Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive773

Request ban of User:AndyTheGrump

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

---

Respected senior contributors,

Highly abusive language on Talk page and AFD page without any provocation

Since last 4 days, i am facing abuses on talk page and AFD page. I have shown my utmost calm and presented my points in the most decent possible way but the abuses continued. The latest comment made by him on AFD page is direct, highly derogatory and insulting where he called me an idiot.

1. The first time he abused by using the word bullshit . I Chose to ignore it, maintained my calm, tried to establish the notability of article by clearing his concerns.

2. Then he again used the word More garbage

I requested him to use a decent language by saying - Words like Garbage, Bullshit and nonstop warnings, i would request you to use a decent language.

3. But instead of correcting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump again abused me by saying that heard enough bullshit from you.

4. Then he nominated Ujjwal Patni for deletion. When i replied him point to point on AFD page things crossed all the limits and he abused by calling me an idiot. This is a serious personal attack on a public forum. I request for a straightforward ban on him for this abuse.

I am not competent technically to understand pagelink or diff link, to lodge complaint at appropriate forum or to respond properly to such complaints. Just now i got a sock puppetry case warning as a reward by them. I would request senior contributors to help me and investigate the AFD page. If i am at fault ban me, and if Andythegrump is at fault then ban him. Pls don't ignore this request citing any procedural error or my technical incompetence.

The AFD page also shows my Serious concern. I would prefer not to mention it here. Senior contributors may judge on that. I am not able to add a single word in last months. Two contributors revert every citation within seconds, abuse, give different type of warnings and attack. last two hours edit history of Ujjwal Patni reveals everything. Now most of the vital points of the article have been removed due to unexplained reasons. I must get a fair chance to work on the article without getting abused and a ban on him. Showed courage to lodge a complaint here because I respect the policy of WP:BOLD.

Thanks...Nothing Personal and Nothing permanent. (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The blind leading the blind. As usual AndyTheGrump is correct in his assessment of an article and almost completely deficient in manners. Again it involves a likely COI editor who is barely acquainted with Wikipedia guidelines and markup, who has turned that AfD into a headache--I have closed it per SNOW, since there wasn't a chance in hell that it would end in keep. The reporting user is asked to take the time to read up on our guidelines for notability; I will let other admins decide on whether AndyTheGrump needs to be admonished or blocked for their various insults. There will be no ban; I think that's clear. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see that the article concerned has been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujjwal Patni. Unsurprisingly, since we have had months of discussion with this contributor, who has singularly failed to comprehend the need for proper third-party reliable sourcing, and insisted on posting the same questionable puffery time after time after time... As the talk page is no longer visible to me, I've no idea what the 'serious concern' was, unless it was the repeated claim that I am a sockpuppet of User:Rhode Island Red, who has had the misfortune to have had to deal with this nonsense even longer than I have. Yes, I used phrases like 'bullshit' and 'garbage', because that was what we were dealing with - a severe case of fingers-in-the-ears I-don't-want-to-hear-that tendentious editing that would try the patience of a saint (which I freely acknowledge I'm not...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c)Calling another user an idiot [1] is completely out of bounds. Calling bullshit garbage sources "bullshit" and "garbage" is not an issue; however it IS extremely unlikey to do anything convince the editors promoting the bullshit garbage sourcing to begin producing sources that are not bullshit and garbage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• The only thing I can see wrong with Andy's actions was the "idiot" remark. If he didn't want to talk about it anymore the simple solution is too.... wait for it... stop talking. Referring to sources as bullshit and garbage was, as Drmies points put, an accurate description. It also seems screamingly obvious that in response to what the reporting user perceived as a coordinated attack they recruited/created some help for their own side in the form of User:Anay jain. So, Andy needs to stop making it personal and Mahaveerji needs to read WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Not me, Beeblebrox, though I don't disagree. BTW, no thread of this kind will make Andy change his tune, I think. But I don't like civility blocks to begin with. Drmies (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to where you said he was correct in his assessment but deficient in manners. If he hadn't turned around and called the other user an idiot I would see nothing whatsoever wrong in his actions. I also have to agree that this thread is unlikely to change that and an outright ban is a near impossibility. If someone wanted to do the legwork to open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/AndyTheGrump that would be the proper way to address the more involved issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. I agree with you on all points. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, on the now-deleted article talkpage Andy began a response with "Listen dickhead...", which may be straining the bounds of what is tolerable around here these days. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, if you want to make a case, I guess we can restore the talk page for the time being. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You know my stance on civility (i.e. I find this sort of thing silly and inconsequential), was just throwing that out there for discussion . If you want to undelete the talk page temporarily to see, feel free...I'd left the window open awhile ago about to get a diff, but after a bit of afk, refreshed to see it was gone already. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

None of this would justify a ban. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No ban. Perhaps a boomerang about competency for the original poster. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Without yet getting in the specifics of what solution is appropriate in this case, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Using it as your personal playground to be a bully in is not a simple matter "civility" as in tea, crumpets, and how you hold your pinky but the destruction of a working environment. --Tznkai (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

+1. I don't have all that much to add, I just wanted to voice my support of the above statement. --Conti|✉ 21:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What he said. --Jayron32 22:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Some users seem to feel that being in the right as far as content gives them permission to insult others. It's an unfortunate situation, but not one that can be resolved by ANI. It puzzles me why there are some users who have been brought here for this sort of thing again and again yet none of those who are upset by it ever take the next step of opening a user RFC. That is the option in between ANI and arbitration. My only guess as to why it is not used in these cases is that it it requires discussion with the subject rather than just asking for someone else to impose sanctions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 17 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.

(edit conflict) WP:Civility states that it is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  The problem here is not discussion or policies, it is enablers of incivility.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary:

• Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia
• Per the consenus above, the reported behavior may be unacceptable but it's not an ANI issue, some one should file an RFC/U.
• Per the current consensus at the Civility RFC no one should act should act as "self appointed civility police."Nobody Ent 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh give me a fucking break. One minute admin is forcing their hand down editor throats, ripping their guts out and spilling them all over the place with sanctions for just arguing endlessly, but we don't have civility police? That is the stupiest thing I have heard. Of course we don't have civility police...and admin ARE NOT just janitors. And again, ANI does not require a consensus for admin to intervene.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a RfC/U is the best way forward. He may be openly grumpy, but I feel that sometimes he's needlessly aggressive to other editors who are working completely in good faith. It's a shame, because I know he's acting in good faith too. Beware the tendency to support people because it appears that people oppose them for whatever reason (incivility, minority opinions, what have you); that sort of group behaviour has, in the past, allowed serious harassment to go on unresolved because even arbitrators are unwilling to take action. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak to all past situations, but in this particular case the editor that Andy was in a dispute with did not appear to be acting in good faith. A reasonable assessment is that the other editor was using multiple SPA sock accounts to create a blatantly puffery-laden BLP on a non-notable subject, and then antagonizing other editors by throwing out accusations of collusion/conspiracy/suppression, etc on the Talk page. I was also the target of the SPA/sock's wrath. When the other editor realized that the bio was being considered for deletion (and it ultimately was deleted), he simply started attacking other editors, Andy included. That situation may not justify incivility, but the incivility was clearly provoked and it was by far the lesser of the two evils. While Andy may live up to his name (i.e. grumpy) from time to time, crucifying him in an admin action would serve no purpose other than to curtail a productive editor. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see anything actionable here. Just a gentle word that he should be the better man and rise above the provocation should suffice. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparent competence issue, continued; proposed block

I recently noted concern about an editor whose editing skills were seriously lacking and who had refused to engage on his or any article Talk page. The thread is archived here. It was generally agreed that the edits were disruptive, and the editor unresponsive, but that in light of the editor's apparent good faith we should tread lightly, offer help and hope that things turned for the better. I think that was the right approach, but it appears that it's not working - since then, the editor (Davebrayfb) has continued his disruptive editing, most recently to undo a months old redirect in the face of Talk page consensus. Here. Perhaps one of his last six or so edits has survived reversion. Anyhow I'm not sure that the soft approach is going to work. I'm not adamant about a block but I think now that one is warranted and hereby propose one, something at least long enough to get his attention. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Diffs? You are actually asking for a block (with no time mentioned I suppose you want an idef block) that is not vandalism related but you don't show any diffs? You just want us to research through a discussion when even with diffs admin doesn't block for disruption?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Note the word "continued" in the section title. Detailed diffs were given in the original report only a few days ago, but such is the turnover speed at this board, it is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Apparent_competence_issue, as the OP has already pointed out in the second sentence of the report. Paul B (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm breaking kayfabe here, but this one item from the school teacher's super-secret play-book:

What teacher says	What teacher means	What child hears
You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way.	You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way.	You are a bad person.
Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it.	You've done it the wrong way. This is the right way.	Well done, that's good, but there is an even better way to do it.

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we recruiting editors from elementary school now? Why does WP waste its time trying to rehabilitate these types of editors? If all the energy expended on them had been turned to creating article content, we'd have ten times as many FAs than we do now and one-tenth the editor attrition. I've looked over his edits, and JohnInDC has had the patience of Job. Block the account, keep an eye out for his or her return, and move on. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To expand a little on Tom's comment, I have made repeated, friendly and patient efforts on the editor's Talk page to guide them toward more constructive editing practices (starting here.) I've also templated him occasionally to set up a proper AIV case in the event he got worse fast. None of my efforts garnered more than vague and non-responsive responses. (He has edited his own Talk page 6 times, not one entry longer than a sentence, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.) The prior go-round here at ANI ended, as I said, with a general consensus that the editor's work was in fact disruptive, but probably in good faith, and that additional efforts should be made to engage them. Kudpung posted a friendly plea on the editor's page (diff here) suggesting the editor avail themselves of the many mechanisms for learning how to edit well, and observing that a block might result if they didn't. Here at ANI, Kudpung said that we should wait to see if there was any reaction. Davebrayfb did not respond to Kudpung's plea, and continued the same sort of disruptive editing he had been engaged in before. (I supplied one good diff above.) With all that as prologue, I have returned to suggest that persuasion and discussion, having consistently failed to produce any change in this editor's behavior, are not an effective approach and that an attention-getting block (or indef, whatever the collective wisdom counsels) is required. All prior disruptive diffs are listed at the linked entry above; I did not reproduce them here because this page seems to collect a good bit of clutter as it is, but of course would be happy to repost them if it would be more convenient. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked this editor for 24 hours for disruption. If somebody nicer than me felt like reaching out to them and pointing them to some areas for improvement, that would be great. --John (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• I completely take Shirt58's point above about how to get the best from people. But looking at the interactions so far I do think JohnInDC has made heroic efforts thus far to adopt just that approach. Sadly the apparent lack of competence may simply mean we are on a hiding to nothing here. Good (sadly regrettable but inevitable) block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• The block has expired, he's begun to edit again, and I'm commenting pretty much just to keep the posting from getting archived before we get a sense of whether he's going to show any improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Zack of wikipediawriters.com"

According to s.p.a. User:Sharadha Bain, User:Faustus37 is somebody called "Zack at wikipediawriters.com" and was paid to write the puff piece Jason Shulman diff. The tone of the complaint leads me to suspect that the client didn't realize what a breach of ethics they have paid for, and just wants to know why we rejected their advertisement. Meanwhile, wikipediawriters.com uses the trademarks of Wikipedia to pimp themselves out shamelessly. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A reminder that it would be unethical to suggest that we DDoS them, but it should be totally fine for the legal department to scare them, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal is now aware of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles like Danielle Babb are curious. The notability there is marginal, to say the most. Resolute 01:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is with wikipediawriters.org more than with this one writer of theirs, who's also been a good content contributor for us. I think he is (or was) just one of their many contractors and I suspect he was paid a lot less than what wikipediawriters.org received for his work. I suggest we tell this guy to do no more paid editing and tell him he's welcome to keep contributing useful content.

In the meantime, we need to figure out ways to better deal with wikipediawriters.org and similar organizations.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Kohs is unpopular here for many reasons I won't go into. (If you're interested in the backstory, search Wikipedia for his name, MyWikiBiz and Centiare to find many megabytes worth of discussions, noticeboard threads, etc.; go to wikipediareview.com and wikipediocracy.com for still more megabytes of his side of the story).

At one point, he proposed to put paid articles in MediaWiki format on his own wiki with GFDL (what we used before CC-BY-SA) licensing for reuse by Wikipedia. This gave Wikipedia editors a ready source of pre-written articles they could then move over to Wikipedia if they met our criteria. After a several subsequent years dealing with spam and paid editing, I've come to realize in retrospect this was a pretty good idea for all parties; certainly better than all the covert stuff we have now. There's so much animus nowadays between Kohs and Wikipedia, however, that I don't see this ever happening, at least with his firm.

I bring this up not to rehash (or rebash) Gregory Kohs' activities but because I think the underlying concept is worth further thought.

Paid editing on Wikipedia is sort of like the US' illegal immigration problem. Exposure on Wikipedia is worth so much money that material will find its way here one way or the other ("show me a 15' border fence and I'll show you a 17' ladder"). Is there a way we can at least partially triage or channel it in an intelligent way?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, George I of Great Britain and Acrocanthosaurus and Cogan House Covered Bridge all became well written without a single cent changing hands. Could someone explain that to me? --Jayron32 03:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I assure you I am not "Zack of wikipediawriters.com." Faustus37 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

These articles were also developed without a single cent changing hands; I appreciate the work done on them. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, our friend and my accuser User:Sharadha Bain has contributed a grand total of two edits to Wikipedia. TWO. I'm over 5,500 edits at this point going back a good 7 years plus now. I've created 200+ articles in that time, mainly dealing with the State of Idaho. The vast majority of my edits were made in an altruistic sense. Try to prove otherwise. Yes, I have written Wikipedia articles for pay. There's nothing wrong with that. I remind you COI does not prohibit that practice and never has, provided said articles do not conflict with well-established notability standards. I firmly believe nothing I have ever written here violates either principle, especially in light of WP:NOTPAPER. Believe me, I've rejected many more paid article requests than I've accepted based on standards I believe acceptable here. Evidently others do not share my inclusionist view. Well, such is life. Frankly it's only because of this CNet article that the witch hunt is on in earnest. So the game is up, and the exclusionists have won. Do what you will. Faustus37 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If you fancy that the only reason anyone's concerned about the burgeoning of hired guns is a CNet article, you've come very late to the game; there've been a whopping lot of us very unhappy about this syndrome for years now, something that pops up at AfD on an increasing basis. That being said, perhaps you could turn the experience you laud into a better grasp of WP:AGF -- casting our very legitimate concern over articles written solely because mercenaries are paid to do so in deletionist/inclusionist terms is a smokescreen at level best. You would be a great deal better served by a sober explanation of why you feel your conduct is okay than by aggressive hostility that anyone dare question you. Ravenswing 05:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing aggressive about my comments. I'm a firm disciple of Realpolitik. Argue the point, not the person. Question my good faith all you want. Even with clients I support (and I don't support many), I only guarantee my work for a week online. This is made very clear to them from the outset. I'm very well aware the purists were who they were long, long before the aforementioned CNet article. Frankly 95 percent of the "hired guns" you reference are stupid. They guarantee everything. I guarantee next to nothing. I know the jackals of the Wikipedia culture. But that begs the question, why the hell is it really that important? Most thinking people already know Wikipedia is a guide to the source and not the source itself. It's not like we're going to crash the Internet here. So what if the Muse is paid to impart knowledge? Is a bio of someone like Jason Shulman really going to detract from a bio of Gandhi? Really? REALLY? Even today American high school students cite Wikipedia as a source at their own peril ... Faustus37 (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps its time to take COI back to the community to see if there is now WP:consensus to add a clear prohibition of paid editing - Wikipedia's reputation , such as it is, is being undermined by multiple reports of paid and COI editing in the press. Recently as I have understood, there is a rise in opposition to such editing. WP:RFC - Banning any user that is cited as a paid editor and implementing WP:Flagged revisions to end the defaming of living people via the project will help massively to raise the projects reputation as a respectable source reporter.. Youreallycan 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Without further ado, let's test how that would work with a live example: Sidel.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Previously deleted promotional article, easy, speedily re delete and block/ban the re creator indefinitely would be my interpretation of the NPOV Wiki project position. Youreallycan 08:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A company with €1.350 billion in revenue is absolutely notable even by German wikipedia standards (which are far stricter than ours for companies). Wikipedia always had poor coverage of notable companies (and was always full spam of non-notable ones like many IT start-ups.) Tijfo098 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) YRC, I am on your side regarding the defence of integrity of the Wikipedia project against commercial exploitation. I'd personally like to see that article deleted as an obvious "created for financial gain" reasons. But the article is well-referenced, would easily pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and would pass a WP:AfD nomination. My apologies for resorting to cliches, but "the genie has been let out of bottle a long while ago" and "Wikipedia is a victim of its own success" and so on. Like it or not, I think we just have to accept that acceptable articles might be created for reasons we don't like.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at Jimbo's talk page, for what it's worth. Graham87 08:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Our COI policy document is poorly written. It doesn't make the distinction between the COI, which exists whenever an editor is editing in a topic area that they or their employer make money from (which is of course very common), and problematic actions potentially caused by the COI, which is an independent issue. This lack of distinction caused me a lot of grief recently. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid writing is not prohibited, regardless of how much Jimbo dislikes it. An RFC was closed in July with, in part, this summary: Overall conclusion: Nothing in Wikipedia's best practices concerning conflict of interest can be said to have changed as a result of this discussion. The situation therefore remains as it was before: roughly, that conflict of interest editing is "discouraged" (although it remains unclear exactly what it is that is being discouraged and what form the discouragement is supposed to take); that editors with affiliations are encouraged to be open about them, and also to avoid making potentially controversial edits in the relevant area without prior approval; and that we don't post information about the identities of other editors (WP:OUTING). Nobody Ent 13:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Making paid editing forbidden would also create a nightmare of enforcement and cause even more witchhunts at SPI, which is already buried. The solution is management, not barring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
• This "discouragement" reminds me a lot of the history of domain names. Everyone said at first that in order to register a .com you had to have some kind of working company, not just be squatting, etc., in order to keep the riffraff out --- meanwhile some well connected people bought up the good stuff and made millions. I would predict that the people ignoring your AN/I process are the ones who will be making the big money here; some of the people waiting to see what consensus is will be will end up working for them for peanuts. I would like to see you encourage a fairer, more open set of standards to encourage a free market and more equal opportunity for all editors. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Re to Youreallycan of 06:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, by all means, throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sneak every last marginal policy that has been opposed in with this irritation. Nothing says cabal like omnibussing lots of partial fixes through for a minor complaint. Hasteur (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree on the principle that paid editing is at least marginally COI. But I will agree to the point that if a paid article is clearly a positive contribution, then why does it matter that it was COI? I don't like it myself, but witchhunts and outing aside, there's no way to enforce any policy on paid editing.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind, COI editing is not against policy. It never will be. Some of the best work we get is by COI editors who understand the policies and comply with them, but are knowledgeable enough to know where to find the sources. We can't make paid editing go away by barring it. We can limit the damage from it, and even benefit from it, if it is done properly and within the policies, some of which do not yet exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with that 100%. I think our COI guideline needs to be changed drastically to make the distinction between a COI and taking actions due to a COI that corrupt our encyclopedic mission. Right now it completely muddles the distinction. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Paid editors are expected to disclose the fact that they are paid editors and have a conflict of interest. That isn't happening here. From his reply at User talk:Faustus37, where he half denies it, and then confirms it, it is evident that Faustus37 is a paid editor who does not disclose conflict of interest. The main issue is the dishonesty about the COI, not the issue of having the COI itself in the first place. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But he has unequivocally confirmed it here, and having done so, it's analogous to the disclosing of a legitimate sock, and that should settle the question of conflict of interest. Obviously people will look carefully at any article of his that might be about a corporate client, but we would do well to look carefully at all articles on borderline notable corporate entities, because almost all of them are written with some degree of COI. I can understand a tendency to interpret the standards for notability and reliable sourcing rather stringently in this area (though it's hard to formulate it as a fixed rule)--I would have strongly opposed anyone saying something like that a year ago, but we need a defense, and careful scrutiny is the best defense. It's better than prohibitions we have no way of enforcing, and would remove the scrupulous while leaving the defiant. ` DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc.

This article seems to keep reappearing from what I can see in the history. It seems to be CSD'd then shows up again. Also it was AFC'd over a year ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv. I don't have the skills, knowledge, or tools to figure this out. Or, what to do, if I did. Thanks.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
I staywoke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
--  :- ) Don 18:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• They are using AfC, so it is being reviewed. Salting the article isn't going to solve someone bringing it to AfC. Could be a COI creating it, but COI editing isn't a violation by itself, nor is resubmitting an article at AfC after it was CSD'ed. Actually, we prefer that. What is the remedy you are wanting here? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Infosurv was created in 2005 by user:Infosurv, PROD deleted in 2007, recreated in 2009 by user:Pvisi111 (since blocked as spam account), and deleted again in 2011 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv. Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Infosurv, Inc. was created in August 2012 by user:I staywoke (in that user's sandbox) and then moved to AfC. There it was declined on August 28, and again on September 29. At that point it was deleted per CSD G4. On October 8 user:I staywoke started this discussion on User talk:Mrt3366. Before Mrt3366 replied, I staywoke created the AfC again. Mrt3366 replied shortly afterward, and I staywoke hasn't contributed since (so we can't say that I staywoke ignored Mrt3366's advice). All of the article and AfC versions of text I've looked at have been clearly promotional and lacking in sources (the newer ones if anything more so than the older, article-space versions) - so all the deletions and declinations have been quite in order. If I were to speculate, I'd guess that every few years Infosurv hires a new intern who thinks making a Wikipedia article would be a good idea. The first and last didn't stay around for a constructive discussion; the middle one was adding promotional links to many articles. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 19:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Finlay, Dennis, that clears up some questions. I would just like to somehow reduce the work load at AfC. I guess we must just remain vigilant, wary, and research. --  :- ) Don 20:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Also there was Infosurv Concept Exchange, which was created by user:Jaredheyman in 2011 and deleted in 2012 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv Concept Exchange. The deleted Infosurv article says that company was founded by someone named Jared Heyman. As far as Google is concerned, the only mention of Infosurv in article space now is in Cummings Research Park, which personally I don't have a problem with. I haven't done a link check for infosurv.com and icepredict.com, and I'm off to Tescos, so someone else might like to do that. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• infosurv.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.infosurv.com
• icepredict.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.icepredict.com

Linksearch turns up nothing. I'll take a look through the COIBot database later. I agree that this deserves future monitoring. MER-C 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the database either. MER-C 07:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged the article in AfC. Unless a miracle occurs, it should be there forever. --  :- ) Don 07:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I have salted, or at least tried to salt, two or three AfC pages when continued attempts at creation became disruptive. But I am not sure that salting works on a subpage. Does anyone actually know? Of course, salting a corporate page can require also salting a number of variants, as here. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My talk is being vandalized or bugged by an mysterious IP user. Requesting immediate help!

Can some one check my talk page history and the markup in "edit" mode? Something very strange is going on. A lot of the content in my talk page suddenly disappeared, despite the content still being there in markup form after clicking on "edit" tab. This started when an IP user (24.0.208.70) began editing my talk page. I initially thought my talk page needed to be archvied because it was too long so I made an archive of a lot of the earlier content. Then the IP user interfered and sent me this mysterious message: [2]. I think a former sock puppet might be vandalizing my page. Please help. It looks like this IP user has vandalized others pages as well: [3] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Some weird stuff was going on there due to a misformatted ref-tag. I've fixed it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ

Request blocking User:JHunterJ for violation of the 1RR restrictions at WP:MOS. These apply to admins as well as everyone else. If the reversion was so important, let someone else do it. This is clearly not a case of removing obvious vandalizm.[4] and [5] Apteva (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hilarious. For the record, I am not advocating for a block of Apteva for trying to skirt 1RR by first inappropriately deleting the other user's note and then hiding it after I restored it and warned Apteva against deleting other users' talk page comments. I also don't anticipate this to warrant my further comment, so I'm not watching this page; I'm sure I'll discover my potential block soon enough. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur. Ridiculous wikilawyering ANI post. Nobody Ent 15:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. JHunterJ is not in violation of anything, and Apteva's removal of comments is not in accord with WP:TPO. --Neotarf (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that your perspective is correct Neotarf. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting point. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages is very clear: "Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal." And TPO says "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages), the general practice is to hide it by using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates. This normally stops the off-topic discussion, while allowing people to read it by pressing the "show" link. At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page. Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to hide this material as described above." I have no problem in someone asking me about an edit that I made, or in changing the heading to an appropriate heading and collapsing a section, but simply edit warring is not the solution. It was inappropriate for the editor who put it there to put it there. It is not inappropriate to respond by collapsing or moving to a more appropriate page. Apteva (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So the MOS talk page has completely degenerated into chaos due to Apteva pushing a pet theory about hyphens and capitalization, based on something remembered from grammar school, and has been pushing this theory at multiple forums, including WT:MOS, and no one is allowed to talk about it? This elephant in the room is supposed to be kept a secret? I'm not buying it. The community is supposed to be trying to solve these problems on its own first, and only if that fails, take it to other forums.

As Dicklyon said at AE, Apteva is well known for using multiple accounts, for being contentious, and for editing mostly as an IP (as he says on one of his talk pages); see also sockpuppet case and checkuser case. It's possible that IP 146.90.43.8 that filed the earlier ANI about the RfC is Apteva too, they sound the same but it's impossible to tell. Apteva's user page only started acknowledging this alternate account three weeks ago. [6]

--Neotarf (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is why I almost never use talk page edit summaries. What was said can be seen above, but this is the edit summary: "if the MOS talk page is broke, that is a subject that belongs on the MOS talk page". And I will address that. No, it does not other than the following, or something similar: Here is what I would suggest. "This discussion is getting out of hand. I have opened an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MOS civility. --~~~~" with not even a subject heading. Talk pages do not have talk pages to discuss the talk pages, but there are many places that discussion about individual editors or groups of editors can appropriately take place. If an individual editor is causing a problem their talk page is the place to bring it up. ANI is for Admin Notice of Incidents, such as the above violation of 1RR that was unfortunately laughed off. AIV is for notification of vandalism. And so on. The Village Pump or Help is where to go if you have no clue where to go. It is interesting that if you look only at the top 10 contributors, up until 2007 the number of posts to the talk page per edit to the MOS page steadily declined - to about 2, and since then took a big jump and has increased to 10 today - all talk and no action. The below mentioned now topic banned editor was consistently in the top 4 of edits to the MOS from 2007 to 2009, did not appear in the top 10 in 2010, and returned to number 3 in 2011. They do not appear in the top 10 in 2012, but that did not help bring down the ration of talk to edit. Maybe they caused the incivility, but it has not gone away. Apteva (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Or just bring it up as an example at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement - a discussion that was opened 4 October 2012 and has gone on for 300,000 bytes so far. Apteva (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This has already been brought to Apteva/Delphi234's talk page and the answers ranged from "I see no reason for discussing things that are totally obviously wrong" to "I only opened an RM for moving Mexican-American War because I knew that it had previously been discussed ad nauseum and produced an absurd choice" to "I feel like Clint Eastwood "go ahead ... make my day". So now it belongs on a different forum -- preferably one that those who are interested in MOS will not see? Right. --Neotarf (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a better place is "Preferably on one that Admins might see." Apteva (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apteva

I'm looking through the history of WT:MOS and Apteva (talk · contribs) appears to be a keen contributor to the page and is editing in a manner which does not seem to be helping the atmosphere there nor in a manner helping to drive forwards consensus in a collegiate manner. Given the page operates under discretionary sanctions, is there any support for a page ban of one month? Hiding T 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral Apteva is comparing the infamous punctuation symbol in Mexican American to the Dred Scott decision [7]. Perspective seems to be lacking. Intervention is warranted, just not sure we're at the page ban stage. Nobody Ent 16:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be the required official warning. The personalized charges referred to against myself and DickLyon at WP:AE (which make curious reading) have now been withdrawn. --Neotarf (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Keen contributor and does not seem to be helping are an odd juxtaposition. I went to the MOS to fix one problem and found a hundred. I am making a list and will bring them up when appropriate. But a page ban for a day even is not appropriate. I have been asked to back off and I have backed off. Enough said. Apteva (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Keen contributor" likely meaning "one who makes many contributions" and "does not seem to be helping" likely meaning "those many contributions are largely not productive". Not such an "odd juxtaposition" at all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Or "excellent contributor" Apteva (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"Keen" here connotes eagerness of contribution, not necessarily quality of contribution. As in "I'm keen on having soup for all meals—I am a keen soup-eater." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This might give some indication of the level of disruption. --Neotarf (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

150 edits. Lets go back a year.[8] or two.[9] Or three.[10] Or four.[11] The number of edits does not indicate the quality of those edits. Apteva (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, banned user and sockmaster Pmanderson immediately leaps to the top. Very er, keen, that one. But the top users are all about the same: 1000 edits here, 900 there. Right now, Apteva, who has just now appeared on the MOS scene, already has more than twice as many edits as any other user. Hmm. --Neotarf (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For clarity's sake, Pmanderson has been WP:BLOCKed for one year [12], not WP:BANned. Not directly relevant here, but it's important to keep one's terminology in good order. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the block my understanding is they were topic banned. Apteva (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I only came here (to the MOS) to fix one problem. I had no idea that it would be so sticky. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet when it was pointed out to you that the community had spent a lot of effort to reach the consensus in question, you vowed to keep on trying to fix the "error". Disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not disruptive if I have good reason for believing that it is an error, and I act in a respectful, non-disruptive manner. Trust me, 20 years from now someone is going to ask, why is Law not capitalized in Moore's Law? (not a good example for the MOS but a good example for TITLE) A good example is the Dred Scott decision which said that blacks are not people. Did that end the civil rights movement? Was it disruptive for Rosa Parks to take an available seat closer to the front of the bus? Or was it more disruptive to try to hold on to discrimination? The important thing to understand is that right now the MOS does not agree with TITLE, and having the MOS say that it gets to decide titles is shall we say not an optimal solution. A better solution is to rewrite the MOS so that it agrees with TITLE. But having looked over the current MOS, there are many other items that are questionable, and these will also be identified. Whether the two editors who make most of the MOS edits will agree with the changes remains to be seen. First on my list is delete "house style". First no one uses that term and second, WP is not a publishing house and does not have only one approved style. There are many styles and the MOS reflects those styles, and says not to edit war over them. "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another." Apteva (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And no, I do not consider "Mexican American War" with an endash a valid use of English in that context, because over at TITLE what is done is choose the best title. Apteva (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The advice in the MOS not to make changes because of the MOS to the title, though, is good advice. Apteva (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom has already determined that MOS is the unique style guide for English Wikipedia. [13] Yet, even after DickLyons's warning, Apteva declared at MOS talk page that "WP... does not have a house style", that the MOS merely "explains" what other styles are, and that "editors refer to it for suggestions, but use their own common sense in applying what it says." [14] On the contrary, as was brought out at the much-cited ArbCom capitalization case, editing gnomes wish to consider "the MOS as a relatively stable, foundational framework to guide editors in producing a relatively consistent work" and wish to limit the instability caused by hard-to-track conflicting edits, inadequate edit summaries, and unannounced discussions. Bot operators also depend on the stability of MOS. I find it hard to understand why someone would choose to edit MOS if they do not buy into the same values as other editors here, that Wikipedia is prestigious enough, and unique enough to have its own house style. --Neotarf (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, instability in the MOS is at the root of some of the most protracted, difficult and acrimonious "wars" on WP and can be extremely disruptive to Wikignoming. A stable MOS is the foundation on which the standards of the entire project stand - without it we cannot deliver consistent quality product. Roger (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Support a one month ban for Apteva from the MOS for battleground behavior. This should not be taken to mean I don't think many others on that page have engaged in battleground behavior and should be banned as well, but at the moment Apteva seems to be the worst offender, and that's a good place to start with sanctions. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That is silly. I will voluntarily avoid the MOS. Apteva (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"I will voluntarily avoid the MOS." That's the most intelligent thing anyone has said about the MOS in a long time. Unfortunately, I read it right after "A stable MOS is the foundation on which the standards of the entire project stand - without it we cannot deliver consistent quality product" which is one of the silliest things I've heard said. Striking my support of ban on the condition that Apteva stay away from the MOS for a month. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't add up, if Apteva is required to stay away from the MOS for a month then that is a topic ban. in which case why are you striking out your vote? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on. That is not a topic ban. Its a voluntary decision to stay away from the article by Apteva and simply clarified as to how long that should probably be by Nathan. A months time is not a demand, but a request and is based on the words of the other user. Apteva may simple state agreement or opposition to the amount of time a counter back with what they feel is appropriate. I think a month is a good time period to set.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what Nathan is saying is that they do not on their own impose a topic ban and do not at this time support a one month topic ban but that if I edited the MOS in the next month that position could change in a hurry. I do not anticipate making any such edits, and I am saying that I will voluntarily not be posting to any of the 71 MOS talk pages, or editing any of the 71 MOS pages. I will, however, carefully be reading all of them, and applying all of them to the best of my ability. It is well known what some of the changes are that I recommend, and making them in a month or a year or a decade is really not that important. And not making them if they are ill advised is as well. I would like to see the silliness at MOS stop, but I will not be there to help make it stop. There are 4,000,000 articles that I would rather be working on anyway. Here are the stats for the ratio between posts to the talk page to changes to WP:MOS:

• 2005 5.37
• 2006 2.79
• 2007 2.07
• 2008 5.75
• 2009 7.52
• 2010 6.97
• 2011 8.53
• 2012 10.00

Whatever was going on in 2007 was far better than what is going on today, especially when you know that many if not most of the edits to the MOS today are reverted. I am not going to come back in a month to see how things are going. Who knows how long it will be? If it is three weeks it would only be for something really serious, such as, did you know that half of the first page of the MOS has been missing for a week due to vandalism? And the chances of that happening is zero. What I do ask, though, is that the suggestions that I have made be given serious consideration, and not discounted simply because of who made them. Apteva (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Apteva, a voluntary decision to avoid MoS for a while could be good. In my view, somewhat at a distance over the past month or so, your contributions have tended to unnecessarily raise blood-pressures. If you need assistance or possibly collaboration in any of your article contributions, please ask me. Tony (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion of ongoing discussion

I'd like an admin view on this blanking of the talk page at Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Some of the threads are current, and as may be seen from the talk page history, the latest entries were about half an hour old when everything was removed! I don't mind old threads being archived - and there were a few with whiskers on - but when people are still discussing issues, we need a bit more explanation. I restored the page and it was blanked again, this time with the odd advice that people could continue their discussion on the archive page.

Rather than edit-war over this, could I get someone with a broom to look at the thing, please? I think a reasonable solution is that anything over (say) a year old can be archived and an ongoing program set up to automatically store threads a suitable time after the last contribution. --Pete (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're wasting people's time on AN/I over something that's barely got legs. The solution is to take out comments over a month old, but it's a problem when randoms come along and comment on 5 year old threads... doesn't help. Why are we here? Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

While archiving was in order, the more recent threads should be left in given that Alan Jones is in the news again (if for no other reason than to stop people re-raising topics which have been discussed previously). Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are we here? i'd like to hear an admin's perspective... you said, Timeshift.[15] I'd like some informed comments as well. Why remove threads in which you yourself are actively participating? You did it twice, so it wasn't an accident, surely? --Pete (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm an involved admin given my prior interactions with both of you, but my suggestion is to un-archive the threads which were started in the last month. This isn't a very complicated issue. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete, hoping for an admin to comment on the talk page is not an ANI request... and no, it wasn't an accident. It's hoping that the talk page can start fresh again with relevant comments on a high-volume page. It's called archiving, and as the archive tag says, people can continue a discussion if they so wish. It's not complicated. But trying to seperate recent comments from 2007 comments, considering the length and breadth of it, would be hard. If it can be done, great. But failing that, this is the next best. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Set an archive bot on the page, specify an appropriate delay, and the problem is solved the next time the bot runs. I'm just wondering why you would add three comments to an ongoing thread and then half an hour later nuke the whole page including several other current threads, as well as the one you posted to. You've been around long enough to know that's not how we do things. --Pete (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

That talk page needed archiving - all the historic stuff should stay archived. - Youreallycan 03:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

While you've all shifted to furiously debating this on ANI, I restored most of it. While I sympathise with some of the sentiment in Timeshift's explanation, unilaterally removing a whole talk page - much of which was current - is just not done, despite his apparent good intentions. I did however remove any section that had no comment in the last month or so. --Merbabu (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The 2007 thread is a bit attacking calling him a criminal and someone with questionable sexuality ? - the thread - the old stuff from 2007 should be archived - break the thread and keep the current discussion under a new header if you want but please archive, or allow me to archive the attacking 2007 discussion -  Done - There appears to be a fair bit of undue discussion remaining/continuing on the talkpage, there is no excuse for Hitler to be mentioned five times and Stalin three times on the living subjects talkpage - whoever it is - please stop. - the talkpages of living people are for more focused discussions relating to possible content additions only and are not for expounding opinions etc. Please see and comply with Wikipedia:NOTFORUM - thanks - Youreallycan 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

While I'm willing to work with status quo, I am uncomfortable with HiLo apparently enlisting Djapa in what appears like personal attacks on me. The abrupt involvement of Timeshift *feels* related. I am isolated, and only wish to contribute. My original question might well have been met equally effectively, but less abusively, with silence, or more constructively than with the invective. cf http://conservativeweasel.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/when-wiki-editors-abuse.html DDB (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It really is nice that nobody at "Sydney Conservative" has disagreed with you :-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Can anyone take a look at Talk:Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo? Multiple disruptive IPs are reinstating WP:NOTFORUM material after being repeatedly warned/reverted. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That talk page should be semi-protected to say the least. Those revisions should be eliminated, as well. --MuZemike 05:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've semi'd it for 4 days to keep the riff-raff out; I'll keep an eye on it when it expires. Not sure why they'd pick such an obscure place to make their grand announcement, but that's their problem. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that their entry point was via one of the many websites which have lists of weird articles. The Emu War article also receives some odd traffic via these websites. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So... they're attempting to buffalo the article? (I'll get my coat...) Prioryman (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I sure hope the vandals aren't large bovines from upstate New York, because if Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, Buffalo buffalo might have to be blocked from editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer12's disruptive editing

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

---

There is a discussion at the WikiProject Baseball talk page regarding SNIyer12's failure to follow consensus and continued re-insertion of content that does not belong. I am not really involved in the situation, but as nobody else has reported it here, I am doing so. Please note that the editor has been approached on their talk page and has not responded. I am not very familiar with the situation, but as I understand it, one instance is this insertion of content on 1996 New York Yankees season. As you can tell from the page history, this is not the first time SNIyer12's edits to this page have been reverted. I hope that some of the more involved editors can elaborate more fully on this, I am simply starting the discussion as no one else has done so. AutomaticStrikeout 20:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we might've taken this user to ANI before, but I don't recall for sure. This editor has violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:POINT in an ongoing fashion for several years now. There is a minimal, at best, engagement from the user in discussion on various talk pages, but it doesn't change anything in the user's behavior. It's not vandalism, but it's disruptive, and it's gotten on my very last nerve. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer12's conduct has been brought to ANI in January 2007 and July 2009. I see the second time he got a 48 hour block. It accomplished nothing. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue, ultimately, their being non-responsive to concerns raised to them, and that they engage in very slow moving edit wars across multiple articles. SNyler has a habit of obsessing over various topics, and if what he inserts somewhere (often SYNTH) is challenged, they just wait a little while, then reinsert in the hopes that nobody will notice. When they get reverted again, the process continues. And in some cases, this process lasts over a year or more. My personal inclination is that if they won't respond to the concerns, a block is the only way to end the slow moving edit wars. I've taken articles of theirs to AFD, and have attempted to engage them on numerous topics, so would not consider it appropriate for me to take such action myself. Resolute 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What's your desired end-state here? A block? That's how I'm reading this. Skimming through some contributions and his lack of responsiveness, I think that might be the only way to get his attention. Go Phightins! 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the disruption was limited to just one article, I'd say topic ban him from that article. However, it appears that more than one page is in question, so I'd certainly say a block is in order. AutomaticStrikeout 03:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, blocks are not the answer. Neither are bans. Use the RFCU for community sanctions by vote.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like some sort of block IS the answer. If the guy continues to corrupt articles and won't talk, then solely going through the RFCU bureaucracy is insufficient. It will take time and will allow continued damage to wikipedia. Put him on ice for whatever amount of time the RFCU will likely need to run. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

They have been warned over and over for years now. Personally I would have blocked them long ago if I didn't feel like I was probably too involved to do so. At the very least he/she needs a block at a step up from his last block. He/she was blocked 48 hours...lets block him/her a week and see if they are willing to start talking. And RFCU is fine, but more often than not they lead nowhere. But if people think we should go that way lets do it. But for an RFCU to work they have to be involved and talk, and well that is the problem currently, we can't get him/her to talk. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable...Go Phightins! 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't care if SNyler never says anything to anyone. What I do care about is not having to watch a bunch of articles for the re-addition of the same rejected crap over and over and over. WP:BRD is just a guideline, but if they won't discuss, then they should accept the revert as the end of the line. Resolute 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What's most important, is getting SNIyer12 to stop re-adding his trivia info to the articles-in-question. A Rfc/U, would be the first step. If he doesn't participate there? then blocks are the next steop. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that SNIyer12 has been inactive, since this report was made. Not very encouraging, as it appears to be a waiting game on his part. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah...I posted a blurb on his talk page asking him to comment at the ANI discussion to explain himself, but to no avail. Yesterday, he blanked a section of 2011 Washington Redskins season, which I reverted since there was no explanation and then posted a blanking level one note. I imagine he's just going to wait both this discussion, and an eventual block, if that's what comes of it, out. Maybe an indef block (which could be an hour or a year) would be an order and it would only be removed subject to a request in which he addresses this behavior. Go Phightins! 15:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have issued an indeffblock, with engaging in discussion about why his edits are a problem as the grounds for unblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Go Phightins! 16:20, 20 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.

Marty Morrissey

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.

---

• Marty Morrissey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• User:Scoffey10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think I've identified a newly registered VOA. It might or might not be connected to any previous IP vandalism on the same page (see edit history, above, for diffs). Any Admin or happen-to-be-Checkuser eyes would be appreciated. JFHJr (㊟) 02:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The same user has vandalized Brian Cowen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV? dangerouspanda 10:12, 20 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.

Excessive 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.

---

R-41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Social democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an unusual case. R-41 will frequently re-write articles and make dozens of edits in a short period of time, often with no edit summaries. As a result, editors are unable to see the changes that have been made. I recommend that R-41 be restricted to 5 edits per article per day.
On Talk:Social democracy, I wrote (17:21, 17 October 2012), "I notice btw that R-41 has made 140 edits to the article in the last two days, none of which are labelled "minor", the overwhelming number of which have no edit summary explaining the changes made. That makes it next to impossible for other editors to follow what changes have been made."[16] Since then he has made 17 more edits.[17] Since the beginning of the month he has made approximately 170 edits to Fascism. In September he made approximately 70 edits. In July he made 30 edits. In June, 37 edits.[18] He should use a word processing application, such as his sandbox, and explain each edit, including identifying minor edits. TFD (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the one comment you made about this in passing on a talk page, have you tried to talk to R-41 about this, or did you come straight here? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I often run into crap articles that need a full rewrite and have seen little attention for years. Unless a problem is demonstrated with R-41s edits (not shown here), this is just a WP:BURO proposal. If R-41 were to use the sandbox and then paste one giant change with edit summary "rewrote article because it was crap", it would not make any real difference in the effort required to review the change(s) he made. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -> I see no issues here. It is a personal choice whether to make a hundred small edits or one big one. Edit summary are preferable, and highly useful, but they are not mandatory. I think we should encourage good content contributors, not put more hurdles on them. It's not really a nice thing to come here, ask for restriction because an editor is doing a good job (as I don't see any complaints about the content of the edits in this thread) without even contacting them and discussing the matter first, I hope it was discussed somewhere and this last point is moot, but regardless I see no basis for imposing such restrictions on our valued content contributors. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per the 2 above mentioned reasons. I have myself have taken stubbed or crappy articles and entirely re-written/expanded them, often in my sandboxes. And often times I would prefer other editors do the same instead of make 100 small edits that one has to go through sometimes to undo one bad one. If the editor in question can not be shown to be breaking any policies, xe should not be restricted like this. If xe is violating other policies, xe should be dealt with appropriately for that, not restricted to 5 edits.Heiro 10:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Asking the editor to slow down and stop making so many drastic changes without discussion is certainly a valid point. We see this all over Wikipedia, where editors are reverted so that the article is put back to the WP:STATUSQUO and actual collaboration can take place, and especially if the current state of the article is the WP:CONSENSUS version (WP:CONSENSUS is policy, although so many tend to forget that around here). There are even WP:1RR restrictions on articles for this very reason. Making drastic changes to an article, especially a constroversial one, without regard for what other editors may think of any of the changes is not collaborative editing. It comes across as straight-up arrogance and WP:OWNING the article. Apparently, R-41 "retired" from Wikipedia in August of this year due to POV-pushing experiences with other editors,[19][20], and came back early September,[21] but what I see is that he is also a POV-pusher. Take a look at these diffs from the Social democracy article, for example, where he is accused of trying to own the article and removing something because he doesn't like it.[22][23](JUSTDON'TLIKEIT)[24] I have to agree on both points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.76.22 (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• [25] Tijfo098 (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is no necessity to continue voting on a proposal that on its face has no basis. I will leave a message for R-41 that using edit summaries is recommended. Other than that, there's nothing more here to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 20 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.

Repeated accusations that editors who disagree with the reported editor are biased etc.

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.

---

Andromedean has taken part in a discussion on an article talk page. There he repeatedly made claims (diffs below) that the editors who disagreed with him where biased, had agendas or had COIs. He reported one editor to WP:WQA which backfired when I provided diffs of these accusations. He did not immediately remedy is conduct, but following this warning, he participated in the WP:DRN with only one accidentally misworded comment, which I am unable to relocate. However, as this (specifically "once again I smell a rat and politics and bias wins over reason, honesty and hard work!") shows, it is still his opinion that when he doesn't get everything the way he wants, the cause is disingenuous editors. I see this as a major problem when discussing with him, as even when he doesn't voice his concerns he has no incentive to move towards a compromise as he truly believes those who disagree with him are untrustworthy. I question the place of such accusations in a collaborative effort such as Wikipedia, and ask that he is at least severely admonished. If the community feels that such accusations are acceptable (when not proven or reasonably suspected), I have no place here. If the accusations are found to be reasonable or proven, action must be taken against the accused editors, which is why I asked him to take the matter here if he truly believes them. The specific policies violated are civility and no personal attacks. The last of these seems to be more enforced than the first.

PS: Diffs from WQA discussion (not exhaustive:I provided diffs of the other editor as well, and other editors provided diffs): 1, 2, 3, 4.

PPS: Please excuse if malformed. There was no guide in the editing window. I have seen this on other places where issues are reported.

PPPS: This is seemingly my first edit, because I forced an IP jump when the DRN discussion was finished. I had no desire to continue editing after the extensive discussion. The resurfacing of the allegations made it necessary to bring the issue to community attention. I will place "subst:ANI-notice" presently. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute that has created a little heat. Based on what you've said and the diffs you've provided, I see no obvious policy violations or need for administrative intervention. I still haven't figured out why Andromedean took a content dispute to WQA, but I also didn't feel like reading through the walls of text to understand the content dispute itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is indeed community consensus that it is acceptable to claim that other editors are "biased" ("It's unlikely any unbiased Wikipedian will take the above points seriously"), having "political agendas" ("[You and Sport and Politics] have the political agenda here", "you have an agenda") or "cencoring information" ("[this] prove[s] though how desperate people are to find any excuse to censor this information") then I do not belong here.
I do not and cannot agree that a simple disagreement warrants my integrity being questioned.
I also think the behaviour evidenced in the diffs is hindering consensus building (which is essential for resolving content disputes), because it necessitates that editors defend themselves as well as their views. Note that when I responded to these comments I asked him to desist, in addition to commenting on the substance of what he was saying. I may have seen his valid points for including some of what he wanted much earlier if he hadn't advanced invalid and incivil (in my view: bordering on personal attacks) points simultaneously.
I see that there is a certain unwillingness to deal with civility issues here, and I fear you will regret this in the long run. I support this project in principle (i.e. the five pillars), but it is impossible for me to take part in it if the civility pillar has crumbled. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand why you would prefer a discussion that is devoid of any comments on editor conduct or speculation as to editor motives, but, unfortunately, many discussions at Wikipedia aren't as "professional" as they might be. Editors get hot under the collar and say things they arguably shouldn't. Other editors, feeling provoked, respond in kind, and the discussion often gets derailed - and without any benefit. It also doesn't help that all this takes place in a virtual/anonymous world where people tend to behave differently from the way they do in the brick-and-mortar world. But that is a part of Wikipedia. Some editors deplore it more than others. There are often contentious discussions about WP:CIVILITY, what it means, and how it's applied. All I can say is the best thing to do is not take it personally or even seriously, ignore it, and focus on the content dispute. In that way, you'll reduce your stress levels and you'll hopefully advance the discussion toward a resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have left my opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement and decided to not take part in the project for the time being. Ad hominems should not be accepted. I think you would lose fewer good editors by punishing ad hominems than you currently lose by not doing so. Please don't close this immediately, I would be interested to see other opinions on whether the specific actions backed up by diffs are considered acceptable. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to vouch for Andromedean's character and integrity. Andro has started the Technology section on London Olympics, and worked extensively to provide sources and improve on the quality, and neutral point of view of the section. Andro maybe inexperienced, but there is no question in regard to his personal integrity, well intention and dedication in bringing a highly controversial topic to other readers' attention. While this INI is on Andro and not on other editors, I will stay on record to say most of his allegations are not unfounded, albeit sometime the choice of words and the way they were expressed could be adjusted, even in a heated argument. Regards, Showmebeef (talk) 16:43, 20 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.

