleasant. Fry1989 ^eh? 01:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd seen these before coming here; now collected and per Brad's request.

• "Fry1989 shall abide by WP:1RR, one revert per article per 24 hour period, with exception allowed for reverting obvious, unambiguous vandalism and spam."
• "Fry1989 must explain each revert (excepting reverts of vandalism and spam) on the associated article talk page."
• These are all reverts that went undiscussed on talk; many are not even clearly revert if you just go by edit summary:
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg
  • diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

net revert:

• diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

actually a full revert back to Fry in May other than bot edits to interwiki links:

• diff of Coat of arms of Luxembourg

And no posts to the talk page since June.

• diff of Flag of Cambodia

No posts to the talk page in a year.

Seems Road signs in New Zealand is "my [Fry's] article":

• diff of Road signs in New Zealand

No actual talk on the talk page ever.

I didn't goad him into any of this; I only found it by looking, which is the purpose of having brought this to ANI. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur violations of unblock conditions linked by RexxS have been violated. Nobody Ent 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well first of all the New Zealand Road Signs article is not literally "mine" (though I called it that because I worked VERY VERY hard on uploading all those signs and making the article), but if Br'er Rabbit would pay deeper attention, he would find that the article has been under repeated vandalism by a user called Jermboy (that's what I know him by anyways) and that Pharaoh of the Wizards also reverted this user several times on my behalf for the vandalism. He is a known sockpuppet who has access to dozens of IPs and creates fake accounts all the time too. He repeatedly added duplicate signs, removed ones, or added onces from other countries, I wasn't the only one reverting him on there, and I believe my restrictions exclude obvious vandalism. So let's cross off the New Zealand one right off the bat. As for Luxembourg, that's a complicated issue but to put it simply, there was already a discussion about what arms to use on the page, and it was only recently (in the past week) changed several times by an anonymous IP address. I still gave clear edit summaries instead of blank ones. Now for Cambodia, my edit summary was clear there too, I said the file that JamVT added is up for speedy deletion (not by myself) on Commons, this was true. It's because it has no source for it's copyright status and it will probably go. It was appropriate to revert back to the long-standing SVG file of the Cambodian flag. I'm sorry, I didn't explain my reverts on the talk pages of these articles, I messed up on that, but when you look at the purpose behind those reverts, it's clear they were in good faith and valid. Now yes, not explaining them on the talk pages is a breach, but it was a mind-slip and certainly not worthy of an indeff block and review of restrictions. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent, can you please quote me where you feel I broke the civility restriction? I have not called anybody anything (on Wikipedia), the only place and time I have done so was once, today on Commons. Again that would make it a Commons issue. Any language I have used here on Wikipedia regarding other users has been under a qualifier of choice, the action they choose to take over another which directly affects me. For example, when I said today on my talk page that if Drkiernan was to choose to continue believing that I'm following him around (something he accused me of which is not true), when I gave a clear and reasonable explanation of how I came across the files on Commons, that would be out of his own insecurity. I didn't call him insecure, I didn't call him anything. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is not a content dispute over the order that two images appear in a gallery (an incredibly large gallery;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not about the order of the images! Look at the actual changes that user made, he duplicated images. New Zealand requires all their pedestrian-related signs to be fluroescent green. They used to be yellow. I have the fluoro green ones in the current gallery, and the old yellow ones under "retired signs". In THIS edit he duplicated them so that the fluoro green ones were in BOTH the current section and the retired signs section, removing the old yellow ones from the article all together. That was beyond obvious vandalism. Or what about this one where he duplicated the "cyclists take care on tracks" sign. There is a yellow one and a fluoro one, in that edit he made them both fluoro removing the yellow one from the article all together. None of these changes were constructive, they were vandalism! Fry1989 ^eh? 02:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Those are old; August.