In his comment above Showmebeef claims that Andromedean's claims are not unfounded, i.e. that they have a strong foundation, or are based on solid reasons or facts. I want to note that the allegations againt me and other editors are serious; the actions described go against the very essence of Wikipedia. I strongly feel that such allegations should be backed up by evidence and made at a proper venue (e.g. by opening a discussion here and not by mentioning it en passant on a talk page) and properly investigated, or unequivocally withdrawn.
By closing this as not requiring action you have given Andromedean, and all other editors in content disputes, a carte blanche to claim that editors who disagrees with them are biased and have agendas. I agree that blocks may not be necessary, but surely such accusations deserve a stern telling of, so as to not become the permanent debating style of such users. Is it the goal of Wikipedia that consensus shall be achieved by discussing, or by editors leaving until only the most persistent or rude editors remain? Ad hominems are not genuine arguments, but in the current lax regime content disputes may nevertheless be "resolved" by them. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Some customized (customised) warnings, at User talk:61.23.51.246

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 had discovered and noticed some slightly strange customized warnings, at User talk:61.23.51.246. Well, were they, well, all-right? -- KC9TV 15:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to,

Some other articles you will have to vandalise to push your anti-British POV:

• Soybean
• Soy milk
• Soy protein (mentions a few company names you will have to revise) Elizium23 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no further comment at this time... Wow. Theopolisme 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no further comment. They are just slightly strange, that is all. -- KC9TV 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do. Elizium's comments are weird. This report is weird. Why do we care about something that occurred over a year ago? Is there any reason to keep this open?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind! This is NOT a report. Well, just close this, then! I thank you, and my apologies to him! -- KC9TV 15:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, please keep this open. I would like to review the behavior of the filing user, particularly his interactions with me. Diffs are coming shortly. Elizium23 (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have admittedly not very much interaction with you. -- KC9TV 15:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

@KC9TV, everything here is a "report". I'll keep this open, though, in deference to Elizium; after all, I called their comments "weird", seems only fair. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 20 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.

Suspect edits by WalrusKingofFinland

Could someone review the edits of WalrusKingofFinland (talk · contribs). Most of the edits seem to be vandalism with two unsourced biographies, one of which is a blatant attack page by calling the subject a pedophile. —Farix (t | c) 11:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems Materialscientist (talk · contribs) already banned them while I was making this report. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheesepary2 (talk · contribs) seems to be an alternative account of WalrusKingofFinland. —Farix (t | c) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm certain I recall a vandal with a very similar username from earlier this year - might be worth getting a checkuser in on this if you take it to SPI... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Both are blocked, doing the CU to look for sleepers sounds like a good plan. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Positive basket of socks. Give me a mo... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The users Bradsampson111, Raymondmckeeever123, Walrus&Oslo, GitBelly, SamJordan10, J.Tobin 117, J.smith15, Connorboyce, Cheesepary, Eugene Lesley and Jordan tobin are now blocked. Still looking for the banned editor behind 'em. Seem to be bored employee/employees of one organisation. I blocked the lot, if any appeal it would be worth checking their edits as it is possible there is a legitimate one among them, althought I didn't spot one, and suspect this is the work of one person. On the other hand, let me know if he continues to spawn vandal accounts and I will take further action. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cheesepary appears to be the original sock master. Although SamJordan10 is older, that appears to be a separate account. Even if the quality of the edits to Castle View Enterprise Academy isn't particularly good, they appear to be in good faith. —Farix (t | c) 21:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson History Past PResent and Future Best Selling Albums List

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.

---

For some days now the album History Past Present and Future was taken off the "best selling album" list (because no one bothered to add the sales references necessary),however, it still appears on the Michael Jackson page as ,,,,"Off The Wall,Thriller , Bad, Dangerous, and 'History' are the best selling albums" (with a link to the aforementioned page. I have contacted several editors to fix this ( because I cant) however nothing has been done for some time. The solution is either 1). add the necessary sales reference to the best selling albums list for History Past Present Future,,or 2. remove it from the Michael Jackson page ,--65.8.188.248 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If you use {{edit protected}} on the article's talk page, someone will come along and heed your request.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the response i got when i discussed the matter of BEST SELLING ALBUMS,,,,,,,,,,,IS THIS ALLOWED?

Forum shoppingPlease stop forum shopping. You posted your request at Talk:Michael Jackson. That is sufficient. Posting it on multiple other Wikipedia help pages will not get better results for you, and, in fact, may irritate editors. Shouting and bothering people is not the way to get something accomplished here. If you are an adult (and so far you haven't convinced me), you need to behave like an adult instead of a ten year old if you want people to take you seriously. Cresix (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

--65.8.188.248 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is what allowed? What's your question? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The IP doesn't like the response from Cresix, which was a tad harsh. @65, an edit request has to be very specific and be accompanied by reliable sources. In addition, there's no reason to use capital letters (it's interpreted as shouting as Cresix said), and why are you repeating commas? It's annoying and won't help you. Anyway, as near as I can understand your request, if you want History Past Present and Future to be re-added to the article (I haven't looked at the article) as a best-seller, then ask for that and find a reliable source to support it. In any event, there's nothing for us to do here at ANI. Keep it on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 20 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.

Sock back using 212.183.128.? range

A recent SPI blocked a range of socks naming Hackneyhound as the master - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound/Archive, and it was clear that this sock uses Vodafone mobile IP addresses from the 212.183.128.X range. One of those socks was User:Scandal Bird. Today at De primo Saxonum adventu there's 2 been edits by 212.183.128.109 and 212.183.128.54 reverting to Scandal Bird's version - perhaps a range of IP addresses needs blocking also as this sock is being persistent. --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I did the SPI, but that range rotates really really fast. I'd rather someone better with the rangeblock tool had a go at it to minimise the collateral damage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it even possible to be effective without collateral damage if it rotates really fast? --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I did semi-protect that article for a week. If it is a large or rapidly changing range, we may need to just semi all of the articles that are this person's target. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this a deletion without appropriate discussion?

I'm concerned with the move of an article from article space to name space. There was an extensive discussion of merging numerous articles that resulted, and that discussion is now outside the article talk space. It could be argued that the attempted combination is a content fork, but there has been no deletion discussion that I am aware of. (Of course, it also could be argued that this is a topic in its own right.) The initial move left numerous links from article space to a user page, so I reverted. Since then, Fama Clamosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has undone all links to it and repeated the move. I do not want to make a mess of things, but this is unique in my experience. It seems like the best current action would be to undo the move, leave the article orphaned for the time being, and require a deletion discussion, but I'm just guessing. Even if I am right, a few other opinions would help direct this to the most effective possible resolution.Novangelis (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

All I did was fixing double redirects and remove two "see also" links. After Taylornate's edit war, there was a consensus to (1) keep the articles on individual muscles and (2) Taylornate's article Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. Since then, however, there is no hints that this contributor will actually add anything to this article or anything else on Wikipedia. Since the article is an orphan since 6 months, moving the page back to the contributor's user space made sense. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphan is not by itself a reason for either deletion or merging, and Taylornate is not the only editor who could write the article. I suggest it be considered in the meantime as a set index article. Userifying is deletion, and if Fama Clamosa wants to try that route he should use AFD. In the meantime, I've reverted. There are probably some redirects and other tags that need clean-up. Novangelis, I leave it to you--if any of it needs the admin buttons, let me know on my talk page DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP problem and legal threat

A new editor, Treyc1953 (talk · contribs), has added material to Talk:Lester Coleman that is a major BLP violation, and re-added it after I removed it. The editor has also made a legal threat at user:Dawholetruth2, probably thinking it was that editor who removed the material. This sort of thing happens every few months at the Lester Coleman article, which is about a convicted scam artist. I will, with great reluctance, notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. In the future, just let me know via email when this happens. If any functionaries/arbcom want to know what this is about, this should be discussed privately. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please e-mail me with a general description of what's going on, when you have a moment. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Threats by Sayyed Bastami

I was alerted by another user that there was edit-warring occurring at Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding original research into the article. Upon further investigation I found that the edit-warring Sayyed Bastami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), among other assorted personal attacks, left the following message at the other user's talkpage: One more thing We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us. I think a block is needed asap until this user clarifies who is in the group he is referring to. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a warning on Batami's user talk. The editor that was the recipient of the post does not appear to be put off, so I don't know if a block is warranted. Tiderolls 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's fine by me Tide rolls. Thank you very much for your fast response. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The "we" part is weird and may require further attention. Just sayin'. Tiderolls 03:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is threatening and a violation of WP:ROLE. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the slogan of Anonymous (group).--Shirt58 (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I know. I can see where invoking certain slogans could be blockable, or at least lead to a discussion on blocking. Is that the case here? Tiderolls 04:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is this account has edit-warred, personally attacked his "opponent" and also used slogans implying he belongs to a group. Overall I find this eminently blockable behaviour on multiple grounds: PA, EW, ROLE, HARASS etc. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not convinced the account falls under WP:ROLE. As noted, it's just the slogan of Anonymous. More likely, it's some kid trying to sound threatening by coughing up the well-known (though apparently not well-known enough) slogan of a ~scary~ hacktivist group. That said, he's clearly not here to be be productive, so we can probably dump the WP:ALPHABETSOUP and just block 'em already. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Poetic justice if the block notice uses the slogan? Just sayin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent removal of level 2 headings

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:24.147.80.78 persists in removing level 2 headings from articles. For these actions they were blocked for a week on October 5 (see this ANI discussion). After the one week block, the user twice removed level 2 headings. I warned the user about this on their talk page both times (see here, also for difs). Yesterday, the user again removed a level 2 heading here. The user's edits are a mix of legit edits, regular vandalism and these removals of level 2 headings (user contribs). They do not react to warnings. - Takeaway (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a shared IP, how about a block in which account creation from the IP is still permitted, but one must be logged in to edit. That way, if someone creates an account and continues we can just block that account rather than the entire IP which may have some people who make constructive contributions. Go Phightins! 18:12, 21 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.

Editor pursuing feud

On October 3, an IP address editor made a good faith edit to the infobox in Shining Force II which I reverted the following day with an explanation. User: SudoGhost reverted the edit with a summary contradicting my rationale, so I looked up the infobox documentation to see what exactly is supposed to be included in the relevant infobox field. The documentation is unclear, so I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games asking if there was a consensus on the matter. Unfortunately, I only got two replies and no indication that there was a preexisting consensus. So on October 10 I reverted SudoGhost's edit with a summary linking him to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games topic I'd started for further discussion.

SudoGhost did begin posting in the topic; however, he also immediately commenced edit warring on Shining Force II. Assuming that he was simply unfamiliar with WP policies on edit conflicts, I reverted his edit with a summary directing him to WP:STATUSQUO. SudoGhost responded by reverting my edit with a fraudulent summary and posting false accusations on my talk page (here and here). I posted as friendly a warning as I could come up with on his talk page, but this did no good. His behavior on the talk page was far more in line with WP policy, but here he explicitly singles me out for no apparent reason.

At this point I decided to leave the issue alone. I was still unable to get a real discussion going on the topic at WikiProject Video games, SudoGhost clearly had no interest in resolving the dispute, and the edit the dispute was centered on is far too inconsequential to bother opening a topic on the administrator's noticeboard. However, yesterday - over a week after my last edit at Shining Force II - SudoGhost posted another helping of false claims on my talk page.

I don't pretend to know the motive behind SudoGhost's actions, but his antagonistic behavior throughout the dispute made me suspect that he intends to continue pursuing a feud with me whether or not I make any further response to his edit warring on Shining Force II, and this last post pretty much removes all doubt. As I have a very low tolerance for such harassment, I don't see any other recourse but to report this here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want here. Do you want both you and SudoGhost to be criticized for edit-warring (no technical breach of 3RR)? Do you want to be criticized for an edit summary calling SudoGhost's edit summary "fraudulent"? This is a content dispute that should have been discussed and resolved after SudoGhost's first revert of your change to the article on October 4. It was at that point that you should have stopped, talked, and left the article alone until there was agreement between the two of you, or, failing that, a consensus achieved with the assistance of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, the "should have" you describe is exactly what I attempted to do, with no success. I can't force SudoGhost to justify and discuss his edit like a civilized human being; all I can do is follow that procedure with my own edits.

As for what I want, I thought my post made that abundantly clear: I want SudoGhost to stop pursuing a meaningless feud with me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should take this to the article talk page and lose the attitude ("civilized human being").--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

...You've lost me. Did you read my original post at all? There is no article talk page for me to take this to; the problem is the editor going after me personally. As I said, I'm no longer concerning myself with his edits to the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought you were interested in improving the article. I don't see any convincing evidence that SudoGhost is "going after" you. I suggest you move on and find an article you are interested in improving instead of spending your time here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, enough. If the responding editor can't even be bothered to read what the problem is he's responding to, obviously there's no point in continuing this. And since I'm not prepared to have SudoGhost continuously harassing me, that leaves me no recourse but to finish up my last bits of business and then take an indefinite leave of Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to throw around words like "SudoGhost continuously harassing me", please back that up with diffs, because unfounded accusations like that are personal attacks. If you have diffs to back up your accusations then show them and I'm sure the administrators will be more open to whatever it is you're looking for, otherwise please stop with the unfounded accusations. - SudoGhost 20:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - First off, I apologize for edit warring, there's no excuse for that and it shouldn't have been done in the first place. I know it was probably a case of "too little too late", but I self-reverted until an uninvolved editor commented on the content. I'm completely at a loss at to where this "going after me" thing is coming from; I last commented on his talk page on 10 October and he replied on 15 October. I didn't see that he responded until 18 October, which is when I responded. That single edit is the extent of my interaction with User:Martin IIIa since the dispute and discussion on 10 October.

I mean no disrespect when I say this but I'm not interested in User:Martin IIIa's edits or actions, and it would be a waste of my time to even look through them, not least of all because our editing interests seem very different for the most part. I'm especially not interested in WP:HOUNDing them (unless I'm midreading that policy, I've come nowhere close to hounding them in any capacity). I'm not "going after" the editor and I don't want to try to get them blocked for disagreeing with me or anything like that. I do think that they should be less liberal with their use of "fraudulent" when describing other editors, but other than that I'm content to live and let live. I'm not really sure what administrative action the editor is looking for here. - SudoGhost 20:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe and biased reverts

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

---

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

---

Heironymous Rowe appears to be blantly removing edits on wikipedia which include european mixed with native american ancestry. His talk page shows his words to another user which shows this hate. Such as this comment Rowe made to another wiki user " Take your debunked hoaxes, ufos, mayan prophecies, and ancient european americans and go elsewhere. And knock it off with the personal attacks. Heiro 00:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" "Take your ancient european americans and go elsewhere". Numerous wikipedia pages which include european and native american mix ancestry is watched by Rowe and any edits which include the mixture is instantly reverted. The Melungeon page shows this type of behaviour as well. These type of actions does not help imporve wikipedia or allow all sides of a subject to be shown. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.174.113 (talk • contribs)

See Melungeon, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Using non-peered reviewed sources for genetics and this warning. Heiro 15:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your talk page shows wha your doing quite clearly Row, "Take your ancient european americans and go elsewhere." "pseudoscientific nonsense"....comments you make to other wikipedia users who are trying to keep pages up to date and equal on all theories. What you also fail to mention on the melungeon page is the person named Joanne which is mentioned was a co founder of th emelungeon dna project. Yet jack goins and robert estes the other 2 co founders is allowed to be left in the page. So is biased and shows you on a mission just like on your other reverts on various native americna pages t keep native american and european mix people off wikipedia.

No, it is about keeping WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, pseudoscientific nonsense and sources that don't pass WP:RELIABLE off Wikipedia. Take your case to the article talkpage please. Heiro 15:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP was directed to reliable source discussions. Although their edits may have been sourced and possibly valid, these sources they used do not pass the validity test at this time. I see no attempts by HR to whitewash, merely to enforce Wikipedia's sourcing requirements (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Notwithstanding its unreliable sourcing, I read through the most recent addition of this material but the added content does not match up with the rest of the article in terms of style and readability, it also doesn't follow the Manual of Style including technical aspects of adding references. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 21 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.

Then would someone else mind reverting the material sourced to blogs and forums at the article? The IP re-inserted it here, again and I am at 3RR.Heiro 18:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 21 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:MrRayshon

User:MrRayshon seems to be claiming to be an admin - see his user page. He's only been contributing since September the 19th... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And not just claiming to be an admin either - he's just attempted to semi-protect an article at [[26]] [27]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please notify the user of his being discussed here? We request that you do so as a courtesy to the user. If you can do this in a timely fashion, I will then look into the case. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He did, and the user blanked the AN/I notice from his own page. Wesley♦^Mouse 18:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just also saw that. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, he now has a friendly message.[28] Let's see which way he wants to take this. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Rayshon might have something to do with blocked user:Rayrayzone. Both edited this article. MrRayshon also created his profile at more or less the same time as RayRayzone tried to remove the block notice. - Takeaway (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Takeaway could be on to something here. Rayshon also edited on content within RayRayzone's userspace shortly after the latter got blocked. See here. Wesley♦^Mouse 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they are a  Confirmed match. Personally, my solution would be a WP:CIR block... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not responding right now, so I've removed the notice he placed claiming to have protected a page, and expect to shortly fix his userpage if there's no reaction from him. If it is a new account for a previously existing user, there's a possibility it's already been abandoned now. The edits I've reviewed could be attributed to lack of understanding rather than malice. May be a wild goose chase. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Hot Stop

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 is repeatedly modifying archived talk page comments[29] with the effect that the outcome of a historical debate is being deliberately misrepresented in current discussion on ITN/C. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

the closure (made by another user) was discussed on WT:ITN and you're the first and only person to object to it. Grow up. Hot Stop (Edits) 18:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No such discussion took place. This is a simple attempt to alter an archived discussion to make it appear that a different outcome was reached off the radar of people's watchlists. As the archival headers and footers make clear: that discussion is closed. Do not modify it. If you want to resurrect the debate do so in the proper medium, yes, that is WT:ITN, not some page that no-one looks at too closely. I pointed that out on ITN/C, comments you have chosen to ignore. What is this if not misrepresentation? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:59, 21 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.

Personal attacks

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

---

John has decided to call me a "liar", "coward", "hypocrite" and that I am "beneath despicable"... all here posted...is there any administrator about that would agree that this is a bit excessive? I confess that my last statement in the end was less than cordial...what would anyone expect after that level of harassment? I posted to his talkpage and he removed that, calling me a "serial liar"...then decided my userspace was still fine to open fire after I posted originally to my userpage...is this guy really an administrator...still?--MONGO 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC) John was informed of this...but he "flush"ed it--MONGO 21:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that John was rather lenient and forgiving MONGO, as you're far worse than that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't imagine why you'd say that, unless you think you are above our policies, which is more than apparent, Malleus.--MONGO 21:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no benefit to Wikipedia to try and hash out which editor (John or MONGO) is more at fault here. Recommend both editors disengage from each other and some one close this. Nobody Ent 21:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? John has made repeated personal attacks...how on earth am I at fault for what John types.--MONGO 21:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You do seem to appear every time there is some issue with Malleus and push and prod every sore - why is that? It's annoying. I will warn John, though, as his comments were too far. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MONGO, bringing this here at this time was extremely unwise. That it's resulted in yet another block for Malleus is beyond childish. John called you a liar yesterday on a conversation that I started, and frankly you were playing very loosely with the truth. This is beyond pointy and baiting - it's ratcheting it all up again. Why? What's the point? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct...I had nothing to do with the Civility enforcement case...I participated in only one or two comments there, mainly regaridng how long it would take arbcom to render a decision. Only after I saw past warnings went unheeded did I decide that enough was enough. I can't see any justification that any editor should be permitted to edit this website when they have called other editors cunts, twats and assholes...repeatedly ad nauseum after being warned to not do so.--MONGO 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please restore Regent Sparks close? Nobody Ent 21:50, 21 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.

Stephan Schultz

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 admin User:Stephan Schulz has blocked Malleus during an open arbitration case for a minor comment - this block affects the open arb case, is not necessary, and should be removed immediately - Youreallycan 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely Nobody Ent 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been undone; admin Boing! said Zebedee's reason for unblocking was "malicious block." CityOfSilver 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to say, I left Stephan a note. It appears the block was levelled because Stephan warned Malleus about incivility and Malleus (obviously) threw it back at him. I left Stephan a note to suggest that him blocking was a troublesome action - although somewhat understandable, I don't think we need to hound him over it. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good - Steven Shultz deliberate disruption should remove his admin status - Youreallycan 21:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Being embroiled in an ArbCom case has never been a "get out of blocks free" card. ArbCom clerks have transferred comments from user pages in such cases before. In other cases, users have unblocked with the proviso that they only engage in the ArbCom case. I'd be willing to do that here if Malleus is willing to declare that he will only edit his user talk page and the AE page for the next 48 hours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense - Youreallycan 21:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Reverse the block? No, this is a desysop. Regardless of whether Malleus should be or will be blocked, a block at this time is a crass failure of basic competence and behaviour for an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Before discussing whether Boing! said Zebedee should be desysopped for undoing a valid block without even attempting to discuss this with the blocking admin and without consulting the community, we should at least give them a chance to explain themselves. Boing, care to explain your action? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems that Andy was referring to Stephan, not Boing! – Connormah (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Malleus has arbcom watching and even then, a inch from a ban he insults me and the one admin with the guts to defend our policies is threatened with a desyopping. I'm interested in seeing how a block revert as was done here can be explained.--MONGO 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Mongo... guts? lol - User:Stephan Schulz should be blocked for as long as he blocked Malleus - Youreallycan 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • [...] and the one admin with the guts to defend our policies [...] -- (Personal attack removed) --87.78.5.129 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × lost count) Given the history of enforcement actions regarding Malleus -- multiple blocks imposed without achieving community consensus, the only logical expectation from a block would be a rapid unblock and lots more mudslinging. We have sufficient mudslinging on the ArbCom page. The block has been reversed -- at this point no real good is going to come from further argument here. None of the prior admins who blocked MF -- with exception of one who engaged in addition inappropriate commentary -- were desysoped, so it's not likely to happen. In any event, it can't happen here. Editors who feel strongly that SS should not be an admin should inquire about recall procedures or file an ArbCom case. Nobody Ent 22:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Everyone should calm down. There is enough drama going on at ArbCom without it spilling over here or anywhere else. We have too many admins issuing blocks that may or may not be technically correct, and then their blocks are undone by another admin, and then there are calls for "off with their heads", although it's not always clear whose head merits severance. In light of what's going on, admins need to exercise more restraint, both in the use of their tools and their mouths (or keyboards). I know there are a lot of strong feelings, but let's try not to make it any worse than it already is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Stephan Schulz blatantly baited Malleus on his talk page, then blocked him when he responded exactly as anyone would expect. In normal circumstances, it would simply be a poor block - in the midst of the current ArbCom case it was, as I opined in my unblock reason, malicious. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense - unless there's some new rule that one can't speak to Malleus as one would speak to any other editor who made insults like that, there was no "baiting" involved, unless you've somehow redefined the word. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be so naive - you know the circumstances perfectly well -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, "it has been undone" so that makes everything all better now? It was a bad block. It is yet another bad block entered in the log of a user whose block log (bear with me here, I'll get there) consists in the main of bad blocks. It was applied for no good reason, during an Arbcom case, by a baiting administrator. There is nothing good about this block.  pablo 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• No one is saying it's all better. We're saying that it's not going to get any better by discussing it further here. Nobody Ent 22:20, 21 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.

Legal threats and harassment

Special:Contributions/38.103.168.4 had a cooldown block for edit warring last week, but their behavior has only degraded since. Post block, this user has:

• made personal attacks against me: [30]
• made legal threats and personally attacked an admin for concluding a page deletion discussion: [31]
• posted disparaging remarks about the same admin on an unrelated page:[32]
• promised more of the same attacks on the admins talk: [33]

In summary, nothing of the axe head remains, and given the large number of warnings on the account, a longer block appropriate preventative action is requested.--E8 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Only one of those diff's appear to be from today, and we cannot block IP addresses for long periods of time...besides, there's no such thing as a "cooldown block" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Bwilkins blocked for 3 months. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this really considered to be appropriate?

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.

---

How much lower can this site get?[34] Malleus Fatuorum 08:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been able to inform MONGO about this thread because I'm forbidden to post to his talk page, so perhaps one of his friends might oblige? Malleus Fatuorum 08:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've notified him. GiantSnowman 08:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

He's just going off on one and making himself look a bit silly, as per the rest of that thread and this comment. I don't think raising it here is going to achieve anything in the current climate. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Malleus Fatuorum 08:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As with John last night (and per my comments to others last night) I've warned him and strongly advised MONGO to drop it. But this is enough AN/I for now. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:58, 22 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.

Restoring images uploaded by Rootbeerlc

I am requesting an administrator to restore the images uploaded by Rootbeerlc (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rootbeerlc), because I think their inclusion is justified from wp:OTRS Ticket#: 2012081110005839.

• License: "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
• Author: Byron Randall
• and the additional tag {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012081110005839}}, for reference.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to talk to an admin at Wikimedia Commons; administrators here cannot restore images which were hosted (and deleted) on commons. There are a few admins here who are admins on commons as well, but you'll get a prompter response if you ask on commons. Horologium (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Date-changing user Starships109

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.

---

Starships109 has made over 1100 small, likely good-faith edits to Wikipedia articles since June 30, 2012. The user has never once cited sources, explained any edits, or engaged in discussion, despite repeated comments and warnings—including 2 "last warnings" and 1 "final warning"—about disruptive editing. The edits this user makes are mainly changes to the dates that records were recorded and released, dates of birth of celebrities, and minor copy edits, including date formatting, sometimes against consensus. Sometimes, the user will change cited information. This user also will revisit articles and make the same changes or deletions, even after being contacted about why the edits were wrong or otherwise unacceptable. Due to the user's carelessness, articles are sometimes left with conflicting information in them.

Most of the user's edits go unnoticed because the articles aren't watched by many people, because one unsourced piece of info is being replaced with another, and because the new info is hard to verify. For example, was "Atomic Dog" released in December 1982 as originally written, or on a specific date in September? That kind of info is not easy to come by; either is plausible. But this user has a specific date that's coming from some undisclosed offline source—every time I try to verify one of the new dates in this and other articles with my Google-fu, I get nothing to confirm, and often get contradictory info. And why does the user keep removing 12" from the release formats, when there is photo of the 12" single's labels right on the page in question?

All attempts to engage the user via the user talk page, article talk pages, article edit summaries, and citation-needed templates have failed; the user ignores everything. You can see the numerous warnings on the user's talk page for problematic editing of various articles. Those are just the ones people noticed. The user's edit history can be scanned for more.

I wouldn't be surprised if English is not the user's native language, since the same username is registered on the de, es, and gl Wikipedias (without any edits[35]) and since "Starship 109" was a song popular in Europe in 1978. However, I don't think the problem is a language barrier; the uncontentious copy edits indicate a command of English.

Anyway, the disputes over this user's edits seem like the kind of thing that could be easily resolved if there were a way to force the user to engage with other editors in discussion. What else can we do here, though besides reverting or citation-needed-ing the edits, and posting warning after warning on the talk page? —mjb (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You can use Special:Contributions to see where someone has edited. This user has never ever edited a talkpage - his own, anyone else's, or article talk. I can see all the changes, none are sourced. I don't see any other option but a block - this tactic has succeeded in the past to 'bring users to the table' as it were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 21 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 from User:Till

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 didn't think it would have to come to this, but this has come too out of hand. This edit summary has been the final straw. When I left him a warning, he deleted the message with the edit summary bite me. Till (talk · contribs) has been having civility issues with Tomica (talk · contribs) over the past couple of months now. It all began with this edit that lead to this discussion. Ever since then, Till has been taking gabs at Tomica on his prose, as seen in this (Tomica re-wrote the lead of the article, and is involved in many editing of Rihanna articles). Here is another example, with the edit summary: "Fix the terrible lead" (Tomica is the main contributor of the article). If you look through his contribs since August, you will see many attacks against Tomica (and apparently a few against me). His favorite choice of words appear to be idiot and atrocious.

Till reported Tomica for edit warring almost a month ago. The discussion there might give you, the reader, a little more insight in what is going on here. I hope I've summarized what's going on enough, as there's been a lot, and I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but I'm sure others will bring them up.

Zac (talk · contribs) 23:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's obvious that this thread has been fabricated because if you go through my contributions I was on a Wikibreak for weeks between August and September! LOL. Till 23:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Till was on a Wikibreak from August 23 to September 4. Not that it actually has anything to do with the evidence shown above. Zac (talk · contribs) 23:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Till could certainly be a bit more diplomatic in how xe says what xe thinks, but for the most part he is commenting on the content rather that the editor, emphasis on "for the most part". In a few of the cases, I'd be inclined to agree with Till that the writing could do with a seriously good going over but like I said, surely it could be done without the jabs. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Tomica isn't a natural born English speaker, so he doesn't always get things right. That's no reason to continually be uncivil to him about it. "Copyediting paragraph", "sentence", "lead", whatever works just fine. It's extremely rude and I am sick and tired of this behavior. Zac (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that Zac is involved with this and got angry with me for what happened here earlier today, which looks like a contributing factor to prompt him to start this thread. Btw, it's 'incivility' not 'uncivility' LOL. Till 04:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Finally! This should have been made by me a long time ago. It's funny how this person Till (who used to be a good friend of mine before) talks that I am doing a WP:OWN on Diamonds (Rihanna song), when actually he is the one that does that. If you go through all edit history of the article he makes a tone of "stubborn" edits, removing relevant information. Also in most of then he calls me idiot and my prose a non-sense. Zac noted good, I am not a native English speaker so I need a help here and there. This is a another prove on his behavior. Calling me idiot, stupid and wanting to "spuke me with this BS". What a nive behavior from a Wikipedia user hm? A yeah, he also called me a pig and said to fuck me right back on his talk page essays. I think it's clearly enough. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 07:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I already explained this to you on the 3RR forum. 1) I didn't call you a pig; "trying to teach a pig to sing" is a figure of speech, and 2) "fuck you right back" is a quote from a song called F.U.R.B. (Fuck You Right Back) and wasn't directed at you. As for the "spuke me with this BS"? That doesn't make sense, and isn't what I wrote. Thankyou. Till 07:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
      • That was exactly what you meant and wrote, and you dedicated that quote directly to me, so don't try to lie now here. And of course that is what you meant, plus dozen of times saying that I am an idiot is enough already. That is called behavior, something you are not very familiar with. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 07:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that edit summaries like "idiots, what the actual fuck does "lyrically it is more positive" mean? Srlsy. When people are using this encyclopaedia, they don't want to be scared off by the terrible prose" are unnecessary - not just that, they are actually counterproductive. Paradoxically, the edit itself was a good piece of constructive copyediting! What would have been wrong with an edit summary like "Tidied up prose a little"? Furthermore Till, recycling other people's bad language and aggression doesn't make it any more acceptable. The fact that F.U.R.B. is a quote from someone else doesn't mean it's more OK to use it than if you just said "Fuck you" directly. The mood here is not to block people for incivility so I don't see a block happening. But it would be oh so much easier to work around here if editors like Till could ease up on their editing colleagues. Giving people a slap takes more energy than giving them a helping hand. I'll post a more formal request on Till's talk page but I don't see this going any further, personally. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is, trying to reason with these people while attempting to make good faith contributions on articles is completely useless. They revert you for no reason because of their WP:OWN attitude with the articles they edit, even if you're improving the article! Take a look here and here for examples. I'm telling you, trying to compromise with them is impossible. Till 10:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    • By the way, never had any problems with Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and generally nothing major with Zac (talk · contribs), so I was quite surprised to see them reverting my good-faith edits to the Bruno Mars discography article. But obviously, obtaining a Featured List is more important to them than a friendship. Till 11:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

For what I can see, Till's edit summaries appear to be inappropriate, unduly rough and sometimes quite incivil, even if the edits in themselves appear, for the major part, to be legitimate/ correct. As this is the first time that the problem was reported here I suggest a simple advice is sufficent, but if Till still continues to use a similar tone more proper actions could be taken. Cavarrone (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Till has undertaken to write more constructive edit summarries in future. I don't think we need to proceed further, myself. Would the next person who agrees with me please close this up? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:29, 22 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 article re-creation: Michael Dimino

Could someone have a look at the version which was deleted at Afd to see whether the new one (which I've just moved from "Michael Dimino (Inventor)" while stub-sorting) is a re-creation of the deleted article and thus should be speedied as G4? Thanks. PamD 10:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's the same guy, and although there are additional sources, they appear to be more or less the same - just listings of his patents. WilyD 11:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have deleted it per CSD G4. The new article did not address the AfD concerns, i.e. reliable coverage by independent sources. De728631 (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

EdwardsBot request for Wiki Medicine (thematic organization)

Hi, I was asked to send a mass message on behalf of Wiki Medicine to current WikiProject Medicine participants inviting them to check out the new organization. WikiProject Pharmacology would also be an appropriate target, as they deal with the medicines aspect of medical issues. The message is brief, the WikiProject participants are all registered members of their respective WikiProject and the new organization is directly related to their topic-interest. Does anyone have objections about this? I'd like to avoid any drama and just inform people of a neat and relevant organization.

Delivery list

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Participants

Message

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine or Wikiproject Pharmacology, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --the Wikimedia Medicine Team 05:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 11:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Object. Spam is spam, unless Wikipedians have explicitly opted in. Post message to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine instead. Nobody Ent 15:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, just post a message to the talk page of the related wikiprojects. I would imagine that many of the participants of those projects would already be watching the talk page so I really see no need to message the entire participants list. SassyLilNugget (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing check

Hi I just want to check in about some recent contact I've had with editors about WP:COI+. I sent about 20 emails to editors on both sides of the paid editing debate. Canvassing is characterized by sending mass messages to a biased group of editors in secret with the purpose of influencing a debate. I believe I am at the border of mass messaging (I also posted at Village Pump Policy and Village Pump Proposals), I did not send to a biased group, I mainly encouraged people to look at the document, but I did present my reasoning for why I think it's important, and I did do it by email rather than on talk pages, mainly just because that communication is more personal. Am I approaching this wrong, or bordering on canvassing?

the message I sent

I was wondering if you would take a look at Wikipedia:COI+ I intend for COI+ to seek a middle ground between the current ambiguity of WP:COI and the severity of Bright Line prohibitions on any direct editing. This is particularly important because the community has identified that there is some problem with WP:COI but also found no consensus to outright ban paid editing. The 2009 RfC to ban paid editing closed with no consensus. The 2012 RfC on COI closed with no consensus as well. For as many people who have supported a prohibition on direct editing there is another editor who calls COI a distraction and cites WP:NPOV as the only relevant policy. For those reasons, I simply don't believe that Bright Line will ever gain consensus. I also happen to think it's not ideal, as it could drive paid advocates under ground, it has no requirement for disclosure, and it offers no reasonable assurance to paid advocates of a timely response to their suggested changes. COI+ is designed to address each of those concerns: COI+ would appeal to paid advocates by welcoming them to the community, educating them about our mission and policies, and guiding them towards constructive interaction; COI+ would require disclosure--in triplicate--on user pages, relevant article talk pages, and with links to COI declarations in comment signatures COI+ would set a 1 month time limit on edit requests: if no editor even responded to a paid advocate's suggestions or proposed changes within a month--after going through talk pages, help boards, noticeboards, and OTRS--then a paid advocate could make a change directly, if they left clear notice on the article talk page and at the COI noticeboard. I am drafting a Signpost op-ed introducing COI+ to run in the next month or two, with an RfC to follow. At first COI+ would merely be an aspirational, voluntary agreement. It could, however, be a bridge forward towards a more comprehensive, instructive, and hopefully effective guideline for COI editors and particularly paid advocates. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about it.

Thanks for your guidance. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I fixed a link to WP:COI+ in the above post so it goes to the right place. (When you merely type [[WP:COI+]] it doesn't do the right thing; you need [[WP:COI%2B]]). The use of the '+' character may cause problems, so you might consider changing the name for your proposed voluntary protocol so that it doesn't use any special characters. Since the text of your email seemed neutral and well-intentioned it didn't cause me any concerns about canvassing. However the use of email seems excessive and talk page posts would be better. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that talk pages would have been more transparent and suggests at least the appearance of impropriety, although I personally prefer email sometimes to initiate a better connection with other editors. Transparency and privacy are indeed in tension and I have to think about how to balance that in a way that isn't campaigning. I appreciate your feedback.

Regarding the '+', I've never had a problem with the link before. So WP:COI+ won't go to the right place?? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't make it fail now, so maybe it's alright. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

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.

---

Usgrant7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of a number of industry insiders who wrote the article Retail loss prevention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an extended paean to their trade. This was not spotted for some time but an article in the New Statesman noted the difference between their puff piece and the serious issues raised by, among others, the Citizens Advice Bureau, who have issued two position papers on this dodgy trade and have publicised numerous examples of "retail loss prevention" companies targeting children, making exorbitant charges, using unsupportable legal threats with no actual basis in law, and of course the fact that virtually none of the types of cases they routinely pursue have ever come before a court, so there is actually no case law supporting the idea that shops may, as a general principle, apportion overheads such as security guards and cameras to those suspected (and in very many cases not even charged let alone convicted) of theft. CAB considers this to be a form of extortion. The leading firm in the business - and it does seem likely that the editors involved are likely to be associated with that firm - has responded to criticism in the usual way, by threatening the commentators with libel writs. The UK's libel law is badly broken, but probably not that badly: it is almost certainly posturing aimed at suppressing dissent. They can try that over here in the UK, I suspect that the Wikipedia community's attitude to such machinations is likely to be robust. I have warned the editor due to his obvious conflict of interest. I won't take enforcement action as I was the one who neutralised their advertorial in the first place.

The article could do with more eyes and some expansion, the controversy is likely to increase if the libel threats continue especially as one of the groups threatened is a law blog whose only fault, as far as I can see, was to publish the facts of a case. I heard about it from David Allen Green's Twitter feed, I think, but I have seen commentary from Simon Singh and other libel reform campaigners. It's a hot topic with skeptical activists in the UK, plus the NS also has a sizeable and activist-minded readership. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Also: JamesForLPF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a representative of the Loss Prevention Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and a co-contributor, also author of a rather obvious advertisement for $INDUSTRYBODY. Guy (Help!) 15:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • PR is rampant on Wikipedia these days... (As the saying goes "we are winning this".) As long as they haven't threatened anyone on Wikipedia, I don't see why this notice was posted here. WP:NPOV/N and/or WP:COI/N would have been more appropriate. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Becauyse the user is not reading his talk page, is reverting to his preferred (spam) version and because I'm involved, as the one who removed his crap, so need some help. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That may prove actionable, although he's done only two reverts insofar, and this is still largely a content dispute. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Four and blocked (not by me). He is now blocked, but has finally started talking. I think we can probably close this. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 22 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 ‎75.51.171.155 violating NPOV

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.

---

Unregistered user ‎75.51.171.155 is violating NPOV and persistently vandalising the article on White Terror (Russia) trying to turn it into a Communist propaganda piece, using clearly biased sources, refusing necessary warning tags, and insisting on pro-Red Terror remarks, thereby demonstrating his biased POV. He clearly thinks that the way to write a Wikipedia article is to start with a political position and to search for sources no matter how biased and unreliable to support that pre-determined viewpoint. Is this the right place to report this? cwmacdougall 10:17, 23 October 2012

IP notified. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:42, 23 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:Thehelpfulbot

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

---

It just chewed up a chunk of the article on Birkenhead. I think it should be tested again. JMcC (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the bot, that was Hoberlober (talk · contribs) with this edit and the previous one. They have already been warned about it. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 23 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.

Nahk7 vandalizing David article

Nahk7 persists in removing references to Christianity from the David article after many warnings. He has made three reverts from 3:24 21 Oct to 7:35 21 Oct: 1, 2, 3. He made two others on 19 Oct. This follows a quiet time after previous vandalism and warnings on 4 Oct and 5 Oct. In Sept, he had been warned and blocked for the same behavior.
He has been advised of this discussion. Yopienso (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm working very hard to try and find the vandalism in their edits. Edit-warring for which a block may be needed, yes, but are you seriously calling what appears (for the most part) to be valid attempts to improve the article vandalism? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So when this troll or bigot repeatedly strikes Christian references from the David article, etc. are we then supposed to be extra specially patient with him for weeks and months? Even after he vandalized my personal user page, I and others have all patiently gone to his usertalk page and diplomatically begged him to start using article talk pages in stead of edit war, but he has still yet to demonstrate that he even knows where the article talk page is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

...and that's a different issue. I see a couple of edits to your userpage about a month ago. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, that's WP:RFC/U. Asking for a block because of dumb edits (barely considerable as vandalism as per the definition) to your userpage a month ago is ridiculous. I have blocked the editor for edit-warring. Nobody has yet to convince me that the edits to the article were vandalism - against consensus, yes, but not vandalism - there's a key definition that must be met. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a violation of WP:NPA. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bwilkins, I just found this discussion, which I opened late last night Alaska time and then retired. It seems I should have posted it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. I can't recall ever taking an editor to AN/I before, so please pardon my goof.

I considered Nahk7's edits vandalism because they were against the clear facts, against consensus, against previous advice, warnings, and a block. It seemed to me Nahk7 wanted only to disrupt. It hadn't really occurred to me he might be editing in good faith after, from my viewpoint, displaying so much bad faith. I would appreciate any lesson you might have for me as to how to proceed better should such a case arise in the future.

Thank you for giving the article a week's respite from Nahk7's edit warring. Yopienso (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we have IP 99.88.142.106 making similar edits on a smaller scale. Yopienso (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be unrelated POV pushing. It's only been two edits, but if it persists, the page could be semi-protected. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"So when this troll or bigot...." And you're complaining about personal attacks....? Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minorview (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld block notice

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

---

This is possibly the greatest block notice in the history of Wikipedia. Kudos to Dennis Brown. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 22:05, 23 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.

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

Daveandaustin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been engaging in edit warring across the articles Flip-flop (politics) and Romnesia. Four editors including myself have reached out to this individual with no response other than having each of our combined edits reverted beyond 3RR. Perhaps someone outside of the situation can take a look at this and either counsel this person or otherwise remediate this situation? Thank you. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

He seems like a very determined editor. I think a filing at WP:3RRNB would be in order. JohnInDC (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

We're beyond that at this point. This is now 5 6 (or is it 7?) editors that this person has reverted. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 02:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked and efforts appear to be underway to clean up the articles. JohnInDC (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, courtesy nod to User:Barek. The editing that is occurring is not cleaning up the mess that Daveandaustin made but looks rather partisan itself only from the flipside. Obviously such matters are not an issue for ANI. 85.170.164.197 (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Threats of a sort at Talk:Vladimir Putin

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.

---

An IP made some death-threat-type things against Putin at the talkpage of "his" article. As with most impotent internet posturing, I don't think anything of it. Nevertheless, we have some bright-line policies against this sort of stuff, so I figured I should bring it here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Lothar. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 24 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.

Search box

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 doubt very much this is the right place to ask this question, but here goes: There seems to be something odd going on with the search box within the last week or so. I type in a search term, and it might appear, but when I move the cursor into it, suddenly I get a different list, of like everything starting with the first letter of the search term. I'm seeing this both on home and work PC's, both logged in and logged out, and both the "old" and the "new" version of the standard wikipedia layout. Also the search box initially contains the word "Search", which it didn't used to. Any clue what's going on? Was something changed recently? Is this a broadly-known problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it's working now. I'll mark this resolved unless I have a recurrence. In the interim, please tell me which page I should take a question like this to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. I typed "the beatles" and it first showed stuff containing that phrase and then somehow it changed to everything starting with "the be". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is a page that I usually get good answers from though there may be others. Something must be going on as I, just today, no longer get any list at all when I type in the search box. Hope this helps but maybe someone else will have a better idea. MarnetteD | Talk 04:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it's browser-related. My home and office both use IE 8. Could you maybe go there and add to my comments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, so it's not just me. I'll take it there. Thanks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 24 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.

Disruptive editing from user

TheShadowCrow keeps adding the term 'Soviet Armenian' or a variation of to the Carl Lewis article in reference to Robert Emmiyan. Athletes in this article are referred to by the nation that the athlete represented during the particular event and Emmiyan represented the Soviet Union in 1986 and did not represent Armenia until much later. The sentence in question is in context to a 1986 event. TheShadowCrow originally insisted that Emmiyan should be referred to by his ethnic group, however, no other athlete in the article is referred to by ethnic group and ethnic groups do not compete against one another in track and field events, nations do. The change that this editor wants to put through would damage the uniformity of the article where all athletes are referred to by the nation they represented at the time of the event and would give only Emmiyan special treatment. However, this reasoning been ignored repeatedly and thus this edit has been placed again and again into the article as seen here, here, here, here, and here. I have already told TheShadowCrow that this information does not need to belong in an article about Carl Lewis and can freely belong in Emmiyan's own article but to no avail. Also, some of the responses this editor has given me are uncivil like this and this so I am afraid any input from me would be ignored by this editor. If someone can take a look and resolve this I would greatly appreciate it. BearMan998 (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to settle a content dispute. Why isn't there a discussion on the article's talk page? If there were then other editors could weigh in over the matter. You have had a discussion going with him on your talk pages but jumping here before trying other means of dispute resolution won't work. Both of you need to stop reverting each other and discuss on the article talk page following BRD.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and direction on this matter, I started a discussion on the Carl Lewis Talk page so hopefully consensus can be gained before this is added again to the article. BearMan998 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In early July I banned TheShadowCrow from all AA2 articles and warned him that continued BLP violations would lead to sanctions; this is exactly the sort if thing that got him sanctioned in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Judging from his block log this is not only a single content dispute. TheShadowCrow has last been blocked in August for one month, for abusing multiple IPs to evade a previous block. I could imagine a topic ban from all biographies of living persons to deal with this persistent problem. De728631 (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That was for an entirely different thing. Why should I be banned from biographies of living persons when I'm contributing to them? Bearman is at least 50% at fault here because he also took part in an edit war and has stalled our debate as long as he could. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It does take two to edit war. However, I have previously warned you about edit warring so you should know better by now. CT Cooper · talk 17:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well in the case of an edit dispute, which version should be used until the issue is solved? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The most recent version, except in cases of vandalism or clear WP:BLP violations, neither of which can be cited here. In other words, both parties should just stop editing the disputed part of the article until a consensus is reached. CT Cooper · talk 21:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems everyone who has chimed in on the article talk page with the exception of TheShadowCrow is in agreement that Emmiyan's ethnicity is irrelevant to the Carl Lewis article and therefore should not be included. The ShadowCrow has already called another editor's opinion that was against his/her own as "pretty pointless" here so I feel like I'm beating a dead horse. I'm going to step away from it for now as I stated my points and debating anymore would just be repeating myself. BearMan998 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, thier opinions are biased because they heard your reasons and not mine. And as Yankees76 said, there's no voting on Wikipedia. We must reach a consensus.

I already explained why his comment was pointless on the talk page. Disagreeing with me in slang without giving any reason why contributes nothing to the debate.

It sounds to me like BearMan is mad he cannot defend his side anymore and is hoping an Admin will do it for him. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

robert wade screenwriter (james bond)

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.

---

someone is changing his wikipedia page and my name is in it someone is trying to abuse the page can you remove it and make it so it cant be edited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.254.0 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the offending material from public view (so your name is hidden), and have sent the IP editor a warning for vandalism. Hope this helps. Regards, GiantSnowman 12:51, 24 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.

Questionable username

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 don't know if I'm being overly sensitive, but someone has made comments under a username very similar to mine (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strikeforce Challengers: Kennedy vs. Cummings). I have not notified the user since he has no talk page. He's only made 1 edit, but I'm suspicious because of all the things that have happened concerning the MMA project. I think it may be an attempt to deceive others into thinking it's me--or perhaps I'm just being paranoid. I'd appreciate some guidance as to what, if anything, I should do. Thank you. Mdtemp (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious attempt to imitate you. Indef blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:57, 23 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.

Insulting edit summaries - bad enough for RevDel?

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

---

I've been asked by User:Dodger67 to redact several edit summaries. All of these are ad hominem personal attacks directed against Dodger67 (as are the content changes), and the IP user was blocked briefly as a result. However, on re-reading the requirements for RevDel, I'm not convinced these can be regarded as more than "ordinary" incivility, and so I've declined the request, at least temporarily. I'd like to get the opinion of some other admins - it seems unfair that Dodger67 should have to tolerate these insults in the article's history, and I'd prefer to IAR and just get rid of the (entirely unproductive) edits. Since that would go against policy, though, it would be good to get consensus from the community first. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Addendum: I am aware of the irony involved in not implementing IAR because to do so would involve ignoring a rule... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"You are ill-informed" doesn't qualify for RevDel. It would take a particularly thin-skinned individual to be seriously offended by that. It sets a bad precedent if we start Revdel'ing those on request. However, the last diff (now removed apparently) comes off as kind of racist, which I do not consider "ordinary" incivility.--Atlan (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Comment from the agrieved party: This one makes a racist assumption, this one insults my disability and this one is racist again and and insults my education. The ironic part of it all is that the IP believes I wrote the content that he/she disagrees with while in fact I wrote almost none of the content - most of my edits, not counting these reverts, have been layout, format and language improvements. I almost forgot - the IP also posted similar insults in the article itself. Roger (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay I didn't see the wheelchair part as it was on the left of the diff. It's too ludicrous to be insulting in my opinion but I don't think anyone would mind a RevDel in that case.--Atlan (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's only "ludicrous" until you become a wheelchair user yourself. Disability insults are just as hurtful as racist insults. Roger (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't characterize being in a wheelchair as a trivial thing. The insult is ludicrous because there's no way being in a wheelchair could disqualify your edits.--Atlan (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That does not make it any less insulting per se. Roger (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill insults. People are getting far too rev-del happy these days, it'd is overkill for such a thing. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Might be overkill but if it makes an editor happier about working here, why not IAR and do it as a courtesy? (unless there is some sort of technical thing that I'm not aware of?) Blackmane (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that becomes "expectation-setting" for the future (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet racial insults are routinely deleted - some insults are more equal than others? You're also in favour of not remedying multiple WP:NPA violations. To top it all an IP vandal gets more respect here than an editor with a 5-year track record of over 18 000 edits, founding a WikiProject and creating more than 20 articles. Thanks for nothing! Roger (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have rev-del'd all the edit-summaries. I am utterly f***ing speechless that this wasn't done earlier. As the OP says, if they'd been racial slurs they'd have disappeared in 5 seconds flat. I despair. Roger, if there are any more, please let me know. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 24 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.

Fjozk's battleground behavior

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.

---

Fjozk is a relatively new user (or at least has a relatively new account), but has very quickly demonstrated a reputation for speaking to others in a very condescending tone and bullying them for a variety of reasons. On Kevmin's talk page, Fjozk very rudely confronted Kevmin over an error when a simple polite notice would have sufficed. Also, on Go Phightins! talk page, the user's complaint about an edit conflict began politely but went downhill and led to Fjozk accusing me of bullying when I came to the defense of Phightins! He also dragged my name through the mud on another page during a discussion that I was not even a part off, a discussion in which Fjozk's poor conduct had already been noted at least twice [36] [37]. Fjozk's behavior during this discussion also left something to be desired. Please note that Fjozk has been approached on their talk page multiple times [38] [39] [40], so it's not like they don't know any better. AutomaticStrikeout 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So, to spend forever on the matter, which is what these pointless, drive-by edits like go Phightins! tend to lead to.

Your first diff to me, "This is hte second time the editor has done this type of hit and run copyvio claim, ..., but they are not willing to participate in improvement of the article or clarification of what is plagiarized or too closely paraphrased." The templates both contain links to the temp articles, one I wrote, and one I am in the process of writing.

Second diff acknowledges the close paraphrasing that I noted exists.

Your third diff? Dennis Brown's recent user contributions shows he is highly involved in protecting the long-term, name calling, contentious behaviour of another user who is having civility issues at ArbCom. Seriously, I took his post as an invitation to be contentious.

Fourth diff, Ryan acknowledged my frustration.

Fifth diff, by another member of your tag team.

You provided diffs that show an editor made a false accusation against me, my copyvio tag was appropriate due to legal issues concerning close paraphrasing, that Wikipedia editors live by a do as I say, not as I do standard, that an editor acknowledged how frustrated with editing I must be under the circumstances, and that editors in addition to you are will to tag team bully.

So, now you want to talk about it some more? -Fjozk (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not saying your complaints are invalid, I'm saying your method is extremely rude and off-putting. I have already stated my case and I will leave it to be reviewed by others who care to participate. However, let me be clear that Dennis is one of our most respected and level-headed editors, let alone admins, and while I disagree with his stance on Malleus (and agree with your assessment), I highly doubt Dennis would ever try to escalate a situation in any way. Also, note that I had an edit conflict in making this post, an edit conflict because of a post in another thread. Edit conflicts are a part of Wikipedia. AutomaticStrikeout 18:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is an issue that I don't believe needs administrative action at this time. I was disappointed and rather surprised that Fjozk chose to bring your name into that discussion AutomaticStrikeout, but I do not think it was an offense that needs action. The edit conflict issue was another unnecessary flare up, but one that can be set aside. I would like to address one thing in regards to the statement by Kevmin at DYK. There is absolutely no requirement that someone tagging a page as copyvio clean it up themselves. Fjozk did not create the page and does not have a responsibility to fix the problems with the page. Ryan Vesey 18:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's nice Ryan, but would you feel the same way if it was you that was being dragged through the mud and accused of bullying? The admin can either do something now or wait until Fjozk spirals out of control. Trust me, a user as condescending as Fjozk will be back here soon. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There are a number of problems with Fjozk's behavior, many of these are displayed by his comment here. That being said, nothing has escalated to a level where administrative action is necessary and I don't think action would do any good at this time. Should a similar level of aggressive/defensive behavior continue, I think administrative action would be necessary. I don't see a reason to point out all of the issues I see with Fjozk's behavior and his comment here, since the matter is fairly obvious and I feel that dragging out diffs would not be beneficial to this discussion. Instead, we should press the reset button and let Fjozk know the behavior can't continue. Ryan Vesey 19:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, fine. One positive that could come out of this would be if we find a way to notify users when they start to edit a page that someone is already editing. I find it somewhat comical that I have gotten two make that three edit conflicts on this thread and that none of them came due to an edit related to this thread! AutomaticStrikeout 19:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thoughts Honestly, I tend to lean toward agreeing with Ryan, at least as far as how this situation affected me. I don't appreciate being called a "drive-by editor", but at the end of the day, I saw an error, corrected it, and it caused an edit conflict. I think that Fjozk overreacted to something that is pretty common, but we've all seen how civility blocks tend to work out. Though the situation was unpleasant, it wasn't something that struck me as block-worthy. I haven't yet looked at the other diffs, but as far as what happened on my talk page, those are my thoughts. Go Phightins! 19:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - during closure. I have been following that discussion on WT:NPP since it started. Admittedly Fjozk has used some less than polite commentary, but there is more than just a grain of truth in his complaints about speedy tagging. You have seen that other users have already drawn attention to his way of communicating. No one is going to block Fjozk (at least not yet), so please let's all remember that this noticeboard is for issues that generally require admin action as a last resort and not keep running to it to let off steam every time someone farts in the classroom. Rather than come here, it would have been a cool move if you had addressed your concerns first on his talk page as others have done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:26, 24 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.

Anonymous Honda owner

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.

---

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

This anonymous user has persisted, for over two weeks now, in introducing uncited information into the Honda D engine article (an oft vandalized page). Originally well-meaning in intent, the users tone became insulting nearly immediately ("snobinavian" being a new one), launching into personal attacks against me as well as another user who attempted to explain to him how Wikipedia operates in a very calm fashion. Not only does he reintroduce his own uncited info, but also repeatedly re-inserted factual errors made by others and reverted by me en masse. The edit history of Honda D engine says it all, with edit summaries including all sorts of abuse.

Here's a particularly charming rant from my talkpage (Oct 15, 15:24):

Now, can everyone (EVERYONE) who doesn't know about the Honda "D15B8" engine just p-i-s-s o-f-f!?? (and if you don't then I will be making plenty of insults based on your country, religion, status, sexual preference, your self-inflicted erectile dysfunction problems, and whatever info you're foolish enough to disclose to the public). Grrrrr, you guys [mostly Nose-to-the-clouds-choppers-citation-needed guy] really upset me. I don't mess with your additions; why mess with mine? I've never touched a Wiki entry unless I knew I was 100% correct. Just accept it and focus your attention on what you know best. At the very least, LEAVE D15B8 ALONE! Let ME worry about vandals to the B8 section.

I would be grateful for some help with this rather persistent persecutor.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I left the instigator a stern talk page note, though I still think a block is in order for the racially abusive language. Furthermore, page protection may be in order. AutomaticStrikeout 17:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I blocked the IP for 72 hours; that was completely unnecessary on the IP's part. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:40, 24 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.

Bug erasing 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.

---

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but this will at least notify the people who need to know: On a number of pages, there's a bug that when you edit a section, deletes the rest of the page. I've noticed this for my account (most recent screw up), as well as a few others. At the very least, WP:AGF should be extended a little bit further in cases of section blanking until this gets resolved (though obviously this bug being fixed would be the best measure). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here's an example, and this may be another. (I've replaced ClueBot's warning with a welcome template.) Drmies (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This page is also affected: [41]. This might be a general problem. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)It only seems to affect very large pages (generally on the order of hundreds of kilobytes).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It happened to me on WP:AIV, which is rather small. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• This is being tracked in bugzilla:41352 Legoktm (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This is probably the same bug that's already being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Apparent bug causing massive text loss when saving. It might be more constructive to consolidate discussion there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:10, 24 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.

MadmanBot odd behavior

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

---

It complained that my new page Cycling at the 2004 Summer Paralympics - Men's road race/time trial is a copy - of itself! It did the same to another page for another user a couple of hours ago, curiously that also had "time trial" in the title. What's this about? I've left the message in case this is useful evidence.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's bizarre. Did you notify User:Coren, who seems to manage the bot? Go Phightins! 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've pinged User:Madman, it is his bot, not Coren's. A quick check looks like it was a single hiccup, Reaper Eternal reverted it. Best to just take this to Madman instead of here. If it goes berserk and starts doing a lot of these, just get any active admin to mash the red button on the bot and shut it down or bring the issue back here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, that makes more sense. The page in question said that Coren's search bot had flagged the page, but I was confused since the edit history said Madman's. Go Phightins! 20:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• It's a rare, and slightly baroque, bug that occurs very occasionally. It sometimes occurs that Yahoo indexes the new Wikipedia page before CSBot has a chance to check it, and will return the page itself as an obvious match (duh!) The problem is that pages title containing a single quote get mangled a number of times between Yahoo's indexing, CSBot's canonicalization of the title, and Mediawiki's own scheme for urlencoding title in a way that occasionally defeats the code that prevents a page matching itself from popping up. — Coren ^(talk) 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Indeed, it's a problem with the single quote being escaped/unescaped repeatedly. It's not a super high-priority defect for me to fix as it rarely happens more than once a day (if that), but I do apologize for the false positive. Thanks, — madman 23:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I will tweak templates tonight though so it's clear whose bot is leaving what messages. — madman 23:41, 24 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.

Turkish people

Could an admin please have a look at the Turkish people article. It seems as though another edit war could emerge due to a user who keeps placing a genetics section. It was previously agreed that we would not have such a section as those studies are not representative of Turkish people living outside of Turkey (e.g. Turkish minorities in Bulgaria etc.). Moreover, they have included new sections such as "Anatolians" which have no citations at all.Turco85 (Talk) 21:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• This was dropped on my talk page as well. In a nutshell, you do NOT need admin telling you what the content should be, and this is an admin board. What you need is to just leave the article as it is, go to the talk page for a few days, if you can't work that out, go to WP:DRN. Decisions on content are decided by fellow editors, not admin. As long as you two don't get into an edit war, we admin aren't needed here. And you don't want us involved. Trust me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For reference: Talk:Turkish_people#Origins_of_Turkish_people_in_the_article_is_wrong and Talk:Turkish_people#Genetics_.28again.29_and_recent_edits_by_User:Cavann. User:Turco85 seems to want to OWN the article. Cavann (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You are an interesting sort of fellow with an interesting history. You wouldn't happen to be User:Tirgil34, would you? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, we addressed this before: User_talk:Dennis_Brown/Archive_10#SPA (you collapsed the remainder of archive page incorrectly, it's hard to find). Cavann (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I need to fix that. Done So you are saying you are User:DeFacto (or User:Ornaith) then? Hmm, not the one I was expecting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I had never been banned from wiki before. Are you looking at all the banned users in Toronto. You know it's a big city right? 23:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavann (talk • contribs)

And that's all I'm gonna say. I hope another admin looks into this, cause you are actually harassing me. (are you this banned user? or are you that banned user?) Cavann (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

And I did ask rather politely and non-reactively. It is what I do here, after all, and harassing wasn't the intent, discussion was. When someone is obviously familiar, it is helpful to know who I am talking to, although I didn't demand it and it wasn't personal. My previous comments about DRN still apply, by the way, and I still suggest everyone back away from reverting back and forth and discuss it on the talk page, without admin interference. But if any other admin has a question, they can ping me or email me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Polite and "non-reactively"? Are you kidding me? Without a question, you seem to be assuming I'm some banned user and your tone of questioning is "oh you are that banned user then," and you think you are polite and "non-reactive"? Besides being ridiculous, it is also ironic since you actually founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. This is why I don't stick around, I have to spend 2 extra hours just cause I added material citing journal articles and someone accused me of being a sock. Is Wiki's sock puppet investigation process this pathetic? I don't even seem to be in the same continent with those users you are throwing around which seem to be editing UK related articles /rant Cavann (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I hope the talk page can help, the above reactions are exactly what I was expecting from Cavann though. I'm not sure if I've got the energy with editing on wikipedia anymore (though it is 1am!).Turco85 (Talk) 00:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And I missed the "89" in the first comment, which led to the misunderstanding as well. The names are so similar that wasn't as obvious to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by Omar-Toons

Dear Administrators

While reviewing the article Republic of Salé, I asked for references for the two following statements:

• The fact that corsair city was a major piratical port during its brief existing.
• The fact that: Cultural differences between the native Saletin people and the Morisco refugees, together with language differences led the newcomers to settle in the old Medina of Rabat, on the opposite bank of the Bou Regreg.

User Omar-Toons kept deleting the tags I added asking to source these two statements. He did so twice even after I wrote this message [42] on his talk page refusing to be collaborative. May be Omar-Toons needs the English speaking reader to believe what he wants him to believe without asking for sources. Sources are important, otherwise everyone can pretend whatever he wants. I would like this user to stop vandalism, to stop pushing and to be collaborative. What he may know or what he may consider as a fact has to be sourced since wiki is neither a blog nor a forum.

Fort-Henry (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Accusing another user of vandalism when you are in fact in an editing dispute is always a bad idea. Please review WP:VANDAL fow Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Policing somebody is also a bad idea (this "presumed new user" is making edits or reverting me on each article I edit, a few minutes to few hours after mines).
  • --Omar-toons (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

edit warring is an even worse idea and if it keeps up you will both be blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:Omar-toons's alternate account User:Omar-Toons was globally locked for "massive crosswiki edit-warring", and it seems that this behaviour has continued. I haven't been able to find the discussion the led to the global-lock, but it seems that allowing users to get around it by switching to an alternate account defeats their purpose. TDL (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Omar-toons created Omar-Toons, began a massive cross-wiki edit-warring campaign which resulted in that account being blocked, and then returned to using Omar-toons here. I'm inclined to reblock Omar-Toons, as it appears he did not get the point.—Kww(talk) 00:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I just was busy translating the fr.Wiki featured article to English while another user was just making useless edits like this one.

The only question I have (for myself) is "who's this so-called new user, policing me (+ this), already knowing how does Wiki work and finally accusing me of vandalism?".

Can I ask for an RCU for this case?

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not really understand this behavior from user Omar-Toons. I do not neither understand what he means by "presumed new user"!!!??? Why is that? Is it only because I asked for references? Or may be Omar-Toons do not like to be challenged. As I know, Wikipedia is a collaborative project in which contributors should accept to be collaborative and should accept to be challenged on a scientific base.

Now, to avoid confusion, let me introduce myself. I am not that new user. I contributed long time ago, under an IP address, to Wiki (because of that I already know some of the policies). Starting the month of September, my son (the high school student here in Canada) has to accomplish some extensive work about Morocco (as have some of his classmates to accomplish similar work about other north African countries). And, to be honest, I was shocked to see all that unreliable content. How could we trust that? How could we as parents and how could our teachers allow some scientific works to be based on such articles? So I decided to be back.

Now, in my real life, I am a university professor. And the most important is that I am a reviewer for some of the most prestigious scientific journals edited in Oxford, UK. Analyzing and reviewing articles is my job.

Omar-Toons is accusing me of policing him, I do not understand how he dares showing to other administrators an example of his rudeness and impoliteness towards other contributors!? (Stating their contributions are stupid) Is it allowed to be that rude and impolite in Wiki? Omar-Toons also treated one of my contributions of useless while he has simply hidden a part of the article republic of Sale’ instead of sourcing it. Now, let’s admit you were translating the article, why did not you add the appropriate tag to let us know???

Finally, I would like to inform the administrators that I do not contribute to wiki to be involved in edit wars, my aim is to make wiki more reliable. Fort-Henry (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Why not to be enough fair to invite the administrators to observe all the history of our contributions in the article Republic of Sale'? I do not believe I was involved in an edit war since I was simply asking for references. Fort-Henry (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A warning to both editors: you need to talk with each other and settle your differences. The first one of you that reverts the other after the article protection has expired without discussing it first will be blocked.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Leblob

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

---

If I refer to its four edits that mainly consisted in vandalising my user page and my discussion page i do not have the feeling this account has been created to make any serious cntribution to Wikipedia. I do not know what is the use on WP (en) in such case and I rely on the admins to take the appropriate decision. Best regards. --Lebob (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked indefinitely for harassment and impersonation of your account (by the close name). In the future, you can also use WP:AIV for this. Normally, we require some warning before blocking, but this behavior was beyond the pale, and no warning should be needed to let a person know that harassing other users is wrong. They can explain themselves in an unblock request if they have something serious to contribute to Wikipedia with this account, which I doubt. --Jayron32 13:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was not sure if which page was the be suited for this claim and I have finally chosen to post it here. Anyway thanks a lot for your swift reaction. --Lebob (talk) 14:14, 25 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.

WP:SPA dedicated to insulting me

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.

---

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

Bekaro's only edits are:

• Insulting my religious affiliation and making bad faith statements about me, out of the blue, despite me never having said anything to Bekaro before
• Refusing to acknowledge his attacks while continuing to misconstrue an inexperienced editor's disagreement over Jason Sosa and my corrections to an article as evidence that we're bullies
• Insisting that the SPI I filed (based on him having the same writing voice as prolific sockpuppeteer who has a grudge against me) was in bad faith
• Accusing me of making more personal attacks for a statement that commented purely on his actions, not on him.

This guy comes out of no where, slanders actions I've taken that no editor who knows anything about this site can argue against by insisting they're bad faith attacks, accuses any defense I make of being bad faith, and provides no evidence that I've taken bad faith actions.

Please do something about Bekaro (and his confirmed sock User:Ransacktheplace), he is nothing but an obvious troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This user seems only seems to attack me on my page instead of fixing his extremely bad faith which he did here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Josh24B#Comments_by_other_users

already on me. As per history personal attacks against administrator ched here

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ian.thomson&diff=prev&oldid=510993512

it seems he started to be hostile to people who point out his personal attacks, bad faith and thinking other users are certain socks because they dont capitalize their I. checking what the ACTUAL admins said in the investigation, I had NOT used anything else for said account.

admin said clearly "Closing this section with no action. While they may be linked, I don't see any evidence of abuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)"

So it seems ironic that he made personal attacks and bad faith not only against.Barnabywoods, but as me aswell. checking Ians history seems true he is indeed to much focused on attacking when others like said admin as example pointed him out to stop. Would you kindly instead give him a simple warning? thank youBekaro (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bekaro (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of WitsBlomstein (talk · contribs). Therefore, I've just indeffed him. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. His lying was just so nerve grating. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 25 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.

Apparent competence issue, Part 3 – longer / indef block requested

(The following languished for 24+ hours and was archived. I'm restoring it per instructions.)

I am returning for what I hope is the third and final time to discuss editor Davebrayfb, his unsound editing and what I now conclude is an intractable unwillingness or inability to improve. I think that an indef or other, non-trivial block (a month?) are warranted at this point, now no longer to get his attention but rather to stop his editing. My prior two postings are archived

here and

here.

They include all diffs, etc., to support my summary below, and in the interest of brevity and clarity I am not reproducing their combined content here. (NB – on my browser, at least, a comment that ‘no admin action’ is required appears alongside the second archived posting above. Please review the source page of the archive to see that that comment in fact relates to a prior, unrelated item in the archive.)

In brief, Davebrayfb appears to act in good faith but consistently edits in ways that degrade the encyclopedia rather than improve it. He has not responded to my own (extensive) efforts to engage him on his Talk page, nor to those of other editors who also stepped in in an effort to steer him in a better direction. A few days ago he was given a 24 hour attention-getting block, but when it expired he simply resumed editing, with no apparent improvement. Here are three examples:

This edit – while certainly plausible – was not sourced or otherwise reflected in the article text; it removed content that did correspond to the article text; and by reason of a typo, resulted in a redlink.

Here is a careless, obvious typo

Here he restores a prior unsourced edit, again without source despite a request to supply one

The consensus arising out of both of my prior postings was that 1) this editor is in fact disruptive; 2) I (and other editors) have made extensive and exceedingly patient efforts to try to help him improve; and 3) if he does not improve, sooner or later he will need to be blocked. He is not improving. Every one of his edits must be reviewed for substantive or technical shortcomings or errors. I think an actual, preventative block is in order, and ask that one be imposed.

I apologize for the fragmented, tripartite nature of my request but I am hoping this marks the end of it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Usually if it drops off without any comment whatsoever, it's because nobody is going to act on it. You're trying to establish long-term behavioural issues: that's WP:RFC/U territory, not ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that this case appears to present no particular urgency, and does not invite decisive action - or even stir much interest (particularly after two prior go-rounds), but I am skeptical of the value of a non-binding mediation process in dealing with the consistent, persistent unsound edits of someone who seems wholly indifferent to anyone's guidance or warnings and whose Talk page comments (when he deigns to make them) consist of non-responsive sentence fragments. (E.g., diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.) Is that really the only venue remaining? JohnInDC (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It didn't. The user was blocked for 24 hours. Nobody Ent 22:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, thanks. I forgot to mention that in each of the two prior rounds, a variety of editors commented and acted, at first with a bit of counseling and then a brief block. The essential problem here is that persuasion and instruction in this case have had no discernible effect on the problem. I'm not sure how starting again, in a new forum that offers the prospect only of more talk, is going to be productive. JohnInDC (talk) 00:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Commenting on the three diffs linked, I can see why no one was particularly interested in supporting action on this request. Diff 1 is unsourced, but doing a bit of research [43] suggests it was on Nick Jr in the UK, which makes the edit defensible. Now just re-adding it without addressing the issue is the wrong way to go about it, but basing a long term block in part on it seems unreasonable. The second diff is very defensible, while it seems conventional to refer to a show that no longer airs in the past tense, the show still exists, and its not exactly unreasonable to refer to it in the present tense. The only clear error is the failure to capitalize, which again does not seem reasonable to base a competence block on. The last diff is a question of national identity, which can be a complex issue. He was born in India, he has spent most of his life in America. Ultimately the article should reflect what the reliable sources say, but its an issue that confuses many editors and its not exactly unreasonable to think, oh born in India, nationality Indian. I just don't see enough to justify any action from the diffs. The diffs are less then ideal editing, but I don't think they are anywhere near the level of a competence block. Monty₈₄₅ 06:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I realize that these latest examples are not that egregious, but they come after 2 ANI entries and a 24 hour block that was designed to tell the editor that his edits are not up to snuff. Every single one of these editor's edits has a problem, or a potential problem. It might be a big one and it might be a small one, but the bottom line is that someone has to follow him around cleaning up his messes like the guy behind the elephants in a circus parade. I'm tired of it. I've posted on this three times in the short space of about 10 days and each time it seems I have to establish the whole set of concerns anew. Again I appreciate that it's a pain to go back to prior linked discussions, but for goodness' sake they're only a few days old - it's not like I'm dredging up something from the spring.

I have been reluctant to re-list the editor's originally incompetent edits because it seemed like unnecessary clutter, but because I am not conveying the kind of disruption that this editor routinely causes, here again are those lists, taken from my first two postings:

Abridged sampling of troublesome edits, in generally ascending order of concern:

• Idiosyncratic addition of information to articles which is generally plausible but unsourced and possibly incorrect. E.g. declaring that because one company involved in the production of a program is in Canada – a fact not in evidence in the article – the program is properly described as “Canadian-American” (see diff); adding “Emmy-winning” to an article when the company appears only to have been nominated (diff);

• Very infrequent use of edit summaries;

• Creating a category with a typo, here;

• Creating superfluous redirect pages (“Mrio” to “Mario”; “Mini mARIO” to “Mini Mario” – itself a redirect to “Mario”) (both since deleted);

• Removing a proposed merger template (albeit stale) without discussion, here;

• Undoing, without comment, other editors’ efforts to clean up articles and remove cruft, here;

• Placing articles into non-existent categories here then doing it again – twice – after other editors undid him, here and here;

• Low-grade apparent vandalism – here;

• Page blanking, diff and diff;

• Unilaterally moving “Nick.com” to “Nick.co.uk” without discussion and inconsistent with the content of the article, which is about “Nick.com” – followed, a couple of weeks later and after a Talk page reminder about the need to discuss most moves beforehand, by another unilateral move (“Viacom (1971-2005)” to “Viacom (1971-2006)”);

• Adding a “Good Article” designation to article that is not, in fact, a “Good Article”, here (defending the edit by saying that “it’s not a bad article”);

• Not once discussing any edit, before or after making it, on any article Talk page.

After my first posting which resulted in a third party editor posting a friendly suggestion to Davebrayfb that he should avail himself of various instructive links - a suggestion which Davebrayfb did not acknowledge or otherwise respond to - one of his first edits was to undo a months old redirect in the face of Talk page consensus. Here. That resulted in a 24 hour block, after which Davebrayfb returned to make edits that included the three diffs I listed above. I appreciate that those errors are minor but they reflect this editor's unwillingness (actually I think inability) to comprehend or achieve the level of competence that is expected here. The first edit is unsourced (as are all his edits), removed legitimate information and created a red wikilink. Someone has to go in, check the source, restore the right information, and fix the wikilink. In the second he spelled "British" with a small "b". Someone has to go in and fix that. In the third instance he changed - for the second time, his first time having been reverted with a request for a source - M. Night Shyamalan's nationality from American to Indian, again without a source, in the face of article text indicating that he'd been raised in America. Now someone has to go in, find sources, and conform the article to itself. Someone always has to fix his edits.

I don't care for the tone of the foregoing because to my own ears I am beginning to sound petulant or hysterical, but this guy makes the encylopedia worse, not better; he doesn't respond to suggestions, templates, requests or blocks, and after three rounds of this it seems clear to me that either he is permitted to continue to edit and slowly degrade the encyclopedia, or not. JohnInDC (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

John, I appreciate your forbearance - both with this editor and with the slow grinding processes here. You make a persuasive case above and I think it's just that we are so used to dealing with malice and bias here that well-intentioned incompetence gets overlooked. However I do take the point that his (I presume Davebrayfb is male) edits are becoming disruptive, none more so than his refusal to discuss them or take feedback. I'm going to put a post on his talk page asking him to respond to this AN/I and I'll regard a failure to respond in any way as further disruption. Whether that in itself is sufficient to indef block or not I'm not sure - do others have an opinion? I incline towards saying yes, but we have a day or two to decide. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocking in this case would not follow the purpose of a block: prevention. You're for some reason unwilling to assist the editor in amending their ways via an RFC/U. You're trying to take the quick way out: a block. Yes, the editor is frustrating - we have more than a few of those around. The annoyance this editor is creating is being watched (and fixed) and generally insignificant for the most part. You don't create a better editor by blocking them - you make a better editor by educating them. hence the RFC. The evidence you're putting forward certainly does not lend itself to a block for any reason, but I would like to hear their reasoning (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I have left a note on this editor's talk page. I'm going to datestamp this post +48 hours so this doesn't get archived, to give him chance to reply. (And also for us to discuss the best way forward, taking on Bwilkins' contribution just above.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate your efforts. Turning to BWilkins: I'm sorry, but this is where I just throw up my hands. I would love to hear his reasoning too! I've made a score of entries to the editor's Talk page - at first, friendly efforts to assist, with suggestions on ways to improve, and then later, templates. He doesn't respond. He doesn't respond. He's been asked previously to come and comment on the ANI postings about him (three times now!) and hasn't responded. He just - keeps editing. This is all laboriously detailed in my prior entries, which I now appreciate need to be reposted in full if I want anyone to read them. I'm trying to be responsible and patient and positive here but I'm really just about to walk away from the thing. JohnInDC (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to place on record that JohnInDC's attempts thus far to help this user do seem to heve been above and beyond the call of duty. This is not a lazy attempt to block someone whom we can't be bothered to help. But what do we do with someone who simply appears uninterested in receiving help or taking feedback? If anyone has suggestions and/or is willing to volunteer to go yet another extra mile to help Davebrayfb I'd love to hear from them! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur - I was never suggesting that JohnInDC was lazy :-) You have engaged him - rather strcitly advised them to respond ASAP. If they fail to do it and they continue their editing pattern, is a longer "this'll get your attention" block until they actually start to talk what you're suggesting? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of "attention-getting" blocks as it feels perilously close to an abuse of process. But I think my own view is that an indefinite (not permanent...) block would have the benefit of protecting WP from further disruption. It does seem as though pretty much all of Davebrayfb's edits get reverted by other editors almost immediately, all of which takes time and energy away from more productive work. However I don't feel sufficiently strongly about this to block on my own initiative (or I'd already have done so.) I'd prefer to see if a consensus emerges here about how to handle him henceforward. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Just - for the record, I guess - I have no particular interest in a block other than as what appears to me to be the only remaining solution for preventing the slow degradation that this editor's efforts produce. He's not uncivil, he's not pushing a POV or promoting his business; he's just inept, and for whatever reason, does not seem able to improve. If no one is comfortable finally with a block, that's fine, I won't go away in a snit. I'm not an admin, I won't take the heat for a bad decision - I get that. But all that being said, I really only just stumbled across this fellow and decided to spend some time trying to turn him in a better direction. I haven't been able to do it, I've run out of ideas that are within my ability as an ordinary editor (not to mention that I've grown kind of tired of it) and will probably just let him go after this. JohnInDC (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd propose a conditional indef block, which I gather is what Kim Dent-Brown is saying above. If the editor will engage in discussion about the problems with his edits and show his willingness to address the issue, the block could be lifted. When almost 100% of somebody's edits need to be reverted, they are not a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Something more than talk is necessary to put a brake on his bad edits. I also think that the moment he indicates a willingness to engage and try to learn how to be a better editor, he should be taken up on it. EdJohnston's proposal (summary?) accomplishes the former, and leaves the latter possible. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd go along with Ed's suggestion too, which makes my half-formed thinking more explicit! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

After a day's pause, he has now resumed editing with this contribution which, while substantively sound, created a red wikilink that had not been there before. I fixed it. His renewed activity does not introduce any new urgency into this discussion, and he may yet come here to comment. We'll see I guess. JohnInDC (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the message I left him on his talkpage a moment ago is along the lines of the discussion above ... anyone else is free to make good on the requirement based on his next contribution (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the merge template on the aka cartoon page by accident Davebrayfb (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

What about your other 213 edits to Wikipedia? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Think a CIR block is needed here. Looks like this editor is quite young, based on the field of their edits. He doesn't seem to have much of an idea about how anything is done here. Biting aside, this isn't a day care centre. Blackmane (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

He's visited a couple of Talk pages now but with this series of edits today managed to restore a couple misspellings, restore again an unsourced category and wreck a merger template. JohnInDC (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely and left a message emphasising that indefinite does not mean permanent. I am not optimistic that he can convince us to an unblock but I think he has run out of chances. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Sally Season

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.

---

Sally Season (talk · contribs)'s user page consists solely of a list of user names and topics. It appears that these are users he's had conflicts with. His unwillingness to explain the list's purpose has raised some concerns. I would like to hear the opinion of one or more admins as to whether the user is in violation of the rules, or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My immediate instincts are to ignore it. Looks to me like a list of some of our finest contributors, so I assume that's what Sally Season is trying to document.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The complainants on the user page would be well-advised to provide some diffs that demonstrate otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should they? You started this thread. --Malerooster (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Try reading the user's user page and talk page before opening your beak again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

At least one of the notes seems to possibly relate to a template on the user's talk page (user template notified about article, user now linked to template subject on page). The same user has asked for and not received an explanation for the list. I'm no admin, so I don't fit Bugs' request, but it seems against policy and/or norms for this site. --Nouniquenames 03:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the user won't explain what the list is for is a red flag that it's an enemies list, which is against the rules. The user's false contention that he owns his page is another red flag. Normally such lists would be rubbed out. If that's needed in this case, it should be done by an admin, not by one of us peons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I made the list! That's so exciting! Why? "Policy"? They should list Bbb23 or Dennis Brown for that--unless of course there was, gasp, sarcasm. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

For the second time now, I've removed the list. Recommend a block for trolling if the user adds it back. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Last time Sally visited my talk page they were not at a loss for words. I wish they'd comment here, in plain English. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@Viridtas. I, on the other hand, would recommend a block for you for stalking and provocation. If your repeated blanking of another user's user page escalates, you should be the first to go for throwing the first punch, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What "rule" defines enemy lists, and prohibits them? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility? I mean, it's not that important, but still... GiantSnowman 08:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility doesn't define enemy lists. How does one distinguish an enemy list from, say, a list of genuinely disruptive users whose edits one is monitoring? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

See the 'Avoiding incivility' section - the first point is 'Explain yourself'. If I featured on an unexplained list of editor's names I'd be fearing the worst. GiantSnowman 09:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also WP:UP#POLEMIC states as prohibited: "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked..." Since the user in question has been asked the purpose and, absent a logical explanation, other editors have come to the conclusion that this page is quite possibly what was prohibited there, it must be either explained or removed per guideline. --Nouniquenames 17:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, you should have notified Sally Season about this new discussion. I have now done that. De728631 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I did,[44] before I posted here originally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. De728631 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with the list. I do have objections to a stalker erasing a user page over some (pretended) policy violation — which is heading for status as a slow motion edit war, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To the point, how does this list differ in any appreciable way from the multitude of people keeping lists of spammers or copyright violators or sock puppet operators? Frankly, it doesn't. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that this user has failed to provide any rationale for the list. Hot Stop (Edits) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it anybody's business? Carrite (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

So if I kept a list on my user page of Rescue Squad member with whom I'd had beefs with over the years with little blurbs next to them, that's be cool? "A Nobody - socks", "Dream Focus - keeps everything", "Silver Seren - Wikipediocracy hater". ? Guess I'll get started... Tarc (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Because someone who was on the list asked? Pretty simple. Arkon (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Show me where on that list that SS accuses anybody of anything. It's almost Halloween and the strawmen are being built in celebration... Carrite (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

They've been asked multiple times, and refused any explanation besides saying it's for 'notes'. SS could really help themselves by offering a better explanation when asked, but they haven't. Collegiality means something around here, doesn't it? Hot Stop (Edits) 12:06 pm, Today (UTC−4)

You are all a bunch of busy-bodies, get a life please. I could point to specific comments and people on this page and my page, and point out which is stupider than the next, but I'll address everything collectively instead. So much misinformation being spread above, so allow me to clear it up. Go ahead and fact check it.

My page is simply being used as a notepad to keep track of my wiki interactions, and to-do stuff. I have already explained that, and even went so far as to explain why I use that location. There is no enemy list, that is just weird fantasy, and overlooks the fact that the notes and reminders relate to helpful and positive interactions as well as less positive ones. I haven't refused to explain anything, except when one single person keeps needling me for even more detailed explanations that simply do not concern him, and are none of his business. It's all there in print. There is nothing uncivil or in policy violation there. As for all the talk about "community", please. I've had quite the introduction to "community" so far, and I'd really rather not hear it. I'm going to fix my page again, and I'd appreciate it if you all would busy your bodies elsewhere. That's all I plan to say.Sally Season (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should use an actual notepad (digital or paper) for such a thing, as when names ar elisted on a Wiki page i nthis fashion, it is taken rather badly. Tarc (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It is a digital notepad. And what "fashion" are you talking about?Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"is simply being used as a notepad to keep track of my wiki interactions, ... notes and reminders relate to helpful and positive interactions as well as less positive ones." If you need notes to remind you of "less positive" interactions, perhaps it is better off for everyone if you delete them and let yourself forget them. Nurturing such interactions can never be positive for the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Try the whole quote instead, Red Pen, and your lie will be revealed. I never said I need notes to remind me of less positive interactions. I said I was using the notepad to keep track of interactions only, and the mention of positive and less positive was only to disprove your "it's an enemy list" crackpot conspiracy theory.Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The editor is an SPA involved only in a small handful of political articles, and has been noted for injecting POV material therein. [45] is a window on the problem. Those on his "little list" are primarily those who actually do not feel such a POV is proper during political silly season. I suggest he be told to gain editing experience in a broad range of articles, rather than have the significant problems he has faced with his edits. Collect (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Look closely at that window linked by Collect. Notice any "POV injecting there"? I didn't think so.Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Being a SPA is not necessarily problematic. The editors says the list is not an enemy list. It should be deleted (through MfD?), and the editor asked to keep such notes off wiki; but I don't think further action is warranted. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that most of the people on the list either reverted Sally Season this month, or vice versa: Arthur Rubin,[46][47] Adventurous Squirrel,[48][49] Collect,[50] Devil's Advocate,[51][52][53],and Drmies[54] As for the other three, Mollskman asked why he is on the list, but received no answer.[55] Insomesia defended Sally Season,[56] but also advised Sally Season to “let it all go and try to avoid getting caught up in the drama”.[57] And IP 112.133.198.141 reversed someone who had reverted Sally Season.[58]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I unclosed this due to the fact that the closing statement was based on the fact that the page was blanked. It wasn't, though I have just done so again. Arkon (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

After I saw the addition of Arthur Rubin to the list I became much more concerned about the nature of the listings. This came a minute after Sally reverted Arthur Rubin in an ongoing edit war Sally has been waging on the David Koch article. I felt the note about Rubin "? Rep" was implying that Rubin has a Republican bias or is a Republican. Under the circumstances that would appear to be a veiled accusation of misconduct against Rubin. That caused me to re-evaluate the note about me that says "? OPSEC" to suspect that Sally is subtly accusing me of being involved with the group because of my edits to that article. Hence why I am much more determined to get a straight answer on the purpose of the list. If my suspicions are incorrect then there merely needs to be an explanation, but if I am right than the list should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you think the list should be removed then take to to MFD and stop biting a new user. There are a lot of bad faith assumptions about this user based on a list contains absolutely nothing negative and you people are wasting a lot of their and your own valuable time bitching about it. What possible consequences does this list have on WP? Don't answer, start and MFD and point it out there or leave this user alone. Sædon^talk 23:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

1) There was no biting. Questions were asked by people on the list, and ignored. It was explained why this was not a good thing to have on the page. 2) Your opinions on how the people on the list feel are irrelevent. 3) You are now enabling this behaviour. Take your own advice and go away. Arkon (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree there was no biting; I think the entire thing is bitey. You have the right to ask for an explanation and SS has a right not to respond. My opinion is worth exactly as much as yours or anyone else here. Am I enabling their behavior? I don't have a problem with their behavior so that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Again, if you don't like it then take it to MFD - unless you have evidence to demonstrate that it's an attack page (and you don't, because there is nothing on that page that is an attack by any definition) then you're acting inappropriately by forcefully blanking it. We have processes for a reason. Sædon^talk 23:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion is worth jack squat if you think it is ok to enable the bad behavior of a single-purpose-account keeping grudge lists in userspace. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

AKA "Your opinion is worth jack squat if you don't see things the way I see them." Sædon^talk 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How would initiating an MfD against another user's page without even getting the other editor's side not be an example of biting? I preferred to try and handle it civilly with Sally in a one-on-one capacity rather than having this editor brought up again at ANI, but Bugs decided to open a discussion and I have no control over that. Being a new user doesn't really justify stone-walling either since most people, on-wiki and off-wiki, understand it is only polite to respond openly to people asking polite questions regarding something said about them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point, TDA. Can we acknowledge at least at this point MFD would be more appropriate? Sædon^talk 00:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I just want to know the meaning of the list. The circumstances of Sally's listing of Arthur Rubin raised a lot of red flags for me and without an explanation I can only speculate as to the reasons, which includes considering the possibility that at least some of this is malicious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like, but you haven't disputed the facts, which explicitly show that all care was given to get an explanation. When it comes to opinions on the list, the opinions of the users on it is worth more. And look above you, you can read one such opinion. We also have a user page policy that states Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. when speaking of things that should be removed. It doesn't take bad faith to take the non-responsive answers given to the questions asked by those on the list as 'view(ing) it as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.' MFD is hardly necessary or the only resort. Now off you go, this is a waste of time, remember? Arkon (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We now have an official ruling that enemies lists are perfectly OK on user pages. Thank you all for your input. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said on my user page, if you think it's so clear then why not just take it to MFD and be done with it? If it's as clear as you say and I'm so obviously wrong then it will be a quick deletion won't it? Sædon^talk 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone named on the list has the right to remove his name if he thinks it's an attack. And users who post enemies list always end up indef'd sooner or later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I like how you're skipping the part where you actually have to prove it's an enemies list. Now you're saying that as long as an editor thinks something is an attack they can remove it from another users page; nice. Sædon^talk 02:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Enemies lists are against the rules, and if someone feels under attack, they can remove the attack. In fact, one already has. If someone edit wars to put it back, I trust the admins will put a stop to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 25 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.

Enemy lists are against the rules. That is why I have not and will not ever create one. Not on wiki anyway. You should stop lying and mischaracterizing now. People are seeing through it.Sally Season (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism - request for page protection

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.

---

My apologies if I'm requesting this in the wrong area. Rather than constantly revert vandalised edits to the page for Michael Bichard, is it possible to request some form of short-term page protection? Hopefully whoever is doing it will see they're no longer able to edit there and then give up and go away. David T Tokyo (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The correct venue would be Requests for page protection, but I've semi-protected the page for a couple of days anyway to save you the trouble of filing there. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:28, 26 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.

Edit warring, POV pushing over several pages. User:Norlns22

I have a few articles in my watchlist that have popped up a lot the past few days where it appears that edit warring was taking place. Primarily, Cheri Bustos, William Enyart and Tammy Baldwin. I was going to start warning some users about possible edit warring (and I had warned one of them about their lack of using edit summaries), but then I see this comment on a user page and this edit summary and thought that I needed to be more proactive here. Possible sock puppetry? I'm not sure if any of this rises to that level, but what's going on over several pages needs to be addressed. What notices/warnings should be given to any of these users? If my posting here is jumping the gun, I apologize. Since this relates to BLP issues, I wanted to get admin help. The users that appear to be involved include Norlns22 (talk · contribs), Decaturstreet (talk · contribs), and Lesbianadvocate (talk · contribs). Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, this is norlns22. I would like to respond. A while back, I helped create in its early stages a page on Cheri Bustos, a candidate for Congress in IL 17. Since that time, I have fallen into the habit of visiting the page periodically to see how many page views there are as the election has drawn closer. A while back, I noticed a user with the screen name/ handle "Lesbiantadvocate" was making changes to the page. I also noticed that all of the changes were made to make Ms. Bustos appear in an unflattering light. Looking at Lesbianadvocate's other contributions, and the amount of time he/ she or they spend on wiki, editing ONLY Democratic candidates to make them appear in the worst light possible (with an occasional edit to a Republican candidate to appear in a better light), I realized this person or group is obviously being paid to do this by a PAC or the RNCC. This is sad, and runs totally counter to the spirit of wikipedia in my opinion. Edits should be organic and not done for money in my opinion.

I should add that I am not on here that much and have never caused trouble in the past. I have edited a page of a television producer when someone asked for my help in doing so, as well as a few artists, but I am definitely at best a very sporadic dabbler here. My main complaint or grievance with Lesbiandadvocate's edits to Cheri Bustos is that he/ she has not been willing to even mention this candidate's TOP FOUR issues (from candidate's own web site and ads) central to her campaign, yet writes at fairly significant length about hot-button issues to clearly sway readers on emotional grounds who visit the page. In my opinion, this is not editing in good faith AT ALL. Furthermore, I would like to point out that this individual's handle alone indicates duplicity. Just looking at his/ her edits to Tammy Baldwin, a LESBIAN candidate from WI, shows he/ she is probably not a lesbian, and CERTAINLY not a lesbian advocate in any sense of the word. His or her only interest is in boosting Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming election. Isn't THAT a form of vandalism????? I believe he/ she chose this handle to purposely throw people off his/ her trail (not very cleverly, I might add). It only takes one click on this user's contributions to quickly uncover the agenda at play.

I realize that Lesbianadvocate believes I am vandalizing the Cheri Bustos page, but I see things VERY differently. I believe I am protecting the page from his or her (likely paid) partisan edits and clear bias -- again, with the sole intention of swaying votes. I realize there is such a thing as free speech in this nation, and that Lesbianadvocate did cite some of his/ her entries (though I cannot speak to the quality of the sources he or she used by any means). However, since I had a hand in helping create this page, my intention is NOT wholesale vandalism out of some teenage rush. I am merely wanting to protect Ms. Bustos from unfair edits that do not accurately reflect her and, more importantly, the issues she holds most dear to her candidacy. Again, Lesbianadvocate's edits do **NOT** reflect Cheri Bustos's priorities on issues. If Lesbianadvocate wanted to accurately portray Cheri Bustos, he/ she would at least mention her top issues/ positions.

I would really appreciate any feedback on this situation (other than Lesbianadvocate, or course, or other individuals from his/ her organization or camp). I am actually curious who brought this situation to light. Who is to say the person who started this particular page about this issue wasn't prompted to do so by Lesbianadvocate and isn't in some way associated with him or her??? (more bias!!!). If I were adding factually untrue items to the page, and I had not had a hand in creating this page (with properly sourced citations, I might add), I would not be as assertive in my right to carry out these reverts. I do realize, as unwiki savvy as I undoubtedly am, that helping to create a page in no way implies any sort of "ownership" over the article, as articles on wiki belong to no one individual. Having pointed this out, this is a two-way street -- Lesbianadvocate should have no more right to edit the Cheri Bustos article in a biased manner than I do to revert these edits.