• anon changes the order of two images
• you revert it, calling it vandalism

That's not obvious vandalism, and it wasn't discussed on talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the history of that article and go through all the changes that user made, 99% of them are vandalism. Is moving two signs around in their order vandalism? No. But that article had been vandalized by that IP so many times I reverted that change blindly without looking at it's substance because of everything else that was done. It should be noted, the IP's now blocked for a year because of this, so clearly others felt I was right, cause I'm the one who asked for it to be blocked and I posted everything it did as evidence. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I won't be replying to Br'er Rabbit anymore. He's splitting hairs instead of looking at the bigger picture, and is on a crusade to get me indeffed, he made that clear when he said he'll support such a penalty on my talk page, and in this edit summary. He wants me gone and that's all he cares about. I don't understand it, I don't even remember the last time he and I interacted on anything, certainly not my talk page as he hasn't posted there since I created my account in 2009. He's taking the place of judge, jury and executioner and trying to get you all to go along with it. If he posts something and others want me to explain it, ask me and I'll reply to you, but my replies to him are done with. Fry1989 ^eh? 02:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the diffs provided by Br'er Rabbit and the admissions by Fry, I see no choice but to block Fry indefinitely for breaching his unblock conditions. The conditions, which were crafted by Amatulic, Fry, and me, were extraordinarily clear. Other than leaving a little wiggle room for what constitutes "vandalism" or "spam", no interpretation is required. And the consequence of a breach is just as clear: a violation results in an indefinite block. Fry can request an unblock if he wishes and it may be considered, but I don't see that he's entitled not to be blocked in the first instance. And the duration is not flexible. I am prepared to block him, or another admin may do so. I won't take any action until others respond, but that's my view.

One thing to add. Br'er Rabbit's comment that finding these violations was his "purpose" in bringing this here is preposterous on its face. He stated his purpose when he first posted. He said that Fry's "unblock needs reconsidering", and his other comments concerned the troll comment at Commons. However, my disapproval of Br'er Rabbit's conduct doesn't change my conclusion that an indefinite block should be imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't there please be any other option? What about a self-imposed period away, I can go away and come back. I screwed by by not posting my reasonings on the talk page, but that was a minor mess up. Half the things Br'er Rabbit brings up are misconstrued by him. I don't do very much here, I've made a minor slip up but I haven't actually done anything bad here or in bad faith. I haven't had any revert wars, I haven't gotten in fights, and I haven't attacked people. These are the issues I had which got me in trouble and I've stayed away from these actions. Please. Fry1989 ^eh? 05:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

How can you block me when I haven't done anything bad here???? I didn't break my civility restrictions or my edit/revert restrictions, all I did wa mess up by forgetting to post a reasoning on a talk page, but when you look at the actual reverts they were 100% reasonable and right so there's not even an issue with their validity. This is insane that you would grant the desire of someone whose only purpose is to get rid of a good user who he's never even talked to in three years (three years I've had an account here and today is the first day he has ever posted on it! check the history). I've created articles, I've given hundred of hours of my life to this project and uploaded thousands of files to better this project. I did NOTHING wrong! Fry1989 ^eh? 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Fry, I'm not happy about recommending an indefinite block. I suggest you back away from saying you did "nothing wrong" as that's not correct. Your best course is to apologize for the breaches, explain that you failed to monitor your edits in light of your unblock conditions, and that you will try very hard in the future not to let it happen again. That kind of statement may get you unblocked later, even though it's unlikely to prevent you from being blocked now. You appear to be willing to stay away for a while, so why not do that, return after a reasonable period (not too short in my view) and make your request. An indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block, although I can't predict what will happen if you make an unblock request in the future. In any event, others besides me need to weigh in at this point, and I need to go to bed. Take a deep breath and try not to post anything here that you may later regret.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I did say in my initial post that "Fry's unblock needs reconsidering", which re-blocking amounts to. I then said a bit later that "the purpose of having brought this to ANI" was looking for diff; my meaning in the second was that the purpose of such threads is to get more eyes looking at the record, which few seem to have done. So I dredged up what I'd been glossing over with popups and had the diffs together before seeing Brad's request for diff. Fry as been at DrKiernan's page both apologising and offering a deal; help kill this thread in return for a promise to stop attacking him. diff of User talk:DrKiernan, diff of User talk:DrKiernan. Let's see what DrKiernan has to say, especially about Fry's commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional achievements of arms. Fry makes flags and COA up and that's pretty dodgy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've not fully examined the discussion above, but all I've done is to ask Fry to avoid me from his own choice. I've not asked anyone else (administrators included) for anything else.

This wouldn't have blown up at all if Fry had avoided 3 insignificant files that were not in use anywhere on any article page on any project and were never in danger of being deleted at all until he popped up to randomly undo my categorization of them. I really don't think that it is too much to ask him to refrain from undoing harmless actions on relatively trivial issues.

I would, however, like someone to remind him not to talk about editors outside of the noticeboards. DrKiernan (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it easier for anyone else reading this topic, DrKiernan is referring to two posts Fry made to DrKiernan's talk page in September, which DrKiernan complained of on Fry's talk page in October (the exchange that led to ANI): (1) "no faith" in "due process" & "incredibly childish"; and (2) "stop being lazy telling me I have to do your job for you".