In supporting Cheri Bustos and having had a hand in creating the page about her, I do believe it does show my reverts have come from a place not of haphazard and thrill-seeking vandalism, but from a place to protect the integrity of the article. Furthermore, I am a busy student, and thus am feeling completely outsized by someone who clearly, if you will look at his or her contributions, possesses the time and resources to devote HOURS to edits on wiki -- again, almost exclusively to Democratic candidates and ALWAYS in some negative or charged way. Again, I believe this person must be getting paid by a PAC or the NRCC leading up to the election. I no longer have as much free time to edit (as opposed to reverting) the page, as I am too busy. This is clearly indicated by my overall activity on wiki of late. Thank you to whoever reads this!!!! Norlns22 (talk)

You are blanking whole sections and paragraphs without valid justification and engaging in really obvious sockpuppetry. If there is material that you want to add then add it. Time spent making trouble and levelling bizarre accusations against me is time you could have spent making constructive changes.Lesbianadvocate (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a busy college student. 2 tests this week. I don't have time to edit. The only accusation that I have made against you is that you are getting paid to edit Democratic candidates' wiki articles/ pages who are in the midst of tight races leading up to the Nov. elections, and that, judging by the TIME you spend doing this, you are probably getting paid. How is that in any way a bizarre accusation? Anyone can see the numerous, lengthy edits you have made across a wide range of pages recently. It is hardly inconceivable that a PAC or the NRCC is paying a staffer to make these edits, esp. w/ all of the $$$ flowing into these elections. What I find bizarre is your screen name. Norlns22 (talk)

Accusation of (improper) paid editing without credible evidence is grounds for an immediate block, under WP:NPA. I don't see evidence. Furthermore, NorIns22 / Decaturstreet / Nationalavenue / Nickargento are clearly all the same editor, making zer edits on Cheri Bustos a probable WP:3RR violation. Under the circumstances, I'm not sure who to warn. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, to reply partly to Norlns22's insinuations, I have no relation to Lesbianadvocate and was not contacted or prompted to bring this matter here by that user. As I stated in my original comment, I just saw these articles pop up in my watchlist and kept seeing the back and forth reverts. I just wanted to help prevent edit warring and possible sock-puppetry. Ad hominem attacks do not really defend a position. As far as Lesbianadvocate's edits, I have not gone in depth to make an opinion on their content and, indeed, stating what should or shouldn't be in any article isn't this board's purview. Content discussions about specific articles belong on the article's talk page. Unfortunately, this was not followed. Please view WP:BRD. I was set to begin warning all involved about possible edit warring on the Cheri Bustos article when I saw your edits and your comment on Lesbianadvocate's talk page. It is incredibly bad faith to state that you are going to oppose all of a user's edits and use sock puppets to keep any certain views off a page. I have no clue if Lesbianadvocate has any derogatory agenda, but your edits jumped out at me as problematic since they deleted content that (at first glance, anyway) appeared to be validly cited information and often simply reverted Lesbianadvocate's edits without any edit summary. That is highly inappropriate. Edit warring ensued over several articles as Norlns22 simply began reverting Lesbianadvocate's edits over other articles simply because they were by that user and Norlns22 didn't like LA, not because of any real stated content dispute. Wikipedia takes a long-term view of articles and electioneering on WP is highly discouraged. We should not be here to muck-rake but neither should we try to whitewash any articles. Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia. The users involved just need to be more civil and avoid soapboxing. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

User ZomRe at Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria

Moved from WP:AN Nobody Ent 20:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

ZomRe (talk · contribs) has engaged in repeated edit-warring and move-warring at Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria, in an apparent attempt to remove the word "conquest" from the article. He is repeatedly on record in the article talk page as stating that Bulgaria was not conquered in 1018 because the Bulgarian nobility surrendered, all the while refusing to make the connection with the 40+ years of war that preceded this event. In the process, he has moved the article to some weird forms like "45 years war" (even though he himself sometimes rejects the continuity of events from 970 on), "XI Century Bulgarian-Byzantine Wars" etc. He has been repeatedly warned to stop his WP:FRINGE interpretation of events, as well as to await actual consensus in the talk page before making moves. His behaviour is typical WP:IDHT and approaches trolling. Constantine ✍ 18:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Was this intended to be on WP:ANI or was it just an announcement? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it was posted by mistake at WP:AN, it was indeed meant for here. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Basically, in 1018 after the dead of Tsar Ivan Vladislav of Bulgaria, Basil II of the Eastern Roman Empire met with Bulgarian nobility and offered them to keep their own, to reorganize Bulgaria into a theme within the Eastern Roman Empire (which he did), to keep the Bulgarian church as an Archbishop of Ohrid with Bulgarian as its head - John of Debur (which he did). On top of this Basil II was related to Tsar Ivan Vladislav. As a result the Bulgarian nobility joined the Eastern Roman Empire. There were no battles in 1018 or sieges. In fact the last battle of significance was 4 years prior! That is why my suggestion is to tone down the article, and to have a more appropriate title. ZomRe (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't permit you to move articles without obtaining WP:CONSENSUS or edit-war. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The factological accuracy of the claims above, made by ZomRe, are manipulative, or simply said, they are not true. Jingiby (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like pretty blatant POV pushing by ZomRe. It probably falls under WP:ARBEE. The best title for the article should be discussed on the talk page with sources. E.g. I found [59] "The so-called First Bulgarian Empire reached its political and cultural zenith in the late ninth and early tenth centuries, immediately followed by a period of fragmentation and political weakening when it was conquered by the Byzantines." [60] "Around 1000, in the last of many brutal wars, Byzantium finally conquered Bulgaria, though in language and culture the Bulgarians remained Slavic." If the period/event is known by other names those should be added to the lead as well. The article should be titled by WP:COMMONNAME assuming that can be determined. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ugly banner ad at the top of the 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.

---

Forgive me if this is the wrong venue, but what is with that? It appears on every page I load. As I often use the top-of-page buttons, it's a bit of a pain.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. They actually made a banner that can't be permanently closed...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely dreadful! >.< css workaround in 3 .. 2 ... 1 ... - Alison ^❤ 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for a donation drive, but... Adblock Plus + Element Hiding Helper... --Kinu ^t/_c 21:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything new: no ads or banners. How did I get so lucky? Bielle (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added this to my personal vector.css and it seems to have worked. YMMV and all that - Alison ^❤ 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It should stay away once it is cleared. This thing of reappearing in their face with every new page is going to piss off people to the point of reducing donations. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 :There's an option in preferences to make it go away. Secretlondon (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ec*3: I had to click on the pull down tab once, the X only hid it temporarily. a13ean (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you go to Preferences → Gadgets and uncheck "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" under browsing the banner will be gone. Ryan Vesey 21:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any banner even with cookies cleared and adblock turned off. Normally I block bits.wikipedia.org/geoiplookup for privacy reasons and that has the side effect of stopping most banners, but I unblocked it temporarily and still don't see banners. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, guys. There was a mixup in the fundraising department. :( See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Fund-raising (and, if context is needed, the section immediately above). --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 26 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.

repeated AfD tag 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.

---

User:Aimeecowellfc has deleted the AfD tag from Destiny: The shadow of tear at least three times now (first, second, third), the last after having both level 1 and level 3 warnings placed on her Talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• dropped a final warning. Enough is enough. StarM 01:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Destiny: The shadow of tear as delete, per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:19, 26 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.

Indef block of an IP address

I have blocked 167.102.157.65 (talk · contribs) indefinitely because each time a year long block expires the (presumably) children return to vandalise more. I'm posting this here to see if there are any objections to the indefinite block of an IP address. James086^Talk 15:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, IPs that have multiple year-long blocks are not all that uncommon. As an admin highly active at AIV, I see it often. In these situations, I normally block 2-3 years. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the indeffing of any IP. This IP is registered to a school, any way of identifying which one and contacting the administration to advise them of the naughty kids? GiantSnowman 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced the block to 3 years, I suppose the IP address could be reassigned at some point in the future. I'll email the abuse contact and see if they are able to identify the offending school. James086^Talk 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ip User 64.134.134.64

This IP has on many occasions attempted to add uncited original research to the article United Federation of Planets. Attempts have been made to engage the IP editor, including discussions on his/her talk page [61] and, as far back as August, an attempt to start a discussion on the talk page of the article: [62]. The user has been blocked for edit warring [63] yesterday. (S)he has continued to post to their user talk page with personal attacks against any editors who disagree with their additions. We have been called sympathisers with the KKK, for example, on a number of occasions (see the user talk page). I have tried to rationally and calmly inform the IP of how things work around here with little success. I am not sure what the remedy is here, but we have a long term edit warrior (who seems to jump IPs as can be seen from the history [64] at the UFP article and who has now taken to personal attacks. I am at a bit of a loss, which is why I am bringing it here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked talk page access for now since clearly his use of the talk page wasn't to request an unblock. I would have no problem extending the block if others feel that is necessary as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible violation of WP:COI

Billt88 (talk · contribs) appears to be closely affiliated the restaurant FATZ either as an employee or owner. The same user has already twice created an article on another restaurant called Tavern 24 owned by the same company but was speedily deleted due to lack of notability. The same user only has edited the FATZ article and the since deleted Tavern 24 article. Anyway, I put up a tag on the FATZ article that a major contributor to the appears to have a close connection to its subject and that the article appears to be written like and advertisement. Billt88 reverted those tags without discussion or improvement in the article and without an edit summary here. I undid the revert and placed in my edit summary to not remove the tag until the outstanding issues have been resovled. However, not long after this the tags were undone again without discussion as seen here. This time I left a message on his talk page telling him he may be in violation of WP:COI and I put the tags back up. However, Billt88 has since removed the tags again as seen here. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Holyfield1998 (talk · contribs) Why are you making an assumptive accusation and penalizing the articles I'm writing? I'm not writing anything as an advertisement. If that was the case, you should go ahead and make the same charge against all the other company articles on Wikipedia which simply provide a source of information on said companies. Also, the WP:NPOV policy you quote because I "appear to have a close connection to its subject" has nothing do to with having a close connection; it is about "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" which is exactly what I'm doing. And frankly, if someone is writing about a subject they better be close to it to know what they're talking about. The point is that the two alerts have no merit; there is no need to malign or delete my work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billt88 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I made the correction to your talk page not long after I posted that, it is WP:COI I was referring to, not WP:NPOV. Anyway, as closely connected to the subject of the article as you are, you can see my concern, especially with removing the COI template. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Holyfield1998 (talk · contribs) I removed the COI template 'cause I was annoyed. Simply because I'm contributing to multiple related articles does no mean I'm "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." You are assuming an authority on a subject matter, someone "closely connected to the subject" as you state, must have a conflict of interest if s/he writes about it. I am providing true and verifiable information, curated from 3rd party content and verified by my personal visits on a company of interest to me. Again, there is no reason to malign or delete my work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Billt88 (talk • contribs)

The company is notable, but the article is much too similar to a press release, and I have so tagged it. Furthermore, some of it is directly copied from ref. 3, I do indeed question COI, for I think it unlikely that a non-affiliated editor would have included the names of the vice-presidents of this fairly small company in the infobox. Many other restaurant articles are too promotional, but very few attempt to include the articles in the category for restaurants in every state in which it operates! I just examined 25 random articles in Category:Regional restaurant chains, I found reason to edit about one-third of them, but this is the most promotional. I thought I would find worse, but we seem to be improving. I shall make some necessary improvements here also. You would have done better to improve the article yourself with the appropriate criticism you had earlier received, than to complain about it. Unless you wish to prove your main purpose here is promotion, I advise you not to restore unencyclopedic material DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Holyfield1998 (talk · contribs) Boy, I can't believe this. I can't help but take exception to everything you say. Defending my articles against unfounded claims is complaining? And what kind of reasoning is it that says I can only provide the names of officials only if I'm affiliated with a company? Each of these persons has appeared in press releases at one time or another either for being hired or for being interviewed. Their names & titles are out there in the public record. I also can't see why you would say that my content is the most promotional you've seen. I too researched articles, not just of restaurants, before I started this and my content is as informational as what's out there. Seems to me that Wikipedia needs to evaluate the critical thinking skills of it editors as they are interpreting policy inconsistently and holding different publishers to different standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.202.43 (talk • contribs)

I'm assuming you meant to direct that to DGG although I do agree with everything that he wrote. Holyfield1998 (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What else can I say? Y'all have the power and I don't. Billt88 (talk · contribs)

User:CO MEIJER contributing articles in Dutch

User:CO MEIJER is contributing a steady stream of articles in Dutch about tennis players. S/he has been asked twice to contribute in English, but continues to add new articles in Dutch. So far, these have all been translated into English by a hard-working editor, who is among those asking him/her to stop. I said a week ago that I would raise this at ANI if the Dutch contributions continued, and they do. Example, and another. Also unsourced, unlinked, unformatted, though not copied from Netherlands Wikipedia. What can be done? PamD 21:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a competence issue to me. The user has not made a single edit to any talk page despite having received loads of comments at his user talk, including a detailed explanation in Dutch by Drmies. A temporary block should be in order to avoid further disruptive editing and hopefully make him discuss his contributions. De728631 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• User also creating BLPs without any references in English or Dutch, meaning that every single one has been PRODded prior to rescue by PamD or other translators. Blocked until he discovers his talkpage - which so far he has not edited. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We're not necessarily known for razor-sharp intellect. Thanks Elen et alia. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncooperative user

Hello. The user "Seb az86556" has reverted some work (here) then twice deleted requests for clarification on their talkpage (here and here) without acknowledgement, response or explanation. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally when you make a change and it's reverted, you begin the discussion on the talkpage of the article in order to obtain new WP:CONSENSUS to include your changes (see WP:BRD for more). That said, Seb's actions strike me as a little ruder than normal ... he has removed your ANI notice, but I've poked him for a response (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I remain puzzled as to why my work prompted a reversion, as it was cosmetic (tidying-up/regularizing the infobox) and involved neither the addition or subtraction of information (the rephrasings in the first paragraph). 213.246.88.102 (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The changes look to me to be slightly more significant that you're suggesting. Infoboxes tend to be fairly stable - personally I can understand a reversion when so much was changed in a single edit, some of which had never been there before. His edit-summary - which I'm sure you read before coming here - said "unsourced" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't see the "unsourced" summary -- but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place..?

And the reasons why I tidied-up so much in one edit were (a) there was a lot to tidy-up; and (b) I've had automated messages telling me I'm vandalizing Wikipedia when I've submitted smaller edits. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The very same link you provided ... says "unreffed" ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, okay -- although that refers to an edit I didn't make! In any case, why revert everything rather than that one issue? Laziness? And why am I asking -you- these questions? Thanks for your patience. 213.246.88.102 (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Bots did not pickup extremely blatant blanking vandalism to Haunted House in over a day.

I've just restored this.

Bots did not pickup extremely blatant blanking vandalism to Haunted House in over a day. Furthermore, neither did any humans on RC/Stiki patrol. Also, apparently either no readers reported it, or if they did then their reports went unheeded.

It's had THREE THOUSAND views in that time.

That is very disturbing for an article like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egg Centric (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It happens. Never rely on a bot - after all, the damage would not have tripped any bot to act. Yeah, whoever watches the article was asleep *yawn* That happens too (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As Bwilkins said — it happens... everybody needs to sleep. Sometimes. Theopolisme 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Even the bots. --Jayron32 22:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Theopolisme 23:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like another instance of corrupt Wikipedians sweeping their abject failures under the rug. It's an outrage, and heads should roll. Jayron, did I hear you volunteer? Drmies (talk) 00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There's been a lot of page blanking due to a bug: Wikipedia:Vpt#Apparent_bug_causing_massive_text_loss_when_saving. Maybe that's interfering with the bot(s). Nobody Ent 01:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright and legal threats

I've been involved in an escalating dispute with Rollingwagon at the AfC help desk. The draft which is the basis for the dispute is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Christopher Johnson journalist; it was blanked by Kelly Marie 0812 because it was a word-for-word copy of Johnson's biography at Amazon.com. It was a word-for-word copy, but apparently the Amazon biography changed within the last few hours. The old version of the draft as edited by Rollingwagon still cites the Amazon biography for claims such as Johnson's "Thanksgiving dinner with Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan a few weeks before his murder", claims that are no longer supported by the current Amazon biography. I have no idea what should happen to the draft. Right now it does not look like a copyright violation, but I don't think the change of the Amazon biography means we no longer violate copyright if we did so before.

Furthermore, Rollingwagon apparently didn't like my attempts at explaining Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; he accused "a certain editor" (me) of hassling a newcomer and engaged in what might be seen as veiled legal threats in comments such as this one.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Rollingwagon is himself Christopher Johnson and that he changed the author-submitted Amazon biography in order to circumvent the copyright problems. If so, I can understand his frustration, but I still think this needs some kind of intervention, and apparently I'm unable to interact with Rollingwagon without alienating him further. Any help would be appreciated. Huon (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

At the time I reviewed the article for the second time, the article in its entirety was word for word the same as the amazon.com biography cited numerous times in the article, that Huon linked above. However just now revisiting the site, the amazon.com biography has been changed and dramatically shortened since I last read it. I too wondered if Rollingwagon is actually Christopher Johnson, or someone close enough for a COI, if anything because the amazon biography states it is author submitted, and the coincidental timing of its change. In terms of the disagreement, Rollingwagon seems to have taken the comments about the reliability of the sources he used very personally, and as an attack on the subject of the article. While I have not read their lengthy discussion in detail, from what I've gathered it's my opinion that Rollingwagon misinterpreted Huon's comments and intentions. It's clear Huon spent a lot of time helping him reformat the article and looking into the sources in depth, as well as attempting to explain Wikipedia's policies. I don't think there was any just cause for the insinuation of libel and cyber bullying. It seems that third party intervention would be helpful in showing Rollingwagon the policies on reliable sources are consensus here and not an attack on him personally. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I was able to dig up a gcached version of the bio: LINKY for ease of access. Ishdarian 06:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have already accomplished one good thing: he (or his rpresentative) has replaced the ridiculously promotional bio at amazon (which we wouldn't be able to use in any case, regardless of copyright) with something more reasonable. I wonder, though, if it instead represents his judgement that an extended WP bio is more essential advertising than one at Amazon. DGG ( talk ) 07:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it does represent that. Judging by the format of the cached version (October 13), it looks like he pasted his planned Wikipedia draft onto Amazon before creating it here (October 15). In any case, if it's been previously published, even if taken down later, it's still copyvio. We've removed plenty of copyvio under those circumstances. By the way, the book he's touting is self-published. Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This was a heavy-handed response indeed considering the likelihood that the same author is behind both bits of text. Assuming that Rollingwagon is indeed Johnson, said bio also correctly identifies that he's responsible for a good number of high-quality free images that we've grabbed from his Flickr account. Biting down hard on him here may result in him deciding to shut that particular stream down. Let's not allow one overreaction (deletion of a page which, even if inappropriately fluffy and self-referenced, was only lacking a permission / attribution statement to get over the copyvio suggestion) lead to another (blocking over a deliberately-strict interpretation of NLT). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Response from Rollingwagon

Dear Members,

Thanks for your invitation to the club. I would like you to kindly consider this scenario.

Imagine if you walk into a country club for the first time. You would like to donate some of your art work to them. The club has a sign saying "Donations Welcome." It seems promising. You have always liked this club, and dreamed of being a member.

However, nobody greets you, or lets you in, for a couple of weeks. You get frustrated. So you take your art work to another club, which is much more welcoming, and hang it on the walls there. So, you go back to the first country club. Finally, somebody, using a false name and a mask, takes a look at your art work, and tells you that you can't come in. In fact, they have made a mistake, but they don't admit it at first.

So you ask for help at the Help Desk. The guy at the Help Desk seems strange. You wonder if he is drunk, bellicose, belligerent, and illogical. He tells you, "your work is above-average quality", and then, the next moment, hassles you over every little thing about you and your free art work, which you are offering as a charitable donation. He makes false accusations about you and your friends and colleagues - people he has never met. He spouts opinions, without verifiable evidence, that offend you and your friends. He reads out all these rules, basically as a way of keeping you out of the club, or making you submit to his superior authority. After a while, you begin to wonder if this person is a bigot, and he simply doesn't trust your "kind." You feel like the "Help Desk" is the "Hassle Desk".

However, since you are new to the club, you try to be tolerant and calm. You are open, and eager to learn. You politely state your points, and ask for further advice. All you want to do is donate your art work, for free, since you care about the community. However, people at the club start ganging up on you, in support of the folks at the Help Desk, and other Desks, which all seem confusing. They take your art work and hide it from you. Perhaps they are tearing it up. Perhaps they are going to write graffiti all over it, and put it on the walls, without your approval. You get scared, anxious, suspicious. You carefully check over the rules of the club, and remind the members about these rules, which are supposed to protect newcomers to the club.

But club members, in defiance of their own rules, make more false accusations about you. They claim you are violating their rules -- a hasty judgement on their part, without proof. They accuse you of breaking their rules by hanging your artwork in that other club, when in fact you brought it to them first, as a free donation to the community. They don't know the full story, about how you came weeks earlier, and were ignored. They don't seem to care about how much hard work you put into your art work. They only seem to care about preserving their status within the club.

So, you ask your friends to take down that artwork in that other club, in order to please the demanding members of this new elite club. But that causes a knee-jerk reaction from these club members, who adopt a lynch mob mentality, ready to burn you at the stake or throw you out the door, for defying their sacred policies, which they didn't explain to you weeks ago. They start calling you names. They accuse you of being somebody else. They use rude, inflammatory language, disrespecting your friends and colleagues. They say you are making "deadly" mistakes and doing "ridiculously promotional" things, basically because they are envious of the work and achievements of you and your colleagues. It's a form of schoolyard bullying, but these are adults who should know better, and some of them are paid club employees. They are right, because they are members of the club. You are wrong, because you are a newcomer. Logic, reason, common sense doesn't matter. Might makes right.

In this case, what are you going to do? Are you going to defend yourself from these false accusations and hasty judgments, and continue to make your points based on logic and reason and verifiable information? Are you going to ask to speak to the manager of the club, or the founder of the club? Or do you walk away, abandoning your art work? Or do you take some kind of action, through courts or the media, to expose the mistreatment at the club and to assert your rights as a member of the community?

Please offer your wise and careful advice. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't assume that the actions of individual administrators is indicative of the consensus of the community. This discussion was raised precisely in order to assess what the appropriate action should be. Please do note, however, that as a matter of policy we do not permit editors to continue to contribute here while they are asserting the possibility of legal action; it would be best for you to retract that portion of your statement should you wish to continue debating this matter here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The amazon license seems compatible with CC license. Per Amazon's terms, "You grant to us a license to use the Submitted Materials on the terms provided below, but you otherwise retain all of your rights in your Submitted Materials." and "You grant to us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free right and license to use " Nobody Ent 7:26 am, Today (UTC−4)

If there's a good reason to believe the guy who submitted it here also submitted it there, you can just ask for it to be undeleted; if there ain't, the terms of the Amazon licence don't mean much. WilyD 11:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC) moved from DRV Nobody Ent 11:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We still require confirmation that the Amazon piece was by the same author as well (this appears likely, but it's precisely that lack of confirmation which saw this deleted in the first place). But we don't need to have this discussion in two places. It should continue on ANI at WP:ANI#Copyright and legal threats. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)moved from DRV Nobody Ent 11:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What kind of confirmation is required? We accept photos/artwork all the time based on the simple assertion of the uploader. Nobody Ent 11:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that if it is discovered that images have been previously published online or in books without a compatible license displayed, they are deleted, regardless of whether the uploader took the picture or not. Previous publication automatically confers copyright. The procedure is explained in Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note also Amazon's terms of use:

All content included in or made available through any Amazon Service, such as text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, and data compilations is the property of Amazon or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws. The compilation of all content included in or made available through any Amazon Service is the exclusive property of Amazon and protected by U.S. and international copyright laws.

In other words Amazon has the right to relicense contributors' material royalty-free, if the want to, but that license has to be obtained first. We can only accept material released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not so sure, from that text. It says the copyright is owned by Amazon 'or its content suppliers -- and the terms I liked above indicate submitting content to Amazon does not give them an exclusive license. I wonder if this has come up before, and whether WMF legal has opined an opinion? Nobody Ent 12:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, that is not a compatible license. Johnson can release the material under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, but he must explictly do so following the procedures I linked here. Until then it cannot appear on Wikipedia. And all of this is assuming that the editor in question actually is Johnson. This is complicated by the fact that the material also appears at Bangkok Books. Voceditenore (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also the normal procedure when copyvio is in an article, but there is a credible claim to ownership of it by the editor in question, it is blanked and must remain blanked until that permission has been received via the procedures at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until that happens, the material cannot be visible on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, discussions like this about copyright status of text like this amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Wikipedia and Amazon are websites with different purposes and different standards of how text should be organized and written. The real problem with nearly all text published elsewhere first isn't that it ends up being a copyvio, it's that it is wholly inappropriate in content and tone for Wikipedia. Once we get past the point where the text could be legally donated to Wikipedia, it ends up being rejected or gutted to the point of unrecognizablity because it's outlandishly promotional, lacks sources, makes ridiculous claims, presents an unbalanced or non-neutral viewpoint, etc. etc. So we spend all of this effort getting "permission" for a user to post text that, in the end, we exclude for other reasons anyways. That's why we actively discourage users who don't know Wikipedia rules and standards from posting WP:COI text: regardless of the copyright status, we can expect it to be next to impossible for the text they write about themselves, their employers, or their clients to have any resemblance to an encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 12:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully concur. Even if it is eventually released under a compatible license, the text is basically unusable. It is unencyclopedic, promotional, and lacks reliable independent sources both for verification of a biography of a living person and to establish notability. Huon explained all this very carefully, meticulously, and patiently, going through each of the references here. This article would almost certainly be deleted at an AfD discussion if those references where all that could be found. and I strongly urge Rollingwagon to take the time to read what Wikipedia means by notability (simplified at The answer to life, the universe, and everything)—not what it means to him or what he thinks it ought to mean. A careful reading of Wikipedia:Autobiography is also recommended. Voceditenore (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I have read each one carefully. In order to build consensus, I'm going to offer a pragmatic solution that addresses the concerns of all parties.

First of all, let's agree that Wikipedia's core principals should supersede any attempt to use a narrow or strict interpretation of any one of the hundreds of countervailing or contradictory rules and policies governing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is, above all other things, a non-profit organization supported by volunteers and amateurs, not a hedge fund, academic institution, or religious cult where superiors or hardliners have authority over newcomers or outsiders. As you all know, Wikipedia is a "free-content encyclopedia". Thus any unilateral or multilateral attempt to quash, delete, block, ban, prohibit, censor or restrict someone else's right to enter verifiable, accurate content, in good faith, goes against this core principal. To quote the About section of Wikipedia's main page: "Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time." Furthermore, since Wikipedia has an estimated 77,000 active contributors and 22 million articles, Wikipedia's ethos is based upon collaboration and cooperation across cultures, not a schoolyard bullying mentality where might makes right, or where one or two persons can interpret or manipulate rules to their advantage and conspire to quash someone else's good faith contributions. Though Wikipedia has Five Pillars, and an array of policies and guidelines, "it is not a formal requirement to be familiar with them before contributing." All of this is clearly stated on the "About" section of Wikipedia's main page. "Wikipedia is written largely by amateurs. Those with expert credentials are given no additional weight." This means that no editor, whether Huon, Kelly Marie 0812, DGG, Jayron, Vocenitedore or others, have more weight than the newcomer RollingWagon. The policies pertaining to this principal are clearly stated in the section titled "Don't bite the newcomer." Thus there is a better solution than making hasty judgements to quash or delete an article without cordial, open communications and consultations with the editor who donated the content to the Wikipedia community in the first place. In other words, it's not in accordance with Wikipedia principles for editors to arbitrarily and swiftly delete my article without asking me directly for my input into the decision. RollingWagon will accept, in good faith, that this action may have been done in good faith, due to a misunderstanding or confusion about copyright and legal issues. RollingWagon will clear up these issues later in this statement. In future, if you have quibbles about RolingWagon's work, please feel free to discuss it with him directly, on a basis of equality and transparency, rather than taking unilateral decisions based on knee-jerk reactions or hasty decisions.

With these core principals in mind, let's build a consensus. Firstly, if you read RollingWagon's entry in detail, without prejudice or preconceived notions, RollingWagon did in fact follow Wikipedia's principals and policies by providing a neutral, dispassionate article with 53 references, containing hard, verifiable, well-established facts -- not opinions or exaggerations or self-serving ads -- that are truthful, accurate, and common knowledge, and widely available on multiple sites across the internet. There is no original research on the Wikipedia entry. There was no libel, vandalism, shameless self-promotion, advertising or any other infringement of Wikipedia's core policies of free-content. Huon, who started this discussion, originally praised the article for it's "above-average quality", and reposted it with more than 40 references. So let's all agree that Huon's initial sentiment is a good basis to build a more detailed and well-supported article.

RollingWagon's reliable sources include articles or mentions about Johnson in the New York Times, The Economist, TIME, Reuters, Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and many others. These sources are cited in millions of Wikipedia articles, without trouble. Any attempt to dispute the reliability of these sources, due to a personal bias or worldview, even if well-founded and well-articulated, will not serve to build a consensus in adherence to Wikipedia's core principal of "free-content." On the contrary, such arguments will only waste time, create friction, lead to censorship, and impede the flow of "free-content".

As for questions about whether Johnson is a notable living person, Google results for "Christopher Johnson Japan journalist" turn up more than 10 pages of articles ABOUT Johnson, not BY JOHNSON or his associates. These articles, in The Economist and others, clearly pass the threshold stated in "The answer to life, the universe, and everything," as pointed out by Vocenitedore. Johnson is not merely a passing reference in these articles. In fact, there are more than 50 articles devoted solely to discussing Johnson's work and actions.

Kelly Marie 0812, Vocenitedore and others have raised valid concerns about copyright issues, which are an important issue for all editors. Even if they are not indeed intellectual property rights lawyers, or Supreme Court Justices ruling on constitutional issues concerning piracy and freedom of expression, let's assume that these editors acted in good faith, based on what they knew at the time. Nobody Ent has also made valid points that "we accept photos/artwork all the time based on the simple assertion of the uploader."

Johnson or his representatives, agents or publishers have resolved this issue by making a clear, unambiguous statement allowing unrestricted use of material in his author bio on Amazon.com. "The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Wikipedia, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason." Indeed, Vocenitedore's research efforts have found similar unrestricted usage of this material by Johnson's publisher Bangkok Books. So, clearly, there is no longer any copyright issue, since the copyright holder has asserted his rights to allow everyone to use the material. This seems to be consistent with Johnson's longtime policy of allowing Wikipedia editors free use of hundreds of his copyrighted photos, as correctly stated by Chris Cunningham.

Thus, if we can agree to move beyond issues of copyright violations, let's discuss the issue of legal threats. Regardless of how some people might interpret various writings, nobody has made any overt legal threat on this issue. Having said that, we should all keep in mind that Wikipedia, though a prestigious non-profit with an estimated 470 million unique visitors per month, is not above libel laws designed to protect the reputations of persons. Disparaging, or disputing, or casting aspersion upon the reputations of Johnson, Cory Doctorow, Kenneth Cukier, Tom Standage, Urban Hamid, Daniel Pearl, or any other journalist or author does nothing to serve Wikipedia's core principals, no matter what can be found in forums on Wikipedia or any other website. We should assume, in good faith, that these are all hard-working people supporting families, and they do not deserve to have their names sullied in online media such as Wikipedia. If somebody wants to go online to "out" people, or vent their bigotry, hate or frustration with Big Media, indy media, self-promoters, artists, musicians, advertisers, agents, publishers, or whoever, they should take that to another site, not Wikipedia. I'm sure we can all agree on this point.

Chris Cunningham made the salient point that Wikipedia has used "a good number of high quality free images that we've grabbed from his Flickr account." Thus, a large number of Wikipedia editors have endorsed the credibility of Johnson as a world-class journalist and photographer. It seems that Wikipedia editors have used perhaps 100 or more of Johnson's photos on entries across several languages. Thus it can be said that Johnson has been contributing to Wikipedia long before some of our fellow editors have. We won't gain anything by a hostile, uppity, law enforcement attitude toward someone who has made significant donations, free of charge, to Wikipedia, and who may have a personal relation to the founders.

It also seems preposterous to suggest that Johnson's bio on Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, Globalite Magazine and other sources is anything less than credible. It seems implausible that a veteran foreign correspondent with a 25-year career, who depends on credibility to sell his or her work, would concoct a massive collection of lies, including about his brothers and sisters, in order to promote a book, an album, a photo, a t-shirt of something else. There is nothing wrong with amassing a collection of notable achievements over one's life, and listing those in a bio to reach mass audiences. Wikipedia editors should not misuse Wikipedia policies to vent their envy or jealousy at people who have worked hard to achieve some sort of notoriety or notability, whether in the media or other avenues. If you don't like how millions of artists promote their own work, in order to achieve some sort of name or fame, then you should take up these issues on other sites, not Wikipedia. Editors should also note that there is clearly a difference between teenagers using Wikipedia to promote their local garage band, and veteran journalists whose verifiable works have reached millions over decades, as there is also a difference between an unheralded amateur blog about salamanders, and a blog on The Economist that has editorial oversight, hundreds of staffers, and millions of readers.

There's also an issue about selective enforcement of Wikipedia policies. The fact is, Wikipedia.org editors have permitted the posting of thousands, perhaps millions, of entries about notable persons whose achievements are less than those of Johnson, and less supported with evidence and references. If overzealous editors were to enforce every rule, without regard for Wikipedia's core principals, then myself and other editors would have justification to remove millions of entries. For example, one could start with Johnson's peers in Asia. Alex Kerr, Christopher G. Moore, Richard Lloyd Parry, Jake Adelstein, Karl Greenfeld, and hundreds of others are all notable persons whose work spans the worlds of journalism and publishing. Their biographies on Wikipedia tend to cite their own blogs, or publishers, or their friends articles in newspapers or magazines, and little else. They cite fewer references than the entry about Johnson. The entry of Kerr, for example, derives information from Kerr's two blogs, and a magazine he edits. As far as I can tell, there are no references or citations. The entries for Adelstein and Moore appear to be directly supplied by their publishers, or the authors themselves. They site, as references, stories about themselves in their own books. Yet nobody is suggesting we tear down their Wikipedia articles, since Kerr, Moore, Adelstein and others are well-established writers, not teenagers creating hobby pages on Myspace. Nobody is suggesting that we delete the names of Adelstein's children, or Moore's list of awards, since they have no references from reliable, independent sources. We have no reason to believe that they or their representatives would publish lies in order to promote themselves, and we should assume the same about Johnson's life story as stated on his bio at Amazon.com, Bangkok Books, and other media. If anybody can successfully refute facts about the life stories of Johnson, Moore, Adelstein, Kerr, or others, I will stand corrected, and carefully consider their arguments, if based on evidence and logical reasoning.

Furthermore, if we did quash their sites, citing one of a large number of countervailing or contradictory rules or policies, it would clearly violate Wikipedia's ethos and core principals. It would also defy common sense, and create an atmosphere of retribution, not cooperation. So there should not be a double-standard applied to Johnson or any other person who has notable achievements in terms of creating books, photos, albums, news articles, TV reports or other works reaching mass audiences for decades.

With the spirit of consensus and collaboration in mind, I think we can agree that the best solution is to undelete the RollingWagon entry about Johnson, or repost Huon's well-formatted version, citing 43 references. Kelly Marie 0812 will surely agree this is appropriate, since she had originally apologized for rejecting the article in the first place, not for any questions about notability, copyright or other matters, but because of the formatting, which Huon has astutely corrected: "Sorry for any misunderstanding here. At the time I reviewed it, the repeated content, lack of section headers, and reference formatting combined led me to believe it was a test and not meant for submission."

In attempt to avoid a further escalation with an editor refuting dozens of his points, Huon has wisely offered to bow out and focus his energies on other entries. I believe this is a positive approach, since he has already stated his views in thousands of words, and spent more than enough time and energy reformatting the original entry and explaining Wikipedia policies and practices to a newcomer. As for myself, RollingWagon will continue to work hard to fill any holes in terms of references or citations, since the article is likely to evolve over time, unless the subject dies or abandones his career. It's a win-win situation for everyone. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding. Rollingwagon (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have the attention span of a sand flee. How the hell am I suppose to read that? --Malerooster (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

See this. --Malerooster (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The essayist in question could be characterized as a megillah guerilla. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that my first decline of the article was based on formatting alone and belief it was a test submission, and did not represent any opinion of mine either way on the article's notability or copyright status. The second time I reviewed the article I noticed the text duplication. To my knowledge the standard policy is to immediately flag the article as a possible copyright issue, which blanks (not deletes) the page until an admin reviews and ultimately confirms/deletes or denies/restores.

Despite its WP:TLDR length, I have done my best to read through Rollingwagon's comments. Quite simply it seems he disagrees with Wikipedia's policies on both reliable sources and general procedures. He claims that there have not been overt legal threats, but also that Wikipedia is not above libel laws, and seems to be saying that the editors' concerns with his article are defaming the subject.

There is a lot being discussed here; even if the copyright issues were resolved, there are still issues regarding reliability of sources and/or notability, as well as general procedures. It seems it might be best to focus on those issues, as noted above, the copyright would be a moot point if the article was not to be accepted anyway. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kelly Marie 0812. Thanks for your comments, and for taking the time to read my statement. I would like to clarify some points. First, you decided to reject my article because you mistakenly thought it was for the sandbox, not for submission, when in fact I did intend it for submission. Together, we corrected that. Thanks for that. Secondly, you errantly, in good faith, flagged my article for deletion, and it was immediately deleted, without allowing me a chance to have any input or prior consultation. Now, we both agree that copyright is no longer an issue, so it would logically follow that you would reverse your decision, and undelete the article.

However, thirdly, it seems you are trying to find other reasons to reject my article. I question whether this is in accordance with Wikipedia's core principals, which I have noted above. Thus, I would like to know: how long do you intend to continue to block my submission, despite my attempts at building consensus? Could this go on for days, weeks, months, years? Since I am a newcomer here, I would really like to know more about how you operate, and what is considered normal operating procedures on this site.

I would also like to point out that I believe you are mischaracterizing or misrepresenting my position. I do not, as you have falsely claimed, disagree with Wikipedia's policies and procedures. In fact, my statement, above, goes to great length to quote directly from Wikipedia's "ABOUT" page. I have carefully read all these pages. Where do I ever disagree with Wikipedia's policies? If you are going to make that accusation, you should provide proof to support your claim. I have made no such accusations against you, and I do appreciate your assistance.

The length of my previous statement WP:TLDR is not relevant to the crux of the matter, which is the issue of copyright, biting down too hard on newcomers, and observance of Wikipedia's core principles. There is no question that Wikipedia, and every other site on the internet, are not immune from libel laws. There are hundreds of cases of online defamation, cyber-bullying, harassment, and being disorderly in public, which is an offense in some states. Thus, this should not even be an issue for any law-abiding citizen. Follow the law, respect your fellow netizens, and there's no problem.

Furthermore, though I have provided ample evidence, you continue to raise the issue of notability and reliability of sources. I will restate this: Google results for "Christopher Johnson Japan journalist" turn up more than 10 pages of articles ABOUT Johnson, not BY JOHNSON or his associates. These articles, in The Economist and others, clearly pass the threshold stated in "The answer to life, the universe, and everything," as pointed out by Vocenitedore. Johnson is not merely a passing reference in these articles. In fact, there are more than 50 articles devoted solely to discussing Johnson's work and actions.

As for your attempt to raise the issue about sources, my reliable sources include articles or mentions about Johnson in the New York Times, The Economist, TIME, Reuters, Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, and many others. My article, which you rejected then flagged, had 53 links to verifiable online sources, far more than most Wikipedia entries. These sources are cited in millions of Wikipedia articles, without trouble. Any attempt to dispute the reliability of these sources, due to a personal bias or worldview, even if well-founded and well-articulated, will not serve to build a consensus in adherence to Wikipedia's core principal of "free-content." On the contrary, such arguments will only waste time, create friction, lead to censorship, and impede the flow of "free-content".

If this is simply about winning an argument, Wikipedia has instructions about that. I have spent considerable time and energy calmly and carefully dealing with a number of editors on these issues. I have tried to build an atmosphere of collaboration and mutual understanding. Thus, I am somewhat perplexed that you are continuing to take me to task on a number of issues. The fact is, you flagged my article for deletion, and it was in fact deleted, which is a form of censorship. I had no recourse or prior consultation. I do not accept that, and I don't think all Wikipedia editors will either, based on Wikipedia's core policies. To quote the About section of Wikipedia's main page: "Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time."

So please state clearly your position. Are you going to continue to reject my article for a third time, for a new host of reasons, or are you going to collaborate in good faith with my earnest attempts to build consensus and make a donation to the Wikipedia community? Please do not be vague and indecisive. Please be clear about your decisions, and explain them in detail this time, with verifiable evidence to support your claims, in order to avoid further problems of communication and misunderstanding. Please do not misunderstand me. I really do appreciate your efforts. Thanks again for your attention to my article. Rollingwagon (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to keep the discussion here and not at my talk page, especially with the claims you are making about my "censorship" of you. As I explained above, I flagged the article as a possible copyright violation, which blanks (not deletes) the page until an admin reviews. After which, an admin reviewed the article and deleted it, not me. An admin, not me, would have to reinstate your article, if it was approved for reinstatement. Whether or not the article was in fact a copyright violation (which I do not believe has been agreed upon in this discussion?), either way I believe my action of flagging it was correct, as any possibility of a copyright violation is to be flagged and reviewed by an admin. It is not standard policy to ask the editor's permission first. It was comments such as these, about wishing to be contacted first, that led me to believe you are disagreeing with WP policies. In an attempt to not get this discussion any further off topic, I am striking out my comments regarding your position so that we can move on.

For what it is worth, it is my personal opinion that editors have worked hard to explain WP policies to Rollingwagon without success. It is also my opinion that the earlier comments about the reliability of some of the sources used would be an issue if the article were to be submitted again. If the article was to be submitted again, I would not choose to review it, as I think it best to remove myself from the situation at this point. I think more experienced editors would be better at handling this. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anything else will come of this coversation remaining open. The AfC was nuked for word-for-word WP:COPYVIO. The current state of the bio on Amazon has the following notice at the bottom "((The author has asserted his right to allow free and unrestricted usage of this material, in whole or in part, on all websites worldwide, including Wikipedia, Bangkok Books, Myspace, Reverbnation, Facebook and others. No other party has the right to censor, prohibit or block use of this material for any reason.))"; however, this disclaimer was not listed on the cached version from 13 October. I don't think this would end up getting overturned at DRV.

Christopher Johnson has a very diverse career and notability may very well be proven, but at this point the best bet would be to start from scratch and work on a new article in your userspace. Ishdarian 04:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The latest lengthy screeds above indicate that Rollingwagon has either not read our policies, which have now been pointed out to him multiple times, or has chosen to ignore them. While previously published material can be re-released under a free license and potentially used here, the notice on Amazon is not sufficient in any way for Wikipedia's purposes. It must specifically state that the material is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License which of course allows the re-user, i.e. Wikipedia's editors, to "censor" it as much as they wish. They can and indeed must delete anything which is not verifiable and rewrite it so that it adheres to a neutral point of view. Those are two of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and they are non-negotiable. Rollingwagon has to understand that if he eventually releases the text under the proper license, it will be changed beyond all recognition. The article should be re-written from scratch with references from reliable sources entirely independent of the subject which discuss him and his work in depth (if such references can be found). Those are our policies and there is little point in arguing them further here or continuing to give this editor a platform for his (not so thinly) veiled legal threats against any editor who criticises the quality of the article or the quality of the sourcing. Voceditenore (talk) 05:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Amazon biography, assuming the basic info checks out, I'd say Johnson is probably notable by Wikipedia standards, so Wikipedia practices support our having a biography of him. Per WP:AUTOBIO it's best if the biography is written by people unconnected with the subject. The Amazon page has a lot of interesting material that's a good starting point for research, but most of it can't be used directly in Wikipedia since it doesn't have RS citations. I tried Rollingwagon's suggested google search "Christopher Johnson japan journalist" and did find a bunch of material, a lot of which is pretty contentious. [65] (from a blog hosted on economist.com) is an example. I'd be ok with our citing that piece for some point in the article per WP:NEWSBLOG, but for backing the main shape of a biography, I'd prefer regular economist.com editorial content (especially from the print edition of the magazine) to a blog on the site. Maybe something like that exists: I didn't search extensively.

On another issue: Rollingwagon, I'm sure you know that all professional writers have had to learn how to express themselves concisely. Could you please be more concise here? Your posts are so long that it's difficult to find the points they are making. Thanks. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Reading further in the Google results, I now have doubts about our ability to write a neutral article about Christopher Johnson that presents all relevant points of view while living up to our sourcing standards for biographies of living people. So I'd want to use a heightened notability standard (or anyway a rather strict interpretation of the usual standard) that is in my view appropriate for contentious BLP subjects. There might still be enough secondary sourcing to write an article and it may be better to look in news databases rather than Google. In principle I'm willing to help with this, but I have limited wiki-time over at least the next several days. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice. I will try to keep this more concise, as per your requests.

I have never made legal threats against anyone at Wikipedia. As a newcomer, I simply asked questions about policies regarding libel, harassment, bullying. This does not constitute direct or veiled legal threats, and should not be interpreted as such. I hope it's evident that I'm trying to work with a spirit of collaboration and cooperation, despite the frustration and hassles of waiting for weeks for an article to clear the backlog, only to find it rejected and quickly deleted.

I have indeed read through Wikipedia policies, in addition to "Don't bite the newcomer", which seems particularly relevant in this case. Please note Pillars 4 and 5: "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner," and "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." I did not find anywhere that says that rules or pillars are "non-negotiable." Could Voceditenore or someone else kindly send me the reference?

I believe my new article is written with balance, the best and most authoritative sources available, an impartial tone, and a NPOV. Nearly every line is based on verifiable facts with multiple references, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Thanks to your advice, I did not include references from unreliable blogs such as Japan Probe, which has done at least 7 articles about Johnson. The articles lack bylines, and the site is run by unnamed persons using pseudonyms only. A number of sites have criticized those Japan Probe articles as being libelous and malicious, distorting facts and fabricating passages. Google search results show removals of some of these Japan Probe articles in Canada, the UK, Japan and other territories. Also, articles by Jake Adelstein about Johnson have been removed due to defamation concerns. Thus I haven't cited Japan Probe, Jake Adelstein or other potentially libelous articles. But, for balance, I have cited articles critical of Johnson by US-based lawyer Rick Gundlach, who uses his real name and writes reliable commentaries based on verifiable facts. There are a number of academic forums that write and discuss about Johnson, but I can't seem to access them.

In addition, I have added references from the BBC, CNN, UNHCR, Gulf News and others. I've been unable to find several important articles by or about Johnson from the 1980s and 1990s, perhaps due to lack of archives then. Could somebody kindly offer advice on how to find these? For example, archived reports in the BBC, AP, Ottawa Citizen, Globe and Mail, New York Times and others would be most helpful. Please note that due to my inexperience with formatting, a number of formatting errors still exist, such as red lines under references. Could 67.119.3.105 or somebody else kindly help me with this?

In the Wikipedia spirit of collaboration, I'm wondering if Voceditenore could kindly help me work on the Wikipedia entries about Alex Kerr, Jake Adelstein and others authors and journalists, whose entries seem to fall below the standards you mentioned, such as NPOV, reliable sources and other issues. Am I allowed to do this, or do newcomers have to wait for a longer period? Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is allowed to edit articles here apart from a few articles which are sometimes protected or semi-protected for brief periods, usually due to persistent vandalism, copyright violation, edit-warring, etc. However, I strongly suggest that you not edit articles on living people with whom you are in dispute or ones who are friends of yours. WP:COI and WP:BLP has further guidance on these issues. If you have serious concerns that an article here may be violating our policies on biographies of living persons, you can bring them to the attention of the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. My intervention here was to elucidate the copyright issues, stress to you that you will not be able to control the use of your text once it is published here, clarify what sorts of requirements will need to be met to establish notability of the subject and to verify claims made in the article. That's where my involvement with you will end. Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the submission and as it stands I don't think it meets our standards. Most of the sources either do not mention Johnson directly (much of the article goes off at tangents, which those sources support, it's a sort of history of journalism as experienced by Johnson rather than a biography) mention him only in passing or are written by him (none of which helps establish notability). A number of sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable. Of the content; much is, unfortunately, uncited or synthesised from sources - a lot of it relies on the Amazon biography which is not a reliable source (because it is submitted by the author or his publisher). So even licensing issues aside this article needs significant improvement to be moved to article space. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

As may know, my entry has today been rejected for a third time. Is there some type of policy about this? Can this go on for weeks, months, years, until there are no editors left to block it, and all 77,000 editors have no quibbles? Can editors, adhering to WP:5P, continue to block my entry without supplying evidence to support their claims and assumptions about my entry?

The editor who rejected it today mentioned it should be written from a NPOV (which I've done, after several revisions, additions, removals) and should refer to a "range of independent, reliable, published sources." In fact, my entry contains a plethora of reliable sources, independent of Johnson, who do mention Johnson directly, in stories about Johnson, thus satisfying WP:BLP and WP:COI. These sources include: The Economist, UNHCR, Gulf News, the BBC, CPJ.org (Committee for the Protection of Journalists), RSF (Reporters Without Borders), Straight Goods, Debito Arudou, Cory Doctorow, Japan Probe and at least 20 sites based in the US, France, Japan, South Korea, China, the Philippines, Thailand and other countries.

In fact, Wikipedia has entries on almost all of these reliable, independent sources, who seemingly had no demonstrable personal or financial connection to Johnson when they wrote their articles about Johnson. I think we can assume that going forward, anyone claiming these sources are insufficient or not reliable is in fact being tendentious, and ignoring the Wikipedia policy "Please do not bite the newcomers." A key point of this is: "acknowledge differing principals and be willing to reach a consensus." Another is, to quote the About section of Wikipedia's main page: "Censorship or imposing "official" points of view is extremely difficult to achieve and usually fails after a time."

Therefore, I hereby move that we at least form a consensus that Johnson is a notable person, and the entry has more than enough independent, reliable sources which have published articles about Johnson.

As for Errant's statement, one should expect that a biography of a journalist covering historical events (such as wars) would indeed seem like "a sort of history of journalism as experienced" by a journalist. This doesn't mean that the story is "self-promotional" or "fluffery". It's a statement of fact. Johnson was clearly there, from Yugoslavia to Iraq, and it's an integral part of his WP:BLP. Any dispute of this fact would defy logic, common sense, and overwhelming evidence. If a subject has indeed garnered a number of achievements, and has been involved in historical events, this shouldn't be omitted because an editor is envious, or has a bias or prejudice against artists or journalists being part of well-known events or working alongside famous persons.

Thus, I move that we all agree that it's correct to include Johnson's personal history as part of these historical events.

As per the licensing and copyright issue, it seem preposterous that Johnson would somehow block Wikipedia usage of his bio, or make a copyright claim against Wikipedia, when CC-By-SA has allowed Wikipedia to use perhaps 100 of his high quality photos for Wikipedia entries over the past few years. The Amazon bio does already seem to satisfy WP:DCM. Thus, I move that we form a consensus that WP:COPYVIO is no longer an issue.

As per Errant's concerns about my entry not yet meeting the loftiest standards, I'm wondering if we could possibly collaborate on a project to apply these same standards to thousands of other articles, starting with the entries I've mentioned previously: Alex Kerr, Jake Adelstein, Richard Lloyd Parry and others? Thanks again for your help, and I look forward to your replies Rollingwagon (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollingwagon,

1. Some parts of the Amazon biography really are quite fluffy, particularly the book blurb stuff near the end (book blurbs are promotional by nature). I generally agree with Errant's assessment of the page. If we chop those fluffy bits out and can source some of the other stuff though, there's still potentially good info in there that we can use. (We can't use the Amazon page itself as a source as the article currently tries to do: we need sources that are published through editorial processes independent of the biography subject). I do think some of the other sources listed are likely usable already, but there is still work to do.
2. I think any remaining license issues about the Amazon page can be fixed if someone like Moonriddengirl (MRG) suggests license wording that Johnson can put into the page, and Johnson uses MRG's exact wording. MRG is very knowledgable about this stuff so the rest of us tend to defer to her about it.
3. I want to re-iterate MLauba's advice. There are some quite unflattering allegations about Johnson in some of those Google hits, that currently aren't reliably sourced but that haven't been discredited. Therefore it's at least possible that at some point, if Johnson gathers more public attention, those statements will find their way into reliable sources. And if that happens, the info probably will be added to Johnson's Wikipedia biography. MLauba warns of a possible situation where Johnson then tries to get the info removed from the article, and is refused, and there's a lot of anger and sad faces. Or similarly, Johnson tries to get the biography deleted and is again refused, so the high-visibility page that you're requesting about Johnson is left forever beaming this nasty stuff all over the world. I personally don't understand why anyone wants to be the subject of a Wikipedia biography. If someone were trying to write a WP biography about me, I'd do everything I could to get them to stop. Please ask Johnson, does he really, really want a WP biography? I'm generally supportive of deletion requests by biography subjects, but I'm in a minority. Some people have fought for years to get their biographies deleted.
4. Anyway, once the license issues are sorted, if you really want to proceed, I think the next step is to put the page into the WP:Article incubator and ask for help from some uninvolved editors who are willing to do a bit of additional research. (ANI isn't the place for that). I have access to a few library databases like Proquest and Ebsco (unfortunately not Lexis/Nexis). I'll probably be away for a few days but can do a few lookups when I get back, if that helps.
5. I get the impression that you're at least in contact with Johnson. I'd advise when you ask for editing help, that you say exactly what your connection with him is. It's ok if you have a WP:COI as long as you let us know what it is, and defer to independent editors about the article content when appropriate. It's better to avoid having an undisclosed COI, since an awful lot of the time, it leads to unexpected situations with more anger and unhappiness as above (I've seen this more than once).
6. Under the circumstances I think it's best to concentrate on Johnson, and not get involved for now with the articles about Adelstein or others who Johnson is having disputes with or is connected to.

Well, now I'm the one going TL;DR. I better stop. Also I'm sorry if I sound grouchy but it's late and I should be sleeping.

Regards, 67.119.3.105 (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, which contain helpful points indeed. Please note that my current submission, after several additions and removals today, now looks significantly different and more developed than the Amazon bio. Since the Amazon bio (found on multiple sites) was the root problem causing this discussion to land here, it's probably best if we focus on the new material on the current updated version. Perhaps you haven't had time to peruse the new version. After some online research, I've added several reliable sources with articles about Johnson, and subtracted the "critical acclaim" section, leaving just the essentials about the published novels, and fattening up the journalism career section. Please see the main body of the text, not the long reference list at the bottom, which hasn't been updated. (Unfortunately, this misled Ishdarian. Mea culpa.)

I concur with your advice about Moonriddengirl (MRG).

As per the nasty and unflattering comments about Johnson found on Google searches, I suppose libel laws and Wikipedia policies about source reliability would ultimately shield a Wikipedia entry from vandalism. One can assume that Johnson, like other authors, war correspondents or controversial figures, is conditioned to withstand or outfox attackers. Johnson's own writings, and other reliable sources have generally discredited the malicious claims, and Google and Youtube have removed some links due to policies about defamation, harassment, bullying. Online bullying/vandalism is indeed becoming a larger issue worldwide, and people are indeed likely to continue attacking Johnson or other figures if they gather more public attention, as you say. Fortunately for Johnson and other targets, the haters tend to get bored and move onto newer targets to attract attention. But I defer to your advanced knowledge of previous attacks on the sanctity of Wikipedia.

Yes, please do sleep, and don't worry about TL;DR. It's worth reading. Thanks Rollingwagon (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that MRG did suggest some license release wording from WP:DCM, below. I hope you'll read WP:DCM as it explains a little more what you're getting into. I think a bunch of us are uncomfortable because some of your posts (especially the earlier ones but also the more recent ones) give the impression that you expect to control the article contents more than you'll actually be able to. WP is fairly good about keeping malicious attacks out of BLP's, but if something is reliably sourced and deemed relevant and is presented neutrally, it tends to go in and stay permanently whether the subject likes it or not. I hope you're ok with that. Anyway, goodnight for now. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Licensing

I suggest tackling the licensing issue first, then handing the rest per normal editorial processes. I note that the amazon biography now explicitly mentions Creative Commons and links to our article on CC-BY-SA, however, the last sentence on the bio's licensing statement prohibits, in practice, the creation of derivative works: No other party has the right to make claims about copyright issues regarding this material for the purpose of censoring, prohibiting or blocking use of this material for any reason represents a limitation to the CC-BY-SA license that we cannot accept, as it essentially requires the text to be reproduced in its entirety and prohibits editing.

The subject has to understand that once there is a biography on Wikipedia, there will be no recourse to limit the editing to coverage he agrees with, as the license is irrevocable. Assuming for a moment that the subject were exposed to significant negative press coverage that would be reflected in the article, he would have no recourse, legal or editorial, to have it removed from Wikipedia. MLauba ^(Talk) 08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MLauaba here. The license asserted at Amazon is not sufficient for several reasons. First, the last line is problematic. Second, earlier the text says, "on all websites worldwide". That's a restriction on where content can be reused. We don't accept restrictions; our content may be used in print sources as well as websites.

Additionally, even if the CC-By-SA license were clear, we cannot accept content licensed under CC-By-SA only when the sole author of that content himself puts it on Wikipedia, in accordance with our Terms of Use, which says, "When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." If the content is co-authored, CC-By-SA is sufficient.

There is very specific language recommended for releases at WP:DCM:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

This language doesn't have to be used verbatim, but the terms - without additional restriction - must be specified. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violations and unhelpful editing

User:Riccardo Michahelles has, over the last few days, persistently re-created an article consisting entirely of text copied from an external site (which he claims to own). I tried to explain to him why this is inappropriate, but he stopped communicating and continued to recreate the article. It has been speedied about 5 times this week and the page was eventually salted, but he is now re-creating it as RAM (Ruggero Alfredo Michahelles), and has continued to do so after being warned not to by yet another user.

He is also repeatedly introducing these unhelpful and unsourced changes to the Thayaht article. Please look into it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also just realised that the edits he's introducing to the second article are copyvios from the same site used to create the first article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've left User:Riccardo Michahelles a message regarding coyvios and edit warring. I'm hoping it's just a case of a new editor not understanding the ropes. We'll see. Tiderolls 12:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Hypocaustic

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

This user is unilaterally changing links at many pages to intentionally point to the redirect railway station instead of the actual article train station, even when the term is piped and it doesn't matter what the link says, like here and here. He has also blanked redirects from titles with "train station" such as here. He proposed a page move of that sort last year, but the move had no consensus ("train station" was deemed to be dialect nuetral compared to "railway station" or "railroad station", and it was closed following paragraph 1 of WP:TITLECHANGES).

This pattern of behavior has been followed by the editor in other places as well, notably his frequent dust ups over the term passive smoking and smoke-free laws and most recently regarding the musical act Shakespeares Sister. He blanks his talk page on a regular basis, which itself isn't an issue, but it clearly fits with a pattern of covering up his acting against consensus. (He tried to blank the move request at Talk:Train station when it failed to gain consensus, and it still bears a note after admonishing people not to remove the discussion!) It is clear that this user has no respect for consensus when he just doesn't like the term that consensus says we should use, and will edit war and move war to get his way. His petulance has no place in a collaborative project. oknazevad (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like some personally-directed tensions may be creeping in here, but as I don’t know the above user let’s hope we can resolve that appropriately. Re Shakespear’s Sister, I’m not sure you’re correct in identifying this as a consensus issue, true; I’ve just tried to rectify some recurrent mistakes. But if you feel there’s a danger of an edit war breaking out, let’s leave that page to one side for a while – it may suffer some incorrect punctuation as a result, but the occasional incidence of that is hardly the end of the world. Re railway stations, I’ve done my best to respect the ‘agree to disagree’ consensus on that page’s title and re-drafted the lede specifically in order to accommodate your concerns while also providing the best possible introduction to the subject for readers. Oknazevad, if you feel that level of effort displays a less than collaborative spirit, I’m sorry to hear it, but I suggest our best option is to both step back and let other contributors, who may be less exercised about such fine points, take a fresh look. Re my user talk page, I do occasionally clear it to provide an uncluttered space for discussion – knowing that anyone who really wants to indulge in detective work can easily back-track – but if that’s seriously bad form I’ll be happy to stand corrected by others.Hypocaustic (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thi don't about the content. Yes there's none concern that "train station" is colloquial (though only you seem to be outright offended by it), but most didn't share that concern, and to marginalized the actual article title, as your edits attempted to do, is poor editing. But that's not the point if this thread. The point is that, despite the consensus that the title is fine, you have repeatedly, through your edits, marginalized the links to the correct article title. The changing of links where the term doesn't even appear because of piping (shown in the above diffs; there's no reason a station in California would ever link to "railway station" unless that was the actual article name) and blanking of redirects (pure vandalism) is not collaborative by any stretch. Also, reverting to your choice of edit even after being informed of the ANI on you (as you did at train station is clearly PoV pushing. It seems clear, based on these edits and other disputes, that you seek to make these changes and then use the fact that there are vastly not links to "railway station" as "evidence" that it's the more common term and the article should be moved. All because you don't like the term "train station". oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A nice clean talk page is probably better achieved by archival than blanking, and bot archival is super easy to set up. Just sayin'. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to corroborate these complaints; earlier this year I went to WP:DRN for exactly the same reasons (link to DRN discussion here). The user was systematically changing links across Wikipedia for "passive smoking" so that they pointed to "second-hand smoke", then afterwards tried to move the page claiming it was "the most widely used" term (link to page move discussion).

After the page move failed he engaged in long-running edit- and move-wars across a number of articles (see the user's move log from February as a demonstration of this: [66]), and after they failed he even tried copy/paste moves to avoid process (see for example the history of second-hand smoke). It was only after his admonishment at DRM that he ceased, at least temporarily. However he seems to have resumed on different articles, using the same tactics as before and with the same disregard for consensus.Cross porpoises (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Chaos - how easy is that to do? Oknazevad, Cross Porpoises - you're at risk of straying into ad hominem attacks here; please try to keep ideas for how to do things better positive and constructive rather than assuming bad faith.Hypocaustic (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing ad hominem about calling out a pattern of disruptive, consensus-ignoring behavior. Indeed, the purpose of ANI is exactly that. Ad hominem is when your behavior has no bearing on the issue in dispute; here you're pattern of behavior is the issue in dispute. And it's clearly a pattern of behavior, as seen by the evidence. Trying to pull the same trick that you got caught doing before is nonsense that undermines any possibility of assuming good faith about you. oknazevad (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nanny dog redirect

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.

---

IMHO, this redirect to Pit bull is profoundly ill advised. I will notify the editor who did it. I posted it on several talk pages. I put in an appropriate citation that calls into question (actually refutes) the use of the term, and I think this is not a harmless edit. That being said, I don't like trying to undo redirects, and think this requires Admin intervention and/or consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified the other user, and put it on the redirect talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Put notice on User_talk:Richard_Goins. I would ordinarily think this should be worked out on the talk page, but this is (opinion) an exigent circumstance that should be addressed quickly. I don't know how Mr. Goins feels about this, and have not heard back from him yet. I am not accusing him of anything other than a mistaken edit (and I also assume that reasonable minds could differ on the issue); and I WP:AGF. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it not profoundly well advised? The link you put on the talk page, if correct, is evidence that they've commonly been called "nanny dogs", making this a very good redirect. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article, one person has called them "nanny dogs" and popularized it since 1971. This is bad because they aren't "Nanny dogs", have not historically been called that, and quite to the contrary are dangerous to children and not "Nanny dogs". If you went below the cited article, the 60 dead children listed will speak to the issue in a way that text won't. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I did read the article, and one from Yahoo News also; that's why I said that this is a good redirect. Someone who sees the term "nanny dog" may come here to look it up, and since this term is commonly used to refer to the topic covered by the pit bull article, it should redirect there as a means of helping people to learn that the term refers to pit bulls. Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead of here? And when it's there, won't everyone who's read WP:RNEUTRAL say it should be kept? In particular: Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article, one person has called them "nanny dogs" and popularized it since 1971. This is bad because they aren't "Nanny dogs", have not historically been called that, and quite to the contrary are dangerous to children and not "Nanny dogs". If you went below the cited article, the 60 dead children listed will speak to the issue in a way that text won't.

Of course, we could put in a section "Are they nanny dogs". Complete with links to lists of dead children and their articles. And the etymology of the phrase "Nanny dogs". I.e., the phrase never was used to connote pit bulls before 1971. Maybe that is what you mean?

At bottom, what you seem to be saying is that it is a good redirect because it erroneously refers to pit bulls, and that the use of the term to apply to the breed is historically inaccurate and misleading.

I am suggesting that this is historical revisionism, will be on is face confusing to readers, and it was all done with a single redirect.

However, you are probably right that it should be discussed at "redirects for discussion". 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:31, 27 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.

Slow motion edit war on Berber people

I am not sure whether this requires administrator intervention, but if someone feels motivated to look into it, there appears to be a slow motion edit war on the Berber people page, with minimal talk page discussion. A case was filed at WP:DRN n this but I closed it because of lack of participation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to be more specific with who and what the edit war is over. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't really find it either. It is true, though, that there has been significant disruption in Berber-related articles, including issues of language and population numbers/geographical distribution; I remember a bunch of POV edits and probable socking two or three years ago spread out over a number of articles. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Quasi legal threat

Please see this diff and this diff which look similar, and consider whether there is a legal threat here, or something else going on. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a legal threat. It seems to be someone using Wikipedia to pursue an agenda, which may be reason enough to show him the door.--Scott Mac 15:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seems to have a serious COI and a more serious attitude problem, but not so much a WP:NLT problem. And he is pissed because someone had the audacity to modify his edits to Wikipedia. We have a serious lack of clue here, climbing on a soapbox. Not quite sure the best way to handle this. Ignoring it isn't likely the right answer, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• The editor is also seeming to unmask or out this one editor at least. Someone experienced i this type of issue needs to have a serious look at it Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I have taken a serious look. The only person he's "outing" is himself. The info on Utcursch is a copy and paste from info on his userpage.--Scott Mac 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • User:Qwyrxian removed the info, a precaution I agree with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, he's "outing" himself (assuming he is who he says he is). Meanwhile, his comment "WRITE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS ON WIKIPEDIA AS YOU ARE ADMINISTRATION.SO THAT THE PEOPLE WHO EDIT CAN BRING YOU TO COURT" is unquestionably a legal threat, i.e. an attempt at intimidation by bringing legal-sounding stuff into the discussion. That would be one of several possible reasons to send him to the top of the Himalayas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • This is the usual nonsense that shows people don't really understand the NLT policy. Look, block this chap for pushing personal agendas and offering nothing useful to the project - and perhaps for harassing admins with silly incoherent rants. However, a) there's no legal "threat" here - he's not even suggested what he'd go to court for. You can't sue us because we won't host your material. b) the purpose of blocking someone who makes real legal threats is not punitive. It is because legal disputes need to be resolved through official channels and we can't have people dialoging on a wiki while those things are being pursued. This is just the usual nonsense - block and ignore.--Scott Mac 16:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
      • The purpose of the NLT policy has to do with intimidation. The legalese statement he made looks intimidating, so it does indeed qualify as a legal threat, an NLT violation. He MUST BE indef'd until or if he recants and disavows the legal threat. Although, given his general approach, that by itself would not be a ticket to being unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Mamtapolicedhody (talk · contribs) contributed some images and text copied verbatim from other websites. I removed the text, nominated the images for deletion dropped a {{uw-copyright}} note on the user's talk page. Apparently, the user thinks that it's OK to copy content from non-free sources as long as you mention the source. Therefore, she feels the removal is unjustified. I've dropped one more note, asking her to take a look at Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

As for the legal bit, I could care less. I find it more funny than threatening ("waging of war against the Indian Union to the Supreme Court of India"). Apparently, Qwyrxian had warned her for posting similar messages back in 2011. utcursch | talk 16:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Bwilkins is handling it the right way here, try to create dialog. And Scott is correct on NLT. The editor will either climb out of the hole, or keep digging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is, the essay WP:BULLY has some relevance here. I appreciate that it is an essay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre edit-warring or sockpuppetry ... whatever it is, it's disruptive

I'm not sure what exactly is going on here, but most recent edits on Ditylenchus dipsaci (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch seem to be from users with very similar usernames: SarahNC (talk · contribs), SarahNicoleTaylor-3 (talk · contribs), SarahNicoleTaylor (talk · contribs). Not sure if this is a case of edit-warring + impersonation, or if it's sockpuppetry. Also the page should probably be temporarily semi-protected. Amp71 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The article had not been edited since last May so something is definitely odd here. This IP 72.33.106.211 (talk · contribs) from Madison WI is likely also involved. I have reverted the article back to the May 24th version. If any of the edits are legit please feel free to restore them. MarnetteD | Talk 01:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is another 72.33.107.127 (talk · contribs) also from Madison so the duck is quacking loudly. I have filed a RFPP but I do not how long it will take to be responded to so any help would be great. MarnetteD | Talk 01:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see recent message on my talk page. Thanks. Amp71 (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've blocked the three registered accounts and the one IP address for one week for abusing multiple accounts. I would appreciate it if either Amp71 or MarnetteD would file a report at WP:SPI so it can be official. Also, please put the article back the way it should be. I didn't undo any of the recent edits by the socks. Finally, if there is block evasion by IPs, please let me or another admin know so more blocks can be issued or the article semi-protected if it's too unwieldy to block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm adding this after the message left at Amp71's talk page. I don't intend to unblock at this point. The issue of all these accounts and the one IP address editing at the same time is disruptive. I also can't tell whether it's one person or more than one person. The claim that it's on behalf of a professor is also muddling. If another admin wants to address these issues preemptively (rather than wait for the fallout from the blocks), that's fine. Otherwise, I'd just as soon wait. I have to go now and put block notices on all the pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Another admin semi-protected the article before I could get to the report at RFPP (I was about to decline it). No big deal. Won't hurt the article to be semi-protected for a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response everyone. I have filed the SPI here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SarahNicoleTaylor. As I mentioned on Amp71s talk page if any of this turns out to be legit and/or anyone from the class returns I suggest that they be directed to a sandbox so they can finish their work and then editors familiar with the subject can confirm whether they would improve the article. MarnetteD | Talk 02:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

These accounts are requesting unblock. I've left a quick note at User talk:SarahNicoleTaylor-3, but I'm off to bed now so someone else will need to keep an eye on things. – Steel 03:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• What should have been done for socks is to indef all but one account. That one account can either get a warning or a timed block. T. Canens (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This seems to be the class website. This is the website from last year and does mention a "Wikipedia assignment". I think this is probably a real class. The usernames are...let's just say not artfully selected, but I'm suspecting that it's three people working/editing together in a group, which is OK by policy, so I'd say that we can safely unblock. The instructor should really be pointed to WP:SUP though. T. Canens (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It is really important to avoid blocking classes, even when the do not follow the suggested guidelines for the educational program. The nature of the article being worked on should really have been spotted as a hint that this was not typical sockpuppetry DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock please. Per TC and DGG, highly likely this is class project, not puppetry. Nobody Ent 11:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have posted to the user talk pages, explaining the username policy issues, and asking for clarification as to whether they are the same person. If the answer is "yes" then one account can be unblocked subject to the usual requirement of an indication that she understands and will not edit disruptively from now on. If, on the other hand, the answer is "no", then they can all be unblocked to allow requests for changes of username. I disagree with DGG that members of classes should be treated differently from other editors: If the editing deserves a block then it deserves a block. Having said that, I would not myself have blocked without first explaining the issues on the user talk pages, for several reasons, not least the fact that the question of whether they were the same person or not was unsettled. I really don't see why, in such a case of doubt, it was not considered better to ask the user(s) first, not only before blocking, but before reporting here. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I am slightly irritated that the collective response to these editors has caused far more disruption than any they may have caused themselves. I can understand that the flurry of fast-paced editing from similar usernames spooked a couple of users, though week-long blocks for all was probably a slight overreaction. Since then we've had two WP:SPI cases created, one of which I summarily closed on the grounds that no further sockpuppet investigation was required, and the other I deleted. The closed one was then reopened for some reason so a checkuser could be run (???), which came back as confirmed. Well no shit, Sherlock. What new insight could a checkuser have possibly provided on this situation? We already knew they were editing from a university connection.

So I have unblocked SarahNicoleTaylor and SarahNC, and left a note with SarahNicoleTaylor-3 to create a new account. – Steel 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Further comment after edit conflict: I appear to have stepped on James's toes here a bit, but I think we can safely say these are separate users. – Steel 12:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for handling this badly. Unfortunately, after I issued the blocks and left notes, I went off-wiki (until now). In the future, unless I am more confident I know what I'm doing, I'll ask another admin to handle it or just leave the original ANI post intact and allow some other admin to act on their own. I'm still a little puzzled as to who everyone is, and why -3 was asked to create another account and the other two weren't. All of the usernames are obviously similar. Is it one person or three? Is Sarah Nicole Taylor the name of the one person or the name of their professor (assuming it's three) - the one explanation I see doesn't really fully explain. Anyway, I'm not going to touch any of the accounts, having made enough trouble for everyone already. Again, I'm sorry for wasting so many admins' time, in particular to James and Steel.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WMF has docked Bbb23's paycheck for this month 10%. No, Bbb23 spotted amiss, made a reasonable interpretation and took action to address the situation. Depending on the level of the class, either the instructor failed to research and provide adequate instructions on how to go about creating accounts, or the students failed to heed the advice at Special:UserLogin/signup (the "not logged in" version) -- the usernames were clearly in violation of policy. As long as an admin provides reasonable indication of what they are doing and why there is no requirement they stay logged on for "X" minutes ... that's why we have many admins and unblock templates and AN & ANI. I don't see anything wrong with Bbb23's actions. Additionally the students have learned something about how the Wikipedia community tries to maintain the integrity of its articles, regardless of whether that was part of the assignment or not. Nobody Ent 14:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I asked for the checkuser because I wanted to make sure before I unblock the accounts. The reason I did not unblock last night is because of the CU finding, which, I'm informed, unambiguously shows that SNT and SNC are editing from the same computer. T. Canens (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I really wonder how CU can actually prove they "are editing from the same computer". I've been to a few universities which had (1) identical software on many machines, and (2) an outgoing NAT/proxy giving the same IP to all. Never mind labs of physically-shared computers. And terminal servers, e.g. accessed by Sun Rays. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't "prove" anything, ever. See WP:PIXIEDUST. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no requirement editors edit from different computers. In fact Pair programming is a notable software development technique. Nobody Ent 14:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested user name change

[67]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Responded, sending them to WP:CHU. Mdann52 (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And typical wikipedian response

[68]. @ MarnetteD - 02:13, 25 October 2012 (above) : Have you ever heard of WP:AGF? You seem to know nothing about the topic but reverted anyway. For starters, a quick GB search confirms that "stem and bulb nematode" and "teasel nematode" are both a common name for D. dipsaci [69]. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, it sure is easy to cherry pick and criticize hours after the events took place. First, I was responding to another editors concerns. I was also responding in real time to a page that was being heavily edited in an obvious socking situation. The edits were coming so fast and furious that there was no time to verify any of them. As the events continued to unfold, and understanding that there might be more to the situation, I was the first to suggest (as the edit you highlight shows) that, if the editing was legit, that they move to a sandbox so that things could be checked out by those in the know. I filed the SPI at another users request. In my time here I have come across vandalism, both subtle and overt, that stayed in articles for a year or more because people did not react to it at the time that it occurred. If protecting articles is a typical wikipedianb response then I am happy to be one as several of us were in this situation. It's a funny thing that some people think that AGF is only for new editors. MarnetteD | Talk 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I echo DGG, above, and others: there are clear hints here that this was indeed a kind of class assignments. I've run into enough of them to see that, and I'm sorry I haven't kept a closer eye on this board. Now, oftentimes such assignments are not handled properly, as in this case, with those usernames and a lack of communication (with education projects, for instance), but it is our job to help them along, not block them or fling them to SPI (sorry Bbb et al.). As for Marnette's reversal, I don't want to look at the timeline (and its argument) given my own timeline, but sometimes a complete revert is the best way to go--this, in my opinion, was not one of those occasions. Sometimes it's best to let the thing play out: there are no BLP concerns here, it's all done as an effort to improve things, etc. One can always revert afterward. On a related note: does this article still need to be protected? With vandalism cited as the reason? Drmies (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, let me make clear that I don't doubt anyone's good faith here. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think not. (protection) Nobody Ent 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I hit "vandalism" by mistake actually--I semi-d it because I thought there was sockpuppetry going on. I have twinkle pre-set to use vandalism as an explanation for protecting, and I sometimes forget to change it in specific circumstances. I'll unprotect it now though, since things seem to be under control. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I hold a record for detecting a two-year old article that was entirely vandalism (hoax): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R-peak. It's easier to analyze their work after the dust settles rather than diff by diff, IMO. So it matters little how many edits they make "fast and furious". Tijfo098 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that's nowhere near the record. Graham87 06:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Mkay, two years seems the average lifespan of a hoax on Wikipedia (although that page may be biased). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to defend my own actions, but I would like to defend Marnette's. I understand Drmies's point, but at the same time things were happening very quickly and Marnette was just trying to help out. Overall, I think it was simply everyone acting too hastily. As an admin, my own actions are less defensible; as others have pointed out, I should have at least looked at the content changes to see if there was any associated policy violations, and I didn't. The only thing I did right was to leave a clear record of what I did wrong before going off-wiki. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding to situations like this is Between Scylla and Charybdis; we neither want to allow crap to get into articles nor do we want to bite newbies. It's really easy to analyze after the fact -- this editor was obviously a troll, that editor was clearly a newbie. We have logs and review boards and unblock templates for a reason. Billy Joel is wrong, we don't have to Get It Right the First Time. Post-hoc beating up admins and editors doesn't help Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 02:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's true. However, continual education of editors and admins is a good thing. So, part of these discussion would seem forward looking, for example, should the admin have protected the wrong version and then investigated or done something else? Do some investigation first? Would it depend on the type of article? Etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the last (well, before the "etc"). Politics and BLPs require immediate action besides investigation, IMO. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the edits made to the article as there is NO policy that would allow for their removal. There were no attempts at welcoming the users, no discussion on the talk page, and no reasonable explanation given for reverting in the edit summaries in the first place. The response from all those responding was simply atrocious. Every one of you should apologize to the users who were trying to make a better encyclopedia article. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

AGF cuts both ways; I've looked at this, and while the initial response wasn't optimal it was certainly understandable. It may be surprising to you, but the people making the initial response seem to have had the best intentions in mind, and in the end it really hasn't caused any permanent damage; mistakes happen, let's not make more out of this than necessary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Is welcoming them now, after the fact, really going to make any difference? --MuZemike 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:AllBlackSoldier

Following this remark, please use an IP range block or other measure to prevent this user from making more accounts. Please shut this guy down. • Jesse V.^(talk) 06:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that every troll thinks they are the first one to figure out how to evade a block? Of course they also seem to think they are terribly funny when they are just stupid so it's probably not worth contemplating. Anyhoo, you will need a checkuser to determine the range needing blocking, I suggest you ask at WP:SPI if no checkusers happen by this thread anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rajkris

Please take a loot at the edits here [70] pertaining to the Kshatriya article. User:Rajkris has been repeatedly deleting referenced material. Please also take a look at my user page [71] -- User:Rajkris alleged a lie, and still went on to yet again delete referenced material. Am reporting him for vandalism. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I have removed based on the fact that these are details and should be written in the dedicated (Vellalar) page and not kshatriya. And on the other side, I have more recent refs which tell the contrary.Rajkris (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User Rajkris kept removing referenced content from the Kshatriya page without a valid reason, and now comes up with his idea that it should be mentioned in the Vellalar page. Can he please explain why he has been deleting referenced material from the Kshatriya page so far? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

From the beginning I am telling that there is no need to write so much lines in a Kshatriya article. What I have written is fairly enough, details can be we written in the vellalar (which is already done). On the other hand, Mayasutra is using old refs whereas I have more recent ones which tell the exact contrary.Rajkris (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this a discussion that should take place on the talkpage of the article in order to obtain new consensus for the changes over a period of days? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please go thru the short paragraph he is repeatedly deleting. It is not a point of consensus. Basically, the content goes against what he claims (goes against the nobility claims for his caste). Hence, the repeated deletion from his end. This is merely vandalism (borne from certain casteist ideas). Thanks--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

And btw, the so-called 'old references' pertain to the fact that his caste group was given the Shudra position in the British Government colonial period of India. Which he does not want to be mentioned. He wants only content claiming Kshatriya position for his caste.Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

concensus must be reached through discussion, Mayasutra tried to add contents (using olf refs) without any discussion. I am just telling details must be written in the dedicated page with proper recent refs. Regarding the nobility of the Vellalar caste, there are number of recent books writtren by proper scholars which assert this: [72]. Therefore his old refs cannot be used to counter more recent ones.Rajkris (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no pb about Shudra status during British colonial period. Proof of that, I will add it right now in the kshatriya article. But for me colonial articles are not good sources. Other users such as Sitush, Mathewvanitas share my position on this.Rajkris (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No its not a matter on consensus. You repeatedly deleted content which was against the grain of your Kshatriya claims. Glad to see you want to add Shudra status of your caste in the Kshatriya article right now. Good. Why were you deleting it so far then? There were elaborate legal dramas fought by Vellalars for Kshatriya position in the colonial period. Am not sure on what basis can you claim colonial sources are not good ones. Anyways, i will be doing the Vellalar article. And all vandalism will be reported here. Just letting you know in advance. And btw, you have still not responded why are you repeatedly deleting this paragraph (and i request the admin to check against your allegations of old references and what sort of references you have used):

However, The Journal of Kerala Studies states "etymological interpretations to connect Vellalar with Velir appear unconvincing". It is suggested the word Vellalar comes from the root Vellam for flood, which gave rise to various rights of land; and it is because of the acquisition of land rights that the Vellalar got their name. The Vellalars were supposedly Shudra agriculturists who arrived from northern Canara and unconnected to the Velir chieftains. The Vellalars, though land-controlling and tillers of soil with brahmanic ideas of purity, did not follow Kshatriya ritual practices as codified in the dharmashastras, and were officially classified as Sat-Sudra in the 1901 census; with the Government of Madras recognising the 4-fold varna division did not describe the South Indian, or Dravidian, society adequately. It was noted that families regarded as pure Vellalar caste (Saiva Vellalars) were reluctant to question the bona fides of those pretending to be Vellalar, since the line between them was noted to be very thin indeed; with the former occasionally drawing partners for marriage from the ranks of the latter.

--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Such details about etymology is not needed in kshatriya page. Few lines are just enough. For details there is Vellalar page. That's it.Rajkris (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

To the admin, Am fine with the citations and the presentation of Rajkris on the Kshatriya page now. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

(Rajkris, this is also my response to your comments on my talk page) Bwilkins is correct--you were WP:BOLD and tried to remove content which you felt better belongs in another article. That's fine, and something we encourage. But then, someone objected and reverted your. That means you now need to go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. If the two of you (or you two plus other editors who, heaven help them, watch Kshatriya) can't come to an agreement, we have a whole variety of dispute resolution procedures which you can follow. What you can't do is edit war to enforce your preferred version. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat in AfD discussion

Just a heads-up: User:Horrorian posted a legal threat in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yotta Kasai, [73]. The user is one of several probable socks investigated in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Film1024 and so they will probably be blocked as a sock in any case. (The confusion between active/passive voice is not an uncommon problem for English learners - they are almost certainly saying that the company would take legal action, even though it looks as if they are saying that the company would be the target of the action.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's an action against Wikipedia - and it's more of a suggestion towards the film company; the AFD is closed, let SPI do its magic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a legal threat. He's not threatening to sue anyone. It is an opinion, it may be right or wrong, but that's it.--Scott Mac 13:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Opinions of various people that have been written here is libel. It will probably be a problem if the production company was sued for defamation," looks very close to a legal threat. However, the way it's worded could arguably be expressing concern rather than intimidation, with a poor choice of words due to limited English knowledge. Regardless, I see that he's been blocked as a sock, so the legal-threat question fades into the background. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone with a lot of experience with Japanese English, I can agree with Bonadea that this is a threat, though a poorly worded one. Since the user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, the issue is probably moot, but given that the page in question, Yotta Kasai, has been created a total of four times, I would not be surprised to see this user return in another form. Michitaro (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Guinsberg and WP:BLP

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 noticed today that Guinsberg (talk · contribs) had described a living person as a "vile skank". I removed the comment as a violation of WP:BLP, and put a uw-biog2 caution on his Talk: page. His response was to revert back in the "vile skank" attack, and remove the note from his Talk: page with a personal attack on me in the edit summary. I planned to issue a final warning before blocking him, but thought I'd bring the issue here first for broader input before doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked Guinsberg for 72 hours for BLP violations. --Jethro B 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User:Bwilkins has blocked Guinsberg, so I don't need to. I'll remove the BLP violation again, and we should be done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 28 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.

Perplexing behaviour on archival of Talk page

Yesterday, user HammerFilmFan decided to partially revert the archival of the Talk:Michael Servetus page that I had implemented last August and which had been confirmed after a favourable resolution on a COI request. Apparently, HammerFilmFan considers that conversations that are a couple of months old (although he has restored sections until last June, i.e. more than 4 months) must still considered "active" even after their ending. When I wrote in his Talk page that, according my knowledge of the archival policy, requirements for archival are that a page either exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections, but not about how many months must have passed after the last entry, this user has simply ignored and deleted my entry, which I guess it is OK if he wants to in his own page, but not so much when he is not providing no further explanations about his decision. My impression is that this user does not seem to be open to dialogue, and that he is simply imposing his criteria about restoring the archived page. I would like to know whether this "a couple of months old must remain active" is really a standard Wikipedia policy on Talk pages, if user HammerFilmFan has the authority to decide whether or not the Talk page should not be archived, either totally or partially, and with no dialogue with involved parties, and whether this criteria about when to archive is indeed in effect according to Wikipedia policies, particularly in this context in which archival had already been considered correct after a dispute resolution. Thank you. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored the archived content and explained to HammerFilmFan they do have options (not including the blanking of talk page comments without explanation). Tiderolls 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you set up automatic archiving, for example using MizaBot. That means it happens routinely, everyone can see (discuss, change, ...) the criteria and any conversations which need to be retained longer can be held back with {{dnau}}. --Mirokado (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Automatic archiving is the best option. Thank you both. --Jdemarcos (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk: 99.242.222.52

Hello.

An user, User talk: 99.242.222.52, insist in adding unreferenced films in the List of films based on Marvel Comics and List of films based on DC Comics. What I must do? or, I'm on an error? Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the action.OscarFercho (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oscar. Please try to engage the user on the article talk pages, or post a personal note on the IP's talk page. They just don't know our rules, and could use some information on our sourcing requirements. Just so others know what's been done so far, I've placed an edit warring template on the IP's talk page and protected both articles for three days to try to drive them to the talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your note is good. -- Dianna (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and help.OscarFercho (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Better late than never

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 requesting that User:Brews ohare be blocked indefinitely for talk page disruption, gaming the system and incorrigible violations of his physics topic ban [74][75] despite the numerous attempts at enforcement.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that violates physics (Virtually an idiot in that particular area here) however the main thing I see as a possible issue is the overall length of the actual talkpage posts. Brews really does mean well but sometimes the responses are pretty long. I don't support a block or ban for Brews because he does bring a lot to the table and is immanently qualified for quite a few things but I also think that wiki is stuck in a virtual repeat cycle as far as brews is involved and that well has already been thoroughly poisoned in his respect. Not sure why the block is always the solution. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: What emergency action is requested/required? ANI is typically a page for immediate/emergency requests. Looking at some of these (and trying to figure out where the violation is) I notice that several of them are stale more than a few days. Perhaps you'd like to try one of the Civility Dispute Resolution options (Like RfC/U, AN, etc.). Regardless, it's always a good idea to start indef block/ban requests at WP:AN instead of here. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The alleged violation seriously stretches the reach of broadly construed. The article isn't about physics, and the quote is borderline. Its also clear that the two editors are in conflict more generally, and that this report is being used as a bludgeon to win that dispute. At most, we should decide if including the quote is a topic ban violation, and advise Brews ohare accordingly, but I don't think it should serve as the basis for a block/ban. The rest should be referred to normal dispute resolution channels. Monty₈₄₅ 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Causality is rated high importance for WikiProject Physics but it's not an article ban, it's a topic ban. Niels Bohr is a famous physicist and he characterized Bohr as representative of the "distinguished past" of the mind-body problem, claiming that Bohr's was the "most extreme view", "an analogy to his work on [[complementarity (physics)|complementarity]]".

You're attempting to rubbish this without diffs to back up your false allegation and mistaken impression that it's "Its also clear that two editors are in conflict more generally, and that this report is being used as a bludgeon to win that dispute"? Had that been my goal, I'd have taken it to WP:AE.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are clear violations of the topic ban. Discussing Bohr and quantum theory in the context of a psychological article is in direct contravention of his ban from "all pages of whatever nature about physics"[76]. I urge the filer to request arbitration enforcement rather than press the issue on ANI, as it seems the respondents here are unfamiliar with - or, in one case, have abetted - BOH's years of disruption. Skinwalker (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The case history is tl;dr so I could easily be missing something, but a topic ban doesn't address his tendentious behavior and besides, he violates it with impunity despite the numerous attempts at arbitration enforcement... I wouldn't have thought an indef block would be overturned, but it seems that too would just be a waste of time. Thanks though.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any disruption in the first diff, and any topic ban violations are stale by this point. I can say that I'm going to decline this report if it gets filed at AE, so don't bother. It appears to me that MachineElf is trying to use the topic ban to gain an improper advantage in a content dispute. Boomerang? T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You would actually have to read the talk page, but we all have better things to do.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see! Small wonder he thinks the rules don't apply to him. They don't. Why don't you come help Brews win his so-called "content dispute"? LOL—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

@Skinwalker would you mind explaining your remark? Is there something n my comments or rationale for this issue that stands out as wrong? Does being a person that has supported Brews in the past somehow remove my ability to comment on a situation? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:04, 30 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.

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by User:Euroflux

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.

---

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

User:Euroflux started editing last July. Unfortunately, the editing style of this user is very confrontational and uncompromising. Advice or, even worse, disagreement with his edits, are met with ridicule, angry challenges to other editors' "authority", personal attacks, or xenophobic diatribes and assumptions of bad faith. Discussions (for instance at "Categories for discussion" get large walls of (often irrelevant) text dropped onto them. Euroflux seems unable to admit to even the slightest mistake. An example for this was his insistence that no notable foreigner ever graduated from one of the "grand" French engineering schools. When confronted with examples, he argued that 1/ a Belgian engineer with a French name was Walloon (despite being born and having gone to school in Flemish cities) actually was French (because apparently all Walloons desire to be French), 2/ that an engineer from Morocco actually also was French because Morocco used to be a French colony, and 3/ proposed a bio of a clearly-notable Lebanese engineer for deletion. In addition, Euroflux has on more than one occasion engaged in edit warring over the correct titles of articles and emptied several categories out of process, despite having been informed on multiple occasions of the proper procedures to follow to propose a category for renaming or deletion. I have tried to reason with this editor for weeks now, to no avail. There are many examples of this type of behavior in Euroflux's edit history and I only give a few examples below. Note also that Euroflux is in the habit of removing any critical comments from his userpage. It should also be noted that Euroflux has been warned on multiple occasions by multiple users that this kind of behavior is unacceptable.

Examples of personal attacks: [77] [78] [79]. An example of disruptive participation in a CfD, interspersed with personal attacks on other editors and denigrating remarks about people of other nationalities (note the remark about the bragging Dutch students :-): [80] [81] (the latter including a warning). An example of an inappropriate discussion on a BLP talk page: [82].

I suggest that at least a short block would be appropriate, in order to drive home the point that WP is a collaborative project and that this behavior is not tolerated here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Euroflux could stand to be a bit more polite, but I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of a personal attack in the diffs provided above. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 16:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree I can't really see any personal attacks either, but this one does look to be somewhat in the competence department, since it obviously doesn't matter if you are an admin or not, or how many edits you have for someone to be right, and in that post Euroflux seems to focus solely on the percieved "social status" of the other editor. That is not the way to discuss content disputes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about these: [83] [84] And the remark "I guess that Guillaume2303 was admitted for a limited period of time in a French school with lower middle ranking... His ego might be flattered that he might be considered an "alumnus" of a "Grande école" even if he was nothing more than a "postgraduate"; but this school is obviously not a top one..." in this discussion? And as I said, this is only a selection and the problem is not just personal attacks, but also edit-warring, pointy deletion nominations, etc. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Euroflux has shown a complete inability to work with others and the problems are much deeper than "he could stand to be a bit more polite". Let's start with the discussion highlighted by Guillaume: it went something like this (and I'm not making this up).

Euroflux: "all notable graduates from French engineering schools are French"

Other editors: "That's not true. There's at least one Moroccan example (Driss Ben-Brahim) and one Iranian example (Mehdi Bazargan).

Euroflux: "Moroccans are sort of French and anyways that guy is not notable" (he then proceeds to nominate that article for deletion despite the obvious third-party coverage listed in the article. The article was speedy kept)

Euroflux: "As for Mehdi Bazargan, he probably never attended that engineering school and it's a legend propagated by Iranian ayatollahs." (he then proceeds to Stalinist-style edit the article to reflect that vision, despite numerous references mentioning his degree at Centrale)

Others: "Here's a Belgian example: Alfred Belpaire"

Euroflux: "He's not Belgian because Belgium did not exist at the time"

Others: "Fair enough. But that would still make him Dutch and not French"

Euroflux: "No he's Walloon and Walloons are French"

Others: "No they're not"

Euroflux: "But they all wish they were French".

This is pathological behavior but it would be only a mild annoyance or even slightly amusing if it was a one-time thing. Unfortunately, it's a pattern. In fact, Euroflux was banned on fr.wiki for his "manifest inability to work collaboratively"' [85] and for sockpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. Scottywong might be right in saying that the diffs above are not personal attacks but they are the sort of harassment that drives people off the project. He's written many rants on other editors' talk pages whose core message is "who the hell do you think you are, you moron?" although these exact words do not appear in it. I don't think that makes them any more acceptable. The constant belittling of others (here's another victim [86]) is toxic and Euroflux has been completely unapologetic and has shown no sign of efforts to change his approach to conflict resolution. He still believes in the power of caps lock and exclamation points which obviously is not a criminal offense but it does reveal a certain state of mind. What worries me most is his penchant for using personal information against other editors. For instance I find this completely unacceptable not only because it's an obvious personal attack but because it's trying to bring one editor's personal life into a debate that's about merging categories. This sort of bullying needs to be nipped in the bud because it's the highway to harassment, off-wiki harassment and outing. If you believe I'm exaggerating, just consider what happened on fr.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've also had encounters with User:Euroflux which show similar issues. And I would agree with Guillaume2302 that the following cross the line into personal attacks: "Aren't you overstimating (sic) your own intellectual and linguistic capacities"; and an accusation against a Wikimedia Board member, Florence Devouard, of practicing meatpuppetry on her article page in order to get a job, "On this French talk page, Anthere gives orders to her "little brothers" and tells them exactly what to add, what to correct, in order for her to get a job!" and "She explicitly tells her friends what they should add on her own biography, in order for her to get a job" and "Anthere even gives some technical tricks (subpage written by somebody else, in order not to be traced !)". Euroflux has been placing such accusations at various article and talk pages[87] — these are violations of WP:BLP that should be revdeleted and the user warned. First Light (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Euroflux is not here to improve the encyclopedia, that much is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in a weird way I think that's unfair. I'm sure he is here to improve the encyclopedia but he can't function in an environment where others disagree with him. When you're driving down the wrong side of the highway, you should notice pretty quickly because of all those cars coming straight at you. I'm afraid Euroflux' reaction would be: "boy I can't believe how many people are driving down the wrong side of the highway today". I think that's a dangerous driver no matter how good his first intention is. Pichpich (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Euroflux intentions are to improve WP. Unfortunately, he insists on doing things his way and that is the only correct way. For example his use of categories to rank articles, by using numerical sortkeys (01, 02, etc), according to some scheme that may be clear to him and even be based upon some published ranking, but remains opaque to others and, by screwing up the alphabetical listings in a category, defeats the purpose of cats (i.e., helping users in navigation). Euroflux has been told this multiple times, but only hears what he wants to hear and keeps on doing this, creating a huge mess that at some point somebody will have to clean up. The net effect is that, in the end, Euroflux is indeed not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to change the encyclopedia according to his views, to the detriment of the project. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Per this revert, Euroflux has obviously decided that this is not an issue they need to deal with. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have just reviewed Euroflux' contributions and I have come to the conclusion that he has shown an incredible battleground mentality and a general unwillingness to work in a collegial fashion; therefore, I have just indeffed him. He can be unblocked if he can prove that he's willing to play nice with others, but until then I believe that Wikipedia's better off with him blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:52, 29 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:Guinsberg now socking

Guinsberg (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked a few minutes ago for WP:BLP violations. He has apparently now started reverting editors using an IP address: 187.34.251.246 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). This is not the first time he's done this, and the geolocation of the previous IPs he's used to do this make it pretty clear it's him (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Guinsberg). I plan to block the IP and extend the block on the main account, but have brought the issue here first for further discussion before doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Block evasion, clearly. Tiderolls 23:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Based on your evidence, I blocked the IP for the same 72-hour time that Guinsberg's been blocked. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Should Guinsberg be blocked for socking? In the past, Guinsberg was only suspected, but now it's confirmed? Or would WP:SPI be more appropriate venue for this? --Jethro B 03:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's one thing to say "You're evading by editing logged out"; we have enough evidence for that. Do we really need to extend the block substantially? I don't see how that would fit the "preventive, not punitive" bit of WP:BLOCK. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's preventative, because the editor is showing that, even after blocked, s/he still does not intend to follow WP:BLP. In fact, that's probably justification to bump the block to indefinite, to last until such time as we know for certain that the editor is willing to abide by our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Block evasion. User has been previously unblocked with a warning to "avoid future block evasion via the use of anonymous IPs." after previous socking. Ankh.Morpork 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. There was already some suspicion that the user had operated socks before, which the user denied, but now the new IP address confirms that those were in fact socks. --Jethro B 03:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian- Please note the IP has only made one single edit, which is not a BLP violation, or even in an article related to BLP. Dlv999 (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that the page itself has now been protected due to sockpuppetry. --Jethro B 04:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have extended the block on Guinsberg to match the duration of block on the IP. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Feline1 and accusations of homophobia

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.