If I understand DrKiernan properly, he is not asking for Fry to be blocked for violating any unblock condition. Instead, he'd like Fry to leave him alone and he'd like Fry to be reminded of the two civility bullets in Fry's unblock conditions, which include the requirement that Fry be civil on talk pages and that Fry not comment on individual editors except on some noticeboards. As for the civility issues, I'd personally like to avoid a discussion as to whether Fry's comments on DrKiernan's talk page were uncivil as I think what DrKiernan is asking for is far less than the block that could be rightfully imposed on Fry. As alluded to earlier, Fry has apologized for calling DrKiernan a troll on Commons and had promised to "never attack [DrKiernan] again". However, in my view, that's less than what DrKiernan wants. He essentially wants a one-way interaction ban so that Fry will just leave him alone. I'm not sure if DrKiernan is asking for that ban to apply to Commons as well, nor do I know how that would work. But what I'm geting to, in my usual long-winded way, is an alternative proposal that does not include a block. I'm just struggling with the terms of the proposal. Perhaps DrKiernan could help in crafting one that the community could then discuss/vote on.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, DrKiernan is mild. You've already agreed that violations of the unblock terms have occurred and that restoration of the indef is appropriate. That DrKiernan is willing to overlook the violations does not change the fact that right off the 30 day block, Fry returned to form. That, too, is why I brought this here. Look at the block log, again; this is a pattern that is not changing. Look at Flag of Rwanda; Fry stuck that OR flag back in there after consensus on the talk went against it. Even if that is a fair representation of a flag the President of Rwanda uses, the article is not about the president's personal flag, it's about the country's flag (which is quite different). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As you already know, I'm not happy with the role you played in this. However, I don't dispute your right to request a block. I'm just exploring an alternative based on DrKiernan's post. I'd like to hear more from DrKiernan on this issue. I'd also like to hear more from Amatulic. And of course others may weigh in.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not missing your hostility, I've been ignoring it as not relevant. I noted a recurrent issue that you and Amatulic are responsible for and brought it here for review, so I too am looking for others to opine. I believe you and I have bumped somewhere before but am not recalling what it was about; you remember? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for a day or two, will reply more fully later. For now, my original comment will have to stand as it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was unclear above, but I haven't asked for a formal ban or any extra community sanctions, and (I hope this doesn't come across as rude, it isn't meant as such) I'm not that interested in helping to determine any. I would like Fry to adhere to the current restrictions, which means not talking about editors on user talk pages, and to wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means not attacking anyone anywhere. I'm asking him as a personal favor to avoid me voluntarily. The only community discussion I've started is at commons [173]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I said what I posted below was my final statement, but I realllly feel I need to say this. Drkiernan, I am sorry I attacked you on Commons. I am also sorry you feel I attacked you earlier on your Wikipedia page. You haven't answered my apology on your page, and I don't know whether you believe it or not, but I really was not trying to find or follow you there. You may not believe my explanation for coming across the files, but it's the truth, it could have been any other user and I still would have come across them cause they were new uploads. I am trying to follow my restrictions, I've admitted that I slipped up on not posting reasonings, and I admit I have a bit of a grudge against you for past issues, but not one that's strong enough to stalk you for trouble. The evidence below however is very strong that another person here IS holding grudge for over 6 months and won't let go it it, against me. That is what a real "issue" with another user looks like. Anyhow, this is my last post here until I am contacted with a decision and outcome of this. Goodbye everyone. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I do believe your explanation of how you came across the files. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actual proposal

I prefer to wait for Amatulic's return before closing this discussion, with or without action, but I thought I'd start the ball rolling:

1. Fry1989 is reminded that he must pay closer attention to the conditions of his August 2012 unblock agreement whenever editing.
2. Fry1989 is advised that compliance with the civility conditions of his unblock agreement may be construed broadly.
3. The following is added as a bullet point at the bottom of the August 2012 unblock agreement: "Fry1989 is indefinitely banned from interacting with User:DrKiernan on Wikipedia or on Commons except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages. This ban was added in October 2012 based on [this discussion at WP:ANI].