---

• Feline1 (talk · contribs)
• Talk:Crisco

Today, this user posted to Talk:Crisco, responding to another user's support of the inclusion of sexual material with "...a dedicated meat-puppet campaign by homophobic editors to remove all mention of fisting from the Crisco article". I reverted this as a pretty crystal-clear personal attack and bad-faith assumption against a group of editors. The user restored it soon after. feline1's block log shows a history of similar behavior, with 2 successive blocks in 2009 for edit-warring at personal lubricant to try to get Crisco listed there, e.g. here on Dec 8th then again here on Dec 11th] resulting in the 2nd block. More recently a 1-week block issued for this WP:BLP transgression.

Also in 2009 this user was on the same Crisco talk page making the same slurs against others, that time Alison of all people. User talk:Feline1#Crisco has a lengthy section between this user, Alison, and Lar concerning this behavior.

What we have here is a user who, failing to edit-war their preferred focus on the use of cooking material of sexual purposes, is now content to set back and label those who have opposed those edits as being homophobic. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no recent edits on that article, and feline appears to be replying to a thread which was most active in 2009-2011. In other words, there's no need for immediate administrative action, because the people whose precious feelings are to be hurt are probably inactive or not watching the page today (at least, until you decided to stir the drama pot). Besides, what feline1 says is basically true: a notorious offwiki sabotage group did organize to remove this material with antigay dog-whistle rhetoric. However, whether these people were homophobic in their hearts or had some other motivation is probably irrelevant. Feline1 should be advised not to generalize editors based on qualities which he cannot know; but that's all. By the way, it's kind of despicable to portray accusations of homophobia (generally directed at privileged bullies) as an equal or even greater offense to actual homophobia, which kills some of the most disadvantaged and persecuted people on earth. I take more offense to your ANI thread here than to feline1's comments. Shrigley (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, feline1 here ;) I do feel User:Tarc is somewhat mischaracterising the situation. My comment was not being directed against any particular person (in fact, I wwas basically *supporting* some recent comments by editors) - I don't really see how "no personal attacks" applies. My comment alluded to various editing best summarized on [88] by edit summaries were gay sex acts were referred to as "nauseating" and "disgusting". (Sorry don't seem to be able to do diffs on an archived page) - I stand by my characterisation of these comments as "homophobic".--feline1 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

An example diff of what feline1 is referring to. SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And the person that made that comment back then is 100% correct; just because gay (AND straight, really) people may use a cooking product for sexual purposes doesn't mean that that gets a mention in that product's article, any more than vaseline or bananas should. We have a user here who has been denigrating other users as homophobic off and on for years around this subject matter. If the last one was in 2009 and the next one in 2012, that sohuldn't be taken as "oh, those are too far apart to matter" but rather "this is a pattern of inflammatory abuse". Tarc (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you seriously believe an editor was "100% correct" to characterise gay sex acts as "nauseating" and "disgusting" I suspect many people will consider you "homophobic" yourself... And I have not been "denigrating other users as homophobic off and on for years" - IIRC I maybe got into an edit war discussion which such views were put forward once in the last 10 years... possibly twice... --feline1 (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to argue about whether this comment from 2006: You are pushing your own personal agenda by continuously forcing this gross and offensive stuff into this article. It demeans both the article and wikipedia itself. And enjoy your German ass-fucking while you can, because when Islam takes over Europe, you'll find out the true meaning of "whacking off". qualifies as "homophobic" or not? If so, as we going to drag the still-active editor who called it out as "homophobic" in 2007 into this discussion? Nobody Ent 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified him that his comment was being discussed, debating a 6-year old comment is pretty silly though. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I love nostalgia trips. Well, I wouldn't say something so crude and vulgar nowadays. I like to think I've improved somewhat in the last 6 years. However, the general point stands - that someone was (in my judgment) pushing a fringe POV in the article. Nowadays, I would take a more civil approach. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Someone's been flogging a dead horse again? Well, just be on the watch out for them bloody, nasty horse-gnats~! (Or, is it the odd shape thing that flies around and hit you in the back? I'm really confused.) Later, got to go catch some Zzzz now. *poof!* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I tagged this as resolved some time ago since a possibly intemperate edit summary from 2009 is not an incident requiring admin intervention, but that tag has been removed. I will not re-tag but it does seem that someone should hat this thread, and they would certainly have my moral support for doing so. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC).
  

• Like Dilbert I hoped my diff would prompt some realization and someone would reclose the thread. Surely there's some sort of wiki-drama Statute of limitations?? Nobody Ent 02:10, 30 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.

Persistent vandal on Green Day-related articles

An IP vandal/troll has been causing problems for at least the last 2 months. This vandal likes to go around to articles related to the band Green Day, inserting the names of voice actors from various children's cartoons into the credits of their releases. He also goes around to articles about various children's cartoons inserting the names of the Green Day band members into the credits of the cartoons. These are deliberate factual errors, since none of these people have actually had anything to do with the works he's crediting them with. He also likes to create hoax pages on fake bands and releases: See for example Talk:The Sunshine (band) (currently marked for speedy deletion) and Help Me (Green Day song) (deleted). The IP address changes each time this guy pops up, but it's always the same kind of edits. Here are a few of the IPs:

• 70.137.138.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.137.148.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.137.147.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.137.146.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These are just the ones I can remember. As you can see they're all from the same range. The person seems particularly obsessed with topics related to Green Day, Michelle Rodriguez, Tara Strong, and SpongeBob Squarepants. The edits are all blatant vandalism, but they're so all-over-the-place and the IP-hopping is so frequent that I don't know what to do about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe some smart person can calculate you a rangeblock. I'd suggest picking out a couple they vandalize often and getting it semi-protected: make a good argument (here or at RFPP) and ask for long-term protection. Good luck with it, IllaZilla. Oh, I blocked the most recent IP, of course, and deleted that talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User: Bull-Doser (persistent disruptive editor)

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

---

USER BLOCKED INDEFINITELY:

User has been warned multiple times about their disruptive editing, including but not limited to their lack of understanding on WP:OR (illustrated in this very discussion). Therefore, until Bull-Doser can prove he comprehends our community policies, and that he is a net positive to the project, he is blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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 reporting this user for his persistent disruptive editing on Wikipedia for years. That's right, not weeks or months, but years. Some of his disruptive edits include original research, unsourced content, incorrect information, wild guessing, speculation about what he considers to be the most likely scenario, and other forms of disruptive editing. His talk page for 5 years has been filled with warning and notices. He was blocked last December for adding a dubious info in one article. The reason why he has only been blocked once in 5 years (despite his huge history of disruptive editing) is because he usually temporarily corrects his behavior for a short period when he receives a notice and then goes back to his old habit a couple of weeks after. User never respond to the warnings/notices that he receives, further proving that he doesn't care.

This is what has decided to make go to ANI. Both the edit summary and the edit itself are unacceptable. If it was a first offense, I would just say "so what". But given the excessive amount of chances that Bull-Doser has received and his unresponsiveness in general to the situation, it's time to take actions to solve this problem. On his unblock request of last December, Bull-Doser promised that he would always provide sources. Yet he continues to violates this policy on a daily baisis. I suggests that Bull-Doser is blocked until he let us know what he plans on doing to change this behavior. The block is not to punish him, but rather to make him understand that his edits are unhelpful and are hurting the encyclopedia and that there will have to be a change if he wish to remain with Wikipedia. Farine (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly ever hear 1970s hits on contemporary hit radio stations today, and CKMF-FM began adding Queen's 1975 hit Bohemian Rhapsody on its rotation. This is a similarity of hot adult contemporary radio station WSTR in Atlanta having reported to the contemporary hit radio panel until 2010. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The official link is there: http://montreal.radionrj.ca/broadcasthistory.aspx and look on 13:40 (aka 1:40pm) of October 22. They have officially had Bohemian Rhapsody on their rotation. In this business, some hot AC stations have dropped '90s hits, and some AC stations don't play pre-1979 content at all. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, Bull-Doser. OP was questioning the original research of your edits, rather than trying to discuss this issue (which should be taken to the article's talk page). – Richard BB 12:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Until a source says that CKMF is a hot adult contemporary, then this type of edit can't be added on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what song played at what the time or how the other stations qualify their radio format; IT IS STILL ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And even if Bull-Doser had provided that link about the song as a source, that WOULD STILL BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH because it doesn't indicate us that CKMF is indeed a hot adult contemporary. Saying that the station has a Hot AC format because of a particular song is pure POV unless it is backed with a source that explicitly says it is a Hot AC station. And Bull-Doser's response is the proof that he does not understand at all the WP:NOR and WP:V policies nor does he show any desire to follow these guidelines.

I would hardly ever hear 1970s hits on contemporary hit radio stations today, and CKMF-FM began adding Queen's 1975 hit Bohemian Rhapsody on its rotation. This is a similarity of hot adult contemporary radio station WSTR in Atlanta having reported to the contemporary hit radio panel until 2010.

Bull-Doser's answer above is the proof that he needs this block until he decides to follow the guidelines. If you want to provide him mentorship as an alternative to blocking him, fine. But the status quo is not an option. I also reverted his edits on the CKMF article, not because I want to make a point, but merely because it is not an edit that follow's Wikipedia NOR and V guidelines. Farine (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the status quo is not acceptable, I think a block is a little unnecessary. You are absolutely right to question his edits, they are unquestionably WP:OR. However, the other important thing to note is that his edits are still made of good faith. Perhaps he simply does not understand what we mean by WP:OR, why it's so bad, and why his edits are WP:OR. As such, I would indeed recommend guidance or mentorship. – Richard BB 14:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it's hard to show AGF when someone shows no responsiveness to change. But I agree that we should at least give him a shot at mentorship before blocking him. Farine (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just sampled a bunch of Bull Doser's edits and all of them were OR of some sort of other. None of his claims are ever backed by sources not to mention the lack of edit summaries in the majority of his edits and marking non-minor edits as minor makes it very hard work to dig through each edit. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly and this has been going for years. And when we tell him this, he either ignores it or says it's not true. And I'm sorry but AGF does not apply to someone who is unwilling to change. I strongly suggest that a reviewer or an administrator goes on Bull-Doser's talk page to propose him a mentorship program. If he declines the offer, block the account until he lets us know what he plans to do to amend his disruptive editing. But one way or another, I'm not settling out for the status quo. This has been going on for years and we've been fooled into thinking that things would change and this failed big time. So we now have to take this into a higher lever because Bull-Doser's edits don't conform at all to Wikipedia. And I disagree with Richard BB about the block being unnecessary. A block is justified, not because of the OR, but because of Bull-Doser's apathetic attitude. If he doesn't care about Wikipedia's principles, then why should he be allowed to edit here? It doesn't make sense. Farine (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a strong case could be made for a ban citing WP:CIR here. I strongly urge a mentorship; however, if that fails, a block may be the only option. – Richard BB 14:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A ban on some topics such as radio stations, shopping centres and department stores could be another option. But given the gravity and longevity of the situation, I would go straight for a block outright or mentorship. And you'll notice that Bull-Doser hasn't even address this discussion since its original response of yesterday despite that this whole ANI case is about him. That in itself is enough to warrant him a block instead of mentorship. He doesn't care at all about the problem, he just wants to edit on Wikipedia and that's it, with no regard to the policies. Farine (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to Bull-Doser, not all of his edits are OR. I have no comment on the edits covered above, just the ones over which I have interacted with him. He likes to take pictures of cars and trucks, and drop the pictures into the articles for the places where the pictures were taken (Montreal area from what I've noticed). Thus, a picture of, say, a red Toyota model such and such will get added to the Town of Mount Royal article simply because the piucture was taken there. Pointless, but not OR or vandalism. Meters (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And by incessantly adding these car pictures on articles that don't even deal with cars, he is again causing disruption. A couple of times I had to delete some of these car pictures because they were totally irrelevant and their presence didn't make any sense in the articles. Also, I didn't said that Bull-Doser's edits were vandalism. I said they were disruptive; there's a difference. And no one ever said that all of Bull-Doser's edits are OR. That's not the point. But a very high percentage of his edits are OR, and it is seriously hurting the encyclopedia. Also, the reason the future of Bull-Doser on Wikipedia is being questioned today is not just because of OR, but because of his other disruptive edits (unsourced content, undiscussed unencyclopedic content, speculation/guessing, false information, inappropriate images, POV and more) and most importantly because he does not want to change. Bull-Doser did not get himself in this position overnight. Have you actually looked at the history of his talk page in the last 5 years?

I have left a message to User:Strikerforce to participate in this discussion. He has dealt in the past with Bull-Doser's OR and refusal to collaborate. But if the administrators must take actions (whether it be mentorship, block, ban or whatever) they don't necessarily need to wait for Strikerforce's comments. Strikerforce does not edit a lot on Wikipedia these days and it could take a while before we hear from him. Farine (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Good evening (as it currently stands in my time zone)! I must say that I have been expecting a discussion of this nature for quite some time, as my own frustrations with Bull-Doser have more than a few times led me to consider beginning one, myself. However, as I do not - as pointed out by Farine - edit as regularly anymore as I did for awhile, due to increased responsibilities at my employment and a few other non-Wikipedia related factors, I chose not to open a discussion that I didn't feel that I would be able to contribute to in a needed fashion. All of that being said, my biggest frustration with Bull-Doser is his insertion of OR into articles about radio stations. While there are many aspects about radio stations (speaking from the POV of someone currently working in the industry and who has 12+ years worth of experience in it) that do lend themselves to a bit of speculating, Wikipedia is not the place for those speculations to be made. A common edit summary or reasoning that Bull-Doser likes to resort to is like the one that apparently prompted this discussion, i.e., "I heard (song) on (station) and since that song doesn't fit the format that the article calls the station, then it must have changed formats to (new format here)". I have also seen - and reverted, many times - various edits where Bull-Doser makes assumptions about things that have happened within a given station's market and he has tried to use those things to draw conclusions about why Station X did something. Again, this falls under the umbrella of OR. I can not speak for the other areas that Bull-Doser edits in, but in regard to radio stations, I wholeheartedly endorse a topic ban. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to radio stations, a similar ban would be in effect also for shopping centers and retailers. I personally think a block outright is more justified due to Bull-Doser's unresponsiveness to this thread and his editing in general. Seeing how Bull-Doser has blatantly rejected this discussion after posting his dubious original response, I'm not even remotely interested by the mentorship option anymore. How can we help Bul-Doser when he does not want to be helped? On the other hand, topic bans can be an alternative to a block while still preventing further disruption. Now all we need to do is to wait for the verdict from the administrators. Why has not of them addressed this thread in 3 days is beyond me. I will insert a comment to prevent this thread from being archived until the issue has been resolved. Farine (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Farine, you do understand that I was just poiunting out an area of problematic edits that had not been mentioned before, right? I'd hate to see how you would react if someone actually tried to defend Bull-Doser. You've made your point and no-one has argued against it. Take a break and let the process do its thing. Meters (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to be on the defensive Meters. I'm not angry at all at you . I was just pointing out that no one ever said anything here about the edits being vandalism or that all were original research. And I don't mind if anybody wants to defend Bull-Doser. But if something controversial is said, it must expect reactions. Cheers. Farine (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been indef blocked in the past for persistent insertion of original research and synthesis as it effectively amounts to persistent disruption. His lack of participation does not help his case. Blackmane (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to mentor Bull-Doser within the area that I have had encounters with him (radio stations), as I consider myself to be knowledgeable enough to help him edit constructively in the future. His other preferred eras of the encyclopedia, however, I would not consider myself as a capable mentor. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• If Bull-Doser will agree to mentoring, and apply himself to learning what is and is not allowable as OR, and we can find a suitable mentor who is willing to take this on, then I'm willing to agree to giving mentoring a chance. In my experience, mentoring does sometimes work. Otherwise, I would support an indef block, as the editor has been inserting OR for a considerable time and shows no sign of mending his ways. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

While it's good that we are addressing OR, don't forget that this thread is about the disruptive editing in general (unsourced nonsense, false information, unencyclopedic trivialist content, etc), not just OR. All of these have to stopped as well. Bull-Doser has to be responsive and the change must be permanent, not some temporary tactic to calm down the storm.

I wouldn't be interested in becoming a mentor for the simple reason that I'm an occasional editor and Wikpedia is not my #1 hobby in life (in almost 7 years, I haven't even made 10 000 edits). But Bull-Doser is always welcomed to come to my talk page for advice. I just don't want the status quo because I'm really fed up of reverting/correcting his nonsense and I often get the feeling that we're going round in circles. Farine (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the mentor would have to monitor and correct all of BD's bad habits; I apologise if my failure to enumerate them all specifically and only mentioning his most egregious failure has caused concern and/or confusion. However, it may all be moot, because thus far we have no mentor stepping forward. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have to proceed with the indefinite block, then so be it. It's not like it was unwarranted. The mentorship is merely a bonus alternative to what should have otherwise been a block applied a long time ago. I've seen disruptive editors being indefinitely blocked for things less worse than what Bull-Doser did. Let's face it, Wikipedia, like anything else in life, is not made for everybody. Farine (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indef block proposal for User: Bull-Doser

Suggested by Blackmane above.

• Support as editor has had many chances to improve his editing habits and learn to adhere to policy, but has not bothered to profit from those chances, and as no mentor has stepped forward as willing to attempt to mentor him, this seems to be the only way forward to protect the encyclopedia from a series of OR and other policy violations. Editor not found to be a net benefit to the project. To make matters worse, the editor in question was notified several days ago and has not seen fit to respond here. I have advised Bull Doser to respond here; advise not closing this for a bit, even if there are no objections to the indef block. We should give BD another chance to respond, IMO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Persistent disruptive editing and violation of Wikipedia's policies for a very long time. User does not have the competence required to edit on Wikipedia. Many chances given. Total disregard and unresponsiveness from user to address the problem. Farine (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User continues to make edits while ignoring this thread even after the message KillerChihuahua left on his talk page. I rest my case. Farine (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I will mentor him. Together he and I will make Wikipedia a safer and happier place for all. Hizzmatte (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, sock springs to mind for reasons unknown. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You must be a psychic... same thing came to mine! KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You've only made 19 edits and been on Wikipedia for 3 weeks. It's too early for you to envision such an ambitious task. Farine (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How ambitious could this possibly be? Either the kid straightens himself out or I'll take him to the woodshed and give him the what-for. I'm good at that sort of thing. Hizzmatte (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You would need much more experience to be acceptable as a mentor; even if you have experience under another username you are unacceptable due to poor example of sock farming. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, AGF, budro... Hizzmatte (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

12 month block, not indef

• Support block of twelve months with no review before four months have passed.  People change, and there is no capital offense here.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  That's actually harsher than the sanction being suggested; an indef block can be reviewed before any specific time has passed. Conversely, it also does not protect the project as well, as a 1 year block will expire whether or not Bull Doser has any intention at all to improve his editing habits and follow policy. Finally, as your proposal is different from the one proposed above, are you implicitly opposed to the indef proposal, or are you neutral on it? thanks - 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 year block for rationale given above by me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Dubious closure

It looks like something should be done about Bull-doser, however the above closure seems a dubious outcome given that a WP:BAN wasn't even proposed above. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting at all on the merits of a different sanction, I too was very surprised to see this closed with a WP:BAN, if that is indeed what the closing admin intended. Zad68 01:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He tagged his page with ban and fully protected it too! Also threatened to block me on my talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo098: Quit with the feigned surprise with the intent to spark outrage. It's standard protocol to fully protect a indefinitely banned/blocked editor's userpage. And I think you know why I warned you with a potential block as well. -- Zad: The only inherent difference between a block and a site ban is that one focuses on a particular account and the other focuses on a particular editor. From my perspective the most pragmatic way to handle this was by focusing on the particular editor, as in most cases like this the person tends to bypass the block... and from his reaction here I think it's fair to say my analysis and prediction was 100% correct. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a dubious closure at all. Bull-Doser has disrupted Wikipedia since 2006. Editors have left him numerous messages, warnings and even block threats on his talk page to stop his disruptive editing. He never bothered to respond and even less to mandate his behavior. When the ANI case was going on this week, he didn't bothered to participate (other than his original response the first day). Even when KillerChihuahua told him to respond because sanctions were being considered against him, he continued to ignore the ANI case.

There isn't a specific amount of times to be blocked in order to be banned indefinitely. If someone does not collaborate, is showing no willingness of stopping his or her disruptive edits and that the community has reasons to believe that this person is compromising the integrity of the project, this person can be banned regardless how many times he or she has been blocked in the past. The ban is not to punish Bull-Doser but rather to prevent disruption to the project as Bull-Doser is not capable of providing the edits that Wikipedia needs. Of course his individualism and poor sense of collegiality does not help his case, both of which are incompatible with Wikipedia's mandate. And if you looked at what Bull-Doser has wrote on his talk page to get himself unbanned/unblocked, there is absolutely nothing convincing that he will indeed make helpful contributions. This is just the usual mantra used by editors over and over here on Wikipedia to get themselves unblocked. He has also proven that he knows nothing about the policies on Wikipedia . How can he asked if he can create a new account and discontinue the "Bull-Doser" one when it is specifically written on top of the page that he is hereby forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. Also, in two of his edits, he is making pressure to get unbanned for a specific date without even addressing why we should do that.

The block and ban on Bull-Doser are both justified. Farine (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Side note on Hizzmatte

Clearly not a sock of Bull-doser; Bull-doser can't express himself as well as Hizzmatte even if you paid him. Hizzmatte appears to be a returning editor or a sock of someone else based on his first edit being one to an ArbCom-related RfC page. Bull-doser has only a handful of project-space edits in 6 years. None to any RfC/ArbCom stuff [89]. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No one ever said that Hizzmatte was a sock specifically of Bull-Doser. They just said that he was a sock. Also your comment about "Bull-Doser not being able to express himself as well as Hizzmatte even if you paid him" is a personal attack. Farine (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Bull-doser

For someone who was blocked only once before and then for only 24hrs [90], a ban is a highly unusual outcome. The stubs he created on various cars were sourced and did not seem problematic, e.g. [91]. It looks like he caused disruption in radio station articles. A topic ban from radio stations would have been more appropriate in my opinion. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He did not only caused disruption on radio stations. He also caused significant disruption on articles related to shopping centers and retail stores. He has historically disrupted car articles as well if you look at his talk page. When a ban topic has to be applied to 3 or 4 different topics, you may as well ban altogether because it no longer becomes an issue with a topic but rather with all topics and the editor himself. Farine (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock/unban requested by Bull-doser

[92]. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by closing administrator

The community's intent here is best served with a ban... it's also a purely pedantic difference to point out my wording of ban versus block in this case. He was banned as he refused to understand the concepts of our editing policies, and he refused to address the problems brought up here. He was also made aware of the possible sanctions to be levied against his account, and entirely ignored them. Therefore the best course of action was to ban him until he showed true signs of understanding and a change in his behaviour. He is now requesting to be unbanned, and if the community sees fit then I'll happily unban/unblock him (as I said in the banning statement). Tijfo098's opinions on this weren't taken into account as he failed to present any until after the discussion's closure, and his opinions don't equal community consensus. He also stepped way out of line by reverting my closure here, instead of simply requesting on my talk page that I add a signature. So yes I indeed threatened to block him for repeating the action or doing so to any other administrator's closures. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The block and ban are both justified. User had many chances to change his ways and he didn't used them. Nothing in his unbanned requests indicates that he truly understands the nature of the things he did that has lead him to no longer be part of the project. He just wants to be unblocked/unbanned, that's all. Farine (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is nice that the prosecution finds the hanging judge to be a reasonable person, but this result given the input above is a travesty. Carrite (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not get to decide that the communities intent is best served with a ban on your own. While closers are given considerable latitude, you cannot claim there was consensus for something not even proposed, and only as a result of a consensus may an editor be banned. The difference between a ban and a block is more them semantic, particularly in when it comes to requesting unban/block. Monty₈₄₅ 07:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here?!?!

Why is the death penalty being given so quickly, with so little evidence, with so little input? Why are alternatives, such as the offer of mentorship expressed above, not being explored? This is a terrible close and debate should be reopened at once. Carrite (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should he get mentorship? He wouldn't even participate on the ANI case that was about him. You can't help someone who doesn't want to help himself. And for your information, this isn't "dealth penalty". This ban is to prevent disruption, not to punish. User received countless of chances and he never saw fit to amend his behavior. It is very likelihood that Wikipedia is simply not for him. Nothing wrong with that. I love watching football but I wouldn't play it because I know it wouldn't work out. Bull-Doser may like reading Wikipedia. But he does not have the competence nor the mentality to contribute on Wikipedia. That doesn't make him a bad person. That just means that is isn't the right hobby for him. It happens all the time. Farine (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I mainly encounter Bull-Doser in the form of his car photos. They are all horrid, usually dark and blurry , although sometimes they depict rare cars otherwise unavailable. Bull-doser himself is usually not available for conversations (I tried to bring him into this one) and when he responds, it is usually with non sequiturs. I am fairly certain that Bull-doser has never actually been brave/clear enough to directly respond to any comment/question/request of mine. I support a block until such a time that BD can make a statement in the form of legible English, stating an(y) actual point of view.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An indefinite block is reasonable. A ban by 'the Wikipedia community' when no ban discussion took place is not. Semantics are a bitch, but they do matter sometimes. --Onorem♠Dil 07:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. T. Canens (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edic conflict X 4)I agree that it should be reopened. I don't support many of the edits made by the indef'ed editor, but this process just does not look right. I don't spend much time on this board, but this has probably been the worst I've noticed. When I said above "let the process do its thing" I didn't mean that a kangaroo court should be convened. What was it, 18 hours from proposal to indef? I certainly don't see community support for such a rapid decision to indef a prolific editor with only one previous block. And comments on editor's mentality are clearly unacceptable as a personal attack. Meters (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. If people leave me numerous messages on my talk page to change my ways and I ignore them and if, on top of that, an administrator urge me to quickly participate a thread because actions are being considered against me and I ignore this as well, then I don't have the mentality to be on Wikipedia. Mentality not as in intelligence, but mentality as in philosophy. The philosophy of Bull-Doser does not correspond to that of Wikipedia which is to work with collegiality. Farine (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly an out of process ban. It is not consistent with the WP:BAN policy, as no ban discussion took place. An indef block is substantially different from a ban, particularly in that a blocked editor may more easily return to editing if they resolve the underlying issue. The closing admin doesn't seem to understand either of these points. Monty₈₄₅ 07:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree with others above that this ban is inappropriate. Indeed, I would consider it already null and void as there was no consensus for it in the first place. Bans and indef blocks are not the same thing. Keep indef block, but no ban without an actual discussion. Also support trouting Coffee for his treatment of Tijfo on the latter's talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I also am uneasy about a ban. We have (respected) admins with longer block logs and fewer edits than this editor, and a ban is using a thermonuclear bomb where a flyswatter would work. Mentorship or topic bans should be applied first, but a siteban is not the first step in dealing with an editor who has (apparently in good faith) been inserting OR into articles. Horologium (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what mostly played against Bull-Doser is unresponsiveness. I don't know about the other users you dealt with that that had longer blocks. But it's possible that maybe they were more responsive which is why it took them longer to be banned. Bull-Doser, on the other hand, was never responsive, whether it's in the notices left throughout the years on his talk page or the ANI discussion thread that took placed this week, and this is probably what has prompted Coffee to ban him. While I personally think the ban is appropriate due to the user's repeated unresponsiveness, I guess we could drop the ban and just restrict this to an indefinite block if that's what the community chooses. But even then, it could be very hard for Bull-Doser to convince administrators to let him edit again. He does not seems to understand the nature of what has caused him to be in the situation he is today. None of the unban/unblock reasons he gives on his talk page explain why he ignored all the notices that people have left him for years on his talk page or why he didn't participate on the ANI thread that was about him. He is even taking upon himself to set up dates we should unblock him, which of course makes absolutely no sense. So while I have no problem lifting the ban, I have absolutely no reason to believe that unblocking him will not jeopardize the credibility of Wikipedia and serve in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Also, given that Bull-Doser has disrupted articles in all topics he has been involved with (radio stations, shopping centers, stores and cars), a topic ban on all of these topics pretty much equals to an indefinite block since there isn't any topic of interest left for Bull-Doser to edit on. Farine (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He was asked not once, but thee times to participate here.[93] He ignored the requests and kept editing elsewhere, and only responded when actually blocked; his responses have not been encouraging. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Edit request: Could a mop-wielder please unprotect and remove the Badge of shame from User:Bull-Doser? Nobody Ent 15:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Until there is consensus for a community ban, that template should not be in place. I have restored his userpage to the last version before Coffee edited it. Horologium (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Second Comment by Closing Administrator

I know how much you all love a good opportunity to get out your pitchforks, trouts, torches, and whatnot... but you can put them away for now as I've changed the wording from ban to block. Now then, how about we all use our energy to go talk to Bull-Doser and see if he's willing to listen, and if he could change to becoming a net positive. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an entirely inappropriate, snarky remark. Quite simply, we expect a minimum amount of competence from admins, and one who thinks they can unilaterally impose a ban, or there's no diff between a block and a ban, or that user pages are routinely FPP'd in the event of bans or indefs clearly has not keep up with current practices. With great powers comes great responsibilities Nobody Ent 15:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Or... we could just continue to bicker over this. My comment was not meant to be snarky, but instead to lighten the mood just a touch here. I assumed the community wouldn't have had a problem with the ban... I was wrong. Therefore, I've changed it to a block instead. I really think this would be appropriate to discuss further after the community comes to a final conclusion with User:Bull-Doser... but maybe that's just me. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand the motives that has lead Coffee to ban Bull-Doser indefinitely and I also understand the concern of those who are opposed to a ban decided unilaterally by an administrator . With that being said, let's all stop this arguing about the whole ban incident and stick to the original indefinite block proposed by KillerChihuahua. Farine (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course one would be expected to "understand the motives" of the closer if one brought the case in the first place!!! I still don't have a clue how the — still closed — testimony above results in a site ban on an editor with tens of thousands of mainspace edits and very little trouble showing on the block log. It's a close outside of all reason and proportion and makes me wonder, in light of the snarky self-defense of the indefensible above, whether a detooling is called for. I don't even see consensus for a short-term block, let alone an indef. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jesus... the consensus at the very least was for a block, and an indefinite one at that. Unless User:Bull-Doser was open to mentorship and willing to listen to their mentor. If you feel so strongly about this why don't you sign up to be his mentor? — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Long-term abuse is always justified for an indefinite block regardless how many times the said user may have been blocked in the past. It is not uncommon for editors to disrupt Wikipedia in cycles, leading them to intentionally or unintentionally circumvent potential blocks. Farine (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have said that they did not see a community consensus. The most you can say is that there was consensus that there was a problem, not that any particular solution had been agreed upon. If you want consensus, reopen this and wait for the community to decide. Meters (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

While I will not be calling for your tools, Coffee, "the consensus at the very least was for a block" does not equate to community ban him after 18 hours; there was no chance that this would qualify under the snowball clause, either. You should not have even indef-blocked him until something resembling a consensus was hammered out, and a community ban is much too severe. As for snark, snarky comments are sometimes appropriate, but this was not one of them. Horologium (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll AGF that there's some confusion. A community-imposed indefinite block is the equivalent of a de facto ban. It is not, however, a formal ban. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that BWilkins... I had assumed that going the extra step from it being de facto to an actual ban would be a minimal and uncontroversial one. I was obviously wrong in this case. My only intentions here were to implement the community's wishes... nothing more. Which is why I'm completely fine with unblocking Bull-Doser as long as we can assure the issues with his comprehension of policy are dealt with. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The community does not impose indef blocks, individual administrators do. It doesn't become de facto until no admin is willing to unblock them. That requires the passage of time to determine. Nobody Ent 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the exact problem here?

Although opinion essays rather than actual organizational law, I think the ideas behind COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED and WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THERAPY are probably very widely accepted. I'll just mention that in passing since those ideas might inform this discussion. There is no requirement that one must be responsive; yet there is a requirement that edits be NPOV and verifiable through sourcing — and a strongly implied additional requirement that they be accurate and truthful. Are we dealing with an editor here incapable of making NPOV, sourced, accurate edits? If so, show a series of diffs which illustrate the problem, don't just allude to longterm frustration. The comments of the editor in question are so far off the mark in terms of speaking to the actual issue at hand that I wonder whether the editor is capable of comprehending the issue at hand. This is not intended as a personal attack, but if that's the underlying problem here, we need to be frank about that so that the result of action actually corresponds to evidence. The two edits by BD at the top of this thread were his 9th and 10th to Wikipedia space since 2006, with over 30,000edits to mainspace. PIE CHART That is......... amazing. This is almost a 100% content creator — and a productive one. So is there an issue with the edits? Demonstrate the issue. Is there an issue with the editor's innate ability to interact with others? Then demonstrate the problem. Don't go blocking a good editor who is different, but if a prolific editor is adding impossibly bad content, don't hesitate to block him for the good of the encyclopedia. Prove your case and get a real consensus before passing judgment is all I say... Carrite (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mention mentorship, which definitely needs to be tried. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there an issue with the editor's innate ability to interact with others?Then demonstrate the problem. Editors have left him countless messages on his talk page for more than 5 years and he almost never replied to any of them. And for the rare times he did answered, his reponse never directly adressed the problematic issues he was being criticized for. He didn't participate on the ANI thread that was about him, even after an administrator warned him that sanctions were being considered about him. What more proof do you want about his lack of interaction? I have seen mentorship actually produce tremendous results on Wikipedia. But they were all instances where the troubled editors were receptive. In the case of Bull-Doser , his lack of communication makes me skeptical that the mentorship program will even work out. Farine (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about some diffs rather than an impressionistic statement of "countless" messages over "more than 5 years"? Carrite (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

From the closed thread above, the most problematic edits of BD are WP:OR categorizations of radio stations. I think that issue may be solved with a topic ban. I'm not convinced that the other issue are sanctionable. I've perused BD's talk page archives and I don't see other long-term concerns besides occasional editing disputes over the quality of some car photos he took and their relevance. But he seems to acknowledge those issues, at least nominally, in his unblock request. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

He is telling what many blocked users typically say in their unblock requests. He was blocked for OR, unsourced content and disruptive editing in general. So of course, he's gonna say that he will no longer do OR, unsourced content or disruptive editing. That's nothing unusual in unblock requests and there's nothing there convincing that the problematic issues have indeed been resolved, especially that this is the same type of unblock request made last time Farine (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward

In the interests of finding a full resolution to this issue I present the following proposals to the community:

• 1. - Bull-Doser is unblocked with the condition that he has a devoted mentor guide him through our policies on content creation.
• 2. - Bull-Doser is unblocked with the conditions of proposal 1, and is also banned from any editing that introduces WP:OR.
• 3. - Bull-Doser remains blocked until he can prove he comprehends our policies, and that he will edit accordingly.
• 4. - Any other idea the community might have to resolve this.

I have no vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. I only want to enforce whatever the community lays out. So tell me what to do and it will gladly be done. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

3, hopefully followed by 2. --Onorem♠Dil 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the above. Number 1 because a mentor must be available for him. If a mentor cannot be find, he will remain blocked until a suitable mentor is found because Bull-Doser is not capable of editing without supervision at the present time. Number 2 because disruptive editing (not just OR) must be immediately stopped. Number 3 because Bull-Doser must convince us by himself that he no longer pose a threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. It is not other editors that are supposed to make the unblock requests for Bull-Doser.

As per number 4, I will add some complementary requirements to the terms listed by Coffee should Bull-Doser succeed in being unblocked.

• The mentor must assist Bull-Doser in ALL topics, not just radio stations. If a mentor cannot be found for some of the topics, Bull-Doser is strictly forbidded from editing these topics until a qualified mentor step forward. For example, let's say a mentor can assist him with radio stations but not with shopping centres and cars, then Bull-Doser is banned from editing shopping centres and car articles until an acceptable mentor is found.
• Bull-Doser is to ceassed ALL disrupting editing on Wikipedia, not just original research. This include (but not limited to) unsourced content, inappropriate images on articles, irrelevant and unreleated trivialist content, speculation/assumption, incorrect information, wild guessing about the most likely scenario, and so on.
• Bull-Doser is mandatory forced to reply to any problematic message a user leaves on his talk page. The reply can be done either on the user's talk page or on Bull-Doser's talk page.

Should any one of the three criterias is not respected, Bull-Doser will be indefinately blocked without warning. Farine (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I could become a mentor to Bull-Doser in car-related areas (assuming I seem qualified) once/if he fulfills condition #3 above. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• The simple, and I think most fair way forward is that Bull-Doser remain indefinitely blocked until such time as they can convince an uninvolved admin that they understand Wikipedia Policies (WP:OR in particular) sufficiently they that can resume editing without causing further disruption. In the alternative, Bull-Doser may agree to a mentoring arrangement, subject to the approval of the admin reviewing the unblock request, which should include safeguards to avoid disruption while the mentoring arrangement has time to work. We need not get into any greater detail then that here. Monty₈₄₅ 23:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to mentor Bull-Doser in regard to radio station articles. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!}

• I favor option 1 and thank Mr. Choppers, Strikerforce and any others willing to attempt mentorship. This is a hugely tenacious and productive content editor and every positive effort should be made. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This is pointless as there is no mentor; the only ones who have offered have limited the topic area they will be responsible for. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not pointless. Bull-doser could be topic banned from any area in which he doesn't have a mentor. The only area in which I'm convinced he was way too disruptive to allow him to continue editing is radio stations. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't change the facts. And the facts are (supported by his talk page) that his disruptive editing touched all areas he was involved with including radio stations, shopping centers, cars and, to a lesser extent, retail store chains. Farine (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo098: Are you suggesting that as a remedy? Because that is not the remedy which I called pointless. Further, the editor would have to agree to such restrictions, and so far he hasn't even suggested that he will cooperate with any mentoring at all, let alone a huge restriction in pages plus mentoring. So yes, at this juncture, completely pointless. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: reading his talkpage, he seems a bit bunny in the headlights. I don't get the impression he understands what is happening at all. Someone needs to explain it in very plain English, and see if we can work something out. At the end of the day, if he can't understand what he's being asked to do, and some semblance of why then I'm not convinced he's actually able to come back. Someone above said that his car stubs were OK - could he perhaps be restricted to that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • His user page is bit weird as well. On one hand he says he is 21, on the other he has a userbox saying he "cannot drive" o_O Tijfo098 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, a look at the talk page indicates that his edits with cars were not okay. I often get the feeling that Bull-Doser, when editing, is in his own world, forgetting that there are policies and other editors involved in the project. Anybody who is willing to devote a 30 minutes of their time reading every single message on the talk page since 2006 will see that the block is justified. The only ones who claim the block is unjustified are those that didn't take a good look at the talk page's history. And I don't even want to go about all the disruptive edits I saw from Bull-Doser that never made it on his talk page. Farine (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've read them, and I disagree that they require an indef block. You, Farine, on the other hand, seem rather strangely focused on an editor who has rather poor wiki-selfdefense skills. And I guess we should mention here that he self-discloses in an userbox that he has Asperger syndrome. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I know that he has AS. The same way you saw the userbox, I saw it too. I didn't brought this up this because that's his personal life and this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. And I've seen before AS editors on Wikipedia and they were not unresponsive like Bull-Doser so that's a very poor excuse that you're trying to use. And at risk of repeating what Nobody Ent and Dennis Brown already said, someone's disability does not privilege an editor over another, nor does it penalize them. Farine (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
        • not therapy and all that. Farine's made a good faith request for assistance which unfortunately has been convoluted with some issues regarding admin functions. The latter has been addressed and I think it's best to drop that stick / leave that horse carcass. This has been been an somewhat long ANI discussion -- let's just provide BD a little rope with a clear as we can warning. There's always time to indef later if it doesn't take. Nobody Ent 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Has anyone actually looked at his history? I'm seeing mainly the same couple of names complaining in his archives, and a sampling of his original research has been in articles that aren't even sourced properly to begin with. He has well over 31,000 edits to his credit. I haven't looked at all 31k of his edits, but most seem to be without incident. He needs someone to explain WP:OR adequately, and he needs to be able to articulate it in his own words before being unblocked to demonstrate he "gets it", this is reasonable. I'm inclined to agree with Nobody Ent, that rope (and not a ban...) is the proper response. And like Ent also said, disabilities are not held against anyone, nor do they afford them any extra slack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
            • • Then go ahead and unblock him if you think his block is so unjustified. I'm seeing mainly the same couple of names complaining in his archives. That's a very poor judgement, especially coming from an administrator running this website. It doesn't matter how many people are "complaining". Whether it's 5 people or 50 people, does not change the fact that many people (who don't even know each other) can't all be wrong. You're not the one who had to incessantly correct his unencyclopedic content, to repeat him the same things over and over, unsuccessfully try to communicate with him or going in round circles. Also may I remind you that original research is NOT the only issue that is problematic here. But anyhow, good luck in trying to communicate with him. Maybe you can be his mentor. Farine (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
                • To add, if the community were so inclined, I would ask someone to just close this as it has turned into more drama than was necessary, and I will be happy to follow up with the editor, be open minded as to any resolution, while mindful that he needs to completely understand the issues that got him into this block to begin with. I've already started a discussion with him on his talk page and strongly feel that is the best way to proceed: slowly, deliberately and off the front page of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your thinking, and would like to see BD become a useful contributor. I feel, however, that you will be soon frustrated as BD isn't exactly communicative. I have tried to engage with him many times over the years and have been met with deafening silence interrupted by the occasional response to questions never asked. Anyhow, best of luck, and my offer to mentor still stands - if he meets the prerequisites.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Although there was no official consensus, I think what aligns the most to what the community wants is that Bull-Doser remains indefinitely blocked until he truly understands what he did wrong and refrain from doing it again, that he starts communicating with others, and that he gets mentorship for all topics (particularly radio stations) and disruptive issues (particularly OR). Unfortunately, the community couldn't agree on whether he should be unblocked outright or remain blocked until he makes a convincing request. But the number of editors who favor the block outnumbers the number of editors who think he should be unblocked. I know that consensus is not a vote. But this ANI case could easily go on another week if we don't close it. So the best is to go with the wish of the majority in this situation and that Bull-Doser remains blocked as per Coffee's number 3 proposition. I do however support Dennis Brown's approach of initiating a conversation with Bull-Doser to eventually turned him into a positive contributor. Others Wikipedians have failed in doing this. But maybe an administrator will succeed. Farine (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Having been tied up with a few things IRL, I came back to the thread after it had been closed, my comment taken as a proposal and BD indef'd. I saw on BD's talk page that Dennis has tried to engage him in discussion. At this point, my view aligns with Dennis' that he should stay blocked until some fruit comes to bear based on that discussion. His reply however suggests that this may take some time. I propose that we close this for the time being until Dennis, or any other editor or admin, has had the chance to work things through with BD. Further discussion isn't productive. Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 30 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:Way u die and User:Titanic225

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.

---

Don't have much time to explain everything here, but these accounts seem to be related (or someone's impersonating the latter, but this slightly puzzles me). Titanic225 has been given multiple notes from other editors for BITEy warnings and such and, though there have been some good reports/warnings and such, it would seem that there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here..any thoughts? If this is nothing, I'll gladly take a WP:TROUT then... – Connormah (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• As admins can see from Titanic's talkpage, I gave him the last substantive warning for giving other users some rather abusive warning messages (many of them without cause). He has has numerous warnings and has ignored each one, regardless of the lengths others have gone to, to be civil. Though he has has a couple of good edits here and there, the majority have been fairly bad faith as far as I am concerned and the unwillingness to discuss his abusive warnings (especially his bitey ones) suggests, on balance, he is not here to build WP. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And another inappropriate warning.... – Connormah (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It would seem that the user is not communicative - perhaps a block is in order per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE? – Connormah (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close - Turns out the users in question were the same person all along. All linked user names were blocked for socking before anyone had a chance to get to the issues above. So this can probably now be closed. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:31, 30 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.

Trolling-only account

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.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Antonio2105

[94] Ban also the IP. --Niemti (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not trolling, their contributions are garden-variety puerile vandalism. WP:AIV would have been the correct place. You're also required to ADVISE them of this ANI filing. Although I have blocked them for a week for vandalism - including BLP-related - please go back and advise them of this as per the directions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Trolling because of [95], also don't forget to ban the IP. --Niemti (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not trolling - indeed, it actually seems like a good faith addition to the definition. We don't WP:BAN IP's ... we probably block them though, and it's typically a default setting, so no need to tell us how to work :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It was how Antonio described his efforts in all the other other edits. --Niemti (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, Bwilkins. Antonio2105 spent an hour making fourteen different edits, all of them puerile vandalism. He even made an edit to troll (disambiguation) just to emphasize what he was doing. (Yes, that was his least objectionable edit; I could have assumed good faith about only that edit, except in the context of every single other thing he wrote.) While it might have been faster for Niemti to go to AIV for this – and I'm sure that he will remember to do so in the future, now that he knows – there was no need to be so snippy. I have reblocked the account indefinitely as a vandalism-only trolling account. There was no point to sending Niemti off shrubbery-gatheriing. Don't encourage good editors to waste time feeding trolls. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There was zero snippiness: I'll encourage you to go through exactly what happened: Niemti posted here. I blocked. I reminded Niemti that he was supposed to advise Antonio. Niemti re-advised to "ban the IP" - I advised him they weren't banned, and it was already blocked by default. Where's the snippy/shrubery-gathering? Nowhere. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I presume that TOAT is suggesting that while it's okay to remind Niemti they were supposed to advise Antonio, there's little point asking Niemti to advise Antonio after you'd already indefinitely blocked them for vandalism (for a week) Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think it's vital for the blocked editor to know where the discussion was started that led to the block - so IMHO, notifcation after the block was important. Yeah, I could have done it myself, but I prefer to have people do the things they were originally supposed to do by themself (more of that "teach a man to fish" concept) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find editors sniping at each other over whether the proper courtesies were extended to an editor who has made edits such as this and this. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty straightforward vandalism account only. Proper procedure for those are indef and no courtesies extended. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Everyone has something to add to Wikipedia - many just don't know it yet. Simple courtesies - like a set of rules, and advising them they they have been reported are due to all editors. Yeah, they might be done along with a block for the persistent ones, but every editor is an editor. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 06:25, 30 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.

Jared Padalecki being used in a scavenger hunt

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

---

It has come to my attention that the above page is being used in a scavenger hunt, the goal of which is to vandalize the page repeatedly. This has been happening several times tonight. This page needs protection for a weeks time from all users. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism is increasing. Any help would be appreciated. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The talk page has also come under attack if anyone would like to semi-protect that page as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article and semiprotected the talk page for three days each. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the website, this "event" doesn't end for another 6 days, give or take, so extending the protection preemptively might be prudent. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:00, 30 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.

Urgent attention

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:Divinearmor has been warned several times about POV-pushing on various Tennessee and abortion related articles. He seems to have a particular want to "highlight" the various places, people and institutions that allow or promote abortion in that location.

Today he created Bristol Regional Women's Center and included the personal details of doctors working at the clinic as well as contact details and an address. It has been written to sound like an advertisement but given the nature of the user's previous edits the intent seems obvious. His claim that he is part of a "cooperative" to "highlight the services in Bristol" is clearly rubbish.

Can an admin please shut this down, delete the page, close the AFD and indef the user. Repeated warnings on his page have been deleted.

Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Update: Page has now been blanked for obvious BLP violations. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Given the obvious WP:BLP issues here, I have blanked the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Due to the above concerns, I have deleted the article. Calmer Waters 05:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The account remains unblocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 30 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.

Autostereogram

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.

---

You never know what someone's going to edit-war over. An IP complained about the article being condescending to those who can't figure the bloody things out. Hyacinth (talk · contribs) posted a rather snippy comment / personal attack to the IP. Then I tried to soften the attitude in the article, and Hyacinth immediately reverted it, without comment. I say that's a totally improper use of rollback, and if the user doesn't explain him/herself, they are a candidate for having their rollback privilege removed. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Diff: [96]

Note that comments on the talk page are not relevant, except for those made after the revert. Also note that timing (immediacy) is not relevant.

One change is not an edit war.

Perhaps I would explain myself if Baseball Bugs asked for a explanation. Hyacinth (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User has stated that they would have found the use of "undo" unacceptable as well, indicating this posting has little to do with the use of "rollback". Hyacinth (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is explicitly not to be used to revert good faith edits. "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." Why did you use rollback and have you used it for content disputes before? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the personal attack. The editor identified as being unable to see the image.

Hyacinth wrote matter of factly. He could have spent hours thinking of nicer ways to express things, perhaps.