The link to this discussion can be added once it has been archived and has a permanent home.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A couple of comments about my own proposal. First, Amatulic proposed an interaction ban between Fry and DrKiernan. I've proposed a 1-way ban, partly because DrKiernan didn't say he was amenable to a 2-way ban. I don't know if 1-way bans are ever imposed, and it seems problematic to me. Example: DrKiernan (not banned) goes to Fry's talk page and says x and asks Fry to explain himself. Fry can't do that without violating the ban. Maybe DrKiernan would care to comment on this issue. Second, regardless of what kind of ban it is, I wasn't sure about the duration, so I wrote indefinite, thinking (a) why would they ever want to talk to each again anyway and (b) Fry could always request a change if for some reason they became more friendly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that given the profuse apology made by Fry1989 above at 18:59, 8 October 2012, these additional sanctions are unnecessary at this time. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

you're merely here to undermine me due. shoo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving this is just another WP:GAME for you. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The game is called rabbit shoos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think point 3 will fly, partly because of what Newyorkbrad said above and partly because it would have to be hedged about with caveats to cover issues like the one you raised. I don't think it's worth our time and effort at this point to determine what all those caveats might be. DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DrKiernan. I'm waiting for Amatulic's comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you and Amatulic need to recuse from closing this (comment, sure). You two unblocked Fry w/terms and are now seeking to give him a pass on having broken them. Better someone uninvolved review the breach. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

My final statement

First a reply to Bbb23. What I meant when I said I did nothing wrong is that I did nothing harmful to wikipedia. Yes, I did wrong by not explaining my revisions on the articles' talk pages, that was a slip and I'm sorry. I agreed to do it and I haven't done it. But everything else on my restrictions list I did obey.

Secondly however, I want to point out that I now know who Br'er Rabbit is and why he is so dead-set on having me blocked. He used to be Alarbus (some of you may already know this so sorry if it's old news, but I just realized it). He and I had a bitter disagreement on Talk: Flag of Rwanda about the inclusion of the presidential flag of Rwanda. I was blocked for uncivility, but Alarbus was later blocked for socking. When I my block expired, I posted "it's not over" on his talk page (unaware that he had also been blocked during my time away), because I had over 10 new sources. That comment was removed by Diannaa under Alarbus' request through email with a rather colourful metaphor as Diannaa put it in their edit summary. After that issue however, I continued with my sources on the article's talk page, and eventually got an email from the Rwandan Embassy to the US confirming it being the President's flag, and it's been left on the article from May to now October, 6 months. Alarbus (or should I now say "Br'er Rabbit") obviously7 hasn't let go of this spat because today he just removed the flag again saying the article isn't about the President's flag (despite plenty of other national flag articles including their presidential variants), and because in his very first post on my talk page yesterday he already had decided that I need to be indeffed. He obviously is not just trying to get rid of me for any reason, but because he still holds a grudge over the Rwanda issue. He doesn't even care about the facts, for example above he says that I create the "dodgy coats of arms and flags] and that the DR was mine. It's already been made extremely clear here those files were made by Trajan, and that my only involvement in the DR is after he asked me to give my opinion.

I ask the admins here to look into this because it's plainly obvious that Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit hasn't let go, he even brought up the Rwanda flag dispute here yesterday! He instantly said I need to be indeffed on my page, coming there looking for the slightest sign of trouble, because he had it in his watchlist (self-admittedly) under his new user name, and Drkiernan never asked him to come to my page. He was LOOKING for trouble, any excuse to bring this here. Fry1989 ^eh? 16:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A word of advice: do not try to play the victim here, it will not win you any favours. I very strongly recommend that you strike the entirety of the second and third paragraphs in your post above, otherwise you risk giving the impression that you have a battleground mentality which is not a good look and won't help your case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? It's not like Br'er hasn't hounded others before. He has a history of that. Check with ArbCom. I don't know if Fry1989's timeline is accurate, but it's not out of left field that he is being hounded/goaded in this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, I at least partly agree with both of you. I think many people know about Jack's history, although it is hard to follow (so many different accounts). Assuming Fry is right about the history concerning Fry and Jack, Fry's comments may be relevant to Jack's motives. However, they are not particularly relevant to any action that might be taken here. Generally, it's not a good idea to jump on one's accuser unless one is contradicting an allegation. Casting aspersions, even if valid, isn't usually productive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