BTW, this is a fascinating featured article, which is worth examining. It does not mention the work of Persi Diaconis on the Julesz conjecture.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly fascinating that it's a featured article. As for this silly little dispute, Bugs is quite right that the revert was both improper (his minor toning down of the language was good work) and improperly done (through rollback), but there was zero need to run off to ANI about it. I assume we're to either full-protect the page or block Hyacinth? Editors are supposed to work out conflicts by themselves if possible, and given that there's already discussion on talk it should have stayed there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback abuse is something that any Admin can/should deal with as removal is an Admin matter, that limits it to ANI (Needs immediate attention) or AN (more sedate response). I doubt one instance of it is an ANI matter, but since its here, I would like an answer to my above question. IMO there is no point blocking over something like that, preventative blah blah blah, but it does need to be looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that I am on trial and am being asked to enter a plea (actually more than that, I'm being asked to both enter a plea and testify as my own character witness). If that is that case I would expect to be provided with representation. Hyacinth (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic. A trouting to you for biting an IP and mis-using rollback (we don't want to see either again), and a trouting to Baseball for this premature ANI. Other than that I see no further action here. GiantSnowman 11:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about the IP.

What is the purpose of asking the accused? For example, when asking a liar if they lied, one may expect them to lie and say they didn't do it. How does one tell if an honest person simply told the truth and said they didn't lie? Hyacinth (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What do I say? Well, what does Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader say? " Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. " (emphasis original) See you at ANI isn't what's meant by this. Nobody Ent 11:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nobody Ent, this was a somewhat premature ANI report. Equally, I agree with Bugs and Only in death - this was clearly improper use of rollback. Hyacinth, either offer an explanation as to why you thought rollback was appropriate, or 'fess up and admit you made a mistake; there's no "trial" here, just an attempt to understand what went wrong, fix it and ensure it doesn't happen again. Either way, a single instance isn't (IMHO) sufficient to require rights removal; we all cock thigs up from time to time. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As per Yunshui - my question was to determine if Hyacinth knows when rollback should be used. If he does, trout and 'dont do it again', if he doesnt understand/know why, explanation instead of trout and 'dont do it again'. I wouldnt advocate removing it for one incident. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hyacinth has already reverted and explained it was accidential: [97]. No need to keep beating him for a one time screwup. Nobody Ent 12:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe we still have to include Baseball Bugs. Also, I initially could not remember having used rollback in content disputes, but I found Cent (music), which was fairly recently. Hyacinth (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, odd that you'd introduce evidence against yourself - I see a number of inappropriate rollback uses recently. GiantSnowman 12:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So, after we're done asking Hyacinth to stop, when are we going to just outright ban Baseball Bugs from ANI, forever this time? For a man who is deciding to try to get someone in trouble by a rigid interpretation of the rules, it sure is funny how he manages to ignore the rules himself (in this case, once again drama queening about it on ANI instead of bringing it up to Hyacinth first). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:27, 30 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.

Repeated violation of RfC restrictions - site ban proposed for Youreallycan

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

---

Please see the user talk page at Youreallycan (talk · contribs), where the history shows an on-going edit-war conducted by this editor to restore details of the alleged RL identity of another editor. This needs intervention now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The edits have been suppressed by Oversight. However, this is a very clear violation of the restrictions under which YRC is currently editing. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal, the following restrictions were applied, with his agreement:

1. - Three month BLP topic ban
2. - Six months 1RR restriction
3. - Six months strict civility enforcement.
4. - One month voluntary total editing restriction.
5. - Site ban if any condition violated.

He has violated item 2 with at least 5 reversions of 4 editors to restore the oversighted material [98], and item 3 with his repeated posting of the oversighted material despite 3 requests from 2 editors to desist. I am therefore proposing a full indefinite site ban for these violations, in accordance with the terms of the RfC. Youreallycan has previously been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations and 6 times for civility violations.[99] Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• YRC's user-talk page is currently under full protection. Can someone with the requisite permissions please inform him of this thread. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• User:Alison has done this at my request. Prioryman (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since admins can't see the material it is difficult to judge this. We have to trust our oversighters (indeed that's why they are chosen). However, in the interests of not having arbitrary sentencing, would it be possible to get one or two other oversighters to review and endorse the proposed ban? If so, I'm happy (well happy isn't the word) to support.--Scott Mac 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility. I would be content to uphold an indefinite ban on these terms. James F. (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Considering that this editor has been blocked nineteen times before, and narrowly avoided a community ban by promising to kep his nose squeaky clean, a community ban is the only option. It was a condition that he himself agreed to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But he hasn't done anything wrong, or breached his undertaking. Restoring your own comment on your own talk page is not edit-warring, unless that comment is a breach of policy here, and that's not the case. It's been demonstrated below that Prioryman has identified his real name on-wiki. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the edits were bad enough to be oversighted, they're clearly major violations of the principles they agreed to. The next step is unfortunately site ban, but he should be indeffed for outing in the meantime (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated below that this was not outing. Prioryman has already identified his real name on-wiki. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I have indefinitely blocked the user in question. Whether or not the community decides to enforce a ban for his behaviour overall, this individual incident is simply unacceptable. There is no excuse, no string of content citations, that justifies outing another editor. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  It's fairly clear that the outing is...an ambiguous charge at best, given additional evidence presented. But at the same time, the diffs in question clearly show that he was attempting nothing more than to bait and kick at Prioryman - something that violates the spirit (if not the letter) of his civility restriction. Ironholds (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC did not out Prioryman. He was accused of it and it was probably prudent to oversight the comment while it was investigated, but Prioryman has already acknowledged his real name on-wiki. This appears to be a good-faith error on Nomoskedasitcity's part. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just wondering... is the editor he's allegedly trying to "out" damaging wikipedia in some way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Is the "outing" of a person whose identity is already widely-known and used by the person himself, though? That is usually the sticking point when the collection of WR/Wikipediocracy/WMUK luminaries gets into a spat for the nine-hundred-and-thirty-third time. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That point is indeed an issue from time to time. If an editor has made his identity known, he has no basis for crying "Outing!" No way for us peons to tell in this case, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:OUTING is clear: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Mentioning old usernames is fine, mentioning non-voluntarily-disclosed full real names is not. Prioryman (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you identified your real name on-wiki. Since then it's been common knowledge who ChrisO is. Your friends here address you by your real name and you don't demand oversight and banning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Precisely. So how do we know this was non-voluntary? And was the alleged "outee" engaged in damaging wikipedia? Not that that justifies public disclosure, though. Things like that should be handled behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• So in the hypothetical scenario of an old username being the person's actual name, or a reasonably close approximation thereof, said hypothetical person gets perpetual immunity from anyone ever pointing that out? Tarc (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• The username didn't include the surname, which is, obviously, much more identifying than a first name.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Was the outing for some greater purpose, i.e. to prevent damage to wikipedia? Or was the alleged "outer" just being a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bugs, sorry for repeating myself here, but as I said below - 'Prioryman is currently the target of an off-wiki hate website whose staff are known for proposing visiting London with boxcutters "to slit a few throats". (I'll send you a screenshot if you like.) Yes, he's currently their top target (I think it was Jimbo before, but I don't really keep up with such things.) And yes, they love to "research" WP editors' locations and identities in order to facilitate this sort of "boxcutter" behaviour.' --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me this page (or possibly AN) had an otherwise-unrelated case recently about off-wiki activity in which it was concluded that wikipedia cannot control off-wiki behavior. However, a direct threat of violence is never good. Has YRC himself, either on or off wiki, directly threatened anyone with physical harm? P.S. No link or picture needed. I'll take your word for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice question, but no, of course he hasn't. Then again, if the instigator (Andreas) were so innocent, he could've waited a half-respectable amount of time before turning up here to put the metaphorical knife into the target (Prioryman) after YRC already did what was needed. I've been asked before to make clear that I am not accusing Andreas or Dan Murphy/Daniel Murphy themselves of threatening to use boxcutters on British Wikimedians' throats. Oh, and sure we can't control what people do on other websites. But we shouldn't be encouraging or facilitating this sort of thing. In my personal opinion, people like that should not be permitted on this website. It's a project to build an encyclopedia, not a project to see how many people you can "hunt down" and threaten. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

For sure. So an interaction ban in both (or all) directions should be the right solution - with a lengthy block for any violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, I am very disappointed by the way in which you are defaming my husband – a smart, funny, and wonderfully loving man, and a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia – by trying to associate him with a snippet of a joke made by one of the more acerbic critics on Wikipediocracy. That critic also qualified his comment by saying that the WMUK clique simply wouldn’t be worth his time, which is something you consistently fail to mention on here whenever you try to establish that non-starter of a meme. You wrote: "Then again, if the instigator (Andreas) were so innocent, he could've waited a half-respectable amount of time before turning up here to put the metaphorical knife into the target (Prioryman) after YRC already did what was needed."

Just so you know, Andreas/Jayen466 is the kind of person who would never raise a knife, metaphorically or otherwise, against another living creature. In fact, this beautiful husband of mine will spend ages "hunting down" bluebottles, wasps, and even mosquitos in our house, glass in one hand, discarded envelope in the other, and, once caught, escort the various critters to the safety of our backyard, all out of a heartfelt belief in doing no harm.

I admire my husband for not rising to the many insults you, Prioryman, and the rest of your cronies have been lobbing at him in various WP forums. Sure I'm biased. But at least I for one have never made a secret of my love and appreciation for my husband and his delectable personality.

Now, against the backdrop of you stating on your user page that you live in the United Kingdom, could you please explain your connection to UK resident Prioryman and to WMUK? Also, in light of you vehemently opposing any kind of "censorship of the main page", could you do me a solid and look up Twitter Joke Trial before accusing an accomplished US audio engineer, inventor, and businessman with plenty more interesting things to occupy his time than socializing with WMUK "volunteer" types of murderous intent just to help out one of your WMUK buddies? Thank you! Draco^E 02:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Full Ban - He had his chances, he blew it. He's been highly combative and I doubt that he will change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I saw the edit that has been revdeled. I would feel more comfortable if an admin (besides me) who either saw it or who has oversight capabilities would comment on whether what YRC put on his talk page constituted outing. With the exception of one piece, which may or may not be known, the material seemed public to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • See Jdforrester's comment above. --Rschen7754 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thanks, Prioryman (for above). So, let's be clear. We are proposing a full indefinite ban for the outing. We certainly wouldn't ban YRC if he edit-warred on his own talk page as he has the right to control his own talk page (with very limited exceptions). So, my next question is which condition does outing violate? We should be precise in these things, and we shouldn't rush to judgment, even if the ultimate decision is for a full ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, the 1RR restriction from the RfC is a universal one - it's not limited to any area of Wikipedia, whether article space, talk pages or user talk pages - so the edit-war on his user talk page would indeed count as a violation. Further, the normal 3RR does not apply when reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.[100] One form of content that breaches those guidelines is "Personal information of other persons without their consent."[101] YRC reverted to this at least five times, violating both the universal 1RR and 3RR, which applied because the content being reverted breached the guidelines. Prioryman (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        • That's extremely helpful, Prioryman, thank you for taking the trouble to connect the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full indefinite site ban for violating first, second and probably third condition from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal.--В и к и T 23:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But he hasn't done any of those things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full ban and since there's nonpublic information involved, appeals should go right to WP:BASC. --Rschen7754 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The information you refer to is very public. ChrisO pointed to his real name on-wiki and it's been well-known here ever since. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • Strategic oppose, this is something ArbCom should handle. --Rschen7754 21:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I looked at the edits in question, and I agree that they were utterly inappropriate. YRC knew that and didn't care. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Asserting that doesn't make it true. (I saw the edits too.) YRC addressed Prioryman/ChrisO by his real name. Prioryman has acknowledged his real name on-wiki and has been addressed by that name here more than once in the past with no complaint, not a peep. This is about gaming YRC off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sheesh. What happens when you throw Prioryman, Jayen466, and YRC into a discussion? One ban, for starters, a bunch of fire and brimstone stinking up the place, and bad press coverage. You all should group yourselves under the user category "Wikipedia crusaders", and for practical purposes we should assume that in any given discussion you are all wrong. I had a look at this Wikipediocracy site, for the first time--holy shit, what a crock. "To expose the corruption!" Onward, soldiers of the truth. BTW, I support the ban for YRC--enough is enough. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I saw part of this in real time on Jimbo's talk page. YRC was edit warring to repeatedly insert an editor's real name against that editor's will. Personally, I don't really care whether or not said editor's name had already previously been revealed - and I don't know whether that is the case. It was a clearly antagonistic action that served no benefit to either the discussion or Wikipedia. So, per YRC's own proposal in their RFCU, I've little option but to support. Resolute 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban - As Drmies says, enough is enough. Jusdafax 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is not how I would have envisioned YRC's tenure ending at Wikipedia. I would have expected him to go out in a blaze of self-righteous BLP glory. Instead, it comes down to a personal feud with another editor. I suppose the symptoms are the same (YRC's inability to control himself), but it still saddens me. What a waste.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the moment, I am striking my vote, partly per Wehwalt's initial comment below and partly based on Andreas's diffs. I can't sort out the diffs, frankly, i.e., whether they are enough to constitute voluntary disclosure, but at this point I can't support a ban without the outing being clear. Everything else, in my view, is derivative of the alleged outing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ban per Resolute (i.e. given all YRC's past history, the ban is justified by the edit warring to re-insert the person's name even if the name was already known). YRC clearly hasn't let go of his drama addiction and we have to face that he is doing the project more harm than good. That said, the other person has also been something of a dramaphile in multiple conflicts recently, and should tone it down. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Outing = Ban pbp 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question Who is YRC supposed to have outed? If it was Prioryman, then please bear in mind that Prioryman has revealed his identity here on Wikipedia, on at least two occasions, and so did arbcom. These edits are live today. His name can also be found on a fair number of talk pages where other people have called him by his real name. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• This bears looking into. If Prioryman himself has disclosed his full real name ("unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information"), then I don't see how this constitutes outing. Also, per policy, if Prioryman disclosed his full real name but later redacted it, then what YRC did would still be outing ("If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman redacted it on YRC's user-talk page, today. It was a violation the very first time YRC restored it there. The subsequent edit-warring he conducted was absurd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Until someone gives a real explanation instead of this tip-toeing that's going on. It's now provided, and demonstrates that the "outing" claim is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Prioryman's name was revealed by arbcom in the findings of fact here and here when it was noted that he had cited self-published materials. ChrisO confirmed that he was indeed the author on the talk page. [102][103] AndreasKolbe JN466 00:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• His name is also mentioned in full by Tony Sidaway for example on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1. And a number of other talk pages. So why was Tony Sidaway not banned? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Very good. You have demonstrated that the outing claim is thoroughly bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems an entirely opportunistic use of WP:OUTING. Say nothing when a friend (or arbcom ...) uses your name on wiki, and clamour for a ban if it is an enemy. Prioryman knows full well that his name is on this wiki, and that he owned up to it. Is is not the sort of thing you forget. What his conduct reminds me of more than anything is Fair Game (Scientology). Which is really ironic. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • YRC made the false claim that I had edited on Wikipedia under my own real name, which I did not do and have never done. Arbcom did not post my real name back in 2006. It posted, without my consent, links to off-wiki writings which other editors - not myself - had added to Wikipedia articles to use as sources, again without my consent (I have in fact removed such links where I have found them). I have not at any point voluntarily disclosed my full name on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Did arbcom have you in a room with thumb screws? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support for editing in violation of voluntary restrictions -- that's a breach of trust issue, as well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

First demonstrate that he has violated his restrictions. That hasn't been done yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm. You can't see any evidence of edit warring? Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has: "As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility. I would be content to uphold an indefinite ban on these terms. James F. (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)" -- See also, WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullet point 2), and, WP:NPA.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose At this point, it no longer looks like a clear-cut case, which means I won't vote to support based on evidence not available to me. Suggest a case at ArbCom as they are better suited to deal with this then a bunch of people wondering if they should take each other's word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do please note that whether or not this constitutes an outing violation, it is most definitely a civility violation and a 1RR violation, and as such YRC is still in breach of his restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't be bound by the dead hand of a RfC I took no part in in deciding my !vote on a ban. Unless I am convinced the community is better off without the person, and that is very clear to me, I will withhold my hand. I don't do "ban-of-the-week", either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What is dead-hand about the editing restrictions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, YRC was under active restrictions that he agreed to be under. He also agreed to a 1 month software-enforced wikibreak which was suggested (by me) in the hope that it would restore his composure. At the end of the 1 month, he reappeared, said he was doing well, and requested another 2 months of enforced break to be certain of avoiding tripping over his 3 month BLP restriction (this is in his talk page history), i.e. he understood then as well, that his restrictions would be enforced. When he came back after the 2 months, he seemed refreshed and hopefully able to edit up to standards. But he immediately returned to his battles and feuds. Even without the outing/non-outing, we're back where we were before the RFC, which closed with some last-resort measures to try instead of a ban even then. So this ban is justified due to YRC's intractable battleground editing regardless of the precipitating incident. Re the immediate incident: AFAICT, there was no excuse (such as a COI situation relevant to the encyclopedia) justifying YRC's calling out another editor's name repeatedly over their objections. He was just doing it to be a dick, coming almost immediately off of a de facto ban. That should be the end of his rope. Enough is enough. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I now oppose the ban on its merits per the comments below. You can't unring a bell or out the self-outed.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the way we do things here. As Nobody Ent likes to say, the world is not binary. WP:OUTING gives multiple examples (username changes, self-redactions) of how it's not ok to dredge up personal info buried in obscurity to use against them, even though it's accessible with enough digging if someone else knows where to look. (And redacting something years old would have called attention to it all by itself, so it's not an advisable strategy). Obviously the info's presence on those old pages could be a mitigating factor, but the absence of the slightest justification for the repeated re-additions is an aggravating factor that far outweighs the mitigation. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've long supported YRC for his earnest and genuine efforts, in the past, to protect the interests of living persons unfairly damaged by inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. For some time now he's lost his direction in that, and this is beyond the "final final" straw... his actions appear to be a projection of the boxcutter brigade who are taking every possible desperate measure to act against those who defend the freedom of Wikipedia's main page. Let it be said again - there will be no political censorship of the Wikipedia main page - not for the boxcutter website and not for anyone else - no political censorship, not now and not EVER. I support a ban for this gutless and contemptible conniving with the boxcutter maggots. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What the %$*# have boxcutters got to do with this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I too vague. Prioryman is currently the target of an off-wiki hate website whose staff are known for proposing visiting London with boxcutters "to slit a few throats". (I'll send you a screenshot if you like.) Yes, he's currently their top target (I think it was Jimbo before, but I don't really keep up with such things.) And yes, they love to "research" WP editors' locations and identities in order to facilitate this sort of "boxcutter" behaviour. (I can't imagine why anyone should be concerned, can you?) Well, you can argue that YRC just kinda got involved at the wrong moment and had no knowledge of any of this. Good luck with that argument. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So the talk of "political censorship of the Wikipedia main page" was just more of the usual hype about DYK, Gibraltar, a large wodge of cash (allegedly), and whatever else it is that everyone is getting into a kerfuffle about, then? I wondered whether there had been a military coup or something, from the way you were getting so steamed up about it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Prioryman is gaming WP:OUTING policy when it suits his needs. When it has been any number of other users or admins who have used the full name in a discussion (there are examples to be found via simple search of the project), there has been none of this gasping, hemming, hawing, or wringing-of-the-hands; it was just stating whatever one already knew, much like the whole Fae/Ash crap earlier this year. But as soon as YRC does it, out come the tar & feathers? No. You don't get to set up "for me but not for thee" bullshit. Prioryman should be grateful to get out of this with out a king-sized WP:BOOMERANG upside his head. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear. YRC is charged here with doing three things:

• A repeated WP:OUTING violation;
• A 1RR violation;
• A repeated civility violation.

All three of these things are violations of his restrictions. Whether or not you believe the outing violation stands up, there is no doubt whatsoever that he engaged in repeated incivility and edit-warring. So even if you dispose of one violation, that still leaves two more. That's indisputable. Prioryman (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the word "indisputable" existed on Wikipedia, certainly not at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the 1RR and civility concerns are largely moot, as the stem from your boy-who-cried-wolf act regarding a non-outing. You don't get to goad someone into such a thing and pretend you can get away with it. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Tarc, I don't think those other users or admins did the type of pointy edit warring that YRC did, and in those other situations Prioryman may have kept quiet because intervening would have attracted unwanted attention (just like this did, except in those other cases there wasn't already a conflict going on). Also, Prioryman may be trying to keep a lower real-life profile now than at those times in the past, which I think we should respect. WP:OUTING quote "also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." This is something like that. The past disclosures would be a balancing factor in some other situations but YRC knew he was skating on thin ice. That's why I expicitly supported the ban independently of whether the name was already known. It was unacceptable harassment no matter what the fine points of "outing" say. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I do not value the input of IP editors into topics such as this. If you wish to address me and actually want for a response, do it with your actual account. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So Tarc, you're saying that if you can subjectively accuse someone of "gaming", then outing is OK? Or are you saying something else?

Outing or attempted outing is not acceptable, ever. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

True. But the name was already visible on wikipedia, so it wasn't outing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is you can't out someone who has had his name bandied about the project for years. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless I am mistaken, the whole "outing" issue is that YRC just said what the "O" in ChrisO, Prioryman's previous account, stands for and Prioryman cried outing even though he knows full well that this is widely known due to the fact that he has been terrible at hiding his real-life identity. Hell, anyone who googles his prior user account and "Scientology", a subject in which Prioryman has edited heavily, will be able to find out his surname in short order. If he noted something more obscure that would be another thing, but if it is just Prioryman's last name then this is just an exercise in pointless drama.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Bollocks There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page. And it is time Prioryman was stopped pulling this sort of shit. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• YRC was given, and agreed to, a six-month 1RR restriction. It was purposefully not restricted to any particular content space so that there would be no edit wars of any kind in any content space. That's what's been violated. Prioryman (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• You made your identity known, so there was no outing - and therefore no one had a right to edit-war on his user page. The case collapses, and YRC should be unblocked, and politely asked not to do it again because it's uncivil to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I did not disclose my identity. Nor did I edit under my own name, as YRC falsely claimed that I did. There was no reason for YRC to post that information, as it had no relevance whatsoever to the point he was trying to make. I asked him to desist from posting it and he refused. The whole incident was a completely unnecessary, gratuitous exercise in incivility of a kind which anyone familiar with YRC's conduct will have seen many times before. Prioryman (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Us peons can't see YRC's edits, of course. But if he merely invoked what the "O" stands for, you freely gave that information, as indicated in one of Jayen466's links posted here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification request Darkness Shines, re There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page: I believe some of these reverts were not on YRC's talk page, but rather on Jimbo's talk page.[104] Anyone know? 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - YRC actually created his own conditions, as well as the outcome if any of the conditions were broken.[105] There's really no wiggle room when it comes to violating just the 1RR restriction unless the reversions being on his user page somehow exempted them as actual reverts (from an edit warring standpoint). Doc talk 01:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support so far as possible - I will take everyone's word that the content was disgraceful and in any case having seen how YRC behaves in general I'm cool with assuming he's been doing something dick-ish again. Of course if it turns out this outing was not actually outing then I would reconsider. There's no way I can be 100% certain on the basis of edits; but I can be very sure indeed, certainly beyond reasonable doubt, given the trustworthy wikipedians involved. Egg Centric 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(ecx3)With all due respect, again bollocks. There is no restriction at all regarding your own talk page. Given your recent outing block perhaps a little leeway may be called for. Your past with this person shows naught but hostility, so forgive my lack of good faith, but it looks to me like you just want this guy banned. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Hm? What does edit warring have to do with it? There is a 1RR restriction and a civility parole, both of which have been breached, according to the evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If all he did was post known information, then no one had the right to remove it, and the alleged 1RR violation wouldn't occur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page, look it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Edit warring that says a 1RR applies to user space. If I overlooked something, perhaps the ones claiming otherwise, could point it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction he is under covers all the spaces, including user space. Silverseren^C 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Does it explicitly say so? Or is that only an inference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman explained it pretty well [106]: if the reverts were not exempted because of USERBIO, then the 1RR restriction was violated. Doc talk 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is unrestricted. Moreover, using personal information on a talk page in an incivil manner violates WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullet point 2), as well as, WP:NPA.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute about whether he explicitly agreed to an exception to that rule. If he didn't, then all they can get him on is incivility. At worst, an interaction ban (both directions) is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What the bloody hell are you talking about? What outing block? I've had no such thing. None of this thread really makes any sense to me at all. If it's directed at me, then please clarify. Otherwise please move it. Egg Centric 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. The notification posted by Prioryman was interpreted by me as a poke. The two editors have a long history which extends through both user's previous accounts. This episode began a Jimbo's talk page and escalated from there. The full name, as used by YRC is currently published on Wikipedia, I've just reviewed some links, and they are still published without suppression. Handle this with blocks and I did intend to stipulate that as plural. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Question If Prioryman's concern was revelation of his personal information, why was he posting an outing warning on a talk page with 141 watchers before the edit had been redacted? Nobody Ent 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• To give YRC fair warning not to repeat the edit. If he had respected my wishes and not reverted my removal of my name from his post, nothing more would have been heard about this incident. I was perfectly happy to let it drop. I only contacted Oversight after he had posted the same information four times in a row. There was absolutely no need for him to do so; it was gratuitous incivility. If I'd wanted to get him banned I would have escalated as so on as he posted, which I plainly didn't. Prioryman (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• So you didn't particularly care that your name was revealed, just that YRC was repeatedly posting it? Nobody Ent 01:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't say that. I did care that my name was revealed. It didn't matter who revealed it. Whoever the offending editor was, I would have redacted it and asked them to refrain from reposting it. I would have expected them to respect my wishes. I didn't want to make a fuss about it because I didn't want to draw attention to it. Unfortunately YRC made it impossible to deal with it quietly. Prioryman (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• If one using a user's name in an incivil manner, that's a violation of WP:NPA, as well as WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullit point 2). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You considered posting a notification of an edit still clearly visible in the history buffer on the talk page of a user under restrictions from a highly contentious RFC dealing with it quietly??? Nobody Ent 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• It might have been better to ask someone else (maybe Dennis Brown) to intervene after the first revert (i.e. revdel and tell YRC to not restore the edit). Starting the ANI in retrospect doesn't look to have been such a great idea either. YRC would have been here for something else soon enough anyway. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, to be fair, I didn't start the ANI discussion. I proposed the ban on YRC on the grounds of edit-warring and incivility. The outing was merely the means through which YRC was incivil (and gratuitously so, as it was totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand). Prioryman (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see, you made a long and very visible post early in the ANI, calling for YRC to be banned, but you didn't actually start the thread. In general I think if you're in a dispute with someone, it doesn't come across well to be calling for particular remedies. Best to just say what happened and what issues are involved, and let other people figure out what to do. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full site ban. Wasn't he supposed to change after the RfC/U and self-imposed ban? That clearly doesn't work, so something external needs to reel him in. Shrigley (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He has changed. He has abided by his undertaking. This is a con. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Is it outing, based on the diffs presented above, to say Prioryman's last name on-wiki? Separate question from whether YRC violated anything. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if this is just about what the "O" in "ChrisO" stands for. That information has been on Wikipedia for at least six years in places such as Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_6#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• The editor who posted that, User:Terryeo, was banned in 2006 for outing violations directed against me and, I think, a couple of other people. You evidently found an edit that didn't get deleted - it's merely evidence of an earlier attempted outing. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can quite believe that Terryeo was a troublemaker, but your reaction to his post was effectively to acknowledge that you are indeed the named essayist whilst pointing out that it was not you who linked your essays. Given your on-wiki acknowledgment of your identity in 2006, I can't see how you can be outed in 2012 unless more information is given than just your surname.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has now doctored the archive I linked above. The version in which he acknowledges his name can be seen at [107] It also includes evidence that even then he was telling half truths as Terryeo links a diff where Prioryman as ChrisO references his own essay in Scientology.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• You should probably go and get that oversighted as well. Silverseren^C 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support site ban I checked all the links given by Andreas above and did not see a single on-wiki instance of the name being used. Are you referring to off-wiki links made against Prioryman against his will? I'm sorry, but that's not voluntarily outing oneself. And do consider the fact that most of the opposes above are Wikipediocracy members that are conducting a witchhunt against Prioryman on both their website and, it appears, on-wiki. Silverseren^C 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seren, the instances I found in an obvious Google search of his previous username and a subject in which he is heavily interested pertained to comments he had made of his own volition on websites under that same username well before he began editing Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad to know that you know how to use Google. Unfortunately, WP:OUTING doesn't have an exception for people that know how to use Google. Silverseren^C 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This arbitration finding notes that he "restored self-published material". The information is in the diffs arbcom gave; you need to click on them. In addition, he acknowledged on wiki that these are links to sites containing his writings. ChrisO gave a diff in the ARBSCI workshop and on the Proposed decision talk page which showed him removing his full name from a Wikipedia article, and he said he made the edit "to remove my own work as a non-reliable source." AndreasKolbe JN466 02:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OUTING should not be used to protect people who make no serious effort to conceal their identity. That goes up against the whole spirit of the policy. It is to protect someone's privacy, not allow someone to force people to keep quiet about something a child could figure out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, DA and Kolbe, I guess I'm a child. I searched through those diffs that Kolbe so handily provided (no doubt they have them at the ready always) and it still took me five minutes or more to figure it out. I supposed that makes me stupid, but I don't mind being stupid in the spirit of OUTING as interpreted here by Silver seren. Silver seren, I guess this makes you stupid also. What some of you seem to forget is that you have probably been involved with these disputes for years; you probably send each other Christmas cards. Things that are obvious to you aren't so obvious to others, and that's why this was OUTING. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I am just referring to the fact that anyone who knows his prior account "ChrisO" and a subject in which he has a strong interest "Scientology" will find Prioryman's last name in the first few results of a Google search. Honestly, I think if Prioryman were still editing as ChrisO, few would take this accusation of outing seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman's recent indef block for attempted outing was reversed.[108] I don't see any reason YRC's indef shouldn't be likewise reversed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am not under a six-month community-imposed civility restriction for which a violation means a site ban. That's the difference. The proposed ban here is for violating the civility restriction. Outing was merely the means through which YRC chose to be incivil. Prioryman (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would think there's a significant difference between mentioning someone's prior username and mentioning someone's real name. You do understand the difference, right? Furthermore, Prioryman stopped trying to add it once he was informed by the person that they didn't want the name mentioned. Silverseren^C 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• No outing occurred, so the rest of the case against YRC falls apart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• This was indeed outing. Worse, it was a vindictive outing, rather than an accidental outing. Silverseren^C 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, it was not outing by YRC. Priory outed himself, albeit 6 years ago. As to the vindictive part, an interaction ban should take care of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full site ban. - To intentionally and vindictively jeopardise someones ability to edit Wikipedia anonymously, advertising a user's RL identity for spite when you are well aware that they rather you didn't, is well beyond the pale, as they sometimes say around here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as you can't OUT an editor with a known identity. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This whole thing was handled badly from the get-go. On those rare occasions when someone has gone over the line with me, I've had it handled behind the scenes, by a trusted admin. And because this got dragged here, I now know both Priory's former user ID and what it allegedly stands for, which I didn't before. And so does anyone else who has read this discussion. How does that serve anyone's interests here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Outting is a big deal and YRC knew that this would cause issues. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The friction is undoubtedly mutual vide one editor's aattempt to ban YRC for what turned out to be a "Joe Job." Pursuing this further is not in the interests of Wikipedia, and the use of what was clearly a "Joe Job" to attempt to ban an editor I find much worse that the "outing" which wasn't "outing" in any normal sense. Collect (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question Can an oversighter display a redacted version of the edit in question?   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't "the edit in question", it was an edit war with at least 4 reverts re-inserting the info, from what I understand. That's why I find YRC's conduct was so intolerable. I can see some merit to posting redacted versions, or (maybe temporarily) increasing the edits' visibility to normal revdel so admins can look at them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support He's shown himself to be a very disruptive editor over a long period of time. He's had many chances to change, and has always returned to incivility, edit warring, and all-around disruptive behavior. Even if the outing thing is disregarded, he's shown he has no intention of adhering to the restrictions he previously agreed to. Since he agreed to the punishment of a site ban if they were violated, that's what he should get. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"...he's shown he has no intention of adhering to the restrictions he previously agreed to." No he hasn't. He's shown the opposite. He has, against most expectations, abided by his undertakings. This is a con. He didn't out the editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban And unblock, per Tarc. Sædon^talk 03:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - YRC has shown again and again that he never believes he is wrong in a conflict, and is incapable of backing away from a fight. Perhaps he was goaded into this one, perhaps not. The fact remains that he has no qualms whatsoever about going into attack mode, and ignoring the rules of Wikipedia whenever it suits him. Even now after twenty blocks, mentoring, and a self-imposed cooling off wikibreak, he comes back and is right into an argument that should cost him his editing career at Wikipedia, and doesn't even care about the rules enough to stop edit warring and ask an admin for assistance. If there's other action against Prioryman, that should be in a different section with its own evidence. YRC has shown us enough to stop wasting time on someone who's only here for conflict. 201.130.178.219 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC) — 201.130.178.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose ChrisO acknowledged his identity on wiki [109]  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  04:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support clear violation of his self-imposed editing restrictions. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. Prove it. You can't, because he didn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, he made five reverts in a matter of minutes so there's a 1RR breach. Not to mention incivility. For Christ's sake, how many times does he need to be blocked for you to think he did something wrong. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

His 1RR restriction was designed to address a serious problem with his BLP patrolling in article space. He has as much right as you to defend his comments on talk pages. Personally, I think it was thoughtless of him to mention the surname, and ill-advised of him to restore it when it was challenged. But, I know what the 1RR was imposed for, and it was not imposed to allow others to mess with his user talk page edits. There is a world of difference between what's appropriate for an article or article talk page, and what's appropriate in user talk space. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in that RFC, and I remember no such exceptions to the 1RR restriction (and why would it exist if he was also topic banned from BLP's anyways?). I do realize it was in his talk space, which could grant leeway (I can't really comment on how appropriate the removal by other editors was, since it was oversighted). But three editors reverted him, so you'd think that would drive the message home. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not topic banned from BLPs, his behaviour is restricted on BLPs per FormerIP's clarification, here, which is built into the RfC outcome. The 1RR was designed to curb his behaviour on article and article talk pages generally, it was not meant to make it open season on his user talk page contributions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It was a complete 1RR restriction. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ban. From reading this thread, there's obviously some years-long history behind the current dispute, and I don't know about most of it. But I can see that Youreallycan is violating his/her self-proposed editing restrictions, so the decision to ban ought to be pretty easy, regardless of one's feelings about whether "outing" is really outing, or one's own involvement with the users in this dispute. However, I'm not going to be surprised if this thread turns out to be irresolvable and Arbcom takes this on. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you mean, exactly, "Youreallycan is violating his/her self-proposed editing restrictions"? There has been no credible evidence of that brought here. He's been accused of outing. That's false. Prioryman has identified his real name here. Others have addressed him here by his real name and there have been no consequences. His real name is well-known here. This is just gaming a critic off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I helped hammer out the restrictions on RfC/YRC with YRC.^[1]

1. Regarding an instance of incivility triggering an automatic site ban: one instance of unequivocal, and generally-agreed incivility should trigger a permanent site ban: that was the intent of YRC's proposal. Instances where incivility is disputed by a significant number of editors who are on neither side of the Prioryman/YRC divide, as is the case here, should not trigger an instant site ban.
2. Neither I nor YRC envisioned 1RR applying to user talk page discussions, certainly not YRC's talk page.
3. The present preventative block should be replaced now by a commitment from YRC (assuming it's forthcoming) to not use the RL name on-wiki while we clarify the outing/not outing question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but YRCs promises of good behavior have turned out to be worth less than doggie doo twenty times in the past. Could you explain why this should suddenly change now? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It has suddenly changed now. YRC has been abiding by the commitment he made at his RfC. It was not an outing, since Prioryman has pointed to his real name on-wiki and said, that's me. Others have addressed him by his real name in the past with no complaints from Prioryman. Prioryman is using this as an opportunity to rid himself of a vociferous critic. By all means ban YRC when he breaches his RfC commitment, but doing it now, on a fake, trumped-up instance of non-incivility is very disrespectful of an editor who has, amazingly, and against most expectations, lived up to his commitment. He had every right to restore his comment to his own talk page, if it wasn't outing, and it wasn't outing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's untrue that he was adhering to his commitments in other respects. He was participating in BLPN discussions and discussing BLPs at other venues. He ignored my attempt to caution him in this respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: read the restrictions he agreed to. They include an agreement not to edit BLPs. They do not include an agreement not to edit BLPN or to discuss BLPs. Editing BLPN and discussing BLPs are not violations of his commitment. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, he is under a BLP topic ban which includes starting or involving himself in discussions about the application of BLP, as set out here and here. In the last few days he has edited Talk:Silvio Berlusconi and Talk:Florence Devouard. I believe Nomoskedasticity warned him about doing this. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, his BLP topic ban is narrowly construed.

Three month BLP topic ban - note, conditions as per FormerIP's comments below.[110]

FormerIP's clarification is:

2. For talkspace: do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy, and abide by BLP policy as it relates to talkpages. Other than that, feel free to mention living people.

On Berlusconi, YRC was discussing category policy:

I don't support such cats, labeling cats at all, but opposes should understand that - readers never ever get to even get to the middle of an article never mind the cats at the bottom - with such a notable person as this - no readers come to the article via the cat list so adding the cats has no value at all - ......improve the article - its rambling and not very good - regards - Youreallycan 21:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC) [111]

On Devourd, he simply did a bit of housekeeping: reformatted a long comment in Frence, added the {{unsigned}} template, translated it into English, and archived it.[112]

All of this is clearly permitted by the editing restrictions proposed by YRC and agreed to by Prioryman. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support site ban: Quite aside from the arguments of other Support advocates, which I find persuasive, sorry: someone with nineteen blocks plainly has a serious problem with the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia. I've never been able to wrap my head around the premise that a newbie with a few hundred edits would be indeffed without a blink for a fraction as many offenses. If YRC just cannot deign to follow the rules we all are expected to follow as a matter of course, then he doesn't belong here. Period. Ravenswing 06:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support time-limited ban, perhaps 1 year, based on violation of 1RR condition set at the RFC/U. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban. This was a textbook case of hostile outing; objections to that finding are utterly unconvincing. It matters not a jot to how many people that identity was already known; as long as it was not voluntarily published here by Prioryman himself, YRC has no business throwing it about, period. And he did so for no other reason than provoking and annoying the other side. Enough is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

ChrisO/Prioryman pointed to his real name on-wiki, he's been addressed by his real name on more than one occasion before without any of this palaver. This is just him gaming a critic off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full site ban. Hostile outing cannot be tolerated. YRC clearly knew what s/he was doing. Toddst1 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

True. If it was outing. But it wasn't outing, as has been demonstrated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Enough is indeed enough. Those examining the 1RR are missing that YRC was antagonistic, and edit warred intentionally to cause distress to another editor. This is not by itself necessarily a bannable offense. However, we are not dealing with that one incident. There is a history here; YRC has been for some time a net loss for Wikipedia. I am sad to say this, because he clearly has enthusiasm and could have been a net positive. He has not chosen to adhere to his promises, however, and has continued to be disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support site ban -- in addition to the obvious violation of the agreed RFC conditions, we have the long history of this editor disrupting Wikipedia in significant ways. On violation of conditions: one point not addressed yet is the way he was also violating the agreement not to engage in BLP discussions. On outing: some have said Prioryman acknowledged his RL identity on Wikipedia, but I've clicked on some of JN's links and it's just not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you the proposer? There is no "obvious" violation of the agreed RFC conditions. You and he have been in serious disputes in the past. I accept that you believed this was outing, that you are not deliberately misleading the community here, but it is clear from Andreas's link in his "comment" just below, that Prioryman identified his real name on-wiki. It is clear from other links provided by Andreas that Prioryman has been addressed by his real name here on more than one occasion before with no complaints, redactions, or drama from Prioryman. This is Prioryman - and you, possibly inadvertently - gaming, conning the community, to silence a critic.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I was not the proposer. I initiated this thread to deal with the outing, but there's nothing at all in my initial post that amounts to proposing a ban. Honestly... On top of that, above when I refer to YRC's violation of agreement to refrain from participating in BLP discussions by posting at BLPN, your response is to ask me, "Where?". Do you really need me to provide you a link to BLPN??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support a site ban for a long record of problems and a violation of the 1RR restriction and outing. YRC agreed to a 1RR restriction, with a site ban being agreed as the penalty for breaking that restriction. As he has broken the restriction (there was nothing to say this should not apply to any particular namespace) a site ban is what YRC should expect and get. YRC has previously used up any goodwill/second or third chances he should get. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full, indefinite site ban. The outing just tops the long list of problematic editing by this editor. If you break the rules, you're warned, counselled, given second chances. Continuously defying the standards set by the community, and you will be asked to leave. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But it wasn't outing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment To Nomoskedasticity, Future Perfect and others who still claim there was an outing here: Go to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision (permalink) and then click on diff 67, and note how User:ChrisO describes that edit. After doing that, will anyone still claim that ChrisO did not confirm his name in Wikipedia? It is not outing according to Wikipedia policy to refer to someone by the name they have themselves divulged. And note that arbcom, in drafting that finding of fact ChrisO responded to, took it as read that either Chris's surname was out, and/or that the COI overrode any concerns related to it. User:ChrisO redirects to User:Prioryman. And note that this was not in some obscure corner of the wiki, but in the longest (almost six months) and most prominent (widely covered in the press) arbcom case Wikipedia has ever had. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I clicked on your links. I don't know what "diff 67" means, though. After clicking on your links, I searched for the surname -- and it's not there. Are you suggesting I need to visit a site off Wikipedia? If so, that would rather confirm the notion that Prioryman has not used his RL name on Wikipedia. Anyway, what we're discussing here is YRC, on which a recap: YRC posted alleged RL info, Prioryman redacted it, and YRC restored it -- in contravention of WP:OUTING and his RFC conditions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Search for this string on this page: [67]. [67] is a clickable link on that page. Click on it. Read the diff, and the name ChrisO took out. Then read how he describes that edit. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And just to answer your question, No, you do not have to visit a page off Wikipedia. His full name was in mainspace, and he said, with a diff, that he took a reference to himself out of an article. If I call myself User:JoeB in Wikipedia, and I give a diff where I delete the name Joe Bloggs from an article, and explain that that diff shows me deleting a reference to myself from that article, then I have declared that I am Joe Bloggs to anyone who is of sound mind. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kolbe, do you have any idea how ridiculous, even pathetic this sounds? "Go to this page, skip to that page, search this string, click on diff 67, ask the guy in the trench coat--it's right there!" Again I'll cop to being a child, but at first I didn't even know that Prioryman had a different username, so when you all start throwing those links around, maybe you should have given that explanation. Or are you scared to do so, since it actually does constitute outing? It seems pretty obvious to me that if anyone would have to go through some serious clicking and searching, with the added information about the username, then simply giving the RL name is outing. I think you should be happy you got someone else to do the job for you and take the heat for it. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please. His surname is in the diffs of an arbcom finding of fact, he's owned up to it on several occasions, and acquaintances of his have called him his full name to his face on Wikipedia on multiple occasions without him complaining. By the way, I agree that it sounds ridiculous, but I was dealing with an editor who professed himself unable to find a numbered diff on a Wikipedia page. Under those circumstances, there's nowt else a person can do than explain it step by step. AndreasKolbe JN466 15:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• support he's broken his self-imposed terms so can't complain William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is predicated on there having been an outing, and supported by editors who claim there was one. Well, there wasn't. Go to this page. Find the string [67] on that page, which is a clickable link. Click on it. Read the diff, and the way ChrisO describes that edit. And note that this was in response to an arbcom finding of fact, in probably the most prominent arbcom case ever, which notes that he was restoring references to his own work in mainspace, with diffs linking to that work, where his name is freely available. So please go and ban all arbs of 2009 before you claim there was a ban-worthy outing here. Anyone who continues to claim that there was one deserves no respect. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to have another look at WP:OUTING ("If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia"). Again, what we're discussing here is YRC, on which a recap: YRC posted alleged RL info, Prioryman redacted it, and YRC restored it -- in contravention of WP:OUTING and his RFC conditions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He did not redact it. It is still there today. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kisses to you, too, darling. He did redact -- he deleted it from YRC's talk page. The violation we are discussing here is YRC's repeated restoration of it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he did redact, but he did not redact what he himself had posted previously, which is the whole point of that passage in WP:OUTING. "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia". He did post it, and did not redact it. The passage does not grant blanket permission to you to redact other people's posts. If you say on here, in a prominent place, that you are Joe Bloggs, you don't get to edit-war with me over my talk page posts when I say you are Joe Bloggs, and to ban me for outing just because I repeat what you said before. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have to point to something existing only in a diff from six years ago, and you rely on that to express approval of what YRC did yesterday, then you are the one who ought to be experiencing some shame right now. I didn't know the surname until yesterday; I imagine there are a great many editors who didn't -- and they could have learned it, if not for the oversighting. OUTING was precisely what YRC intended, and his edit-warring to get it to stick was a disgraceful act. And yet you approve. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

2009 is not six years ago, and there are multiple other places where the name is mentioned and acknowledged by him. Can't you get anything right? AndreasKolbe JN466 12:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, Sir, I did not say anywhere that I approved of what YRC did. Can you please strike that? AndreasKolbe JN466 12:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Outing was YRC's intention, and it was the effect of his actions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The above personalizations are not helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not outing to repeat a name that was and remains freely disclosed on-wiki. And people have no right to edit others' talk page posts for spurious reasons. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support He has had enough time in the Last Chance Saloon. Warden (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much per Future Perfect. This is a textbook violation of WP:OUTING and the culture on Wikipedia of excusing outing of editors (see also, Fae) is exceedingly worrying. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not outing to repeat what has been previously disclosed on wiki (by the editor himself and others including arbcom), and never redacted. To describe it as a textbook violation of outing is just bizarre, mate. AndreasKolbe JN466 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OUTING talks about a violation as "an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia." Can anyone honestly say that this has transpired? Prioryman plainly acknowledges that he was previously ChrisO. Prioryman proudly displays his contributions to Scientology articles in his userspace. Anyone who knows those two facts can plug those parameters into their Google search bar and find out his last name in two shakes of a feather. How is it then invading his privacy or putting him at risk of harm?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worse than that, TDA. You don't need to Google at all: the information is on wiki, disclosed on-wiki by Prioryman himself, by arbcom, and by acquaintances like Tony Sidaway. All outlined above. AndreasKolbe JN466 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Practically speaking, I think it is far more compelling that anyone can right now use elementary school-level research techniques to find the information immediately using the most basic on-wiki information. Basically one just has to go, "Hmm I see this person has said he was once ChrisO and is very interested in Scientology. I wonder if 'ChrisO' has said anything about 'Scientology' elsewhere. *searches the Google* Oh my!"--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. per Fut Perf., the outing was hostile and he violated his own conditions. R. Baley (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not outing. You can't disclose it and then accuse someone of outing for repeating it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Let's find another solution for YRC. While the rules he agreed to stick to were violated, implying that he should be banned (he also agreed to that sanction), at the time I was against that. I think it's better for us to help YRC to stick to the civility and 1RR restriction. There is always the option of banning YRC, but precisely because YRC did take a hard line with himself at the conclusion of the RFC, a finding that this is a violation of what he agreed to and acknowledgement by him of that, would prevent this sort of incident from being repeated. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

His behavior at his own Rfc was breathtakingly out of line, and he only took the "hard line with himself" at his Rfc when it became clear there was an overwhelming consensus for severe sanctions. Yet here he is three months later on Jimbo's page, outing and edit warring again. In my book he has had several chances too many. Jusdafax 16:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This sort of incident has been repeated ad nauseam already. If this were his second or even third block, you might have a point. But this is his twentieth block, and he has more than amply demonstrated that he will never be able to control his behavior, and that he will always be a net detriment to the project. The project is better off without him, and, frankly, he is better off without it. It's time for him to explore other ways of constructively spending his time, because it sure ain't gonna happen here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a big problem with YRC, at the RFC we tried to find a way forward for him given. I disagreed with the solution (not the problem), precisely because you were bound to get a repeat offense sooner or later, and then here at AN/I there would be a polarized discussion. As I suggested, it would have been much better to assign a mentor to YRC who would be the sole arbiter of deciding if YRC is in violation of the restrictions and take appropriate measures.

What we also need to keep in mind here is that we can only deal with what goes on here on Wikipedia, we can't stop YRC from outing people on Wikipedia Review or somewhere else. Then going the extra mile to let YRC get along better with other editors here would be a better solution; if YRC feels less hostility toward other editors, there less of that hostility to take to other sites. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt there will be sympathy here for the notion that YRC should be shown leniency out of fear that he might carry his misbehaviour to other venues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring has already been tried, as has just about every conceivable other method to accommodate and calm down YRC. All have failed. We didn't jsut go the extra mile. We went far, far beyond that. We are not responsible for what attitudes YRC leaves WP with when he enters the world at large. We are not his therapists. He alone is responsible for that. I wish him luck, wherever he may go, and hope that he finds a way to control his behavior. But I most certainly do not want him here on WP anymore. He has wasted literally HUNDREDS of valuable editor and adminstrator time that could have been better spent. The loss he has caused to the project is mind-staggering. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Regardless of whether use of Prioryman's real name was outing or not, YRC's actions were both inflammatory and provocative. He had a choice whether or not to do what he did, had to have known it would stir up trouble. YRC should be held accountable for the choice he made, particularly given the promises made as part of his recent agreement. An editor with any real intention of improving their behavior would have run a mile before doing what YRC did, outing or no. Moreover, his use of a name for the sole purpose of antagonizing Prioryman was accompanied by incivility and, once Prioryman requested he refrain from use of the real name, violations of his 1RR agreement. How much WP:ROPE do we have to give one editor before we refrain from doing so any longer and ban an editor who behaves as YRC has? As others have said, enough is enough. We were there long ago, and it's long past time to ban this editor. --Drmargi (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a gaming of the system as a means to reach a end in a wiki dispute. It is defintely not outing and I see admin intimidation on his page regarding people who disagree. Disgusting.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support  As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal dated 15 August 2012, YRC agreed to a site ban if any of four conditions were violated.  One of these conditions was "six months strict civility enforcement".  YRC states, "I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post - not difficult to see - this is not a punishment is it...".  As per witness from oversighter Jdforrester above, YRC has "acted with incivility".  Case closed; before beginning to consider the attempt to appear to be outing; the long history of blocks; and the issue of whether it is edit-warring to restore the appearance of outing, when it is on the user's talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hell in a Bucket and others. I don't even follow these things that closely and I knew Prioryman's real name from having read old discussions and cases even before Jayen listed all the diffs. It was right there on the wiki for everyone to see. Allowing Prioryman to have the outing policy selectively enforced like he's doing here is just multiplying the drama. He hasn't complained when others have used his real name; his real name has not been oversighted out of those other discussions; he can't possibly have a good reason for caring about it in this case. Either ban everyone who's ever used it on-wiki or leave YRC alone. After the recent debacle involving Malleus and the request for clarification, I would think that editors involved in ban discussions would understand how crucially important it is not to be so blatantly arbitrary in enforcing rules by bans. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's not outing to refer to a user by that user's self-admitted real name, and one's userspace is exempt from 3RR restrictions. However, editwarring in your userspace so that the userspace page contains another's self-admitted real name for attack purposes is definitely not something that would be permitted by "strict civility enforcement": it's harassment. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Anthonyhcole who should understand if the conditions have been broken. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - enough is enough. GiantSnowman 21:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Nyttend's succinct summary of the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Those who have made it this far are entitled to be confused about what exactly has happened here. After YRC made a series of incivil posts and edit-warred with five other editors who had removed them, the posts in question were oversighted at my request. These facts have been confirmed by Jdforrester, one of the oversighters. YRC is under a civility and 1RR restriction following an RFC earlier this year. Failure to abide by the restrictions would lead to an automatic site ban. At the start of this thread I proposed that the site ban should be implemented in consequence of YRC violating the restrictions. He has previously been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations and 6 times for civility violations. He was subsequently indefinitely blocked by Ironholds on the grounds of outing, rather than for violating his restrictions. It seems to me that there are two related questions here: (1) should YRC have been blocked for outing? and (2) should the site-ban for violations of his restrictions be implemented? I hope this helps to focus discussion a little more. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I guess I don't get the weekend off after all, as I could hear the angry mob forming. Half the support votes I'm seeing here appear to be based on a previous dislike of YRC and piling on. This likely needs to go to Arb and not decided here. Unfortunately, we don't have enough info (it was redacted and anyone linking to his real world name in other posts risks blocking) and the circumstances are such that this has turned into a lynching. Whether he needs to be banned or not needs to be discussed in a more calm and deliberate manner, rather than the slugfest that this has become. What we don't need to do is jump to conclusions about information that even admin do not have access to, and not make a decision in a few hours time. Hopefully, others will realize opposing here and allowing it to go to Arb is the better solution. If any of us is to have "justice", then all of us must. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support This isn't necessarily "outing" in the strictest sense of the term, but it is problematic. After spending a couple of months away, immediately resuming this battleground behavior shows that this YRC should no longer be allowed to edit here. The restrictions were put into place to curtail YRC's battleground activities. That he has found new ways to continue to fight that don't necessarily fall directly under his restrictions doesn't mean he gets a free pass. Was he baited? Perhaps, but he was foolish enough to take the bait and even more foolish to continue to insert Prioryman's name despite being reverted by five different editors. This has got to stop, or we'll just be back here again. If people are upset about Prioryman, we can always open a discussion about him as well. AniMate 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose User:Youreallycan has made numerous contributions to biography related articles which are very valuable to the project. Moreover, he upholds WP:NPOV, trying to see and reconcile perspectives in disputes. Echoing User:Dennis Brown's comments, "Half the support votes I'm seeing here appear to be based on a previous dislike of YRC and piling on." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I alluded to earlier, this is not the case for banning YRC. Bad facts make bad law. This smacks too much of a personal feud and provocation. I understand the frustration of some of the supporters, but I can't endorse it ending this way.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Not enough information to support a ban, I can not tell if it is or is not outing as I can not see the edits. Would support the ban if ArbCom rule that it was either outing (how ever mild) or breach of his RfC conditions. Mtking ^(edits) 01:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  You can't see the edits because you shouldn't be able to - that's the whole point of oversighting. If an editor commits an outing offence, the edits in question get oversighted so that other editors can't see them. The community necessarily has to take on trust the statements of those who can see the oversighted edits (i.e. the oversighters) and those who saw the edits before they got oversighted. The context of the oversighted edits was that YRC repeatedly and without provocation posted my full name on the user talk pages of Jimbo and YRC and in the latter case did so after I'd told him to stop doing so. Apart from me, three of those who can see/did see the edits have commented here:

  • Jdforrester: "As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility." [113]
  • Someguy1221: "I looked at the edits in question, and I agree that they were utterly inappropriate. YRC knew that and didn't care" [114]
  • Resolute: "I saw part of this in real time on Jimbo's talk page. YRC was edit warring to repeatedly insert an editor's real name against that editor's will. Personally, I don't really care whether or not said editor's name had already previously been revealed - and I don't know whether that is the case. It was a clearly antagonistic action that served no benefit to either the discussion or Wikipedia." [115]

  Bottom line, when it comes to blocks for outing, you have to trust those with first-hand knowledge of what happened - the nature of the evidence means that you can't check it yourself. And I note that everyone who did see what happened has said that they support a ban. Prioryman (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  Your last block was for... outing. So please shut up for a second before any backlash. Check yourself. Your hands are absolutely filthy here, dude. Doc talk 03:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm seeing this repeated by a few people but the block was made in error as there was no outing involved; it was overturned within 30 minutes. I had referred to another editor by his former username which the editor himself had used only 2 months previously. You can see the discussion for yourself at [116]. Dude. Prioryman (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  You were blocked for OUTING. Wrong or right, you were at least charged with it. A complete mistake? Number of blocks for me for OUTING: 0. Sympathy for your cause: Evaporated. Lesson learned for you? Doubtful. Doc talk 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  For the record, I saw what happened. (He addressed you by your real name and when challenged pointed out that you're well-known here by that so it's not inappropriate to do so) and I oppose this ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  You've described the actions but not the context. Why did he address me by my full name when it was completely irrelevant to the discussion? Why did he continue doing so after I'd told him I didn't want him to do so? Why did he edit-war with five editors on two talk pages? As others have said above, YRC's actions were quite plainly intended to be antagonistic and incivil. Prioryman (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would have saved me a great deal of reading and wasted time if he had not restored it when it was challenged. Why did he do that? Probably because it wasn't outing and he was defending his user talk page comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose since a mutual interaction ban should resolve the personal conflict and there is doubt as to whether outing really took place. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban. It doesn't matter who is wrong and who is right here. YRC has a long history of personal attacks and harassment which has not stopped. Recently, a user politely asked him to stop referring to his real name. Instead of replying with an apology and a promise to stop, he continued to use the real name, and even laughed in the face of the user while doing it. That the Wikipedia community continues to condone this kind of sociopathic behavior is more troubling than YRC's own actions. We should be spending our valuable time helping and training new users to research and write articles and share in the administration of this site. We should not be spending another single minute arguing over whether YRC deserves another chance. At some point, this psychic vampirism has to end. If that means putting a stake through it's proverbial heart, then that's what we need to do. Our new users will thank us for the time we spend on them instead. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose under these particular circumstances. An indefinite block is in place and will require its own remedy. The claim of OUTING is unsound to say the least. Doc talk 03:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Banning a user is an extreme measure and I believe that Youreallycan has not reached such levels of extreme and urgen call from community. Sorry but maybe a long block will do the trick, not banning. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. No one has been outed. The reverts in question occurred at YRC's user talk page whereas the voluntary restriction did not explicitly apply to user pages. Duh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I was asked to describe YRC edits, since I saw them before they were oversighted. Not only did he mention Prioryman's name, but his edits were extremely uncivil with extremely uncivil edit summaries. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like this: Prioryman, you are [NAME_REDACTED]. You should look in the mirror=LOL--В и к и T 07:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I also saw the edits and concur with that description. Outing was certainly YRC's intention, and it was also the effect (I had not known the surname previously; had it not been oversighted, other editors who hadn't known it also would have learned it). On top of that, there was an aggressive, taunting quality that amounts to a blatant violation of the civility restriction. That conclusion was reached at an early stage here by one of the oversighters (James F.), who also saw the edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Numerous examples have been produced that show Prioryman's name has been freely available on Wikipedia for years, so a block/ban based on outing would be extremely dubious. From the descriptions given about YRC's conduct, it sounds that a block of one month would be suitable to emphasize that whether or not posting a name is technically outing, once such posting has been reverted, it is extremely unwise to repeat it. My guess is that YRC thinks PM is taking advantage of the community in relation to Gibraltarpedia —something that YRC strongly opposes, and my main reason to oppose a ban is that Prioryman has obviously taken advantage of an opponent's weakness (poor control of temper). A permanent interaction ban is required, not the banning of an opponent. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:Gangup, Johnuniq, Dennis, the Devil's A, Anthonyhcole, Wehwalt et al. Unfamiliar with Prioryman/ChrisO's history, it took me all of two minutes after reading this thread to verify the on-wiki acknowledgement of a RL identity and the associated off-wiki articles referring to these personas and their RL identity.[117] This stinks, YRC is a loudmouthed, vociferous defender of stuff xe believes in, gets up people's noses and battles all the way against (perceived) BLP violations, spin and other bullshit-munchers' spew. The unholy waft of excremental hypocrisy rising up from this so called outing of a certain ChrisO leaves me reeling for fresh air. What was that? 5 ArbCom sanctions and desysopped and editing from multiple accounts, invoking the right to vanish (apparently that's okay if you permanently fuck off which is not the case here), wow, this smacks of shutting up the little fucker niggling me removing the thorn from one's paw.[118] And you want to encourage new editors to come edit with all of this double-dealing money-incentived nudge nudge wink wink hypocrisy? Lord, give me a (wiki-) break! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment — I'm going to abstain from offering an opinion on an indefinite site ban for YRC, as they are capable of many great things but have also stirred up a tremendous volume of needless drama through their tendentious editing patterns. But with regards to the recently oversighted edit (which I presume refers to Prioryman by his first and last name), it's still not an acceptable thing to do. Even though Prioryman has essentially admitted his real-life identity back in 2006, it is clearly something which he does not feel comfortable having publicized elsewhere, especially given the fact that he'd presumably gone through the RTV process for the sake of distancing himself from his actual name. It may not be a clear cut violation of WP:OUTING, but it's still inappropriate. Kurtis (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose based on information availability and editor self-confirmation destroying the outing claim. If the complaint about outing were for outing someone who did not self-out, I will change my stance (that is, if an oversighter were to announce that the editor outed wasn't as assumed here by essentially everyone) --Nouniquenames 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per not bureaucracy. Per a gut feeling. I think YRC / Rob has (not for the first time) acted like a doofus in getting into a stupid revert war. If I was applying some strick logical test I have to admit I'd say support. I've observed repeated battleground mentality with Prioryman (e.g. Prioryman / Delicious Carbuncle). And the fact that he was on YRC's talk page before retraction -- thereby drawing attention to the revelation of his name. As outlined below by Devil's Advocate, I said thought the YRC RFCU was a ticket punch for an ArbCom case -- was by many how wrong I was -- and Prioryman filed a week later. I want this discussion to be hung as no consensus and I'd like ArbCom -- who has access to all the stuff us mere mortals don't -- take a good hard look at the actions of everyone involved. It very well may the case that YRC just doesn't have the temperament to do the Wikipedia thing and we'll have to (regretfully) ask him to move on. But not this way. Nobody Ent 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And unblock straight away if YRC agrees to below mutual interaction ban. Reasons: 1. Very far from outing, I can only imagine ignorance of Prioryman's history is to blame for this. 2. 1rr is not realistically meant to be applied to a restricted user's talkpage - given the ample discretion users have over their talk pages its far too easily gamed - both ways. Wikilawyer posts something, user reverts, wikilawyer reposts, user 'archives' etc. No one can with a straight face say that a 1rr should apply under those circumstances, and if it is, it should be explicit. And as above, one of the people instrumental in hammering out that agreement with YRC says that was certainly not the intent. Its far too easily gameable if someone wants to get someone under a 1rr blocked. Not that I would dream of suggesting someone with a past history of misusing wikipedia's policies would do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban Too many caveats. They Outed an editor by calling the editor by a name the editor had used before. They violated 1RR on their own talk page. This is enough for a block, but not a ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban - Classic kangaroo court stuff here. A person with a history of a grudge/dispute opens this thread. Another person, also with a history chimes in. Then another editor starts a thread of support for site ban and then folks line up on both sides with support vs oppose? Is there anyway an uninvolved group could sort this mess out or has that been tried? Site ban seems pretty harsh and drastic. --Malerooster (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban - for Pete's sake, this has pretty much been open knowledge both on and off Wikipedia. Now it's even in the press. But if folks really want a site ban, they should also look very closely at Prioryman's role within the Wikimedia movement and whether he's a net positive or a net negative, given the global disgrace of the Gibraltarpedia debacle. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban per Only in death and most of the dozen or so immediately above. A strict interaction ban to keep these two away from each other's throats is what is needed. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and unblock. No outing took place as Prioryman's full name has been referenced unredacted and confirmed by Prioryman himself on Wikipedia for quite some time prior to this accusation. In the absence of outing, 1RR doesn't apply to userpages and thus was not violated - YRC is free to edit his userpage and usertalk page as many times as he likes. As a silent observer to a number of recent conflicts on Wikipedia involving Prioryman in some way, it is clear that his intention is to game the system and use any means available to him to remove his adversaries, and particularly YRC, from the project. While YRC has a definite track record of incivility, his motivation is typically for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Prioryman's conduct appears to be far more insidious and manipulative and with seemingly far more personal objectives in mind. Given a choice between the two of them, I'd be much more comfortable with YRC's kind of disruptive behaviour than Prioryman's. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Close?

At a 38-34 rough count, there seems to be 'no consensus' for site ban. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the outing claim has been pretty much demolished – a fact that even the blocking admin has conceded above – why is Youreallycan still indef blocked? AndreasKolbe JN466 01:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Youreallycan copied from his talk page at his request by JohnCD (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC):

Support for that - I am not currently even (requesting unblocking clearly there are divisive issues and fractions here - close as no consensus - banning is completely unnecessary and undue at this time - - Youreallycan 00:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the hatting

[Darkness Shines], You are involved in both the above and below discussion and should not be the one to hat anything. Furthermore, the above discussion should not be hatted, but the consensus determined by an uninvolved admin. And the consensus should be posted in the above discussion. Only if the above consensus turns out to be not a site ban should the below discussion be considered. Silverseren^C 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know who's done it last time, but I've unarchived an unsigned and clearly premature closure. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

AN and AN/I recent interaction history

[119] the "Fae Homophobia case" - containing almost all of the dramatis personae (including Prioryman) with the same goal to ban YRC.

[120] same aim, same people.

[121] same cast, same aim.

And of course in the same long-running series Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan which was on the same subject once again - and the problem absolutely appears to involve Prioryman, alas.

As to citing "lotsa blocks" one ought to look at them -- vide [122]. Not all blocks were "good" to be sure, and using "number of blocks" as a reason for a site ban is contrary to logic.

In short, repeated attempts by the same editors to achieve the same result which they failed at so many times it is now risible. AN/I should not be allowed to become a perpetual battleground where people seek to ban someone primarily on the grounds that they do not like him, and propose banning the person on a monthly basis - and it is unfortunately clear that such is the case at hand. Collect (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine analysis, this stinks to high heaven. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If we go by the number of civility-related blocks, Malleus would have been banned too. Clearly that is a metric lacking community consensus. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. Although Malleus probably should be indef-blocked for the good of Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be consensus for a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Propose interaction ban

Between PM and YRC. Enough is enough, PM has been going at it for far to long. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment People have been arguing over the fine points of whether there's a true outing if the info was already known. WP:OUTING says "[o]uting should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true... attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." (emphasis added). That attempted outing is grounds for a block says that the conduct is sanctionable even if there's not an actual disclosure. I'm not inclined to cut YRC any slack in this situation. 76Strat suggested handling this with blocks against both YRC and Prioryman, without banning YRC. If other people think Prioryman also deserves a sanction, that's a reasonable thing to bring up for discussion (PM's activity has been far from ideal). But I think we're way past the point where we want to repeat this cycle with YRC. We have tried everything with YRC and we should be convinced by now that his drama will never stop unless we make it stop. We have to part ways with him. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support if YRC is unblocked. I've had more than enough of YRC's nonsense. If an interaction ban stops gratuitous, unprovoked personal attacks against me of the kind which we've seen tonight, I'm all for it. Prioryman (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - In both directions - with a lengthy block for any violation. And, yes, YRC should be unblocked, or at worst have it reduced to time-served on the grounds of incivility. It's not outing. But it's not the right way to behave, either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Bugs, per YRC's self-proposed restriction, incivility from him for 6 months after his 1 month wikibreak expired is supposed to result in a site ban.[123] His comment at that time was "I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post" -- I guess it's not so easy after all. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

PM was blocked not two weeks ago for outing, he cannot come here demanding another editor be banned when he got off, plus the obvious bad history between these two users. Unblock YRC, impose an IBAN, job done and this drama can be dropped. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It was another User, who brought this to AN/I. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And there's Darkness Shines' comment falling completely flat. Silverseren^C 02:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe YOU should now be blocked for incivility. Those who can see the alleged outing have had it proven to them that there was no outing, hence the edit-warring by the other editors was unjustified. Civility is a matter of opinion. A bidirectional interaction ban is the fair solution. There are 2 things I know about YRC: (1) He can be difficult - I'm sure I've had a run-in or two with him at some point in the past; and (2) he has been a relentless defender of articles about living persons. Guess which one of those 2 topics is more likely for wikipedia's legal team to care about. That's not to say he's indespensible. No one here is. But if there's a wall put between the two editors, maybe they can both be useful without getting in each others' way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that YRC's posts were not incivil? Did you read them before they got oversighted? You don't have to believe me. Jdforester said above: "that in so doing [YRC] reverted more than once and acted with incivility." I assume you trust James on this. Prioryman (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see it. But James got the outing wrong, and hence the alleged 1RR violation wrong, so while I would not question his good faith, why should I trust his judgment on the alleged incivility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You've misread James: "[YRC] posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility." (See also, WP:USERBIO and WP:NPA).Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He needs to comment on whether anything was suppressed besides the alleged full name of the user Priory which has since been revealed multiple times via the links in this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) That outing (by PM) was inadvertent and he didn't edit war over it, so you're making a false equivalence. PM also doesn't have anything like YRC's history (maybe he's working on it, sigh). I suppose it's not that big a deal by now if we unblock YRC (I still think we shouldn't), since based on his overall activity since returning it's a pretty sure bet that he'll be back here soon about something regardless. The only thing I want to know is how many more times are we going to accept repeating this. I now fear that the answer is "infinity". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If the interaction ban is enforced and adhered to, the bad-blood should stop. Any violation should result in blocks of accelerating length. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your premise is that YRC is able to stay out of conflict with people other than Prioryman. That sunny picture makes me smile. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing that says only one interaction ban can be applied. Interaction bans do work, IF they are properly applied and adhered to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, a discussion on ANI determined that referring to a user's former username is not, in fact, outing. Prioryman (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• This was outing by YRC with hostile intent, and edit warring on one of the highest-profile pages on Wikipedia. It flies in the face of the intent of YRC's latest "deal" that was cut when numerous editors were calling for a lengthy block or site ban. All YRC has to do is edit decently and avoid trouble, like most of the rest of us. But now this, YRC's 20th block. Who creates this drama? YRC, and his little band of supporters who enable this bad movie. The choice is clear: ban now, or ban later after yet another time-sucking episode. Jusdafax 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• You may be underestimating Wikipedia's appetite for the third choice: repeat time-sucking episodes every week or so until hell freezes over. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2-way interaction ban if YRC is not site banned. But I still support the site ban. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as it would be best for both editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support.- 2-way Interaction ban if YRC is not site banned. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons above. Also, the remedies are not exclusive, so still support site ban for violation of editing restrictions/breach of trust. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support would be in the best interests of both parties --Guerillero | My Talk 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support or better yet throw them to the wolves Arbcom. There was no outing just shit stirring by Prioryman. YRC is also someone who likes to be the centre of attention. They want dramah? Then give it them at a place likely to result in both being banned.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban if he's unblocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Absolute pathetic and transparent attempt to subvert the consensus of the above site ban vote by making it seem that consensus exists for a more lenient outcome. Bad faith proposal as evidenced by the proposers repeated hatting of the above discussion [[124]], [[125]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Considering a number of the above voters are saying only this option if the consensus in the site ban discussion is not for a site ban, it should be okay. Maybe we should have the people in this discussion who stated "if he's unblocked" have that be bolded too? It's an important clarification. Silverseren^C 03:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The outing charge is dubious but besides the point. Has Chris ever used his last name on wiki? Who knows? — probably not even him... But here's the thing: Rob got on the train for 1RR and strict civility enforcement, or else a site ban. That seems pretty straightforward. He has demonstrably edit warred — AGAIN. It is unfortunate that he didn't last long enough to bring charges against the now-gravedancing Prioryman for having earlier falsely brought charges attempting to have YRC indeffed for the trolling posts of a Joe Job on Wikipediocracy. Check the ANI logs for that disgusting spectacle. That's show biz... Carrite (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I think the claims of outing are dubious at best, YRC was being pushy about it without good reason. On the other hand, Prioryman has done a great deal to provoke YRC, and is clearly trying to settle some sort of grudge. Under those circumstances both need to stay away from each other and I would suggest this sort of sanction serves as a perfectly reasonable basis for unblocking YRC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Give me one "perfectly reasonable" reason for unblocking someone who has been blocked for the twentieth time now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I previously provided a detailed analysis showing why that block log was a worthless gauge of present conduct.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He was combative and uncivil nineteen (actually, more) times before, and he's being combative and uncivil now. Seems like the former blocks are a very good gauge of present conduct. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, since I am supporting the full ban on YRC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - What makes any of you think this is actually "on the table"? Did YRC violate his self-suggested restrictions or not? I could give a crap either way: but vacate those restrictions before we start talking about whether there was actual outing or not, splitting hairs. He broke the 1RR restriction that he said he wouldn't, and he told the community what should happen if he did. There's no vote necessary. Is this really that difficult? Should we amend his own terms after the fact? Yeesh... Doc talk 06:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: since a site ban for YRC is the right outcome here, he will not be interacting with anyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as YRC is going to be/should be banned anyway. Davewild (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Youreallycan should be banned for violating his own conditions from RFC/U. --В и к и T 09:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support only if the site ban somehow doesn't occur (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Interaction ban to be imposed in parallel to YRC's unblock. --AndreasKolbe JN466 01:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• oppose. This YRC violated his own terms. R. Baley (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interaction bans are like a parent telling their kids to stop bickering. Parents enforce this by turning the car around, Wikipedia enforces this with blocks. If two users cannot get interact cordially with each other, they need voluntarily not interact. The only reason for the rest of the community to get involved is when the bickering gets so bad that blocks are needed. I think blocks to both parties were/are needed here, but an interaction ban is pointless. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Action should not be punitive. Just enough to get the job done. An interaction ban prevents further bickering. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support The claims of outing (in any straight forward and reasonable sense) have been shown to be not true. This is the most logical step forward to prevent future issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, interaction bans are always a bad idea. Two editors can voluntarily decide not to interact with each other if they don't get along, but to impose an inteaction ban which then has to be policed is just stupid. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is an effort to avoid the real issue. Puts a very small bandaid on a very big wound. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  Prioryman had every right to get oversighted removals in this case, and obviously the oversighters agreed.  Prioryman has done a reasonable job of preparing the issue for community discussion from the viewpoint of the community.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Prioryman above (@ 01:48) and YRC here. Independently of whatever other sanctions might be needed. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Already filed. :) --Rschen7754 22:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support a 2-way WP:IBAN. Both editors wish it, and the world will be better off for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support' mutual interaction ban between YRC and Prioryman because YRC has said on his talk page that he approves of this remedy. Based on the comments above, the two-way interaction ban should probably also include Nomoskedasticy. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sigh. As the closer of the user RFC on YRC it saddens me to see this. The reason user RFCs fail so often is that the subject either refuses to agree to any terms or ignores the entire process. In this case YRC not only participated but agreed to some rather severe sanctions, with the clear understanding that he would be banned if he breached them. I am very sorry to have to say that it appears he did indeed breach those terms and I think WP, and YRC, might benefit from some time apart from one another. Note that this is based on him violating the terms he agreed to and not the "outing" issue. This probably could have been avoided by YRC and Prioryman additionally agreeing to an interaction ban as they clearly despise each other. It seems a bit late for that now but if YRC is not site banned I would fully support a binding, permanent interaction ban, construed as broadly as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I think you mean indefinite not permanent. There is always the possibility, however unlikely it may seem, that Prioryman and Youreallycan will have crises of conscience that could cause them to reconcile and become the best of friends. You must always believe in the potential for real human kindness to win the day, though never try to get your hopes up too high about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't presume to tell me what I mean. Some people just can't get along and are better off avoiding each other. These two obviously both lack the self control to do it themselves, the chances that they will both grow up and realize they are their own worst enemies is so slim as to be virtually non-existent, so they should just stay the hell away from one another permanently. However I retract my support for an immediate site ban on YRC in favor of kicking this up to arbcom. I don't believe ANI is effective at resolving complicated personality conflicts like this one and as there is a suppression action at the center of the current furor ArbCom and WP:AUSC are better equipped to deal with it. It is important to note that although YRC agreed to the restrictions Priorymans repeated characterization of them as "community imposed sanctions" is hogwash. User RFCs by definition cannot impose binding restrictions, they are geared towards voluntary agreements. YRC may have gone back on his word but that is not the only issue at play here and a thorough examination such as the one I would expect from ArbCom is more in the greater community's interest than just kicking out one user who, whatever errors they may have made, is not the whole problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support PM and YRC will never be able to calmly discuss anything. The Fae and Gibraltarpedia cases involve great bitterness on both sides, and neither can be resolved within this community. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Very strong support — Nothing good will come of allowing their feud to continue. And I agree with it going both ways, as I feel Prioryman's culpability in this scenario is no less than YRC's. And yes, I would support having this measure in conjunction with a full site ban, presuming one passes (which I'm going to abstain from commenting on; YRC is capable of many great things, but also a tremendous volume of needless drama). Kurtis (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per comment in above section. With YRC's agreement. (Left alone YRC has shown he can follow fair restrictions) Otherwise this should probably go to the Arb-case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Darkness Shines ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full two-way interaction ban. This disruptive feud should be stopped. YRC has behaved badly but it seems clear that PM is out to get him. Ban to include addressing, discussing or mentioning each other, and particularly bringing complaints about each other to AN/I. JohnCD (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang action needed on Prioryman

It has now been clearly established above that Prioryman's surname has been present in numerous places on Wikipedia and that his real name has been known here for over six years and that he has seen and responded to mentions of his name in ways that show he was aware of them and that he did not immediately get them revdeled. He has used the bogus outing as a way to get his enemy YRC blocked and , he hopes, banned. Prioryman's behaviour therefore needs to be addressed in its own right.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Though it may be considered forum shopping, a request to start an ArbCom case is open here and as you earlier stated, this venue would likely have the full round of sanctions. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if Arbcom is going to bounce that back to the community. We need to show them what a big tangle we can ge into here and then bounce things back.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. If it happens, it happens, but it's good to make a honest attempt to resolve the issues first. --Rschen7754 04:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no inclination to choreograph a filibuster and I'm AGFing that Peter cohen wasn't suggesting any such. I understood it more as ridicule of a process that refuses to act until the community emerges fully incapable, forcing a full measure of folly when the half measure has shown the divide. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

His behaviour is really problematic currently. He is aggressive, especially over the Gibraltar stuff constantly battling anybody who offers a hint of criticism, driving people into submission.Secretlondon (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prioryman? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the meretricious outing claim deserves a short block, with a clear message that any further pork pies told with the apparent intent to get another editor blocked or banned will be greeted by a considerably longer one. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my belief that YRC's actions were at the very least against the spirit of WP:OUTING - misusing personal information to intentionally cause aggravation and distress. He falsely claimed that I had edited under my real name on Wikipedia, which I never did, and acted in a gratuitously incivil and insulting fashion towards me and other editors. I requested oversighting in the good faith belief that WP:OUTING had been violated, and I did not ask for YRC to be blocked for outing. I note that when I was myself accused, wrongly, of outing Volunteer Marek by using his former username, VM asked in good faith to have the edits in question oversighted under WP:OUTING and was not penalised when the community determined that no outing had occurred.[126] I've said that I am willing to withdraw my request for a site ban for the sake of resolving this amicably, and have already agreed to a mutual interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A purely hypothetical question

If a user complains on ANI about a perceived outing, should their complaint be given less weight because they have very recently committed the very same offense? To illustrate, let's say hypothetical user Bolunteer Barek's changed their username because it related to their real life name. Brutal Shoe (another hypothetical user) has previously been warned about using Bolunteer Barek's former username and agreed not to do so. When Brutal Shoe repeated the offence, they were blocked but quickly unblocked when they falsely claimed that they were unaware of Bolunteer Barek's feelings about the former username. With that history, if Brutal Shoe complains that Bou Beally Ban (another hypothetical user) has outed them by referring to their real name, should we take into account Brutal Shoe's own recent behaviour in this regard? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In the realm of hypothetical exploration, see Two wrongs make a right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No less weight should be given. To use an overblown comparison which should nonetheless make my view clear: If I am a murderer and I report a murder, the second murder should be handled as an independent crime. The second murderer does not get off lightly because the person who brought the second murder to the attention of the authorities has previously committed crimes. Same logic applies for lesser misdeeds. The difference in seriousness and scope does not render the logic less meaningful. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be more of a case of one person calling for the death penalty while getting away with murder themselves... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you interaction banned from Prioryman? If so, starting threads complaining about him is probably a violation of said ban, and you really ought to let someone else pursue this. But, anyway, an RFC/U would be the next step for anyone who's concerned about Prioryman's actions. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

My question is purely hypothetical. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I just blocked DC for two weeks for this transparent attempt to skirt the limits of the interaction ban. T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Pure gaming of the ban. R. Baley (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the DC's last comment, especially, TCanens is correct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Great call on the block, T. Canens. YRC's behavior at Jimbo's page yesterday seems to me to be even more designed to skirt limits, and given how many times we have had to debate correctional measures with the same crew of his supporters, of which DC has been an example, I hope DC's block will serve notice that the community has taken all it will tolerate. Jusdafax 14:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Fully supportive of this. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I need someone to make a list, or a table, that has the different sides listed. I'm always confusing DC with DS (are they on the same side?), I didn't know that Prioryman was ChrisO, I noticed only a few days ago that Jayen is Andreas Kolbe. Maybe Cirt is in here as well, with a new user name. I guess everyone knows that YRC was Off2rioRob, or however that was capitalized. And what all were they fighting over? Scientology, Gibraltar, Tom Cruise--what else? Yes, we need a table, with room to check them off once they're indeffed, and with colored lines to indicate who is on an interaction ban with whom etc. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we have some kind of scoring system? Silver smiley face for blocking one, gold smiley face when you ban one, and if you block or ban five you get to be class monitor for a day? Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll call it "WTF BINGO!" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be exclusionary and present a high barrier towards understanding it; Wikipedians can't properly get a concept unless it has at least 3 TLAs. So, I'd advocate calling it OMGWTFBBQBINGO, or preferrable WP:OMGWTFBBQBINGO - we should try to organise this on the DL, though, because if the CO finds out we'll be on KP. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of presenter, obvious point is still obvious. Ban them both or unblock them both (so they can feud all over the place and what not). If they do the same things (and they seem to), then treat them the same. --Nouniquenames 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The point though, interaction ban or not, is valid. Prioryman was recently indef blocked because of the very thing he is accusing YRC of doing. It was actually a bit worse in his case because he also linked to off-wiki sites to "support" that outing. When I complained he escalated the offense in a manner similar to YRC by redoing it again on their talk page. Once he was blocked he played the 'I wasn't aware that this was a problem card' and got unbocked.

The thing is, I had completely forgotten (I honestly don't keep track of these grudge things) that he (Prioryman) had ALREADY done this before, and I had to ask him before (back in March) not to do it [127]. So I don't know about YRS or DC here, but there's a tremendous amount of bad faith on the part of Pioryman here. As Peter Cohen points out above, a hefty boomerang is also in order. Volunteer Marek  16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek makes an excellent point. I unblocked Prioryman when he was accused of outing VM, and this situation looks very, very similar to me. It is not as cut and dry as some are making it. This is why I suggest closing the ANI to allow ArbCom to review the case in a slower, more deliberate way. This allows them to review the actions of all parties, view the actual diffs that have oversighted, and come up with a more equitable solution. I have no idea (or opinion) what the final conclusion should be, but the process should be shifted to ArbCom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Prioryman actually promised VM he would not call him by his name again at the time. Yet a few months later, he said "I honestly didn't realise that Volunteer Marek didn't want me to refer to him by his old account name on Wikipedia". I believe he lied to you, just as he lied to arbcom about his intention to vanish two years ago. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary of recent Prioryman-Youreallycan dispute

Just so we all get caught up to speed on what is going on here I think it is important to know the recent history between these two editors. During the ArbCom case regarding User:Fæ Prioryman was a prolific contributor to the discussion in Fæ's defense, making 206 total edits to the related case pages (see here: [128] [129] [130] [131] [132]). During a discussion of the results of the case on Jimbo's talk page where Prioryman was continuing his defense of Fæ, Youreallycan asked him to declare a conflict of interest with regards to Fæ due to financial ties with Wikimedia UK. Prioryman denied any conflict of interest and further responded with "why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness?" About a half hour later he began building an RfC/U against YRC.

During that RfC/U Nobody Ent provided a statement that Prioryman's opening comment in the RfC/U about eventually going to arbitration suggested the RfC/U was not being filed in good faith, but as an attempt to "ticket-punch" on his way to an ArbCom case against YRC. It was further alleged by Collect and by Jayen (Andreas Kolbe) that Prioryman was attempting to game WP:CANVASS by nearly exclusively mentioning the side of the dispute against YRC and making notifications regarding those mentions, without mentioning nearly any of the disputants on YRC's side i.e. notifying admins who blocked YRC and not those who unblocked him. A week into the RfC/U, and while it was still ongoing, Prioryman filed an arbitration request regarding YRC. While that request and the RfC/U were outstanding, Prioryman made a proposal for a cocktail of restrictions. YRC's "self-proposed" restrictions provided above just had minor alterations to the duration of said restrictions. Under the threat of being railroaded by ArbCom, YRC was essentially forced to make that move.

What we come up to now is the comment made by YRC in this discussion on Jimbo's page that prompted this incident. The mention of Prioryman's last name; something that is well-known, noted repeatedly in many places on-wiki (some discussions are littered with mentions of his last name from both supporters and opponents), and can be discovered in the most simplistic of Google searches; is the only thing that could even remotely be described as uncivil in said comment as it was essentially just supportive comments about Jayen/Kolbe in response to Prioryman's serious accusations against Jayen. Prioryman pursued YRC on this frivolous point and is now trying to get him site-banned on top of an indefinite block claiming this as a violation of those "self-imposed" restrictions. In short, YRC was a cornered tiger and Prioryman is calling for YRC to be put down because he got scratched.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating, but ... What did YRC mean when he said "@Prioryman you edited under your real name"? Now, some of the edits on Jimbo's talk page have been suppressed, so I can't see everything, but YRC actually mentioned Prioryman's real name, which was removed (but not suppressed - probably an oversight, heh), but putting aside another possible example of YRC's outing Prioryman, I don't get what YRC is referring to.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Chris" is Prioryman's first name and "O" is the first initial of his last name so he did edit under his real name. Essentially, Prioryman is complaining that YRC said what the "O" stands for in "ChrisO", his previous account on Wikipedia that he freely acknowledges was his previous account. However, as noted above, his last name has been confirmed many times on-wiki by many people, including Prioryman himself, and it is incredibly easy for anyone to find out as he has made many public statements off-wiki under the moniker "ChrisO" regarding a subject on which he has edited heavily where his last name is noted right alongside that shortened version.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• For those who do not wish to read the ever so long first section a couple of articles to put the complainant's good nature into perspective. Gibraltarpedia, Keeping track. Yes I have read Wikipedia:Sarcasm and this is such commentary, cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• As there have been mentions of Gibraltarpedia, editors may want to note that there is currently a related RfC, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar_hooks_RfC. AndreasKolbe JN466 20:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the situation with Prioryman is being broadcast on Wikipediocracy, whose regulars dutifully show up at these discussions - including, I believe, the people making "neutral" summaries of what one another are doing. If you want to talk about "canvassing", that I believe would be your first proper stop. But the policy is apparently dead in the water, utterly without relevance at least where they are concerned. Wnt (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Has YRC flouted his BLP editing restriction?

The restriction:

• Three month BLP topic ban - note, conditions as per FormerIP's comments below - diff

The diff is important; it defines the nature of the narrowly-construed restriction:

1. For mainspace: no content that falls under BLP policy to be added or removed in any article. I would exclude non-controversial attributions (e.g. "according to Professor Plum").
2. For talkspace: do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy, and abide by BLP policy as it relates to talkpages. Other than that, feel free to mention living people. (My bolding)

Above, Prioryman says, "In the last few days [YRC] has edited Talk:Silvio Berlusconi and Talk:Florence Devouard." But on Berlusconi, YRC was discussing category policy,[133] and on Devourd he simply did a bit of housekeeping: reformatted a long comment in French, added the {{unsigned}} template, translated it into English, and archived it.[134] All clearly within his agreed restrictions. Prioryman knows this.

Above, Nomoskedasitcity refers to YRC's violation of an agreement to refrain from participating in BLP discussions by posting at BLPN. No such agreement exists. At BLPN YRC has tidied the page [135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146] commented on the notability of an article, [147] recommended article deletion, [148][149] discussed vandalism [150] discussed COI [151] discussed WP:NOTAFORUM, [152] and questioned the accuracy of a categorisation; [153][154] – all of which is allowed by his RfC undertaking.

One edit concerns me. In this edit an IP added "He was a drug dealer" to a university chancellor's biography. An hour later, an IP reported it to BLPN, and YRC immediately reverted it. According to 1. above, he should not have reverted that edit. According to 2. above, he should not have engaged in discussion about it. But he reverted it immediatelyand mentioned what he'd done on BLPN.

Are we really going to ban an editor for that? Don't do it again, YRC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by the above that he didn't substantially breach the BLP restriction other than possibly with the Atleo edit. But I proposed this ban on the basis of incivility and edit-warring, which are at the heart of his long-running conduct problems (18 blocks for violations in those areas to date, not including the latest one), not BLP restriction violations. Prioryman (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit-warring in that instance occurred in user space, and the problematical edit warring we were addressing with his restrictions was occurring in article space. I'm not convinced there's a problem with edit warring in user space. Were there unjustified instances of that before his last block? Most people revert you when you delete their user talk page comments. People often take umbrage when you do that. (I've done a bit.) YRC's revert-warring is a common response to that situation.

May I say that I think it was rude of YRC to address you by your real surname, though, and I'm thinking now that it's been rude of me to address you by your first name. I apologise for that. Do I need the community's permission to redact those? I don't think anyone's commented on them yet.

I'd like to work on a project where that level of rudeness is not tolerated. We tolerate rudeness here in a way that no civilised community does. This society at en.Wikipedia is being undermined by boorish behaviour. And don't get me started on the quality of debate here. We have a couple of huge developmental steps to take yet: social sensitivity - concern for the feelings of our fellows, our subjects and our readers, and reason - as embodied in respect for and exercise of the highest quality rhetoric.

But I digress. I can't support us banishing YRC for this relatively common level of boorish behaviour. If there is seriously a culture change occurring here, if the (presumed) majority here who can't abide rude, insulting behaviour is actually going to really start insisting on respectful treatment of others, then fine. See you later, YRC. Is that culture shift occurring? Will the next person subjected to unambiguous rudeness be able to appeal to the community to correct the bully's behaviour? I don't know the answer to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And again, you insist that the 1RR restriction doesn't apply. Show me where that was mentioned in the RFC. And why are you defending someone who has been blocked not one, not two, not three but 20 times. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll find that TDA did an analysis on the blocks during the RFC/ArbCom case and showed pretty conclusively that the majority of those 20 blocks were spurious and unwarranted. I made my comment on this bullshit at ArbCom go read it. This is more of the same. Now either YOU are being mislead or you're one of those on the bank of the ditch. Which is it? John lilburne (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the 1RR was always that it was a universal one. When I proposed what eventually became the final set of restrictions there was no suggestion from anyone that it should only apply to one particular content space. It would have been pointless if it had. It wasn't about giving him permission to edit war in certain places. The point of the restriction was to completely stop YRC from engaging in any edit-warring anywhere. Prioryman (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the restriction was not to allow you, or anyone else, to edit his user talk comments. Is that what you think, that you can just go to his talk page and alter his comments without his permission and edit war to keep your version in, and cry "ban him! ban him!" to the community? That's not the way I see it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be how Prioryman saw it. Let's note that Prioryman made a meretricious claim of outing against another editor, and almost succeeded in having them banned for life on the strength of it. Even now the honest editor is blocked, and he is not: even though his behaviour seems considerably more calculating and insidious. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Did I read an accusation somewhere that Prioryman was aware VM didn't want to be linked to his previous user name when he did just that? Was that accusation substantiated? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. told not to do it again, promised not to do it again, claimed "I honestly didn't realise that Volunteer Marek didn't want me to refer to him by his old account name on Wikipedia". AndreasKolbe JN466 02:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You know better than that. If someone is edit warring on their own talk page it is because someone, who has no right there is there prodding and provoking. John lilburne (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

Was filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So? The community is allowed to decide something separate from Arbcom. In fact, the community is allowed to override Arbcom, if need be. So the existence of the fact that a case was started is meaningless if a site ban is decided in this discussion. Silverseren^C 20:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So it was a courtesy notice. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I had thought you were the one who started the Arbcom case when I made that comment. Silverseren^C 21:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like they're going to decline for the exact fact that the community is dealing with it right now. Really, Rschen7754 (if you read this), you should have waited until after the discussion above was completed. Doing it in the middle of the ongoing discussion is just going to make things worse. Silverseren^C 20:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there is an arbcom case, Would it be appropriate to unblock on the proviso that he can only edit his talk page and the Arbcom case? If not, he has posted a comment on his talk page with the request that it be added to the arbcom case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've posted that statement to the Arbcom page. Just to clarify -- it's not a case (yet), it's a request for a case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

oh, right. thanks, I had missed a step. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It would only be appropriate to unblock if the case was accepted. I presume it would have to come with the proviso that he would only be allowed to edit the case page - is that the usual way it's done? Prioryman (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking as AC Clerk, there are 2 possibilities: (1) He's unblocked pursuant to only editing his userspace and the case pages, or (2) he remains blocked but can edit his own talk page and have comments (and such) cross-posted. Generally (1) is the way to go, but I have seen a few cases where (2) ended up happening. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's more prudent to stick with (2) for now. YRC appears to have trouble controlling his temper in tense situations sometimes. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• That generally will fall to the ArbCom to decide, however. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I stand behind my decision, as privacy issues are involved, and as the discussion was spiraling out of control last night. --Rschen7754 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. ANI is ill-equipped to handle complicated disputes with a long history, which is what we have here despite some users attempting to focus solely on a few edits. ArbCom is generally better at resolving such things in a more comprehensive manner, by which I mean not just kicking out one user who is only part of a larger problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There's no consensus here. The next admin who comes along and agrees with this assessment should close the thread. It's become just another battleground for the factions to argue. While a few uninvolved voices are here, they are mostly drowned out. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, I agree that there is no consensus and this should be handled by the existing ArbCom case request, so all the evidence can be reviewed. I'm involved, but would hope an uninvolved party can close as such, soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to me that there may be consensus on the mutual interaction ban. I would suggest an admin impose the mutual interaction ban and unblock YRC once both YRC and Prioryman agree to it. I think the closing admin should also make a decision on whether one or two other editors also tried to railroad YRC. It appears to me that Nomoskedascity may be culpable in that. The easy solution is just to include him/her in the mutual interaction ban with YRC. Then, an ArbCom case wouldn't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully accept an interaction/desire an interaction ban from these two users User:Prioryman and User:Nomoskedasticity, I have been requesting such for quite some time - over a year/perhaps two years when I check the diffs in the case of User:Nomoskedasticity - Youreallycan 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC) (User talk:Youreallycan. Mephistophelian (contact) 23:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)).

It is clear from the above that Nomoskedasticity and Prioryman falsely accused YRC of breaching his BLP editing restriction and of outing. YRC did restore his comments on user talk when they had been deleted on spurious grounds - just as Prioryman had a week earlier.[155] And so he should. His editing restrictions were not open season on his user talk. The final accusation, that he was uncivil: well, was it uncivil to address Prioryman by his real name? If it was, was it the kind of incivility that would attract a sanction, given that Prioryman had earlier pointed to his real name, and when Tony Sidaway addressed Prioryman using his real name, it didn't even squeeze a peep out of Prioryman?

This case is clear. There was no outing. There was no breach of BLP editing restrictions. If there was incivility it was very mild and never the kind of thing we sanction. And the "edit warring" was YRC defending his user talk record against unjustified removal by others, something most of us would do under the circumstances, and something Prioryman did a week earlier.

Prioryman and Nomoskedasticity have wasted a great deal of others' valuable time here bringing unfounded serious charges - with very serious penalties attached - to this board, and compounding it with untruths. And they will continue. This thread should be closed now, with a widely-construed interaction ban between YRC and Nomo, and YRC and Prioryman – something Prioryman and YRC have already agreed to. If Nomo would sign up to that, I think we could all go back to work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Added 04:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been watching this discussion very closely. Some editors with clue have suggested that no consensus has emerged. I'll assume that's a correct assessment and fashion my regards to that assumption. So yes, the discussion should close as no-consensus and Arbcom can accept the case and fashion a remedy. Also I think YRC should post a thoughtful request to be unblocked and I hope it would be fairly evaluated. I'd be interested to know Ironholds thoughts regarding such a prospect. Nevertheless, protect the wiki above all else, and feel free to disregard me altogether. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, the blocking admin, has now unblocked YRC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that and find it significantly therapeutic. I had just finished posting a comment to a user telling him that I was wrong about thoughts I held about them. I will say, and must, I've underestimated Ironholds too. But I like being wrong when being right is so wrong. Best regards to all who endure the StratSpeak. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've told YRC that I'm willing to withdraw my request for a site ban and I've already stated my preference for an interaction ban. There is already widespread support for that in the community. No IBAN has been proposed yet for Nomo-YRC but I suggest that they should discuss that separately, as it's not something that has come up in the discussion yet. I've asked Dennis Brown (YRC's former mentor) to enact the IBAN between myself and YRC. Once that's done, and now that YRC is unblocked, I would consider the matter resolved. Prioryman (talk) 07:58, 30 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.