"I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago" in Br'er opening argument brings that issue into the discussion, doesn't it? Tijfo098 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I kick small children, too :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Tijfo098, all the more reason why Fry should not respond like this. It only pours fuel onto the fire, a lesson I personally learned in this place not all that long ago. If Fry has a grievance, the correct way to raise it is not in an AN/I case about his own behaviour, it makes him look defensive and unwilling to admit his own weaknesses, neither of which are likely to impress any passing admin that might feel inclined to impose a block. IMO he would be best advised to cop it on the chin, admit his own breach of his unblock conditions, promise to do better in the future and drop the stick about the real or imagined misbehaviour of others. With his history he should not be raising such issues any time soon, if the things he complains about are real then the alleged perpetrator will undoubtedly cross swords with some other editor and may well end up here on the receiving end of his or her own AN/I case. Anyway, I believe Fry would be best advised to avoid the editor(s) with whom he is having trouble, even if that is hard for him, at least that way he may be able to remain here - if he gets blocked then he won't be able to edit here at all. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I've seen plenty of cases on ANI where both the editor who started the thread and the one reported were sanctioned. WP:BOOMERANG, Unclean hands, and all that. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

run along; you've a history with me. you're just trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Care to share our history here? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a halt (ideally voluntary) to interaction between Rabbit and Fry? Seems like a good idea given the above. --Nouniquenames 05:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Given some recent posts in this thread and the one above it, it's unlikely such measure to work out on purely voluntary basis, at least from one side. A formal WP:IBAN should be enacted between Br'er and Fry. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. In an ideal world, that wouldn't be necessary, but neither would this board (as there would only be kittens, rainbows, and happiness to report). --Nouniquenames 16:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

If independent people think I should retract my statement about Br'er Rabbit, I will. It wasn't my intent to change the focus from me or else I wouldn't have apologized for and acknowledged my actions as well (twice). But I do think Br'er Rabbit's motives are fishy, considering he had me in his watchlist under his new user name that I've never interacted with, instantly decided I needed to be indeffed (edit summary and first reply on my talk page he said so), he brought up a six month old and long forgotten dispute about Rwanda here all by himself (per the link), and then later went to the article to remove the image again after it's been there for 6 months uncontested and sourced (since reverted by Anonmoos, another user I don't usually "get along with", but we have a decent "working relationship"). Just my opinion. I did what I did, but I don't think that excuses others from scrutiny. Anyhow, I'll move on. Still awaiting a conclusion and outcome. When that has arrived, I'll come back to face it. I will look at this page periodically so nobody has to come get me. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I already said above way before this I have no objection to an interaction ban between Br'er Rabbit and myself (and actually would welcome it). Fry1989 ^eh? 18:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

but we haven't been interacting since February other than my noticing you calling DrKiernan a troll and violating your unblock terms, which is why we're here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly true, and that was under your previous account, which is why I find it so odd that you are here now. I've never had anything to do with your Br'er Rabbit account, it's talk page, articles you've edited under it, anything. Did I do what I did? Absolutely, but it doesn't explain to me why you're the one here. In any case, your claims that I "create" (emphasis on create, as in "I am in the current practice of doing) fake coats of arms and flags is patently false. if you look at my flags gallery on Commons, the last fictional flag I uploaded was back in 2009 (every other flag on there is either a proposal, or sourced), and I've already marked them as fictional and have never tried to put them on any pages/articles. For my coat of arms gallery, everything there is sourced, there's not a single fictional or proposed coat of arms. So I would be very thankful if you would not only lower your "concerns" (which are completely unfounded), but stop claiming I'm doing something I haven't. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrap up proposal

I don't know the backstory, but for whatever reason Fy1989 was unblocked with Sword of Damocles unblock conditions. They're in at least technical violation with reverts such as [174] in which they failed to post to the talk page as required. A few days have passed and no admin has felt the breach egregious enough to impose an additional sanction. Fry has attempted to deflect attention from their behavior by bringing up the Rabbit's history, but that's not news to many of us, and not really on point. The question is raised above if there can be a one way interaction ban -- there absolutely can be -- I've been operating with self-imposed double secret interaction bans with multiple editors for years. If you don't wish to interact with someone, don't interact with them.

I recommend we just close this with no formal changes to the current conditions or sanctions other than a warning to Fry that they need scrupulously follow both the spirit and letter of their unblock conditions going forward. Nobody Ent 09:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been able to involve myself much in Wikipedia this week. My original comment stands; I think it was bad form to come here for the apparent purpose of fanning the flames in the name of a personal conflict. I don't feel that the slip of a revert suggests a willful disregard of the unblock conditions. Fry1989 has gotten the message, I think, from the drama that has ensued on this page.

I don't know how a formal interaction ban would work among editors who share the same area of interest. If Fry1989 can self-impose a ban on interacting with those who are a thorn in his side, then we're all better off. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)